Jump to content

Talk:Dave Reichert/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Very NPOV

Both this and the Darcy Burner article read like they were written by someone on her campaign staff. I deleted this outright, as it means nothing to the casual voter and as it picks DeLay with the specific intent of hurting his campaign.

"During his term he voted with the Tom Delay 91% of the time."

I also tried to reduce what struck me as NPOV verbiage and selections in his list of votes.

I tend to vote Dem, by the way.

--63.64.174.130 01:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Linking to external articles with no article content

This issue relates to the last edit Kgrr has done. I don't really understand the value of linking to news articles if those sources aren't used to meaningfully contribute to an article's content. IMO, encyclopedia articles should not be a repository of links. (Google/Yahoo/MSN Search does a great job with that already.) Can we get some consensus here about this? Without any direction, I'm going to start cleaning up the external links that aren't used as reference. Velvetsmog 19:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Velvet Smog, When writing essays, typically citations are divided into references to works actually cited in the text (embedded links) and a bibliography (See Also) which lists the literature generally used in preparation for the essay. Citations in the text are not listed again in the bibliography. I am about to insert a section on (corrupt) campaign finances. The problem I have is factual information about corrupt campaign finances has been systematically removed from several articles I have worked on including this one either as NPOV or hidden in an edit. The links you see is background research material for that claim. Please do not delete the links to materials used in creating the article.Kgrr 15:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes the See Also section is used to refer people to more detail than the level of detail the article presents. I use the See Also section as a link to other important information about the subject until it can be incorporated into the article. Rather than deleting such information, why could you not be collaborative and contribute to the article? Anyway I have gone ahead and inserted a section on dirty campaign finances in the 2004 election section. The references you wanted to delete have been moved up as citations. The 2006 campaign finance trail is also included in the article now and again, the references are now citations. I have deleted many of the links to the newspaper articles. I am building another case in that Reichert has been subject to Quid Pro Quo to his campaign sources rather than to his constituents. His recent shift from hardline Republican to moderate may be an effort to correct that. I have to gather the evidence first before I write the article. Those articles are in the See Also section.Kgrr 16:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me just be clear. If the content referrenced is being used in a meaningful way in the article, I see that as a benefit. Whether it's an inline citation or a list of references at the end of the article, that's up to style and author's choice. However, I was taking point with the addition of external links with no addition of substance to the body of an article. (I've also seen this quite a bit at Kyoto Protocol). Velvetsmog 19:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Bias?

Excerpt from "2006 Campaign for Re-Election" : "the Republican party's [...] anti-environmental stance" That is interpretating the Republican Party's belief of less government regualtion of the environment as anti-environmental.

Excerpts from "National Security Issues" : "but he voted against preserving the rights of citizens" Again, interpretation. "Reichert in a speech given to the House of Representatives spoke about the tools needed by the police force on the streets today to follow-up on leads to find terrorists, but did not mention the balancing responsibility to protect citizen's rights." The point of the speech was about finding terrorists, the fact that he did not mention balancing responsibility to protect citizens' rights in irrelevant. Why not mention he didn't mention what he had for breakfast?

Excerpt from "Trade Issues": "This plan reflects the Bush administration’s long-term goal of removing tariffs from all trade within the Americas. This plan has faced serious opposition because of the job losses and environmental destruction that NAFTA has brought to Mexico." First sentence is interpretation. Second sentence is irrelevant and is not backed up with fact.


"That is interpretating the Republican Party's belief of less government regualtion of the environment as anti-environmental."

Oh come on now let's call a spade a spade. I am a member of Washington State Conservation Voters this is exactly what we believe it to be. I could site our statements on the enviromental threats that gutting the enviromental protection laws has had on our fair state. --8bitJake 03:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Statements do not equal fact.--Seattle GOP 23:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well my freinds in the Washington State Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club of Washington State would tend to know what they are talking about when it comes to threats to our enviromental protections. --8bitJake 04:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

changes

The above things have been changed.

Pre-election polling: delete?

Pre-election polls change too quickly to be encyclopediac. They will be meaningless after Nov 7 anyway. I suggest deleting them. I will make same suggestion on Darcy Burner. rewinn 05:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Combine Early Life, Education & Family?

Would it not be more typical for a biography to combine the information in /*Early Life*/ and /*Education*/ with that in /*Family*/ ? Everything in those sections preceed the 2006 political campaign and so should not be split by it. I see that the same issue exists on his 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 06:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

views section seems like original research

Of the thousands of Congressional votes, why are the ones listed here listed? Is this taken from some citeable source? Or did somebody haphazardly put that together? It reads a lot like original research to me, and in any case isn't too useful as an encyclopedia article. More useful would be summaries rather than lists of votes, and preferably citeable ones, like "so-and-so calls him a supporter of gun rights" or "newspaper x calls him foo". --Delirium 07:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that this section has 26 references, I find it a bit odd to call it "original research" and to ask if it has a citable source. Of course, this has been haphazardly put together - that's the way Wikipedia works. See also Who is responsible for the articles on Wikipedia?. If you feel important votes are missing, please feel free to add them to the list. As for usefulness: I find such a list very useful for people who want to understand a politician, which is something every good citizen should do. How about if you click random page 10 times - how often do you come up with something more useful than this? — Sebastian (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The citeable source is needed for the view that these are representative votes; independent primary-source analysis, even cited to the primary sources, is original research. In an article on a historical figure this would be clear to all contributors---you can't just start digging up archives on Thomas Jefferson and making a novel historical narrative on Wikipedia, but must cite prominent biographies that have been written on him. But for some reason this sort of OR cruft accumulates with more recent figures. --Delirium 14:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Delirium, you are correct, original research involves an analysis or synthesis of new ideas from the cited references. Biographers can do this analysis and synthesis, but Wikipedia articles cannot do this. Instead, they present all sides of the issues and let the reader do their own analysis and synthesis. The important fact is to present the relevant facts from reliable, published sources. Please read this: Wikipedia:No original research Kgrr 10:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

POV sentence from Law enforcement career

I have removed the sentence about Reichert's alleged knowledge of the sergeant who burned his house down. It was not an accurate description of what the source says (Seattle Post-Intelligencer). This was merely an allegation in a lawsuit, and the article includes several conflicting and explanatory factors. This sentence, however, falsely makes it seem like Reichert plainly knew this guy burnt down his house and killed someone, yet did nothing about it. I would re-write the sentence and include it, except it is not even clear whether this was an important "election issue" beyond that one Seattle Post-Intelligencer article, or even if it turned out to be an election issue at all. —Centrx→talk • 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a campaign issue in the 2006 election since it was brought up 10 years after it happened. Rather than deleting the sentence and writing this whole paragraph, you could have spent just a few minutes to re-write the sentence.Kgrr 10:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

several undocumented claims in views section

None of the claims about Mr. Reichert's statements or votes on abortion were properly sourced. There were broken links and one link to a political blog. Per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons this material MUST BE deleted until sources can be provided. I tried very briefly to locate relevant citations but neither google nor my own bots could find them.

NOTE that this deletion is not subject to the three revert rule, so if the original author simply places them back they will be summarily deleted.Tbyrnestl 16:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)tbyrnestl

Of course they are subject to the three revert rule. How long have you been on Wikipedia? Since July 5? And you edited a bit about Puerto Vallarta and now Dave Reichert. I smell a sock puppet.Kgrr 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I subsequently ran through the rest of the views section. There were many undocumented claims. Where it seemed likely that the claim could be easily documented (e.g. simple claims about a vote in congress) I commented the sections out. They can't appear without documentation per wikipedia standards for living person biographies, but they wouldn't be that hard to document.

votes that can be verified are not "contentious". Please see Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Considering that none of the votes were challenged since 2005, we certainly give ourselves a month before deleting the uncited votes.Kgrr 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It would probably ultimately make more sense to separate Views from Votes, because a vote is easily documented by referring to the congressional record for a given date. Views would require reference to an interview, speech, or publication presenting the candidates views.

I agree. Note that views are also expressed in debates. It's pretty clear though, what is a vote and what is a view. With an honest politician, they should matchKgrr 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't really care about Reichert, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this. But I might give the reorganization a try. Tbyrnestl 16:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)tbyrnestl

You created the ID here in July and your largest contribution so far is about Reichert. And now, you claim not to care about him. tsk... tsk... Well I do. I'm a voter in his district.Kgrr 15:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Rubbish. I've had this ID for a few years and have contributed since June 2006, mostly on articles about Mexican culture, history and biography. I made the Reichert edits because the article was being blogged about as having some unsubstantiated claims: namely the references on abortion. While the claims sound like Reichert's I can't find anything similar on any sites outside of the liberal blog on which they were posted by Natasha, whoever she is. For the time being I've simply made it clear that the views ascribed to Mr Reichert are from a blog post. I've sent my own bots out to search for something similar. I don't doubt these are his views. I just can't stomach using an virtually anonymous blog as a reference There must be better references for this.
Not this ID. Your contributions page does not show that at all.Kgrr 16:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I had a little time to waste, so I cleaned up the bulk of the vote references, and it looks like the section can no go without the original research tag. It seems like an original research tag should only be very provisional for a living-person bio. Original claims cannot be made, period. They should be deleted not flagged. The flag should only be there to prompt deletion or revision.Tbyrnestl 21:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)tbyrnestl

First of all, it sincerely looks to me like you cherry-picked the issues you want to delete and other that you want to reference. Please don't start an NPOV battle. It's not going to help us write a clear, unbiased article about Dave Reichert.
Each one of the votes that were made in congress have a roll-call associated with them. I know it and so do you. I went through the whole article and marked all unsubstantiated claims with {{fact}} marks. I have started to clean-up the references, including yours. BTW Your references do not meet Wikipedia standards. If you clean-up the references, please follow the Harvard standard so that the {{reflist}} tag under References will format them correctly. Give me a hand, and we will do this together.Kgrr 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes votes are simple facts, but the description of what was voted on isn't, and the bulk of the claims here are at least in part glosses on what the votes entail. Those are either original research or citations. Since the CR itself summarizes legislation in the header, and since such summaries are approved by congress, simply presenting a précis of such a summary and then citing it would be fine. What doesn't fly is to present one's own take on what's important about this or that vote as simply what was voted on. Though now that I think about it there are really two issues here. On the one hand there is how the person voted. I guess it's fine to simply flag un-ref'd votes for further refs for those. On the other hand there are the interpretations of what was voted on, but those I guess are more original research/npov issues rather than libel/living-bio related issues. So on reflection there is really no urgency to supressing those sections. As long as the undocumented bits aren't putting words in his mouth or makeing claims about him personally, they are simply OR/NPOV which is not really a big problem, just something to work on.Tbyrnestl 05:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)tbyrnestl
We are all biased to a certain extent. But you have your take on what is important, and I have my take on what is important to me. If you feel there are key issues that are important to you, then make sure the article is balanced and contains them. It takes a consensus to write a good, balanced article. Also, I concede that certain bills have headings that read one way and the content of the bill is entirely the opposite. Let's make sure that all the votes in the article are sourced by the end of August. This way, there won't be a series of misleading facts and as you can hopefully see, I've corrected quite a few already. And, yes, we should remove all libel.Kgrr 16:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Natasha blogging on Pacific Views not a valid source

Wikipedia's pretty clear about what constitutes a valid source, and a blog entry on a partisan blog doesn't even pass the intial smell test. There are no other references I can find anywhere to an 8th CD debate in April 2004. There are no other references I can find to Reichert making any claim about interpretation of the bible in the context of abortion. So we have a flagrantly tendentious summary of a debate which seems not to have occurred ascribing views to someone that are otherwise unsubstantiable, and all of it backed up by a reference to a left-leaning political blog by someone known only as Natasha. If Reichert really did say this stuff, then it's pretty important, and it should be sourced reliably.

Fair enough. I'm happy you just did not delete the entire section on abortion, which is really has been one of the key issues. Kgrr 16:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC) PS please sign your talk entries with your id, or is it your Clearwire IP address.

what's with the laundry list of votes?

More than 3/4 of this article is a timeline list of votes, most of them not sourced to anything other than the government record of the roll-call vote. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not some sort of database entry. --Delirium (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

I'm going to try my hand at some copyediting. The first sentence in the Early life, education and military career section caught my eye due to the excessive and unnecessary use of commas. I was just going to move on and found that a good portion of the article is like this. I'm not going to change the content, just try to make it more readable --SlimJimTalk 09:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dave Reichert. 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) 13:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dave Reichert. 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) 11:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dave Reichert. 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) 18:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dave_Reichert/Archive_1&oldid=1138135512"