Talk:Mike Parson

New news

There's an article here about an attempt by Parson to prosecute a journalist who exposed a security defect in a state-run computer system--a defect that had been there for ten years, since responsibility for the database was assigned under Parson's Office of Administration. Parson commissioned the Missouri Highway Patrol to produce a report--a report which exonerated the reporter. Seems worth including here, although I'll leave it to others to decide. Mcswell (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Parson. 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/20110629203729/http://www.house.mo.gov/bio.aspx?year=2009&district=133 to http://www.house.mo.gov/bio.aspx?year=2009&district=133

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) 14:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

My change does not fall under WP:OR

Snooganssnoogans, My edit ("states 'The governor shall fill all vacancies in public offices unless otherwise provided by law, and his appointees shall serve until their successors are duly elected or appointed and qualified.' However, the Missouri Revised Statutes 105.030 states that the governor can fill all vacancies 'other than in the offices of lieutenant governor, state senator or representative, sheriff, or recorder of deeds in the city of St. Louis'. ") is not original research and should not have been reverted. Straight from the lede of WP:OR, "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist..." This is clearly not the case here. Not only were there reliable sources for what I typed, but I quoted them verbatim and cited them. I did not synthesize sources or offer any analysis of what I think they mean. I merely quoted them.WP:OR does not say you can not use any primary sources (like laws) whatsoever. Here's what it says about using primary sources "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation..." What I did fits because I offered no interpretation, and I used the sources with care. Merely quoting sources verbatim cannot be OR.JMM12345 (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

See WP:SYNTH on the WP:OR page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you see where I said "I did not synthesize sources or offer any analysis of what I think they mean. I merely quoted them."? The Synthesis section says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I did not reach or imply any conclusions. Furthermore, my edit corrected a serious misattribution of a quote. The quote before my edit and after your reversion wrongly says that it is from the constitution when in reality it is from Missouri Revised Statutes 105.030. I correctly attributed it to what it is actually from. JMM12345 (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

What you would need is a source saying that Parson believed he could become governor as per that exact section of the Constitution. I do, however, think our goal here should be to summarize and that the current version is about as good as it will get IMO. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't write anything whatsoever about Parson's beliefs, and the current version misattributes a source. It says that the Missouri Constitution says something that Missouri Revised Statutes 105.030 actually says. I have no comment about what he believed he could do. I did not even offer my analysis of what he could actually do.

Also, just to be clear, this section is unrelated to whether Parson could become governor. No one disputed that the leutenant-governor could become governor when the governor when the office was vacant.JMM12345 (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

References

Link in citation is not working

The link in citation 86, "Missouri governor: Pardon of 4-decade inmate not a priority". Associated Press. June 9, 2021. Retrieved June 15, 2021., is not working for me. I'm just getting sent to the Washington Post homepage. Does anyone have a better link? If so, that should probably be put in the citation instead.JMM12345 (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

This is corrected. U.S. News & World Report still has a working link to the same AP story. —ADavidB 03:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate reversion

Snooganssnoogans, the reversion of my change, "Parson argued that the Missouri Independent article was "purposely misleading" and that it took data out of context. A DHSS spokeswoman said "We do not have any official studies drawing conclusions solely from mask mandates being in place[.]"", was totally inappropriate. KHQA-TV is a reliable source, and if I was not properly representing what they had to say, the proper response would have been to edit it to be more close to the source material rather than to revert. In fact, I was going in to edit it because I realized that I accidently typed "purposely" instead of "purposefully" when I saw that it had been reverted. Edit wars are not ideal, and in general it would be better to take it up in the talk section if there is a disagreement between editors about what the article should say, it would be better to put it in the talk section than to just revert without discussion. Assuming by "misleading stenography", you meant my accidental replacement of "purposefully" with "purposely" because it would otherwise be unclear what you meant by "misleading stenography", I'm going to put it back in with that change.JMM12345 (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

We are not stenographers for Parson's office. The local news source provides no context, which would be expected of a WP:RS. It just stenographs Parson's comments. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all, they did provide context for the comment, a lot of context in fact. Secondly, it is not a stenograph. It is a news article which briefly quotes part of Parson's public statement that he issued on social media and provides background info, on the earlier news reports and the study and quotes from other people and agencies. It doesn't just rely on Parson's quote. I'm trying to understand your point here, but I'm honestly having trouble.JMM12345 (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

We don't rebut reliably sourced content with Parson's own self-serving rhetoric and a DHSS statement that seems to be so precisely worded that it communicates nothing of substance while simultaneously making it appear as if the reliable source was wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

There is an allegation here reported by reliable sources saying that Parson buried a study that concludes that mask mandates correspond to less hospitalization and death. This is something said about the subject of the article, a BLP about a public figure. Per WP:BLPPUBLIC"If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance." Now, it is very clear that this article is not just a stenograph that merely reports on his public statement without providing other context, but even if they were, there are other sources also talking about Parson's public statement. Parson's response is widely reported by news sources and should be included in the article with due weight. Wikipedia's voice is not suggesting that mask mandates don't work or that the study doesn't say that mask mandates work. My change only talks about a public figure's widely reported response to claims that he was trying to hide something in a page about that public figure and should not have been reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMM12345 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Parson did not deny that a study was done. He just calls it a bad study – I have no objection to including Parson's remarks saying he disagrees with the study. The problematic part is you stenographing misleading claims into the article that make it appear as if the reliable sources reporting on the study erroneously reported the existence of a study. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Parson did not deny that a study was done. Nothing that I have typed here either on the talk page or my edit on the article even remotely suggests that Parson denied that a study was done. I'm not sure where you're getting that. What Parson did deny was that the Missouri Independent article accurately reported about the study and that his office buried the study. He calls it a bad study, but it is not accurate to say that "He just calls it a bad study". Even in the Kansas City Star article that you cited, he calls the Missouri Independent article "purposefully misleading" as his primary point. They quote him on that. Unless you want to say that the Kansas City Star is Parson's stenographer, I would suggest that the omission of the widely reported comment of Parson in at least five news sources, four that I cited and one that you cited, should not have been omitted from the article.JMM12345 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Also, just a heads up Snooganssnoogans, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring specifically states "Avoid posting a generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself; it can be seen as aggressive." I wasn't personally that offended by it, but just for future reference, it is probably not a good idea, and is technically a violation of wikipedia's policy I believe.JMM12345 (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

References

Recent removal of content

Neutrality, You've made some good changes to the article recently, but I do disagree with your removal of the following content.

In April 2020, after an alleged arson against an Islamic Center in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Parson tweeted "@MoFireMarshal is part of joint local-state-federal probe of this suspicious fire in Cape Girardeau. In Missouri, we won't tolerate an attack on any house of worship. This was a cowardly act."

Your reason for the removal is that it "mostly cited to Twitter and not very substantive; 'elected official condemns crime' is pretty standard" but that doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons. First, because it didn't mostly cite to Twitter. The Tweet was only one of the three sources. One out of three isn't most, and it didn't actually need to be there for the statement to be fully sourced. There was also a local news source and an Al Jazeera source which talked about Parson's response. Secondly, because whether Wikipedia editors think it is standard or not, reliable sources determine notability. The Wikipedia community considers Al Jazeera to be a reliable source listed on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page, and Al Jazeera considered his response notable enough to talk about in their article and quote in its entirety.

And in any event, even from a common sense perspective, what sorts of crimes a politician goes out of their way to condemn and how strongly they condemn certain crimes can certainly be notable and speak to their priorities. If you don't think it should have the original Tweet as a source for the statement, we can leave it out, as the Tweet was entirely quoted in the Al Jazeera article and embedded in the local news story. In which case the paragraph would read

In April 2020, after an alleged arson against an Islamic Center in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Parson tweeted "[Missouri Division of Fire Safety] is part of joint local-state-federal probe of this suspicious fire in Cape Girardeau. In Missouri, we won't tolerate an attack on any house of worship. This was a cowardly act."

It is still fully sourced, but now doesn't have the primary source that you objected to. Would you find this acceptable?JMM12345 (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)JMM12345

References

Let me put it this way: is there any coverage of Parsons’ actions/comments on this beyond one week in April 2020? Was he involved in the investigation in any direct way? I think the answers here are “no” and “no.” The question here is not really about the reliability of the sources as much as whether the content is truly biographically noteworthy. Neutrality^talk 04:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The answer to your first question "is there any coverage of Parsons’ actions/comments on this beyond one week in April 2020?" is yeah, actually there were still stories mentioning Parson's response weeks later in May. For the record, I forgot to mention it earlier, but there was also this New York Times article that talks about Parson's response, which certainly adds to the notability.

Your second question about him being directly involved in the investigation is actually irrelevant because we're not talking about including details of the investigation on here. The only thing being discussed is Parson's initial response which sources evidently believed notable enough to include in their news stories.JMM12345 (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)JMM12345

References

That Daily Beast article mentions Parson in one line. Ditto the NY Times article - a single passing mention of Parson, two words from his tweet. It seems that this coverage was really passing. What newspapers report on (especially in the realm of "reactions from persons not directly involved") is not necessarily the same as what is significant enough to include in an encyclopedia article. Neutrality^talk 04:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That is not an accurate characterization of the New York times article. I really don't know what else to say. They directly quoted fifteen words of his short tweet, and linked to the original tweet.

"Gov. Mike Parson of Missouri called the fire 'a cowardly act.' 'In Missouri, we won't tolerate an attack on any house of worship,' he wrote on Twitter." Is what the NY Times article actually said.

I honestly have no idea where the "two words" came from, or why you're pushing back so much on the notability of something that received extensive press coverage.JMM12345 (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)JMM12345

I meant "two sentences." I just don't see the biographical significance of this tweet. Neutrality^talk 13:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)