Talk:Mike Gallagher (American politician) - Wikipedia

McClatchy published a profile[1] of Gallagher today. I've only scanned quickly but the piece looks like it might contain some interesting additions to this encyclopedia entry. Siberian Husky (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Siberian Husky: Yes lots of good stuff. Would love help bringing some of the material in - am planning to sketch out a draft with one of the other contributors here>>> say hey. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Currently this article is sketchy, not in terms of quality, but scope. The subject is a significant figure with regards to this moment in global liberalism, he has become increasingly prominent on matters to do with CCP threats to the free operating of liberal democracies, and has been outspoken on the need to ensure the liberties of the people of Hong Kong and has openly advocated for the rights of sovereign nations, such as Sweden and Thailand, to assert that sovereignty. Right now there's almost nothing on any of this - doesn't even mention his Georgtown dissertation on Eisenhower and the development of his thought. The work to eliminate human trafficking is also worth bringing in. I am looking for wikipedians to work with here, particular people who understand the principles of writing a biography of a living person (a genre that has taken a little while for me to understand, it's a real art form, but one worth learning). Who is ready to help? I propose by creating a more substantial introduction.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I watch the page because Gallagher is one of my congressional reps and saw your message. I’ve only dabbled in political BLPs (though I’ve done a fairly large number of sports BLPs) but if you have a collection of sources, I’d be more than willing to work with them. Cheers! Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

In response to David Gerard's removal of most of my recent contribution, asking that I stick with "RS coverage": There is no source more reliable than a politician's own words for describing his position on a subject. Per the WP:RS guidelines, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." While The Free Press may not be the most reliable source of facts, an article written for them by Gallagher is, per Wikipedia policy, a reliable source of his stated opinion. As far as Gallagher's words reading "like a campaign brochure," that's fairly typical of quotes by politicians in many Wikipedia articles (at least if my quick survey of the Wikipedia pages of a few members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, is any indication). Whether we agree with Gallagher's opinion about TikTok or not, it is noteworthy enough to merit inclusion in this case, especially insofar as it clarifies why he dislikes TikTok to the point that he has taken legislative action attempting to ban them in the United States. If you disagree with me, please respond here before starting an edit war.DoctorEric (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

If a third party didn't note it, it's not worth noting. If the only source for the opinion is his own material, then so what? Promotion is not what Wikipedia is for - David Gerard (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The subject has certainly made notable remarks about Tiktok and they do appear in reliable sources. It's just that we can't use that person's speeches as the citation, because it's a primary source, which, overall, wkp doesn't regard as reliable. All good, I found write ups in several journal and news articles.

Hoping this may have resolved this issue for now.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

the link to his official congressional page is returning "bad gateway" message - is the URL wrong here or is his official page being hacked or worked on or something else? 67.220.13.29 (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be working today. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems the subject of this BLP isn't going to be a politician any more. According to a few articles, such as this one in Rolling Stone he's going to be working for a defense company called Palantir.

So, my question is, what usually happens at this point? I'm going to suggest that the current title should be: Mike Gallagher (Defense executive). Once there's a couple of decent news pieces about what he's actually doing, the lede should probably reflect that. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

His notability comes from being a politician, not a defense contractor. The title should stay as it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The notability principle is simply to establish whether the subject should have an article, no? MatthewDalhousie (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

No. See MOS:ROLEBIO: emphasize what made the person notable – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I stand educated. Thank you @Muboshgu.

With that in mind, I assume that if there are matters of, shall we say, secondary notability, such as earlier military service or later roles in industry, insofar that they have been given news coverage, they should be given that secondary treatment.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply