Talk:Mark Finchem

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

United States: Arizona / State Legislatures Start‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures.

birthdate

can somebody add his birthdate? MrMemer223 (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theorists category

Why is Finchem listed under "American conspiracy theorists" yet Hillary Clinton (who uttered the words "vast right wing conspiracy") is not? This seems to be yet another case of anti-Republican media bias. 2601:246:C180:79C0:C04E:F22A:733A:3BD4 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because multiple reliable sources refer to Finchem as a conspiracy theorist. Find one for HRC and you might be able to add it to her bio. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible illustration

I took this photo of Finchem and his colleagues Sonny Borrelli and Wendy Rogers when they spoke at Mike Lindell's "Cyber Symposium" last summer. Although it's best as a portrait of Rogers, the side view of Finchem in the photo isn't bad and it might make an OK illustration for the section on Finchem's respnse to the 2020 election or his promotion of conspiracy theories. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right in first sentence

There has been an ongoing community wide dispute and discussion regarding the use of far-right in lead sentences. I think it's best for this to be attributed and not used in WP:WIKIVOICE in the first sentence. MOS:LABEL says Value-laden labels... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. I think it's obvious that he's widely described as far-right in reliable sources, but MOS:LABEL says even still in-text attribution is preferable. I see no reason why we should depart from this guideline in this case. This would also be consistent the decision recently at Donald C. Bolduc to remove far-right from the first sentence and introduce it later in the lead with proper attribution. Additionally, the current lead has a natural place the description could be added with attribution, as I demonstrated in this now reverted edit. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the concerns raised at the Bolduc page, this decision should not be used, as ValarianB put it, to force similar watered-down attributions to similar articles. We can't use the Bolduc decision as a carte-blanche to change other pages per WP:CONLOCAL. Also, Bolduc and Finchem are two very different cases - if you look at the reasons Finchem is described as this in the various articles, he's quite literally a member of a far-right militia and holds various far-right political positions as are mentioned in the article. As you agree yourself, there's widespread coverage of him being a far-right politician, and I see no need to water this down. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CONLOCAL assumes that there is an existing broader consensus for this practice, and no such broad consensus exists for these loaded descriptors, unless you consider MOS:LABEL as that consensus. If that would be the case then we definitely need to attribute this, until a local consensus against it can be established. You say they are different, but are they a really? Both are widely described in RS as far-right. It's not a watering down of a claim to attribute it; that's just following a community guideline. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 21:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point still stands that we shouldn't be using decisions on one page to try force through similar changes on other pages, particularly where it's two completely different cases. You say they are different, but are they a really? Evidently, yeah. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only notable difference is he is a member of the Oath Keepers, and it would be SYNTH for us to say that his membership in the Oath Keepers makes him being described as far-right in the first sentence more justifiable than Bolduc, but lets just put Bolduc to the side. Why should the attribution standard from LABEL be ignored in this case? Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of the first 100 google responses to Mark Finchem, exactly one refers to him as far right-this site. So he is obviously not widely described as far right. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:A838:33B7:F39D:73CD (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the sheer abundance of RSs that describe him as being a far-right political candidate, or at worst, his views being far-right. Similar to, though not basing the entire argument off of, the lead of Marjorie Taylor Greene's page. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser!: since we can not come to an agreement would you consider a RfC? Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping more users involved in editing US politics might come here to give their views, but if none are forthcoming then I’d be open to a RfC. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was too, but so far participation has been slim. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be fair to characterize the dispute as whether far-right should be in the first setence, as it is now, or attributed later in the lead? Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair to me. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on far-right in first sentence/lead

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This RfC concerns how far-right should placed in the lead section.

Option 1 (status quo): Far-right should be placed in the first sentence with no specific attribution, as it is now.
Option 2: Far-right should be introduced later in the lead with attribution.

Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Option 2 per MOS:LABEL and MOS:LEADCLUTTER. LABEL says, Value-laden labels… may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. I think the guideline is clear that descriptors like “far-right” are best attributed when being used to describe a person, particularly a BLP, and not placed in WP:WIKIVOICE. I would support placing far-right in the second paragraph with the prose being: Finchem has been characterized as far-right, and is a member of the militia group Oath Keepers. This is a natural setting for his political positions to be described. Furthermore, this practice of describing people by their political positions in the first sentence is relatively uncommon, and constitutes lead packing under MOS:LEADCLUTTER which recommends relevant information to be dispersed throughout the lead instead of bunched in the first sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 Agree with Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Nemov (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 per my arguments in the above section, and similar to other pages such as that of Marjorie Taylor Greene, for which there was also an abundance of evidence of far-right political placement. Abundant amount of evidence available from reliable sources that the subject is on the far-right, and that his views are far right - such as the ones in the lede itself^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] and aside from that, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and many more expressly refer to Finchem as being far-right. Much like the far-right descriptor in MTG's page, this is a fair inclusion. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Flaherty, Joseph (March 22, 2019). "From Charlottesville to Oath Keepers, Rep. Mark Finchem Is a Fringe Lawmaker". Phoenix New Times.
^ Cathey, Libby (May 23, 2022). "Experts warn of 'emergency' as Trump-backed election deniers could win primary races". ABC News. Retrieved July 26, 2022.
^ Itkowitz, Colby; Gardner, Amy; Dawsey, Josh (June 15, 2022). "Nevada Republicans join GOP wave of nominating election deniers". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved July 26, 2022.
^ Medina, Jennifer (May 5, 2022). "In Arizona, a Swing State Swings to the Far Right". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 26, 2022.
^ McCarthy, Bill; Sherman, Amy (June 7, 2022). "A coalition of 'stop the steal' Republicans aims to take control of US elections. QAnon is helping". Politifact. Retrieved July 26, 2022.

Sourced undeniably refer to him as far-right, but that doesn’t negate LABEL’s demand for in-text attribution. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 18:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page for the aforementioned MTG article, you yourself said you had no issue with MOS:LABEL for a similar descriptor being in the lead due to the abundance of sources. I'm taking that position here. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that’s a little different. Conspiracy theorist is label that describes an action. Like politician, businessman, banker, etc. It’s a bit different from having to pack in a persons broad political stance in the article. I would oppose “far-right” being in MTG’s page, as well. We don’t even call actual far-right people far-right in the first sentence, see Adolf Hitler. It’s an issue of packing and appropriate elaboration. This is comparable to saying George W. Bush is a conservative politician or Joe Biden is a centre-left politician, and we don’t do that. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 20:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. The Hitler thing has been raised a few times but I feel it's beyond the scope of this. The reason political alignments aren't included here are because Biden/Bush got the majority of their coverage for being politicians, much like Finchem and various other far-right politicians received a lot of the coverage they did for being far-right politicians, and for the fringe viewpoints they held. (Side note, as this is getting as long as it is, could it be moved to the Discussion tab?) ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I was just gonna leave it at that. Best to let others chime in. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 Not so urgent to mention in first sentence. GenuineArt (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - Ser! is right; the sources are unequivocal here; this descriptor is used is most in-depth treatments of the subject in the sources. Neutrality^talk 02:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Far-Right?

There’s no such thing as “far-right.” There’s only far-left. -2600:1005:B166:771D:31E0:6D68:BE2E:BF72 (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[oathkeepers-1] Flaherty, Joseph (March 22, 2019). "From Charlottesville to Oath Keepers, Rep. Mark Finchem Is a Fringe Lawmaker". Phoenix New Times.

[2] Cathey, Libby (May 23, 2022). "Experts warn of 'emergency' as Trump-backed election deniers could win primary races". ABC News. Retrieved July 26, 2022.

[3] Itkowitz, Colby; Gardner, Amy; Dawsey, Josh (June 15, 2022). "Nevada Republicans join GOP wave of nominating election deniers". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved July 26, 2022.

[4] Medina, Jennifer (May 5, 2022). "In Arizona, a Swing State Swings to the Far Right". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 26, 2022.

[5] McCarthy, Bill; Sherman, Amy (June 7, 2022). "A coalition of 'stop the steal' Republicans aims to take control of US elections. QAnon is helping". Politifact. Retrieved July 26, 2022.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]