Talk:Mark McCloskey
 | This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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. |
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, 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. |
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, 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. |
Retention of well-sourced quotes
editThe story McCloskey told at a candidates' forum, that he had a client who, raped and impregnated at 13 years old by an uncle, chose to have the child, later earning a Master's degree, and the child of that child also earned a master's degree. It seems an extremely dubious story, is well-sourced, and should be retained, just as would, say, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Activist (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- Are you referring to this edit of mine? It kept the story, so I don't know what you mean about retaining it. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. That's the one I'm referring to. Please compare what you removed and what I restored. I retained a couple of your edits at the top. Activist (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- I see what you restored (you can see it here), but it's not this story, which was never removed in the first place. What you re-added is just a lot of extra verbiage around it, like "The 90-minute forum had been posted online." So this is a strange way to justify your edit. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The litany of lawsuits
editI removed this, it was re-added. Here is what it is (the part under dispute bolded):
- The couple have spent "decades suing their neighbors and family members to protect their property," The Atlantic reported in 2020.[1] They asserted "squatter's rights" on a slice of shared property in their subdivision. They razed beehives used for educational purposes by the synagogue next door, then threatened to sue if the congregation didn't remove the resultant debris. They sued a dog breeder from whom they bought a German shepherd.[1]
This already seems borderline (WP:BLP1E plus a marginally-notable-at-best political candidacy afterwards). So, given that, and the fact that it is about an extremely litigious attorney, would seem to militate against putting vague accusations of misconduct in wikivoice. Here is what the Atlantic article says:
- They have asserted “squatter’s rights” on a patch of shared land in their subdivision, sued a dog breeder who sold them a German shepherd, and destroyed beehives that were part of the education curriculum at a synagogue next door to their property, threatening legal action if the congregation didn’t clean up the mess, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently reported.
I notice now that this is a little bit of a close paraphrase. Anyway, this cites the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for the claim (archived article here). There is a bunch of stuff in here in addition to the beehive and the dog breeder. I'm not convinced all of it is WP:DUE: okay, they seem to sue people an awful lot, and certainly they seem to be rather petty and spiteful, but I don't know if each individual situation is worth mentioning. Moreover, I am not a legal expert on the subject of inconsequential HOA squabbles, but it seems possible that they were actually right about some or all of this stuff.
My suggestion would be something like "The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that McCloskey and his wife had taken (or threatened to take) a large number of legal actions over the years, including against their neighborhood homeowners' association and adjacent property owners".
Pinging @PRRfan: who editing the article with me in re this. jp×g 21:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, jp×g. Your reasoning makes sense to me, as does your proposed text: "The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that McCloskey and his wife had taken (or threatened to take) a large number of legal actions over the years, including against their neighborhood homeowners' association and adjacent property owners". Thanks for explaining. PRRfan (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b The McCloskeys' Unsubtle Message to White America, The Atlantic, Emma Green, August 20, 2020. Retrieved November 14, 2021.
The gate
editRecently the couple posted an image to x.com, this was the same gate mentioned in the article, but in shambles. https://x.com/mccloskeyusa/status/1806771239672844749 2A02:1210:6C6C:AD00:8539:AE6F:7700:D316 (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)