Talk:Jake Corman

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jake Corman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

The LNP editorial board (May 7, 2019). "Public employees shouldn't be tasked with writing glowing entries for elected officials' Wikipedia pages [opinion]". LNP (newspaper). Retrieved May 8, 2019. Staff members for Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, Auditor General Eugene DePasquale and Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa — all Democrats — and Republican Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman have, among their other duties, the task of editing their bosses' entries on Wikipedia, the online collaborative encyclopedia. Salaries of these staff members are paid for by taxpayers, LNP staff writers Junior Gonzalez and Carter Walker reported Monday.
Carter Walker, Junior Gonzalez (May 7, 2019). "Wikipedia flags Pa. Attorney General Josh Shapiro over glowing, staff-written bio". LNP (newspaper). Retrieved May 8, 2019. On Tuesday the Wikipedia community first flagged a glowing bio of the Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, saying it may "rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject" and could have been written in return for payment, both of which violate its terms of use. In Shapiro's case, edits were made by a communications staffer.

External link descriptiona[edit]

There is some confusion about the proper way to describe the external links. One user, User:Senatedon has objected to the description of of www.jakecorman.com as the "official party website," claiming that it "incorrectly implies that this "official" website is political." However, www.jakecorman.com is in fact operated by the "Senate Republican Communications," which is clearly the Senate Republican Caucus. Thus, the descriptor of "official party website" is correct. Furthermore, the concern from Senatedon, that the "official party website" is misleading should be assuaged because I have just added www.jakecorman.net to the external links with the descriptor "official campaign website." Finally, the first link is correctly described as "official PA Senate website," because it is the official profile from the Pennsylvania Senate.--Blargh29 (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Blargh29 for discussing the labeling of external websites for PA State Senators. I believe that there should be consistent labeling of these websites. For example, of the 50 PA state senators, not many have the www.legis.state.pa.us page listed as "official senate website".

Many have their caucus operated websites listed as "official PA senate website". Only one other has the caucus website listed as "official party website", while one has the caucus operated website identified as "official caucus website". The majority of the 50 state senator listings have their caucus websites listed as "official PA senate website". I suggest that all 50 senator have the www.legis.state.pa.us site listed, all 50 have their caucus websites listed as "official caucus website", and all 50 have campaign sites listed if one exists. This will bring continuity to the 50 listings --Senatedon —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that there should be uniformity. I would totally support a wide-scale change to match the link descriptions in this page.--Blargh29 (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriations/Policy Committee succession boxes[edit]

I'm removing them once again because I feel it makes no sense for this page to be the only page, for either party, to have such boxes. The successors/predecessors don't even have such boxes on their pages. I just think it takes away from continuity. If someone is willing to add these boxes for relevent senators for both parties (as far back as for those senators who have pages), I'd support it. But right now it just seems disjointed. EATC (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I like the inter-party position succession boxes and I really dislike the duplicative Senate succession box (because it is already in the infobox. So, I would do it the opposite. --Blargh29 (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only part I would disagree with is the Senate box part (I only support using it when the article is so long you no longer see the infobox when you scroll down). Regardless, I'm not disputing the applicability of these boxes...I agree with you that they are useful. I'm just saying, in this instance, until other Senators' pages can be updated to include such boxes, I don't think it makes sense to have this be the one and only page with these two succession boxes. EATC (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Blargh29 on this issue. Further, this is not the only page to have these Party Succession Boxes: check Senators Dominic F. Pileggi, Jeffrey Piccola, Robert J. Mellow and Jane Orie. We had a conversation about continuity earlier, and we should be consistent on this issue. If you insist on removing these boxes on the Jake Corman page, do it for the four remaining as well. --Senatedon (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't insist on removing anything...I was the one that added the boxes for all of the pages you're refrencing. However, when I added those boxes, I added it for all officeholders all the way back. Take for instance, the office of Republican Whip...not only did I add it for Jane Orie, but I added it all the way back through Piccola, Brightbill, Fisher, back to John Stauffer (who does not have a page). My issue in this instance is that the boxes are being added for only one page...not predecessors, not successors. It seems bush-league and lacks continuity. Again, I am not arguing against these boxes. I like them, and actaully am the one who did all of the research to add them to all of the pages you sighted. My opinion, however: if you're going to add them to one page, trace it back as far as you can go...it looks bad if you just add these boxes for the one page you're interested in. Look at my argument more carefully; this is not a simple case of me disagreeing with the applicability of these boxes (I dont). Add it to one page, add it to all. If you insist on adding it for one page, add it to all [relevant] pages. EATC (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jake Corman. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 05:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UDP/COI templates[edit]

After reading this article [1] (requires a subscription or viewing in incognito mode), I have added COI and UDP templates to the article pending some sort of cleanup.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead summarizes the body + weird SYNTH content[edit]

Editors keep removing content from the lead, even though the body devotes considerable space to the content and the content is key to Corman's long-term notability. One editor, Jlmicek, keeps adding WP:SYNTH text to the body that cobbles together claims from Corman which are presented as factual statements. Both of these should seek consensus for altering long-standing content and adding new content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to my edits, I am not contending whether or not the statements regarding the 2020 election are factual (though I could see an argument that it is not quite neutral, but that is not my current concern). My concern is with the length to which the subject is discussed. As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, greater detail should be saved for the body of the article. As the article currently stands, a decent-sized portion of the body is dedicated to the subject, so adding specific details of the 2020 election in the lead is unnecessary. Acknowledging the controversy is acceptable, but it should be no more than a mention of its occurrence, less than a paragraph (as the manual of style recommends no more than two paragraphs for an article of 6,000 characters). Specifics can be reserved for the body, which features much of the same information with citations. If the consensus is to keep this paragraph in the lead, then I at least ask that citations be provided. --Metamorph985 (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]