This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wolf-PAC article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
TimothyS888.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
That is terrible and inaccurate wording, and makes it sound like all chance for the resolution to amend (and call a convention) has been defeated for all time, with no chance of turning around the next time a vote is called. This is patently false, as in states where it has passed both houses, it had been defeated the previous time(s), including multiple votes and years back.
I recommend strongly changing this wording, even if to something like "Failed" -- indicating that it has come up for a vote, but that, like all things worth fighting for, it has met early failures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:404:3DF7:4005:C9EB:E2E0:ABAE ( talk) 13:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The resolution has been introduces in 19 states. Where is this table??-- 85.181.203.82 ( talk) 02:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi! As this PAC leans very much to the left, I think it is appropriate to include the political stance in the article. If no one objects, I will add one. Wondering what others thoughts are. 2601:18F:4101:4830:50E1:C064:FCD8:92C5 ( talk)
Really? There seem to be no reliable sources demonstrating the claim that it is not a partisan group, but we still include that in the article. 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:3F ( talk) 19:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Your screed is not helpful. Would you like to disclose any relationship you might have e with the subject? Generally, members of an organization editing their own article without disclosure is considered bad form. 2600:387:F:4313:0:0:0:2 ( talk) 00:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wolf-PAC article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
TimothyS888.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
That is terrible and inaccurate wording, and makes it sound like all chance for the resolution to amend (and call a convention) has been defeated for all time, with no chance of turning around the next time a vote is called. This is patently false, as in states where it has passed both houses, it had been defeated the previous time(s), including multiple votes and years back.
I recommend strongly changing this wording, even if to something like "Failed" -- indicating that it has come up for a vote, but that, like all things worth fighting for, it has met early failures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:404:3DF7:4005:C9EB:E2E0:ABAE ( talk) 13:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The resolution has been introduces in 19 states. Where is this table??-- 85.181.203.82 ( talk) 02:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi! As this PAC leans very much to the left, I think it is appropriate to include the political stance in the article. If no one objects, I will add one. Wondering what others thoughts are. 2601:18F:4101:4830:50E1:C064:FCD8:92C5 ( talk)
Really? There seem to be no reliable sources demonstrating the claim that it is not a partisan group, but we still include that in the article. 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:3F ( talk) 19:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Your screed is not helpful. Would you like to disclose any relationship you might have e with the subject? Generally, members of an organization editing their own article without disclosure is considered bad form. 2600:387:F:4313:0:0:0:2 ( talk) 00:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)