Talk:Tim Sheehy (businessman)

Recreation

Not sure if the circumstances have changed since the last AfD, since Sheehy has attracted significantly more media coverage (though not cited here). Pinging previous participants: Muboshgu, Enos733, Tbennert, Radiohist, Intothatdarkness, Ser!, Wikishovel, BottleOfChocolateMilk, and SportingFlyer. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm still in the Delete camp, at least until after the election. Intothatdarkness 15:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I still believe this should remain a redirect. - Enos733 (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a redirect. But I still don't think he needs his own article. Intothatdarkness 17:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Firm delete so far. Radiohist (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
• The outcome of the AFD was to redirect Tim Sheehy (American politician). This new article was created as a redirect to the same target [1], on the grounds that he's "not a politician yet", and another editor came along a week later and recreated the article from the redirect. A Google search for him, minus the word "Senate", turns up no significant coverate in reliable sources as a businessman or a soldier. The US is about three weeks away from a national election, and all of the major candidates are getting heavy press coverage. This was roughly the rationale, per WP:NPOL, for redirect by strong consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Sheehy (American politician). So this article should be deleted, as it's really a renamed repost of Tim Sheehy (American politician). If he wins, then that article should obviously be un-redirected and expanded. Wikishovel (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• I don't get why this article's been re-created; I can't find any particularly significant new coverage of Sheehy since the last AFD that has passed into SIGCOV territory. Since the old article has now been turned into a redirect, what's the next course of action; AFD for the second time? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Tim Sheehy is a politician and major party candidate for US Senate and, if the polls are correct, has a huge chance of becoming the next Senator from Montana. I don't understand why we are discussing deleting the article instead of expanding it. All senators and candidates from major parties have their own Wikipedia pages! 2804:D41:F815:AE00:818C:A71C:6F1A:C3B9 (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Tim Sheehy is a major party candidate for the U.S. Senate and, based on current polls, has a strong chance of becoming Montana’s next Senator. I don't see why we're talking about deleting this article instead of improving it. Catgiraffe (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree fully. The article must be kept.. Melledelle (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I join those who are voting to keep. The Washington Post carried an extensive article on him months ago, if memory serves. His business is not thriving as his campaign would want voters to believe, but it's teetering. The misrepresentations about his service time should be available to Wikipedia writers interested in this race. Lee Newspapers, which I believe control a substantial portion of local coverage in Montana, have not seemed to give this race the attention it deserves, IMHO. Lastly, part of the article is sourced to the publisher's promotional page which I don't think should be depended on to include otherwise unsupported ostensible reliable sources. They're in the business of selling books, not checking facts, especially those that might depress sales. Activist (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

References

• "Tim Sheehy may turn the Senate red. But is he really a successful businessman?". NBC News. August 9, 2024.
• Pengelly, Martin (September 30, 2024). "Memoir contradicts Republican Senate candidate's 'below the poverty line' tale" – via The Guardian.
• Who is Tim Sheehy Washington Post September 5, 2024

Djflem (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

"Shady Sheehy"

I know this is a trivial thing, but I do honestly think it's worth a mention in the article. I live in Montana and a good handful of people refer to Sheehy by the nickname "Shady Sheehy." The nickname comes from the way-too-many political ads here in Montana about "Shady Sheehy," Jon Tester, Ryan Zinke, etc. I previously added a section about the nickname but it has since been removed. I think the nickname is, at the very least, worth at least once sentence in the article. The only issue I have is: how do you cite people talking? There's almost no articles about the nickname, but I know for a fact lots of Montanans refer to him as (or even just simply know of) "Shady Sheehy." MontanaMako (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

User talk:MontanaMako However you might feel about Sheehy, you can only add material that comes from a reliable source. The nickname is not reliably sourced, so out it goes. It was removed by another Wikipedia editor who would prefer that the whole article be deleted, but with that, the immediately preceding well-sourced specifics about his painstakingly verified and thoroughly documented plagiarism from Montana's States Newsroom were also erased. We all live and learn. Activist (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Department of Education

Sheehy has said the Department of Education should be eliminated and offered his rationale. What is wrong with including his reasoning for why he believes it should be done away with? Djflem (talk) 06:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong is the wording Of the United States Department of Education, Sheehy said that it was formed "so little Black girls could go to school down south, and we could have integrated schooling. We don’t need that anymore” and that is meant to "indoctrinate and enslave" which creates an ambiguity. Is the "that" referring to (a) the department itself? (we don't need the department anymore because amen, integration is long complete) (b) "integrated schooling" (we don't need that anymore...because we should go back to segregation) or (c) "so little Black girls could go to school" (we don't need that anymore...because they should still be field slaves?). I'm going to revert this again because without the strongest of sourcing, we can't insinuate a BLP is a segregationist (or worse) without extremely strong sourcing. I'm open to a rewrite where only interpretation (a) is clear, but I think just the one quote on education is plenty when we say say nothing about his other two most important policy positions or even say what they are although the sources do. BBQboffin^{grill me} BBQboffin^{grill me} 09:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is very clear about original research and synthesis. It's not allowed. You have done both by 1)imposing your interpretation of statements by subject to draw your conclusion/meaning (which is not truthful presentation of facts and thus not a neutral point of view) and 2) used language not provided by subject or cited in reference to explain the subject's meaning 3)manipulated/entwined both to present something not said. Besides, if you look at your history, the effort to desegregate schools in the South took place mostly in the 1960s, long before the department was established in 1979, so it's plain wrong. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors, even those with BLP concerns, to add things that are unverifiable: he did not note anything, you did, and the ambiguity of his statement is not yours to fix for him.

This is what he's said and offered as his rationale:

Sheehy has said “We have a Department of Education, which I don’t think we need anymore.” He wants eliminate the department by “throwing it in the trash can” and that "that’ll save us $30 billion right there.” He said: “We formed that department so little Black girls could go to school down south, and we could have integrated schooling. We don’t need that anymore” He called the department an "indoctrination factory to push out curriculum that parents don’t want.” and said that “national education system” is intended to “indoctrinate and enslave.”

References

Djflem (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)