Talk:Brenda Landwehr

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Brenda Landwehr. 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:
 * Added tag to http://articles.kwch.com/2011-10-25/candidacy_30322396
 * Added tag to http://blogs.kansas.com/gov/2011/10/25/conservative-rep-landwehr-to-take-on-moderate-sen-schodorf-in-republican-primary-battle/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505010900/http://www.kslegislature.org:80/legsrv-house/searchHouse.do?rep=4449 to http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-house/searchHouse.do?rep=4449

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability of recent source added
I believe the article regarding Landwehr's conduct in the recent hearing is plenty notable to be included in her page as it's an example of her public actions as a public servant; I have undone the deletion for now 74.80.182.73 (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sourced information does not guarantee inclusion. See Verifiability, and Recentism. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's obvious; it's also not an explanation as to the source's lack of notability 74.80.182.93 (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your response doesn't address the fact that sourced information does not include verification. Please read Recentism, as I stated above. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Further comment: the source is an opinion piece and no other outlets have mentioned the prime inclusion of your edits. One instance of sourced information piece does not guarantee inclusion, especially when it hasn't been brought up by any other news sources, opinion pieces or not. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I added the wrong article in my original edit and didn't notice. That's why the author in the reference and the actual piece were mismatched. I had both pages open at the time and must have copy-pasted the wrong one. 74.80.182.73 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless, to address your recentism concerns: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia meant to inform about and summarize the most notable pieces of information on a subject. I understand that this includes the whole of the subject's existence across time, not just when someone is editing a page. However, this is an election year, and someone's Wikipedia article is one of the first things that comes up on Google. Doesn't someone's current opinions, actions, and general demeanor have a great influence on whether someone votes for them or not? Landwehr's conduct in the recent hearing, in my eyes, represents a pretty egregious violation of Kansans' First Amendment rights, and people deserve to know about the fact that she just did this when deciding whether they want to elect her or not.
 * When you really look at it I feel like it's something bad enough that people just... should see that she did this. Ejecting someone for taking a drink of water is ridiculous, a deliberate attempt to stifle debate. Drinking water isn't disruptive. 74.80.182.73 (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * this is an election year, and in my eyes, and I feel like it's something bad enough that people just... should see that she did this. These reasons you stated are why guidelines exist on Wikipedia, including those I asked you to please read. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I did read them. The recentism page even includes a section about recentism as a positive. There's no bias or charged language in the edit; it simply informs people of her conduct and links to a news article as a source. It's a very simple one-sentence inclusion. I feel that it's a significant enough infringement on constitutional rights that it should be included. Wikipedia should inform people of information that is important and relevant to them.


 * I don't think we're going to reach an agreement on this. I've requested a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third_opinion. 74.80.182.73 (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)