Jump to content

Talk:Linda McMahon 2010 United States Senate campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeLinda McMahon 2010 United States Senate campaign was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 19, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am failing this GA right off the bat, for two reasons.

First, it is inappropriate to put an article about an ongoing, closed-ended subject like this up for GA before the events described have concluded. When her campaign is over in November, then the article can be finished, and a GA nomination would become appropriate. Putting it up now would be like putting 2010 FIFA World Cup up now ... it makes no sense, since the competition there hasn't ended either.

This was much discussed by various editors during the 2008 presidential election. A number of campaign articles from then have become GA, but all were nominated after the those campaigns had ended. By comparison, however, biographical articles can be nominated for GA at any time, even if the person is involved in an ongoing campaign. That's because biographies are essentially open-ended, with no fixed time frame, just like Association football is, and because campaign sections typically represent a small portion of an overall biography. So, for example, Hillary Rodham Clinton was GA, and John McCain was GA and then FA, and Barack Obama was FA, all during the time of the 2008 election season. So in this case, there would be no objection to putting Linda McMahon up for GA right now.

The second reason is that I'm not convinced this even should be an article of its own. It's the only separate senatorial campaign biographical subarticle; in every other case, the general senatorial election article covers the material, which for this case would be United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2010. I don't see why this can't be combined into that, especially since that article was kind of threadbare of narrative the last time I looked at it. Generally, only presidential campaigns merit separate biographical subarticles, because they are more major, significant efforts. (I did find one gubernatorial election with separate articles, Creigh Deeds gubernatorial campaign, 2009 and Bob McDonnell gubernatorial campaign, 2009, but I don't see why those can't be folded into Virginia gubernatorial election, 2009 either.) On the other hand, Wikipedia has a zillion articles that drill down in depth into all sorts of subject, so maybe this is the trend of the future. Again, when the campaign's over, we can get a better perspective on how to handle this.

As for the article itself, I didn't really examine it closely, but I do notice that there are many bare-url references and title-only references, which would not meet GA standards.

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claims

[edit]

The idea of WP is that where a claim is made in an article, that the cite must specifically back the claim. Otherwise, articles would be a melange of OR and SYNTH. Claims not backed by a source, especially in any article under WP:BLP must be removed. Collect (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from the guy who deleted the fact that Chris Nowinski was a co-worker of Lance Cade—even though it was referenced—, you shouldn't be talking.--Screwball23 talk 20:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingluy enough - material in any article under WP:BLP must be fully referenced in reliable sources. Currently you have insisted that The Atlantic article includes statements that back Cade had abused painkillers and steroids during his career in WWE, leading to questions about how much the company knew about his health. which I do not find in the article cited. And I read the article six times. Collect (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few articles cited there. I don't see why you have a problem because I checked and it's referenced info. I don't see why you need to be babied and have such bad faith on this one, because if it's not in that ref, it's in another one of those lines. You have a habit of being obsessive on this nonproductive ref citation nonsense. This is a lot like the damage you did to the Ring Boy Affair section on Linda McMahon where you entirely removed the sections citing Tom Cole's 1999 interview and then denied every fact that linked to it.--Screwball23 talk 18:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:BLP especially noting the bits about controversial claims abd sourcing. Also note [WP:RS]] and the strange requirement that the source must back the claims made - and can not be used to add more material than is in the actual source. Collect (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quit lying. You are destroying the factual integrity of this article, and I will report your abuse if this continues. In your edit, you removed the fact that Lance Cade had used steroids and painkillers, instead trying to state that Nowinski alone made these claims, which is outright false because the Day article was written by Lance Cade's father, who said the WWE knew his son was taking steroids and painkillers. As far as I'm concerned, you have no credibility. I put the reference there for you to read, and you didn't even read it before you decided to blame the accusation that Cade took drugs on Nowinski, who, I might add, only entered the conversation after Linda McMahon's statement.--Screwball23 talk 00:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And to top it all off, you thought you could get your lackey, User:Jclemens involved, claiming that I was making uncited statements? Collect, you are sinking to a new low, and I recommend you shape up your actions, or I will get some arbitration involved.--Screwball23 talk 00:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you accept that you do not have support. Calling an admin my "lackey" is not going to work. WP:BLP requires that claims must be accurately presented per cite. Period. Not a matter for argument. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the citations before you begin lies claiming that the material is not supported.--Screwball23 talk 19:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you both hush up. This kind of argument is going nowhere. Wait for a third party user to make an assessment. If Collect has identified specific items which appear to fail BLP, then the onus is on Screwball to show where in which citation that exact statement is illustrated. If the latter cannot, the statement has to go. If they can, then it stays, provided of course it does not cause other problems like undue weight and so forth. S.G.(GH) ping! 14:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The specific claim relates to a quote not attributed to Linda McMahon, and not present in the prior paragraphs about Lance, that Lance wnd Nowicki were "Strangers." Absent any link to McMahon, it is improper in a WP:BLP governed article. Simple. Collect (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Screwball, I think you need to dial it way back. This is not the way one Wikipedia editor addresses another. I realize you've experienced a lot of frustration in your interactions with Collect and FellGleaming, but that doesn't give you license to use this kind of speech toward anyone. Besides, Collect's actually right, imo, that, strictly speaking, there's a cite problem with the second part of the sentence, "Cade had abused painkillers and steroids during his career in WWE, leading to questions about how much the company knew about his health." Since your source for this appears to be Nowinski, and perhaps the 40% hit rate for steroid use when the company reinstated its testing program in 2006, you need to restrict yourself to exactly what those sources, and attribute those statements to their origins. E.g. "Nowinski charged that ..." Or if you don't want to just do that, you could use, a reliable-source summary or characterization of his words, e.g. something like this Nowinski alleged "that the WWE encourages steroid use and provides an unsafe environment for its wrestlers.", cited to http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/wwe-hits-back-at-nowinski/61851/ .
And Collect, appreciation for BLP issues is important, but I think your emphasis on that policy is misplaced in this case. The policy does not mean you can't say anything unfavorable about a person, it just says that any unfavorable statements need to be well-supported by reliable sources; this is the point S.G. made above, albeit indirectly. As to the relevance of statements made by the WWE about Cade's death to McMahon, I have to respectfully disagree with you. I very much doubt that any neutral editor is going to accept the notion that statements issued by the firm regarding so prominent a crises aren't relevant to its owners. A corporation is just a file folder of documents in someone's desk drawer, it's still directed and run by individuals, and those individuals certainly are responsible for what "it" says regarding the major crises it faces.
Finally, on a simple "laugh test" or "common sense" level (rather than anything that's directly admissable to an article) I think it's a losing cause to try to suppress information about drug abuse in McMahon's company. Vince McMahon wrote (as I recall) $600 or $700 checks or money orders for steroids to the firm's consulting physician, and at pre-announced tests 40% of performers were found positive for steroids. It's simply not realistic to think that the firm's owners didn't know about the abuse, and didn't encourage it, albeit quietly. I of course know that my opinion in that regard is not admissable to the article, but it just seems a lost cause to try to suppress reliable-sources that say or suggest as much, too. Further, I note that, for better or worse, at least one reliable source (the Atlantic) has said, "McMahon and the WWE are inextricably linked on the campaign trail", and McMahon herself has told reporters following her campaign that she thinks it's "fair game" for them to question her about how she ran the WWE.
So then, let's have a try at a rewrite of the problematic/not-directly-supported (by cites) info in the section that you (Screwball and Collect) have been battling over. I think it could stand to be somewhat shorter, as well, although I do think it needs to be in the article: The premature deaths of multiple employees (okay, contractors) is no small matter, imo, especially when those deaths appear to be drug related. Hmm ... maybe the section can't be shorter after all, now that I think of it, not if it's going to include more of the WWE's response, as I think needs to on so serious a problem.
Anyway, I'm not much attached to this article ( I don't think I've edited it before, or the bio article on McMahon, either, that I can recall ) but I've spent an hour or so to try to address these problems in a rewrite of the disputed text. As I said, I'm sure neither of you will be satisfied entirely, but I hope it will at least address some of the specific objections that have been raised here.  – OhioStandard (talk)
Oh, one last thing: Since so many of the sentences are cited to the same five articles, I'd prefer to be able to just place the ref numbers (the superscript "footnote" numbers) at the end of each paragraph, rather the relevant ones multiple times to individual sentences throughout the paragraphs. That's allowed under WP policy, of course, and it makes for a cleaner overall look. Does anyone have any objections to going forward with that method for this section?  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Cade

[edit]

I'm opening discussion on why anyone feels this relatively minor issue deserves such a lengthy section. There are also sourcing issues with some of the cites, but the main problem is that this has extremely little bearing on the overall campaign or McMahon political views. It also has seen relatively little coverage. Fell Gleamingtalk 16:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's one sentence on this page that alludes to Tom Cole.--Screwball23 talk 16:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I mistyped the header. It should refer to Lance Cade. Fell Gleamingtalk 16:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linda just lost to Blumenthal

[edit]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101102/el_yblog_upshot/2010-midterm-elections-live-blog

Update accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.77.142 (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

[edit]

Enjoy.

Thanks. Looks clean, except for the later edits by another editor which moved material from another article without any seeking of consensus first. Collect (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus request

[edit]

Does anyone other than Screwball23 support this major revision [1] consisting of material excised from the main BLP article Linda McMahon ? Collect (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010. 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 11:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010. 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010. 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) 05:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010. 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) 15:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linda_McMahon_2010_United_States_Senate_campaign&oldid=1208186230"