Talk:Eric Swalwell

"FartGate"

The article is relevant;There are 100's of articles on the matter for a start.It made national news in multiple countries including the UK and US. Conservative cheese ball (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. He may or may not have farted on camera. So what? Even one sentence about it is WP:UNDUE. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

And I forgot about WP:FART. Literally, this is a fart. Keep in mind: not every fart or burp is notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

yes,it meets the definition of a scandal/controversy.The gate gained national and international coverage.The articles aren't published by some Gossip magazine as you are suggesting.A scandal can be broadly defined as the strong social reactions of outrage, anger, or surprise, when accusations or rumours circulate or appear for some reason, regarding a person or persons who are perceived to have transgressed in some way.

There was a strong reaction,When it was rumoured that Swalwell flatulated while on the news.This was seen as him Transgressing (doing something socially unacceptable)The reaction to was of mostly surprise and outrage at his behaviour.This isn't a constantly updating recurring event or series of events being reported.It is already considered a Gate on other articles. Conservative cheese ball (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This fails WP:LASTING. It was a fart. Or a mug dragged on a table. Whichever. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This will not go into the article. soibangla (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I think it is relevant, because it's the coverup, not the crime. Many readers may actually believe their ears, and that he was lying. Consequently, if one is to presume he is willing to lie about something as trivial as unplanned flatulence, what about more important things he may do as a public servant? I think it's gotten a ton a coverage and should be in the article. Thank you. Noble Metalloid (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

"The coverup"? Facepalm This isn't Watergate. And your WP:OR in jumping from "lying about a fart" to unstated "nefarious deeds" is completely inappropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The first thing I think of when I think of Swalwell is his (alleged) moment of rippance. While I may be more prone to scatalogical humor than most, I'd imagine many others are in the same boat. But seriously, he went on talk shows to (shoddily, in my opinion) defend against the allegation. Of course it isn't really a scandal, but it was pretty newsworthy. And if you think he was telling the truth, then his denial might be of interest. Look, the body language is extremely suspicious. That is highly indicative of someone who is trying to position themselves to sneakily release wind. Furthermore, to say nothing of the mug that was likely framed...I have yet to witness a mug that sounds like a whoopi cushion. In summary, I'm not sure it's a big deal either way, but shouldn't an encyclopedia err on the side of inclusion? Noble Metalloid (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

More info about presidential run

Why is there so little information about his embarassment of a presidential run? There should be more included, such as the fact that he never managed to achieve even 1% in any national polls. This is the main reason as to why he dropped out, not qualifying for the debate was only a subreason. 2A01:79A:19:F003:757F:DFDE:811:ACC0 (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. He had nothing to make him stand out, little nationwide reputation, and almost nobody was interested in his candidacy. I don't know what else needs to be said. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I added that his polling average was never above 1%. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

BLP

@Th78blue and Pulpfiction621: discuss on talk pages before trying to make controversial changes to a WP:BLP involved in post-1992 U.S. politics. Do not add insinuations of what you think Swalwell may have done based on what she did with a couple of Midwestern mayors. Barstool and NY Post are unacceptable sources. And Rand Paul's opinion of Swalwell is as irrelevant to Swalwell's bio as Swalwell's opinion of Paul is to Paul's. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: The Paul comment is notable and was cited in RS'es. Also, if we do not include barstool or NY Post, fine, but there were several others that I cited too including Forbes and RS'es that should absolutely be included here, as well as an important critical comment made publicly from another senator at the time merits inclusion on this one small sub-section of an entire article. Please do not wholesale revert, but rather make the edits where you deem trimming to be appropriate. I am familiar with the various policies having made nearly 35,000+ edits, so you also do not need to "template" the "regulars"... looks like @Pulpfiction621: also is not new to editing the encyclopedia (7,000+ edits from what I can see). Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 19:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Paul would ask for the resignation of an opposite politician because it suits his political purpose, which is pretty standard and hardly noteworthy. Also, unless I'm mistaken, Muboshgu didn't template you or the other user; however, even if they did, an experienced user should know which reliable sources belong in a BLP and which do not (see WP:NYPOST for example). —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you MelbourneStar. I did not template any regulars. Being cited in RS is not enough to establish its importance, and Rand Paul's comments about Swalwell are inconsequential. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)