I know the definition, but in the political world the term "flip-flopped" is an attack on politicians for displaying contradictory policies and using it here is a neutrality issue. The cited article does not even use that term. Truthsort (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we're intelligent people and can use words that verifiable summarize what the sources say. But if thats not good enough for you, here's two top Virginia political blogs (and I know that you're going to say Blogs aren't reliable, Blue Virginia publishes posts directly from Congressman and the Democratic State Senate caucus, Bearing Drift is primarily a bunch of top-Virginia Republican operatives and a few elected officials, these aren't your "kid in mom's basement" blogs) from the left and the right calling it a flip flop. Even if the blogs didn't use it, we can read the definition and article to verifiably summarize what happened into a word in common usage: flip-flop. SayHiWorld (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to BLP's there needs to be a high degree of sensitivity treated to these articles. The sources you provided are self published sources. Self published sources are not to be used for citing information on a living person. Per WP:BLPSPS, these two websites you provided are not acceptable. Also identifying Hurt's views as "extreme" is unacceptable. The source does not use the word and it appears to be your own original research. Even then, using that term (as well as you using "flip-flop") express contentious opinion and should be avoided unless widely used by reliable sources, which is not the case here. The Daily Progress article does not state he denied global warming, but was responding solely to a question on "climategate". Truthsort (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not just self-published sources. Blue Virginia has an editor and requires approval for first page (Blue Virginia actually has press passes to VA Capital, I believe, might be wrong...). I would assume Bearing Drift does the same. These are the top respective Democratic and Republican news sources for Virginia politics. Stuff that breaks there have been republished in reputable publications including the Washington Post and others. I also provided a rationale for the word's use outside of those sources. Are you saying climate change denial is NOT extreme? I'm sure many scientists would disagree with you. It's not original research, climate change is to "downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons" according to our page. That's pretty much what Hurt did in the source. Did you read it? He claimed that "climategate" was a example of "faulty information" regarding global warming which fits in OUR definition for climate change denial. He also attacked regulations regarding it.. SayHiWorld (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Virginia describes the website as "a group blog and a community blog", which right there amkes it a source to be avoided. I was looking at the website and I see no indication of a staff or who the editor is, not to mention of the some writers there are going by alias such as "lowkell". Simply by its self-identification as a "group blog", the website cleary violates WP:SPS. The same applies to Bearing Drift. While it list the contributors to Bearing Drift, it does not list any editorial oversight there. It does not matter what I think of climate change but labeling a position as "extreme" is clearly original research. This statement on "climategate" was regarding content that was supposedly being manipulated when is what he is referring to when he says "faulty information". Your edits to the article are extremely problematic and I am going to revert them and I highly recommend that you do not re-add it. Truthsort (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made many additions to the article. You can't reverse all of them just because you don't like two of them. STOP removing valid edits in order to remove the TWO issues that you have. I still believe the word flip flop is appropriate because it is ABSOLUTELY what took place as is EVIDENT from simply reading the SOURCES not including the two that you have a problem with. No original research does not mean things cannot be summarized. Enough with the censoring! Again, do you think that denying climate change is mainstream? Last I checked, most reliable sources would call that extreme, or do you want me to find the NYT saying that climate change denial is extreme to reference that specific word? SayHiWorld (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. It appears you flat out ignored what I just wrote. I am not going to repeat myself as I explained to you what the issues were with your edits. Furthermore, you continue to misinterpret what sources are saying. The tea party leader never said he "thought" his group would support him nor did Hurt say that his health care plan was good for him. His comments on "climategate" were precisely on that subject and not on global warming. Last, your edit to make him look like a hypocrite on healthcare based on a false equivalence is inappropriate. Truthsort (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm a stalker of the Robert Hurt page, and I've been watching this incipient edit war over the past few days. After looking at the evidence, I must say I'm in agreement with Truthsort. SayHiWorld, drawing a conclusion "(Flip flopped") based on two separate facts is synthesis or original research. For sourcing information on wikipedia, and especially on pages about living people we can only use the most reliable of sources and we have to report what they say. We can't use our own analysis. It would be nice though, Truthsort, if you didn't wholesale revert SayHiWorld's edits and instead restricted yourself only to those which are problematic. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the "flip-flop" to saying he was "accused" of flip-flopping which is completely sourced, and as I understand it, blogs can be used for sourcing their opinion. Also, if I'm violating this "three revert rule" then Truthsort is too. Pretty sure I didn't though, and I'm also pretty sure that complaining about one or two things in a LARGE edit and reverting EVERYTHING else is pretty ridiculous. If you have a problem with an edit, you should discuss it on the talk page. SayHiWorld (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not disallowed every edit the user has made. I did not revert his edit of removing quotes from the article. I put the photo and rating category in that he added. I'll go ahead and keep his healthcare vote in. If I make wholesale reverts, it is because this user is making like ten small edits at a time. I feel that his edit with the description of him being "safe" and "unexciting" was unnecessary. The article already described him as establishment candidate, which have that description itself been described in the media as that of a republican that does not exactly ignite their political base.
With that said, the user has continued to re-add content that I explained right away was inappropriate. He keeps using the self-published sources that I explained to the user that could not be used. Now, he is stating that because it is describing their opinion that it is ok, but that still does not change the fact that it is a self-published source. you still continue to misrepresent what sources say and use original research to describe what he said during a primary debate. You still do not understand that his comment was a response on "climategate" and was not a denial of climate change. And yet after warning you of edit warring, you revert again and add the content that I told you violated guidelines. Furthermore, in another separate discussion I was having at another article, SayHiWorld, decided to involve himself and make this bizarre edit, so now it appears he is doing some wikihounding. With your recent revert, I have no choice but you report your edit warring. Please feel free to comment there. Truthsort (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and nice additions to Pro-life movement nav box. Did you know that the template is in deletion discussion? If you have an opinion about that, you can express yourself
here.Lionel (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
