Talk:Dale Folwell

Possible Conflict of Interest Editing
I also reviewed the conflict of interest policy. This user name (Folwellla) is maintained by Rep. Folwell's legislative office. I am a state employee working for the representative. As stated in a previous entry, we've tried to source all of the material through the legislature's website or through news articles and other resources. I welcome any future editing of the page from a third party editor. The history page shows I monitor and respond to edits when they are made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folwellla (talk • contribs) 13:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * State employee or paid directly by the person is irrelevant. If there is a close relationship to the article's subject, there is potential for conflict of interest. I don't mean you can't edit the page, just that one needs to be very careful when editing or reverting that you're not there to just guard his image. So far, it seems the article is fairly decent (with exception, I personally think, to the unnecessarily detailed Legislative Accomplishments section). -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Rep. Folwell's Notability
I just reviewed Wikipedia's notability rules regarding politicians. Rep. Folwell seems to clearly be a notable politician. [Notability] Rep. Folwell holds an office in the state legislature. He is also in a leadership position in the legislature. It appears that qualifies him to be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folwellla (talk • contribs) 13:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that Rep. Folwell himself meets notability standards because of his time in office and leadership. I didn't question that. Primarily, I just don't see the need to list so much under Legislative Accomplishments. Wikipedia doesn't need to list every bill that was passed, just ones with major importance, notability. It is puffery to list so much. The article doesn't need to list every single detail about the person, just notable details. Especially if someone spends a long time in office, the article length would be ridiculous. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Responding to criticism of "campaign website profile"
We have tried to write the article in a neutral and fact based way. Rep. Folwell is a state legislature. We've highlighted his legislative accomplishments. I disagree that it is campaign related. There are no calls to action. There is little information beyond his legislative history. Everything is sourced through the NC General Assembly's website or statewide media. I'll review the conflict of interest page, but I've tried to present a middle-of-the-road bio on Rep. Folwell. It's a snapshot of his time at the NCGA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folwellla (talk • contribs) 13:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like campaign website profile
I'm sorry, this page just reads more like a campaign website profile. Much of the info here is not needed, not truly notable. I marked it for possible conflict of interest editing. Needs to be cleaned up some for notability and neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoannaSerah (talk • contribs) 02:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

SB 514 and rearranging
I took the listing for SB 514 out of the Legislative Accomplishments section because, while he is a vocal proponent of the measure, it was not a bill he introduced or co-sponsored. It belongs in a separate section. Secondly, I don't know that the recent addition of the sentence about divorce is really needed. I improved the citation, but not yet certain this should be in here. I'm leaving it for now. Want to hear other views. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove radio interview reference
Divorce is not the issue on the N.C. ballot next spring. It's marriage. Folwell's position on marriage garnered international press, and it's common knowledge to interested parties. Referencing one interview over another is not notable. He made multiple TV, radio and newspaper interviews on the subject. Links to several are already on the page. Vitocmarda (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * agree That sounds very reasonable to me. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that Folwell's response to the interview question is relevant because sheds light on his position on the amendment; Folwell has cited protecting marriage as a motivation for his for work on the amendment. The interviewer was suggesting that restricting divorce might be a way to protect marriage.  You make a good point that Folwell has made multiple interviews.  I'd suggest that this one should be included with those. It is no more or less notable, so either include all or none I'd say. A neutral point of view would seem to suggest that interviews that reflect favorably and, arguably, unfavorably on the subject be included. 24.88.252.140 (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)