Talk:Steven Sund

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021

To display the colossal security failure of the Capitol Police under the leadership of Mr Sund, I suggest adding a quote from https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/08/capitol-police-failure-456237 As follows: "By late afternoon, police had made fewer arrests (13) in the storming of the U.S. Capitol than are typically made at the New York Giants stadium during a home game (21)." Alma1212 (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — IVORK _Talk 03:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Sund actually notable?

Sund has garnered a lot of media attention because he resigned following the storming of the US Capitol, but does he meet notability guidelines at Wikipedia? It seems that he had a smaller article prior to this year, [1]. Was he notable prior to the events at the Capitol? and will he continue to be notable? or do the events at the Capitol make him eligible for WP:BLP1E? Natg 19 (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

From BLP1E: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." So are you saying that the events of Jan 6 is not significant, or the Chief of Capitol police's role was not substantial, or there is little documentation of his role? Seems to me that all three criteria have been met. KennyDx (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

DoB+ Personal stuff

He was Public servant, where ist His date of Birthday? Lovemankind83 (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: information about Sund's testimony in the Feb. 23, 2021 U.S. Senate hearing about the Capitol insurrection. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Who lead USCP from January 8, 2021 to July 23, 2021?

Why is there a gap in the succession noted in the infobox of this person?

Who lead the USCP from January 8, 2021 following Steven Sund's resignation to July 23, 2021 when J. Thomas Manger was appointed?

Should not that person be listed as successor, all be it that they were acting successor?

Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The page for J. Thomas Manger lists his predecessor as Chief of the USCP as Yogananda Pittman. For the sake of consistency, should not Yogananda Pittman be listed as successor on this page? Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality

I haven't read this article in detail, but have placed a {{POV}} tag on it after removing four separate unsupported claims from the lead section alone that struck me as plausibly intended to paint Sund in a positive light. I'll try to take a look at the rest of the article in the near future and may remove the tag after that. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Having gone through and removed a few other questionable claims, I'm now satisfied that there's nothing present in the article that raises significant NPOV issues. I can't conclusively say, though, that there aren't concerning absences from it – i.e. I think there's a possibility that encyclopaedic material that editors may think would cast Sund in a negative light has been left out. As such, I haven't removed the tag, but if anyone's looked into this (ideally someone who hasn't previously worked on this article) and is satisified that no such material exists they should feel free to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Literary agent

@Mmmerlot: Thanks for adding a source for this, but I'm still not convinced it belongs in the article. Authors having agents is obviously very common; unless the relationship between the author and the agent has been widely discussed in reliable sources outside the book trade then it seems like routine, unremarkable information that wouldn't normally belong in an encyclopaedia article. Do any such sources exist, or anything else that would make this noteworthy enough to be included here? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Mmmerlot: I'm a little puzzled by recent edits such as this one and this one. They strike me as potentially attempts to cause disruption in order to make a point. If that's the case, you're better off discussing your edits and those of others at this talk page (which you don't seem to have ever used): this is the third component of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If your additions of unsourced claims have been reverted (as they'll continue to be), discussion might result in sources being found. Discussion is much more likely to result in an agreeable outcome than reverting without explanation. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Interview with Tucker Carlson

1. https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1689783814594174976

He's giving details on how Jan 6 was staged in so many words. How is this not included? tickle me 03:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek

@Randy Kryn: While I appreciate that Newsweek can be a reliable source in some cases, I'm not at all convinced that this is one of those. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and claims about controversial and contentious events require impeccable sourcing. This isn't so much a matter of accuracy as it is significance—I don't think it's likely that Newsweek is misreporting what Sund said, but I do think that for these interviews and their claims to be significant enough to merit mention here we'd need to see wider coverage. I'm also concerned that the text I removed may be deliberately ambiguous (especially given its provenance): it's not at all clear to me whether we're to assume the "government and intelligence officials" mentioned, who Sund says knew about events ahead of time, are Trump administration officials or if (as right-wing outlets seem to be arguing [2][3]) he's describing some sort of deep state conspiracy theory in which the event was staged to set Trump up. Better sourcing would allow us to disentangle this and write precisely about his comments, but if all we have is Newsweek that's much harder to do. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

See the sourced interview link in the section just above this one, which could be placed as a Sund page source or in External links. He also did a 60 Minutes interview which I haven't seen. Sund's descriptor is notable because he was the Chief of the Capitol police on the day of the events he's discussing. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

How would linking to Tucker Carlson's Twitter indicate that this interview is encyclopaedically significant, or resolve any of the other issues outlined above? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Because it presents the disputed information in the subject's own words. I'm not going to keep arguing this topic, just that the Newsweek sourcing seems fine in this instance. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

You're obviously free to withdraw from discussing further, but in that case I think we should agree to remove the paragraph pending a consensus for its inclusion, broadly per WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BURDEN. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no burden to prove, the descriptor is accurate. Newsweek as a reputable source is done on a case-by-case basis and this one seems accurate per the above linked interview. Sund provides a valuable historical rendition of his experiences during the January 6 event, so nothing seems incorrect here and there exists no reason to remove such sourced material. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

In that case I'd suggest that you should indeed keep arguing this topic and should begin by responding to the points made above. To recap: aside from the question of accuracy, how do we know that these interviews are encyclopaedically significant and relevant to this article? Do you agree that the text as written is ambiguous or do you think "government and intelligence officials had advance knowledge of the planned storming of the Capitol" is sufficiently clear? If the latter, which officials do you think it's referring to? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, not playing the game. The government officials who knew are detailed in the interview (have you listened to it?). And since Newsweek is reputable on a case-by-case basis this one seems fine. Aside from that, do your own research if you are really neutral. These owned-page discussions on current topics just go around in circles until the interloper leaves. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't really know what most of this means. I think there's plenty of scope for a civil discussion here (rather than one that goes round in circles) and apologise if I've given any indication otherwise. Obviously if you think there's a ownership issue on my part then you'd need to raise that elsewhere.

I'm fully aware that Newsweek's reliability is evaluated on a case-by-case basis – I linked to the page that explains that in my initial edit summary. [C]onsensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis means that discussions are needed to evaluate content; that, as far as I can see, is what we're doing here. You've said it's reliable insofar as it accurately relays what Sund says. I'd probably broadly agree, but reliability isn't reducible to accuracy—there's also the question of what gets reported. That's what's at stake here in my view: if something's only reported in Newsweek, how do we know it's encyclopaedically significant? We aren't trying to write a complete chronicle of Sund's life here; coverage in reliable sources is how we judge things to be relevant, and coverage in a single marginal source is a good sign of irrelevance.

On the separate question of the article content you've restored, if you think the claims about "government officials" can be clarified with the sources cited, I'm not sure why you haven't done that. I haven't listened to the interviews (I believe there are two?), but have read the summaries in the Newsweek articles (because those are what's cited in the article and because encyclopaedia articles are based on secondary sources like news articles about interviews rather than primary sources like the interviews themselves). But this really seems like an area where you have an idea as to how the article can be improved and I don't, so I'd suggest you go ahead and do it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)