Jump to content

Talk:Darcy Burner

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

Clean-up

[edit]

Clean up, clean up, everybody do your share...

Adding the AFD tag is highly POV

[edit]

Adding the AFD tag is highly POV. This is a super close race and there is no reason to delete it now.--8bitJake 03:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I added the AfD tag actually after it was brought to my attention by someone. It's NOT POV, I live in Maryland and really have no interest in this race. Individual candidates for ublic office are NOT notable enough to warrent an article in Wikipedia. A mention in the article about the race yes, but not an articel dedicated to them. If she wins the race, then by all means, she belongs in. Wildthing61476 13:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not POV? I disagree. I live in Missouri. I think anything to do with Maryland has "no interest" for me. If I decide to go after all of the minor articles about Maryland and its politics and politicians, as being of "no interest" to me, I would be rightfully castigated. That being said, this is becoming one of those WP:BLP things that I've learned to avoid like the plague. Partisan sockpuppets have at it! --Quartermaster (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that 8bitjake made the above comment means that he admits the purpose of this page is about the election. We at Wikipedia are not interested in the election, and articles should be here because the subjects are interesting, not as political advertising. The test is: will anyone still care about this article if she loses the election? If not, then it is just polotical advertising and should not be here. DJ Clayworth 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well those of us in Washington State do actually care about the election. She is currently polling ahead and is expected to win. There are articles on former cannidates that did not get elected but no one has nominated Dino Rossi for deletion.--8bitJake 21:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Rossi has notability becuase of the race he was in and the EXTREMELY close outcome. Also for a time, he was the "winner" of the election, so there is SOME notablility there. Up to this point Ms. Burner has no notability outside of the fact she's running for office. It seems to me the NPOV might be with you as you seem to be defending her simply because she is a Democrat perhaps? I'd do this with ANY candidate Democrat, Republican, 3rd party, I don't care, on here they are not-notable and need to be cleaned up. If she wins, by all means bring her back on. As my final point, I'm running for Baltimore City Council in 2008, do you see a Wiki article dedicated to me? Wildthing61476 21:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She is possibly going to be a part of the Democratic Congressional Wave of 2006. The 2006 election is an outstanding issue of national importance. Well if you got the endorsement of a major politcal party for a major race for a highly contested seat then yeah why not.--8bitJake 00:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That statement alone is POV however! If she wins, then yes an article is necessary. Wikipedia is NOT a political platform, and to be truthful, if she wasn't running for office, she wouldn't be notable enough for an article. If I got the endorsment of a prarty, I still wouldn't want an article on here about me, I'm not notable enough. ANYONE can run for office, but if you win, then you are notable. Wildthing61476 00:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake, I believe that you in Washington care about the election. However you are not allowed to use Wikipedia to further your opinions as to who should win. That's the point here. DJ Clayworth 13:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major 2006 race for U.S. House. It is pretty silly to suggest that this person isn't notable. There is plenty of information out there that is available for an article about this candidate. Furthermore, I see no reason why high profile candidates shouldn't have articles on Wikipedia. --Sunsetpacific 07:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, there was an AfD vote, which resulted in the article NOT being deleted, so further discussion here is somewhat academic. Those who want to discuss this further are encouraged to comment on the proposed policy for such matters: Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. John Broughton 12:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life and Education

[edit]

24.18.145.253 posted the following in the article... I have no comment on its content -- but I do feel obligated to move it to the discussion page:

It's not factual to say as in the introduction that "She worked for a dozen years in high technology including five years at Microsoft as a Lead Product Manager, working on the .NET Framework. Burner left Microsoft in 2004 to enter politics." Darcy worked less than 4 years at Microsoft as a marketing program manager, not as lead nor as a product manager. See Darcy's MSDN blog. She did not enter politics until 2006, after dropping out of law school, which she pursued after leaving Microsoft, at other times Darcy claims she left to raise her newborn son.

Doubleplusjeff 21:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely doesn't belong in the article until/unless it is properly sourced per Wikipedia:Verifiability, and of course would need to be reworded to conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. John Broughton | Talk 00:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combine with Family?

[edit]

Would it not be more typical for a biography to combine the information in /*Early Life*/ with that in /*Family*/ ? Marriage and birth both preceed the 2006 political campaign and so should not be split by it. I see that the same issue exists on her election opponent's page. This split might be appropriate for campaign materials but not in an encyclopedia ... but I hestitate to make such a change w/o discussion. rewinn 06:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good suggestion; I've changed the article. In general, articles on Congressfolk (that's the biographies I'm most familiar with) have a section called "Personal", covering marriage, children, religion, and other things that don't really fit well into the chronological stream of events. I've combined them since the "Family" section was miniscule. John Broughton | Talk 13:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Reichert ad by the DCCC

[edit]

I have removed this section because the article is about Burner. Her campaign didn't pay for the ad, the DCCC did. Nothing in the cited story says that she or her campaign had any influence in creating the ad. Yes, the campaign paid for a COPY of the event in which Reichert made the statements quoted in the ad; and it's quite possible that the campaign sent a copy of that to the DCCC. But attacking Burner when the DCCC is (possibly) at fault is not appropriate for wikipedia articles; Burner would need to be shown to be MUCH more involved in this before it passes the necessary threshold.

The section WOULD be appropriate for Reichart's article, however - he was attacked by the DCCC, he thinks it's unfair, etc. I do think it should be slightly shorter - this is one ad in the campaign, not the entire campaign. The purpose of providing the link (which, by the way, should be immediately after the text that is added, not put in the external links list) is to allow the reader to go to the article and find out more. John Broughton | Talk 13:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this again. Only two copies of the tape were purchased, one by her campaign and one by another person. Her campaign 'lost' her copy...and TVW demanded that their copyrighted material be eliminated. Please. We are not that stupid.

The paragraph was put back somewhere, sometime (I traced it back for a while, then gave up). It obviously has nothing to do with this article and I deleted it again. The unsigned comment above is mystifying. What is the relevance about who bought what tapes? And if TVW wants their copyrighted material removed, asking Ms. Burner, who had nothing to do with the ad to remove it, would be pretty stupid on the part of TVW. Also, when the supporting source is an editorial on an opinion page, we're skating on pretty thin wikipedia ground. -- Quartermaster (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-election polling: delete?

[edit]

Pre-election polls change too quickly to be encyclopediac. They will be meaningless after Nov 7 anyway. I suggest deleting them. I made same suggestion on Dave Reichert. rewinn 05:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think polls are among the more interesting things in such articles. Yes, they do change, and yes they'll be meaningless after Nov 7, but for the meantime, they are relevant. John Broughton | Talk 13:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio?

[edit]

The paragraph: "Although Reichert is defending a seat...issues on which he and the president disagree" was lifted verbatim from CQPolitics.com, so it's a copyvio. If you remove CQP's unsourced opinions, there's nothing left that isn't otherwise covered in the article. David Brooks 06:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone (I think; this is quite a moving target here). I do agree that quoting an entire paragraph is problematical; a sentence or two is (in my opinion) acceptable as fair use, and of course minor rewording for clarity is also helpful to avoid copyvio. John Broughton | Talk 13:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a resume or campaign brochure?

[edit]

Serious question: are the sections titled "endoresements", "views", and "affiliations" relevant in the least to an article? Yes, it may be relevant to a resume and/or campaign brochure, but an article like this? I think not. Anyone else? -- Sholom 13:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a short paragraph: "Burner has been endorsed by numerous labor and political (other? ?) groups, including [list four or five of the most notable). The paragraph wouldn't have a section of its own, of course. For views, I'm pretty comfortable with the five two-sentence items. As for memberships and affiliations, I'm taking those out now. John Broughton | Talk 13:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely the motivation for the original addition of endorsements was an attempt to balance the list under Dave Reichert#2006 Campaign for Re-Election. David Brooks 15:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the Reichert entry should be changed rather than this entry becoming a puff piece on a challenger. I don't see many extensive entries on challengers that lose. I am assuming at some point after the election, this entry will be reduced to what Darcy will indeed become - a footnote. Supersonicfan 03:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

All should be transformed into specific references within the entry not listed as they are.--Davidwiz 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dburner wiki portrait.jpg

[edit]

Image:Dburner wiki portrait.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Approval to use this image was granted after explicit approval was requested of Darcy Burner herself. Please explain what more is needed to conform to whatever the dispute is requiring. In addition if the problem is that the dimensions are possibly too large, making the copy of the image too high quality, this also is as approved by the subject of the image. Dankirkd (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BetacommandBot s an automated bot, so probably won't respond, but the best way to handle this would be to release the image under GFDL so it doesn't require a fair use rationale. Barring that, putting {{Non-free use rationale}} on the images page and populating the fields would resolve the issue of it lacking a FUR. Since Darcy is a living person there are some on Wikipedia that feel there is never a valid rationale for using a non-free image. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The city Burner's home is located outside of

[edit]

Wow. Silly little edit war going on here. Both "outside Redmond" and "outside Carnation" are correct. Just have dueling sources here. The PI says Burner's address is "outside Carnation"[1] and the Times is saying it is "outside Redmond".[2] If you take a look at google maps you'll see that the address is outside both cities (and Sammamish for that matter), but it is closer to Carnation than Redmond. However, according to USPS, the address is a Redmond address, which generally just means the post office for the zip code is in Redmond. You'll have to look that up on your own here, alas, USPS.com doesn't do direct links to address searches. Perhaps just saying the house is in unincorporated King County is better? --Bobblehead (rants) 21:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with just saying "Ames Lake". After all, that's where it is! Dankirkd (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you don't wikilink to Ames Lake, that's probably fine. The article for Ames Lake is for a CDP that is only used for Census purposes and isn't an actual location so wikilinking to it is likely going to cause confusion as people are going to be expecting to find an article about a lake and end up at a CDP. However, without the wikilink a description of where Ames Lake is located is necessary, so it'd still require saying it was outside Sammamish, Redmond, or Carnation. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bobblehead, it seems strange to me not to link Ames Lake, Washington, but I'm not familiar with the area…I suppose if it's not a name in common usage, maybe it shouldn't be linked. But maybe there should be an article on the lake -- is it notable? Certainly turns up in a fair amount of news coverage. -Pete (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ames Lake, Washington is a Census-designated place that is only used by the United States Census for statistical purposes within the census only and therefore doesn't really exist. The US Census gives every concentration of people a CDP and the boundaries of that CDP are arbitrary and assigned differently each time a census is conducted. It's also unlikely that someone is ever going to say "I live in Ames Lake, Washington", since in common usage Ames Lake only refers to the lake itself and saying such a thing would give the impression that they lived in the lake, rather than beside it. If a person is talking to a local (someone that lives in the immediate area), they more likely to say "I live by Ames Lake", while talking to a non-local they'd probably say "I live near Redmond/Carnation/Sammamish, Washington." --Bobblehead (rants) 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm... I don't know. I live not far from Ames Lake. We refer to it as we do any other place or destination. It is a large enough lake that quite a few people can say they live at Ames Lake. I think the best approach might be to say Ames Lake near Redmond, Washington. Dankirkd (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "SeattleTimes" :
    • [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003306681_burnerwar16m.html Seattle Times Election Coverage], Johnathan Martin - Staff Reporter.
    • [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003306681_burnerwar16m.html Seattle Times Election Coverage], David Wasserman.

DumZiBoT (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Air Patrol National Cadet of the Year citation

[edit]

The citation, "Leadership, Responsibility, and Integrity: Darcy Burner and the Civil Air Patrol" (Hominid Views (2006-09-26). Retrieved on 2007-11-22) should be a perfectly acceptable citation given the detail in the article surpasses most "news" items used for many other citations at Wikipedia. Removing it simply because it is from a "blog" in this case is not reason enough IMO. Another source that could be used is one from the National Women's Political Caucus, but it provides less detail and is less specific to the fact. Dankirkd (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Seattle PI article covers this fact and provides a traditional media reference that can replace the one to Hominid Views. Dankirkd (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Times article

[edit]

Just to get the discussion going.. So, how does everyone want to treat the Times article? The Times is a reliable source in general and the only rebuttals to the story seems to be from unreliable sources at this time. However, one could make the case that in this case, the article is not a reliable source, especially if you consider that the former dean that they quote seems to feel the reporter misquoted him or quoted only enough to support her thesis and disregarded the rest of his comments on whether she had a degree in Economics. Unfortunately, the source for that feeling by the former dean is a blog, thus really can't be used as a source. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. This is not Wikipedia's greatest strength -- dealing with the last-minute allegations that often accompany a political campaign. There should probably be clearer guidelines developed to handle campaign season. In the absence of that, though, I see it like this: for an encyclopedia article, the allegation is not worthy of inclusion. Keep in mind that neither truth, nor reliable coverage, is not sufficient for inclusion; there is still an editorial judgment to be made about what facts belong in a biographical encyclopedia entry. In my judgment, this item does not warrant inclusion because it's reported by only one source, widely questioned, and is delivered on the eve of a close election. If somebody wants to make the case that it DOES warrant inclusion, we can have a discussion, but thus far nobody has explicitly made that case.
The one bit of policy I see that does touch on this a bit is Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources, which urges us to exercise particular caution with accusations directed at living persons. -Pete (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's consider the facts we know on this case. Darcy Burner did claim to have a degree in Economics during 2 debates. There is audio of this, and I'm sure I could provide links if necessary. I don't think anyone will dispute this is what she said during the debates. What is at issue here is how each side wants to "spin" this. Being that in the previous election, she made a very similar false claim (executive of microsoft when that wasn't true), this becomes more than a one time slip of the tongue. Harvard has come out and said she does not have a degree in Economics. She did take 5 economics classes while she was at Harvard, and though the registrar has no record of her actually officially having a "focus in economics", the case could be made that she did "unofficially". However, her degree that she received was not for economics, and that is what is at issue here. (SteveDallas)

The ambiguity here is in Harvard's terminology when it comes to joint degrees. Burner had to have taken several in-depth economics courses and write her final thesis with an economics perspective on computer science. Claiming that, by saying her degree was in economics when it in fact had a major "focus" in economics, she was lying, is a serious allegation that other more reputable newspapers have disputed. (http://seattlepi.com/local/384802_eighth24.html?source=mypi) Until the issue is resolved, we should keep such slander out of her biographical article. johnpseudo 14:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Darcy Burner. 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 23:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Darcy Burner. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Darcy Burner. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Darcy Burner. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Darcy_Burner&oldid=1200463041"