Talk:Travis Corcoran

Identity as ClarkHat

I cannot find any good evidence of this claim. None of the article's current sources state that Travis Corcoran is ClarkHat. The only sources I can find making this claim are X/Twitter users who dislike Mr Corcoran for his outspoken libertarian political views. I do not think this statement would ordinarily hold up to Wikipedia's standards of evidence. As this article is on the subject of a living person its presence is especially egregious. On this basis, I have removed it. A secondary concern is that the text about the posts under the ClarkHat pseudonym were not neutral in tone and came across as something of a hit piece. — FurrySnowLeopard (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I noticed a distinctive tic in Clark's writing on Popehat (before that site was wiped and reorganized), and privately asked Travis if it was him; he said yes. —Antonissimo (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. FurrySnowLeopard (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

CitizensCount as a reliable source for policy positions

I have issue with the widespread use of the CitizensCount source, as I am unsure of its accuracy or reputability. Further, I don't believe that the entire Policy positions subsection should be exclusively derived from this this website. The prime issue is that there is no attribution to any particular vote or any specific legislation. Additionally, it looks like whatever information was listed on this site previously for the article subject, it has since disappeared and is now exclusively their survey answers. I find all of this problematic, but I am hoping for thoughts of others before proceeding. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The voting record for the 2024 session is available on the history page. Some of the subsections may be advisable to remove under WP:NOTDB if the political positions are too much of a laundry list, but I see nothing wrong with CitizensCount as a source. It is a local NH nonprofit which conducts surveys and publicises the legislative process. — FurrySnowLeopard (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

The encyclopedic significance of any political position needs to be demonstrated by a reliable, independent source. Arbitrarily using a list of every bill he has voted on to try and determine his political positions is a form of editorializing. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. Use more substantial sources to determine due weight. Do not edit WP:BACKWARDS. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that it is arbitrary or editorializing. I agree that it may not be in line with Wikipedia's preferred standards for inclusion. As the subject of the article is notable mostly as a state legislator and minor social media personality, it is difficult to find many independent sources on them. I will defer to your judgement; however, I would point out that including only those things which are mentioned in news publications may give undue weight to sensational topics favoured by journalists. FurrySnowLeopard (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. This means we mainly summarize WP:SECONDARY sources, and if those sources are news sources and they are reliable, so be it. As a state legislator, this person is presumed to be notable, but we still need to use independent sources to explain why this person is notable to the article's readers. It appears that CitizensCount offers a platform for him to share his positions, and otherwise simply compiles his publicly viewable voting record (which is a very useful public service). It doesn't attempt to triage those votes or provide any context at all. If these political positions have not received coverage in reliable sources, they are not automatically significant, and Wikipedia is not a catalog of indiscriminate information.

Perhaps I'm being to harsh on this source, but it is much better to start with solid sources and only use flimsier ones to fill-in necessary details. Again, WP:BACKWARDS is a useful essay on this issue. Grayfell (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you are being too harsh. Given Wikipedia's established policy, your arguments make sense. CitizensCount does not purport to be journalistic in any manner, it merely aggregates local news, voting records from the NH legislature, and candidate survey responses. Fundamentally I am sympathetic to the view that an extensive list of votes and quotes by the article's subject is not desirable in an encyclopedia. I find it unfortunate that there are things which I personally find interesting which are not covered by secondary sources, but that is not really something which can be resolved on Wikipedia. FurrySnowLeopard (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)