Talk:Raphael Warnock

Campaign finance law

I added a blurb to the 2022 election section of Warnock's page related to the recent reports of improper campaign financing. Solid sources including Politico and AJC have reported on this. That section was removed with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE tags. I think I gave it due weight because 1) its placement was certainly not overly prominent 2) it didn't have much bulk/didn't dominate the section or page and 3) the issue is substantiated by reliable sources as mentioned above. I also don't think it fell under the category of frivolous or routine news coverage in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. I would concede that the second sentence could be cut, leaving just:

"On July 6, 2022, Politico reported that Warnock used campaign funds to cover legal expenses for an April 2021 lawsuit related to complaints dating back to 2005 when Warnock was a pastor."

Thanks in advance for your thoughts. GrammarGuardian2021 (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

WEIGHT depends on the extent and duration of coverage in RS publications. Also you posted a primary source for Politico's report. Do you have additional sources and discussion of either the frivolous lawsuit or of Politico's having discussed it in print? SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

A local ABC outlet has picked up the story. Roll Call covered it in their newsletter. Politico also covered it in their morning newsletter yesterday. The story is getting distributed. Weight has to do *both* with the extent of coverage in RS and with the extent of coverage on our page. I'm saying it is circulating and deserves a brief mention on the page. GrammarGuardian2021 (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You'll need much more than that. The Politico link is a rehash of their own story -- primary source. The other is a passing secondary mention that gives no importance to it. If it's significant, there will be coverage in the mainstream media. It would need that for sensitive BLP content, even if it's neutrally worded, which the original article text was not. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It should be excluded for now. This is relatively new and has BLP concerns. Until there is more coverage in reliable sources it should not be included. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's another mention of the story from NBC: https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/midterm-roundup-heating-georgia-rcna36882 GrammarGuardian2021 (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Remove religion from platforms.

Religion should not be in any platforms since church and state are supposed to be separate. If the candidate has a good moral standard and integrity no need to bring in ones belief. It shouldn't matter, because I have seen plenty of "good Christians" arrested and or cheat. I also know good outstanding citizens that are not religious. 2600:1005:B168:8031:2C24:C90F:9F14:C58A (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Won verus projected to win

Regardless of how much confidence we may have in statistical forecasting, when Network N projects that X wins an election, our article should report "At [time] on [date], Network N projected that X would win", not flatly that X won. 12 hours from now all but a handful of counties will have reported 99%, and it will be mathematically impossible for the lead to change; that's the time to say that X won. EEng 03:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Warnock is the winner and the page has been updated using Wikipedia's current criteria. This is how all election pages are written once the winner has been projected. Why should it change this one special time? Gcock2k10 (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"We've always done it this way" is a very poor argument. In projecting a winner, news sources say, well, "X is the projected winner", and that's what we should report. When responsible sources report that "X has won", then we should report that. EEng 12:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Senator Raphael Warnock will begin serving his first full six-year term on January 3, 2023 which means he has won the election. Republican candidate Herschel Walker has officially conceded. There will not be a recount since Warnock won with more than a 0.5% margin—the threshold for Georgia—in the vote between him and Walker. This election is over and Warnock is indeed the winner. This article as well as the actual election article both reflect all of those facts; therefore, your argument is very poor. Are you aware of any logical circumstances that would overturn any of the above stated facts? If so, please list them. If not, accept that your argument is very poor and accept reality. Gcock2k10 (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@EEng: Are you calling the New York Times, which says "Senator Raphael Warnock defeated his challenger, Herschel Walker" an irresponsible source? They are pretty unambiguous, and don't say "projected" or anything similar. Just that he defeated Walker. NBC News, The Associated Press, WSJ all use similarly unambiguous do not equivocate as you seem to want to do. They all say "defeated" or "won", and don't use anything like "projected". I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, or if you consider all of these sources not "responsible", but Wikipedia should not say "projected", because reliable sources don't either. --Jayron32 14:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Stop hyperventilating you two, because you're completely missing the point. You're writing two days after the election, talking in the present tense about what sources say now (and, granted, may even have said as of midnight after the election). But when this edit [1] was made, I'm pretty sure those same sources actually used the more cautious language of "projection", because at that point that's all it could be; I'm simply saying that our language at the time should have reflected that e.g. (as mentioned already): "At [time] on election night, Network N projected that X would win". When sources' language changed to a flat statement of fact, that would have been the time for ours to as well. There can't be anything even slightly controversial about this: we follow what sources say.

Of course, another approach would be to stop squandering editor effort, and clogging up watchlists, by breathlessly updating every twist and turn of an evolving story. People who want this minute's news or this hour's news can just turn on their TVs and watch, well, the news. EEng 21:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No response. Huh. Was it something I said? EEng 02:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The goddamn sound spelling

People are not stupid, we can do without the condescension. The sound spelling for Rapheal Warnock is wholly unwarranted as his name is quite easy to pronounce. Get rid of it. 130.156.22.249 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

While you know how it is pronounced, there are many more people in the world than you. Some of them may have never heard it, and may find it useful. --Jayron32 16:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

While you may not need a sound spelling, you do seem to need help on the actual spelling of his name.... --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The "Reverend Doctor" Infobox Honorific

Some have questioned the use of "The Reverend Doctor" as the subject's infobox honorific. The rationales given have been: "it is not a common thing among American politicians" and/or "generally omitted from articles." The easiest response is simply to point out that most American politicians are not also simultaneously, practicing clergy.

But second, in addition to the obvious, WP does use appropriate clergy/religious honorifics all the time. "The Right Reverend" Frank White (bishop), David Thomson (bishop); "The Most Reverend" Desmond Tutu, Terrence Prendergast. Sometimes, even two honorifics are appropriate, as in "The Right Reverend and Right Honourable" Rowan Williams or "The Most Reverend and Right Honourable" Stephen Cottrell. And where "The Reverend Doctor" is appropriate, WP uses it too Lauran Bethell, Martin Luther King Jr.. So the question is not/should not be how often or how common an honorific is, but whether it is factually accurate. Per the sources, the subject is and has been an ordained and practicing clergyman, with an earned doctoral degree, since the 1990s - long before his current political service.

Third, it is also appropriate, because like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, not only is the subject the current senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church; but in the article on that church, WP already lists several other prior pastors who were "Reverend Doctors" at Ebenezer Baptist Church.

Finally, all can agree this project utilizes reliable sources. Not only is the subject referred to as "Reverend Doctor" on the Ebenezer church's official website Ebenezer Baptist Church, but he is also referenced that way by many diverse and varied sources like NBC News, CBS News, the New York Times, Fox News, BET Network, NPR, Esquire, Huffington Post, Elle, Amandala, Auburn, Troy University, Duke University, Dillard University, University of Kentucky, Rutgers University University of Connecticut, Howard University, Harvard University, Spelman College, Union Theological Seminary, the Consulate General of Japan and many others. The subject also uses this honorific himself in a book he authored the foreward for: Amazon.

So the only objective questions should be: is this honorific factually accurate? Does it correctly reflect the subject? Like other clergy on this project, is it the correct form? Is it consistent with WP policies and guidelines? Are there significant, independent and reliable sources for it? The answer to all of these questions is "Yes." X4n6 (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes the honorific is appropriate. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 06:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Voted to block Arms to Israel

Please add he signed a petition to block arms sales to Israel. Hausa warrior (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)