Jump to content

Talk:Anne Holton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Anne Holton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]

Just to add precision about Anne Holton's education, at Princeton "Woodrow Wilson School" is itself a major (like, Physics or Economics). Normally there is no statement like "economics and Woodrow Wilson..." that applies. It's a Princeton thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.62.139 (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Her education line has been changed since this comment was posted 23 July. It remains inaccurate. She was awarded, she earned her degree from Princeton, not from the Woodrow Wilson School. Please check facts and edit appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.70.131 (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source provided says it was the Wilson School. Flyte35 (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Anne Holton: State education secretary remains passionate Article from the Richmond Times Dispatch with some information about her as Education Secretary and some details which might be useful in expanding on her personal life. I'm leaving this here for future use, whether I get to it or if someone else would like to use it. Knope7 (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a chief judge?

[edit]

What say, User:Neutrality? 2600:1011:B16C:DF81:9D90:4EA:BDFE:EAA2 (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the user who originally created this article, I may be able to answer your question. None of the references cited in the article mention that she served as a chief judge during her judicial career.--TommyBoy (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I couldn't find a reference for this. Neutralitytalk 04:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then you done good. 2600:1011:B16C:DF81:9D90:4EA:BDFE:EAA2 (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/06/us/politics/anne-holton-tim-kaine.html says she was chief judge. 67.52.140.5 (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added it. Neutralitytalk 20:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material

[edit]

User: Archwayh has several times inserted unsourced material. I have no problem with the proposed sentence, in theory, but we can't include unsourced material here. According to WP:BLP "contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." An encyclopedia depends on reliable sources to determine which happenings are notable. Flyte35 (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I wrote in his talk page: With all due respect, I don't think you understand what "soursing" is all about. It's about providing credibility and avoiding false or misleading information in Wiki; this is not the case. This is a fact. It's like asking me to provide source that Barack Obama is the POTUS. Here's the source [1] -- in which you see that Mr Holton was the first GOP governor since Gilbert Carlton Walker (1870–1875) -- the end of the Reconstruction. Second, you can see that the only 3 previous GOP governors before Holton are "provisional governor" -- which means they were not elected. This is a well sourced fact. We shouldn't continue arguing about facts. Update: I'm now warning you -- it's clear you either trolling or deliberately corrupting this entry while trying to hide information you don't like, presumably for political reasons. That's not how we operate here. Should you continue -- you'll be reported. Archway (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source that you've now provided for this text--and seriously, thank you for including a source, which is essential--is a list of the governors of Virginia and brief information. It does not specifically indicate Anne Holton's father was the first Republican governor of Virginia since the Reconstruction, and also the first Republican to win a popular election as governor of the state. In fact, the source seems to indicate that, as Reconstruction lasted from 1865 to 1870, and Republican Gilbert Carlton Walker was governor from 1870 to 1874, A. Linwood Holton was not the first GOP governor since Reconstruction. The source also doesn't indicate when popular voting was restored. The information is not supported by the sourcing. Flyte35 (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

[edit]

I have replaced the previously inserted infobox image with a more complimentary image. In the new photo, she's smiling, is looking straight ahead rather than down her nose, and her hair doesn't look like it's been combed with an old fashioned egg-beater. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted to the "official" photo per it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. IMO the official photo looks more "dignified" and it would be best to not use a photo taken by an individual at a function to replace it. Gandydancer (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The one up there now isn't good. It's small and blurry and appears to be a crop of some larger photo of Rep. Bobby Scott with a bunch of other people at an event. It's not the official photo of the subject. This is the official photo of her as education secretary of Virginia here. Flyte35 (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with your suggestion. Can you get the one you suggest? Gandydancer (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the permissions for that one are. I'd prefer to go back to the photo that was posted before. There's nothing wrong with using a photo from a campaign event. The picture was taken by an established photographer, in fact one of the most widely published political photographers in the United States. Flyte35 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-naming sections

[edit]

I think changing the section headings might be helpful. Currently, "Early life" focuses heavily on education, even though the next section is "Education, marriage and children." "Civic involvements and personal life" are also a little disconnected. I'm usually a proponent of putting personal life at the end, but given the large role her marriage plays in her public role, I understand the need to have some earlier mention. We could do "Early life and education" and separate "Personal life" and Civic involvements" at the end, but still add some mention of the marriage either at the end of education (law school) and just expand on the topic in the "Personal life" section. Or we can try to take things more chronologically and add things like marriage and kids where they fall in relation to other life events. Any thoughts on this? Knope7 (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article expansion

[edit]

Reading this article, I find it to be sparse. There is more information available on Holton to give the reader a better sense of what she did in various positions she has held. I could see removing reliably sourced details about her positions as Virginia's Education Secretary if the section were bloated but it is not. I think we should work together to flesh out positions and her actions as Secretary. I believe that my additions to that section should be added back to the article as they were reliably sourced and intended to address an area of the article which is currently lacking in detail. Knope7 (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She only had the job for 2 and a half years, and there don't appear to have been any important policy changes made to the state education system during that time. If there's a major initiative she headed and saw to completion, that's worth including, but just a lot of "she supported this" and "she spoke in favor of this" isn't worth adding. The fact that she gave an interview where she said something nice about an uncontroversial idea isn't important enough to include here. That's PR, not neutral, encyclopedic content. Flyte35 (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might find that more persuasive if the article didn't already include her view on testing and teacher salaries. Like I said, this article is sparse. Knowing a statewide official's view on a various policies related to their position is significant and relevant. In the case of This article, we are in great need of filling in details about Holtons approach. Knope7 (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be appropriate to remove her views on testing and teacher salaries. I think what's important is what she did, not some vague things she said in an official interview. Flyte35 (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Secretary of Education is a position that is involved in policy. Her policy views are relevant. If we removed all statements made in part for PR, we would blank the pages of many politicians and most entertainers. Holton's policy views being uncontroversial does in itself tell the reader something about her and her approach. (She also speaks about educaiton policy in the 2016 campaign, so her views on education remain part of her public life and image.) Speaking out in favor of certain policies and approaches is an action and it is doing something. The section without policy would say that she accepted the job and then resigned the job. If you would like to add other actions she took as Secretary, please feel free to do so. I'd be willing to reevaluate my stance once the section, and the article, are more developed. As the article is now, informing the reader of some of her policy positions as Secretary of Education is an improvement.
Wikipedia's editing policy also favors keeping the material. Please see WP:PRESERVE. Knope7 (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's valid. WP:PRESERVE says that "As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia." What you want to include, factually, just boils down to the subject once saying more professional development would be good for teachers and the subject once supporting the annual budget proposed by her boss. Those details aren't important enough to belong in an encyclopedia entry. Flyte35 (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is valid. Wikipedia's policy WP:EP is to try and improve content rather than removing it. We clearly disagree over what is encyclopedic and I have explained repeatedly my position that her publicly expressed education policy positions are relevant. Wikipedia's policies favor inclusion, there is no BLP violation, therefore the content should stay in. Knope7 (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you really think it improves the quality of the article to add this stuff in here I'm not going to fight you. But please try to include only neutral, factual content. Flyte35 (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The content I added was neutral and factual, as I have previously explained. I do not like the insinuation otherwise. Knope7 (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like the improvements... Gandydancer (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antebellum ancestry

[edit]

Is anyone able to find referenced info about her Antebellum ancestry please?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anne_Holton&oldid=1206486894"