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. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't believe the Thinkprogress article referenced in the Voter Fraud section is reliable. Thinkprogress as a publication is of questionable reliability, and the article itself has at least one factual error: It claims that the investigation has cost the state of Iowa $150,000. However the investigation has been funded by a federal grant. The article is clearly nothing more than an attack piece intended to influence public opinion. CFredkin ( talk) 18:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Bleedingheartland.com is not a reliable source per WP:reliable. It is a blog without editors. CFredkin ( talk) 00:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The following statement is not supported by the source provided. The source does not state that the convictions would not have been prevented by voter ID laws in Iowa. It also does not state that no cases of impersonation were reported:
The source provided clearly indicates that the following statement was made by State Senator Tom Courtney, a Democrat from Burlington (not the State Auditor):
Actually a lot of this BLP was speculative - Wikipedia sticks to facts in BLPs as much as possible. Collect ( talk) 20:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe Schultz' approval rating as Secretary of State per an unbiased local newspaper, is informative and should be included. -Schultz' challengers in the Republican primary, David Young, & Brad Zaun should be included. As should Democratic opponent Staci Appel. -The statistic of the investigation(representing 0.00075% of the 1.58 million registered voters in the state of Iowa). Was considered highly important in Iowa, and should be considered. -It is important to note that the Schultz' $150,000 investigation yielded 0 cases of voter impersonation that it was searching for, instead prosecuting 20+ cases of felons w/ their voting rights removed. -It is important to use neutral language. "Aggressively championed" is not neutral, whereas "supported" or "pressed for" are. -ThinkProgress.org and BleedingHeartland are reliable sources. The Des Moines Register frequently cites Bleeding Heartland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillingNoise ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Should approval rating be included? As well as information relating to the investigation.-TKN — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillingNoise ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added information about Schultz' November 2013 visit to Switzerland into the article, citing a report from Iowa's largest newspaper, and adding viewpoints of the two major political parties, in support of the visit, and opposing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillingNoise ( talk • contribs) 09:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
A notable controversy relating to his duties as Secretary of State, as well as his participation in a Young Leadership conference for international affairs is noteworthy. -TKN — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillingNoise ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not well situated to be used as a campaign tactic, and those who view it as one shall be disappointed. Adding any talking points on any partisan basis is to be discouraged utterly. Collect ( talk) 00:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
TheKillingNoise, since this is a WP:BLP, you are responsible for clearly demonstrating how the numbers you reference are cited in the sources provided. Also, as previously indicated, WP:SYNTH is not allowed. CFredkin ( talk) 00:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
How do I demonstrate the phrases are included in the articles I've provided. I do not wish to be banned but the phrases "many of the 16 charges" as well as "8 out of the 9. . .the ninth charge" exist in the articles I provided? User:TheKillingNoise —Preceding undated comment added 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
User:CFredkin your new edits are the best I've seen yet. I would request a partial lock of the article at this point. Peace In Mississippi ( talk) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
By my rough estimate, about 60% of the article has to do with voter fraud and policies. Is this what Schultz is mainly known for? To such a degree? -- NeilN talk to me 00:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Iowa Democrats say that he is attempting to disenfranchise voters,[12] and the ACLU of Iowa says that voter fraud is not a problem.[13] Iowa Senate Democrats blocked the legislation,[14] and the Democratic Senate majority leader said it was an "overreaction."[15] The Gazette, an eastern Iowa newspaper reported, "Schultz has turned a reasonable, principled position into a political sideshow".[16] CFredkin ( talk) 01:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
"...and the Democratic Senate majority leader said it was an "overreaction."" CFredkin ( talk) 16:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Matt Schultz. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
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. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't believe the Thinkprogress article referenced in the Voter Fraud section is reliable. Thinkprogress as a publication is of questionable reliability, and the article itself has at least one factual error: It claims that the investigation has cost the state of Iowa $150,000. However the investigation has been funded by a federal grant. The article is clearly nothing more than an attack piece intended to influence public opinion. CFredkin ( talk) 18:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Bleedingheartland.com is not a reliable source per WP:reliable. It is a blog without editors. CFredkin ( talk) 00:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The following statement is not supported by the source provided. The source does not state that the convictions would not have been prevented by voter ID laws in Iowa. It also does not state that no cases of impersonation were reported:
The source provided clearly indicates that the following statement was made by State Senator Tom Courtney, a Democrat from Burlington (not the State Auditor):
Actually a lot of this BLP was speculative - Wikipedia sticks to facts in BLPs as much as possible. Collect ( talk) 20:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe Schultz' approval rating as Secretary of State per an unbiased local newspaper, is informative and should be included. -Schultz' challengers in the Republican primary, David Young, & Brad Zaun should be included. As should Democratic opponent Staci Appel. -The statistic of the investigation(representing 0.00075% of the 1.58 million registered voters in the state of Iowa). Was considered highly important in Iowa, and should be considered. -It is important to note that the Schultz' $150,000 investigation yielded 0 cases of voter impersonation that it was searching for, instead prosecuting 20+ cases of felons w/ their voting rights removed. -It is important to use neutral language. "Aggressively championed" is not neutral, whereas "supported" or "pressed for" are. -ThinkProgress.org and BleedingHeartland are reliable sources. The Des Moines Register frequently cites Bleeding Heartland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillingNoise ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Should approval rating be included? As well as information relating to the investigation.-TKN — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillingNoise ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added information about Schultz' November 2013 visit to Switzerland into the article, citing a report from Iowa's largest newspaper, and adding viewpoints of the two major political parties, in support of the visit, and opposing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillingNoise ( talk • contribs) 09:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
A notable controversy relating to his duties as Secretary of State, as well as his participation in a Young Leadership conference for international affairs is noteworthy. -TKN — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillingNoise ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not well situated to be used as a campaign tactic, and those who view it as one shall be disappointed. Adding any talking points on any partisan basis is to be discouraged utterly. Collect ( talk) 00:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
TheKillingNoise, since this is a WP:BLP, you are responsible for clearly demonstrating how the numbers you reference are cited in the sources provided. Also, as previously indicated, WP:SYNTH is not allowed. CFredkin ( talk) 00:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
How do I demonstrate the phrases are included in the articles I've provided. I do not wish to be banned but the phrases "many of the 16 charges" as well as "8 out of the 9. . .the ninth charge" exist in the articles I provided? User:TheKillingNoise —Preceding undated comment added 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
User:CFredkin your new edits are the best I've seen yet. I would request a partial lock of the article at this point. Peace In Mississippi ( talk) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
By my rough estimate, about 60% of the article has to do with voter fraud and policies. Is this what Schultz is mainly known for? To such a degree? -- NeilN talk to me 00:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Iowa Democrats say that he is attempting to disenfranchise voters,[12] and the ACLU of Iowa says that voter fraud is not a problem.[13] Iowa Senate Democrats blocked the legislation,[14] and the Democratic Senate majority leader said it was an "overreaction."[15] The Gazette, an eastern Iowa newspaper reported, "Schultz has turned a reasonable, principled position into a political sideshow".[16] CFredkin ( talk) 01:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
"...and the Democratic Senate majority leader said it was an "overreaction."" CFredkin ( talk) 16:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Matt Schultz. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)