Talk:Eric Swalwell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Please Fix Second Graph, Second Sentence, Second Word

Currently: While attended* the University of Maryland, College Park, he served on the city council for College Park, Maryland.

Proposed: While attending* the University of Maryland, College Park, he served on the city council for College Park, Maryland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:5A00:180:5CBE:99ED:FB9C:732E (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

• Eric Swalwell was the subject of a previously declined article for creation. This AFC contains excessive detail, and content from the AFC should not be moved to this article unless supported by multiple, indepedendant, reliable sources, in particular political positions not commented on outside his own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.19.66 (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability

The article needs more references on the election, but he essentially has won at this point. (ps, welcome to the office, good luck)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Twitter

should his Twitter feed [1] be added? seems like twitter feeds for public officials may be acceptable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eric Swalwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019044155/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-general/12-us-reps.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2012-general/12-us-reps.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Eric Swalwell and nuclear warfare

link, link, link, and link. --2001:8003:4023:D900:7C03:7F65:E834:E7E1 (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

one more. --2001:8003:4023:D900:7C03:7F65:E834:E7E1 (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YT – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

diff reverted several times

I was reverting a group of diffs by a POV IP and reverted this one because the IP left a misleading edit summary and I assumed it to be a "good faith" edit, which needed reverting.

Looking at the history I can now see that this particular edit has been reverted and re-reverted several times. Whether the information stays or not, I couldn't give a monkey's bum. However a stable article would be nice, so talk page consensus may be required. Cheers Edaham (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I do give a damn, as you can briefly see in the above section. It's a Twitter thing that's been misinterpreted and misconstrued by the right wing. Nothing of any WP:LASTING significance. I don't know what today's kerfluffle was about. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Either way, with the specific edit in question, we can't cite it directly to Twitter; in context that's WP:OR. Snopes discusses it here; based on their summary I agree it's unlikely to pass the WP:LASTING criteria. --Aquillion (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on the Portrait that should appear in the InfoBox.

Okay, so since no one has made this section yet, I'll bite.

I like the one we currently have (File:Eric Swalwell 114th official photo.jpg). I also checked MOS:LEADIMAGE, and it would appear we have a good amount of discretion in which portrait we use. The picture is an accurate representation of the topic (ie. Congressman Eric Swalwell), and it is only from 3 years ago.

I simply put up this discussion up for procedural reasons. KingOpti101(OP of 116th Congress image replacement), can we please get your thoughts on the matter? Many thanks, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Ethnicity

I learned his ethnicity. His paternal grandmother was of Portuguese heritage, her maiden name being Patricia Cabral. This makes Swalwell the first Presidential candidate of Portuguese heritage. His mother's maiden name is Vicky J. Erickson and her heritage is half-Swedish and half-Danish. His paternal grandfather's heritage is 3/4 English, 1/4 Scottish.

Here are his parents' marriage records.

https://www.ancestry.com/cs/offers/join?sub=2550866976735232&dbid=1144&url=https%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.com%2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3findiv%3d1%26dbid%3d1144%26h%3d675411%26usePUB%3dtrue%26_phsrc%3dXbC43%26_phstart%3dsuccessSource%26requr%3d2550866976735232%26ur%3d0&gsfn=&gsln=&h=675411

Policy Positions

the article uses an older number for cap of Social Security payroll tax - it should state ("(which currently applies to annual earnings only up to $132,900 as of 2019)") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.47.204.252 (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Proposed merge with Eric Swalwell 2020 presidential campaign

Unnecessary fork. There is only a few sentences of prose in this article, and, with the campaign suspended, is unlikely to be any more. pbp 23:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@PBP: This didn't seem much like a "proposed merge" more like a "merge." lol –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I just boldly redirected Eric Swalwell 2020 presidential campaign here. Now that he's abandoned his bid, it's clear that we won't need a separate article to adequately discuss his short 2020 campaign. Pichpich (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Yeungkahchun: Making you aware of this discussion, since you reverted the merge. I'm not sure if there's enough coverage about the campaign to justify a standalone article or not, but that's what being discussed here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019

A request to put into record that on November 18th, 2019, Rep. Eric Swalwell was mid-sentence on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" when it sounded like he allegedly produced audible flatulence that was picked up by the camera. Mr. Swallwell denied that this happened in a later tweet. Bluelinebrotha (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done WP:UNDUE –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

This is a dangling participle.

His district is not a Democrat, he is.

(the way Wikipedia had set up to edit these things is very peculiar : we can't see what it is that we wish to edit.) 72.208.81.101 (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I don't see where it is said that the district is "a Democrat"; and even if it were written the proper way to solve this would be to say that it is a safe Democratic district; not remove it completely. In any case, I can't quite make out what you want to be changed so please follow the instructions and indicate where the wrong information is... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Spy Investigation

Congressman Eric Swalwell was targeted by Chinese Communist Party operatives in an intelligence operation from 2011 to 2015. The operative, Christine Fang, helped fundraise for Swalwell's 2014 re-election campaign. Fang helped place an intern in Swalwell's office. In 2015, federal investigators briefed Swalwell on their concerns regarding Fang. He immediately severed ties with Fang and was not charged or implicated in any wrongdoing by federal law enforcement authorities. 100.15.233.212 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

From Axios, this should be included:

Amid a widening counterintelligence probe, federal investigators became so alarmed by Fang's behavior and activities that around 2015 they alerted Swalwell to their concerns — giving him what is known as a defensive briefing. Swalwell immediately cut off all ties to Fang, according to a current U.S. intelligence official, and he has not been accused of any wrongdoing. Fang left the country unexpectedly in mid-2015 amid the investigation. She did not respond to multiple attempts by Axios to reach her by email and Facebook. Charles Juvon (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This needs to be added to his page. It’s relevant information confirmed by a host of sources. Don’t gatekeep info just because it isn’t convenient. SpartB (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and we need to be careful around WP:BREAKING news. The desire to add this now is WP:RECENTISM but we need to ask ourselves whether or not it should be added. What exactly is there to say? A spy infiltrated his network, and when he found out about it, he cooperated with the FBI. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur that all widely reported information about this public figure who sits on an INTELLIGENCE COMMITEE needs to be documented, some vague claims of "recentism" strike me as rather rather motivated by sanitizing a politically sensitive figure. My vote is to include immediately and update as information trickles. 135.23.155.250 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Given what Pelosi said in a news conference 30 minutes ago, I support inclusion of the text proposed by the IP user 100.15.233.212 , above, except "or implicated" should be removed.Charles Juvon (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

References

I respect WP:BREAKING & WP:RECENTISM calls, but seems like there is a minimal amount of coverage that needs to be added to this article, it is very notable.PrecociousPeach (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

PrecociousPeach and Charles Juvon, it's already in the article. See Eric Swalwell#Career in local politics. Another editor added it neutrally, and I do not object to that content. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu#top , thanks for pointing that out. I don't object to that neutral content either. PrecociousPeach (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Was just wondering if Eric Swalwell wrote this section himself? Or maybe it was the CCP? The only thing is they didn't blame Trump enough for it. Otherwise I'd be sure it was Swalwell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.85.61 (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Reckless sourcing and framing

This article's "Chinese spy" section is horribly sourced. Rather than Associated Press, Reuters, New York Times and CBS News, it cites D.C.-insider blogs like The Daily Beast, and Politico, -- and even a a 9,500-circulation weekly tabloid -- nearly all simply regurgitating, in turn, what they read in another D.C.-insider blog: Axios (which, in turn, almost exclusively cites un-named sources for nearly all the controversial material!).

Hardly any of the cited sources add any significant new reporting to the story, let alone any independent confirmation of Axios' anonymous sources -- serving only to add their own subjective editorial slants and spins to the issue. They are thus simply derivatives of the one-and-only original-report source: Axios. And thus they are not relevant as sources, themselves -- and reference citations to them should be deleted, unless the citations are placed next to material that is developed, originally, by the cited source -- not by Axios.

The only other media sources with any original specific information on this issue, appear to be a handful of outlets publishing reaction statements made to them by either Rep. Eric Swalwell, or Speaker Nancy Pelosi, or one of the chorus of Republicans griping about what Axios has reported. Otherwise, those copycat citations are simply tertiary sources, and thus not proper WP:SECONDARY sources as called for in WP:RELIABLE_SOURCES.

This section needs to be cleaned up, and the irrelevant copied-story citations deleted.

An exception, arguably, could be made for major tertiary sources (e.g.: the above-named major outlets, or Washington Post, or Wall Street Journal or news dept's of major broadcast networks) that -- by echoing Axios's words -- validate the significance and credibility the Axios "breaking news." In such cases, they should simply added to (or placed beside) the Axios-story ref cites, to give them due weight.

Furthermore, since there is only one original media source being cited -- Axios -- with no particular independent media corroboration of most of what is alleged -- this section should not state that the scandal as purely incontrovertible facts, but rather as a "report" or "allegation," per WP:BLP.

~ Penlite (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I tried to cut down the section but now that I think about it, and considering the complete lack of top tier sources I'm just gonna remove it. This is just something that trended on right wing twitter for like half a day. Volunteer Marek 00:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a potential WP:LASTING element to this story, but maybe not. There's a little bit of noise from the GOP about removing Swalwell from the Intelligence committee, which I don't imagine will go anywhere. I'm curious to see if anyone wants to challenge the removal and on what reasoning. I'm on the fence. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The story has now been covered by the WSJ, The Hill, Fox, and more. This needs to be mentioned in the article, if only as allegations of a scandal. Outright removing the story from the article is counterproductive. Ch3wy (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Ch3wy, the first two you linked are explicitly WP:OPINION pieces. The third reads like one that is masquerading as journalism, getting a quote from Tom Cotton of all people for some reason. You didn't address Penlite's points above. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

here's the WSJ non opinion piece wsj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:592:D0:4FD2:2608:165B (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu the story is now on NPR too. It's good to keep it short in the article like it currently is until more evidence can be obtained, but it needs to at least be mentioned. At the time that I made that comment, there was no mention of the story whatsoever, which is not actually what u/Penlite intended. Ch3wy (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

(as a quick aside, I'm definitely not advocating for the *quality* of the current writing on the scandal, and that should be improved too) Ch3wy (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Ch3wy, it needs to at least be mentioned, you say. Why? We need to discuss whether or not it should be included. Does this have any WP:LASTING impact? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu "need" is perhaps too strong a word to be used without backing. It looks like WP:LASTING explicitly applies to creating new articles, rather than a section within an article. WP:BLPPUBLIC specifically mentions allegations of an affair, which I think is the best approach. We can take an appropriately conservative approach in its phrasing and description. Ch3wy (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

Citation 17 is inaccurate. It lists only one author, Zach Dorfman, for the Axios article "Exclusive: Suspected Chinese spy targeted California politicians." There were two authors for that piece. The correct citation should be: Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, Zach Dorfman, Axios, "Exclusive: Suspected Chinese spy targeted California politicians." ChathamGoliath (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Axios isn’t Conservative Media. The ref doesn’t say anything like that. 2600:1008:B16E:BD81:C02A:155E:A2C:7FD6 (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

242,991 + 99,710 = 342,701

At the very end of the article, on the very last line of the table, the number of "Total votes" should be corrected. 242,991 + 99,710 = 342,701 (and not 243,929). Oclupak (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Oclupak (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

fixed, nice catch! Ch3wy (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Breitbart article

Please be advised that a Breitbart article about Swalwell is being promoted by Fox News, and Tucker Carlson in particular. soibangla (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. And elevated by Tucker on his show last night. Unreliable sources and allegations that should not even be repeated on this talk page per BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Business Insider is not an unreliable source. Exzachary (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not. But your edit suggests the possibility of impropriety without all of the caveats, such as that nobody is accusing him of this other than Breitbart and Tucker, unreliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

really, really weak:

Swalwell has not been accused of wrongdoing, and Axios also did not report on or suggest...But on Tuesday night, the Fox News host Tucker Carlson said that US intelligence officials believed [that] Swalwell...and that Swalwell's office declined to comment on the matter...Fox News told Insider that the suspicions...came from original reporting

soibangla (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This is how the right wing media bubble works. They make an allegation through "original reporting" in a pub like Breitbart, go on a Fox News show like Tucker's, and hope that a mainstream publication runs with it. Unreliable allegations make their way into "reliable" sources. That does not make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not just Tucker and Breitbart. Business Insider reached out to him as well. Why wouldn't he deny it if it's not true? The silence is deafening. Does the left wing media bubble work in the same way? Exzachary (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Exzachary, as I implied before, questions akin to "when did you stop beating your wife" are often beneath denials. You're implying that because he didn't deny it it must be true? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Why wouldn't he deny it Because he knows he's being baited into keeping the innuendo alive in the press? soibangla (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The SPY in question has used sex to gain access to other politicians in the past. You really don't think it's worth noting that Swalwell won't say if he had the same type of relationship with this known honeypot? Exzachary (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because he's likely smart enough to know that saying anything about it, even a denial, only serves to keep it alive and leads to Tucker or someone saying "obviously he's lying" and they smear him that way. soibangla (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2022

In the Contact with Chinese Spy section, House Minority Leader McCarthy's failed vote to remove Swalwell from the House Intelligence Committee in 2021 is not the latest development. Please add the following to the end of the section:

On January 10th, 2022, McCarthy announced in an interview with Breitbart that he would strip Swalwell of that particular committee assignment, along with removing Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Foreign Affairs Committee respectively, should Republicans retake the House in the 2022 midterm elections.

2nd hand source: https://www.axios.com/mccarthy-schiff-swalwell-omar-committees-81e1fddc-66dd-4894-854c-5207bcb4ea4f.html

Original Source: from Breitbart website. Since it's currently blacklisted, it won't let me paste the url to the original interview. I'm not sure how to request a specific whitelist, but in case someone else knows how to, the page url is /politics/2022/01/10/exclusive-kevin-mccarthy-plans-to-strip-ilhan-omar-off-foreign-affairs-eric-swalwell-and-adam-schiff-off-intelligence-committee/ Inception Bwah (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This sounds like political posturing, not a "development". WP:BREITBART is a deprecated source. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That would be kinda hard for McCarthy to do, seeing as members are limited to four terms on the HPSCI and Swalwell terms-out in January 2023. Schiff, too. Do you suppose McCarthy knows that and knows others don't, or could there be another explanation? soibangla (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2022

Add that Eric Michael Swalwell's first wife was named Melissa Jane Maranda. They were married May 19, 2007 in Hennepin County, Minnesota, marriage certificate number 10001297. Source is moms.mn.gov USCongress CA15 (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No need to include non notable names in a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

Swalwell has controversially suggested that all Russian students studying in US should be kicked out of the country due to Russia government’s decision to invade Ukraine. 2607:FB91:150C:DA63:61C7:7B42:9137:7F (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@2607:FB91:150C:DA63:61C7:7B42:9137:7F:  Done Thank you for your suggestion. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 02:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@AlsoWukai and KaiserAllen: I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this was already described in the domestic policy section. Is this response to the Russian invasion foreign or domestic policy? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 10:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking it belongs in neither section per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YT, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Connection to China

Pretend he is Republican and add it to Wikipedia 2601:406:8480:2EB0:3850:1031:7932:7F8F (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no "connection to China". If you're suggesting something about the spy, it's in the article. It has its own section. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

"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)