Talk:Ann Wagner

Copy/paste
This article appears to be a wholesale copy/paste from this site. Arbor8 (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Bias in "Recent Events"
The last paragraph of "Recent Events" in which it talks about a letter requesting to withhold pay during government shutdown is worded in from a non-neutral point of view. While I don't exactly know the best way to fix this, it doesn't really fit with the overall tone of the article, which seems to be quite neutral. LosFrijoles (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

More recently than this previous flag, the last few paragraphs (post-Trump) of this post are clearly edited for partisan purposes and need to be redrafted. A discussion about the CFPB, for example, is framed in the language of a campaign mailer. Similarly, this sentence: "Wagner has continued to avoid public town halls in favor of listening sessions for corporate donors.[37][38][39][40]" is sourced with authorities listing a corporate event, but not the sweeping claim of the sentence. The preceding paragraphs sufficiently explain the lack of town hall events. This sentence, if kept at all, should be moved to the end of that paragraph and reworded to say something like, "Wagner did, however, hold listening events, including with corporate groups." Woopig1776 (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

To elaborate on the CFPB problem, the following statement is clearly framed in a persuasive — rather than expository or informative — manner: "More recently, Wagner's efforts to undermine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have led local newspapers to accuse her of playing "swamp politics."[31] Since she formed her Congressional campaign committee in 2011, Wagner has received millions of dollars in campaign contributions from employees of investment and insurance companies.[32]"

An editor should not hide behind an opinion of one newspaper editorial, that happens to reflect the editor's opinion, to express a political point of view. The salient facts behind this paragraph are that Wagner opposed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Pairing that isolated position on constitutional and administrative law with the implied conflict of interest is, in addition to being underdeveloped and vague, advocacy rather than exposition. This page is not an appropriate place to litigate the CFPB's merits, if discussed, it should simply record the Congresswoman's position. Woopig1776 (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)