![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I'm removing a recent addition that would appear to be from an editor with a conflict of interest and is nevertheless undue. There are a number of issues that Masto has been involved with as Nevada AG that warrant inclusion here, but the dismissal of a single employee and the alleged backdating of filings [1] is not one of them. Gobōnobo + c 21:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
TheHill.com shows she is in a good position to win a Senate seat:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/273631-ten-senate-seats-most-likely-to-flip-in-2016
AstroU ( talk) 13:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Safehaven86 ( talk · contribs), as far as your recent revert, I believe it is necessary for the articles of prominent politicians to show their major political positions. Using their campaign website is actually good - we can be assured it is a position they believe in - and completely meets the guidelines in WP:ABOUTSELF. I don't think it's promotional - it's quite likely that a lot of voters will find this information to be a negative mark, depending on their political preferences. II | ( t - c) 02:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
We should err on the side of including more information, not less. Particularly during an election season, voters need to be informed. As long as the information is correct and not defamatory, we have every right to include it. How does is Wikipedia better without this information?
We have followed the rules. The policy on secondary sources which you have cited states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." This means that if no secondary source is available, it is okay to use a primary source when necessary. Narayansg
Where did she go to high school? FloridaArmy ( talk) 01:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I'm removing a recent addition that would appear to be from an editor with a conflict of interest and is nevertheless undue. There are a number of issues that Masto has been involved with as Nevada AG that warrant inclusion here, but the dismissal of a single employee and the alleged backdating of filings [1] is not one of them. Gobōnobo + c 21:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
TheHill.com shows she is in a good position to win a Senate seat:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/273631-ten-senate-seats-most-likely-to-flip-in-2016
AstroU ( talk) 13:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Safehaven86 ( talk · contribs), as far as your recent revert, I believe it is necessary for the articles of prominent politicians to show their major political positions. Using their campaign website is actually good - we can be assured it is a position they believe in - and completely meets the guidelines in WP:ABOUTSELF. I don't think it's promotional - it's quite likely that a lot of voters will find this information to be a negative mark, depending on their political preferences. II | ( t - c) 02:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
We should err on the side of including more information, not less. Particularly during an election season, voters need to be informed. As long as the information is correct and not defamatory, we have every right to include it. How does is Wikipedia better without this information?
We have followed the rules. The policy on secondary sources which you have cited states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." This means that if no secondary source is available, it is okay to use a primary source when necessary. Narayansg
Where did she go to high school? FloridaArmy ( talk) 01:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)