Talk:Dave Young (Colorado politician)

Confused about why my edits were taken down
I recently edited this page to reflect a full biography of Rep. Dave Young and then added sections highlighting some of the legislation that he sponsored during previous legislative sessions. These sections were taken down and parts of the biography were taken down even though all parts of the biography and the legislative session information were cited. Can you explain to me why these edits/additions were taken down and what I can do to make an edit/addition that will not be removed. I am just trying to update this page to reflect accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyBelly98 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you read the edit summaries of the article history? reasons are briefly given there. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay I see what you are talking about now. I am relatively new to editing things so still learning what is a legitimate source. I am going to use different sources that I think more accurately reflects the edits. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyBelly98 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources for all claims -- campaign sites and material which can be considered "self published" does not meet Wikipedia policy requirements. You need to find an outside reliable source saying that something is notable - not just the campaign saying it is notable. Collect (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

To Collect: That makes sense to me, however everything I cited about what bills/legislation had been sponsored in the previous post that was just removed came from the official non-partisan State of Colorado General Assembly website. The citations were simply summaries of the bills/legislation and had nothing to do with a campaign website or a campaign promotion. Why do those not qualify as a reliable secondary source? Thanks KellyBelly98 (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to find an OUTSIDE reliable source -- else we could be overrun with every bill voted on by every legislator being added to their biographies. We need to stick to "important stuff" and this usually means that if a secondary reliable source does not publish the claim, it does not get found important enough to be in the biography.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay so using a newspaper or TV story as a reliable secondary source in addition to the State website would qualify something as important?165.127.14.2 (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Find a newspaper story in a reliable source (read WP:RS) about specific bills associating Young with the bills, and you might have something (that is more than "he voted for thus and such a bill" which is roughly useless.)   Press releases, campaign websites, and simple listings of all bills before a legislature are not sufficient to give weight to anything much. Collect (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Collect: I see that these links to newspaper articles/news stories did not satisfy the secondary reliable sources criteria. In these edits I only cited the news stories and not the bills, but would citing both the news stories and a link to the bills be sufficient?


 * Anent several Colorado political BLPs: 1.  Each bill only gets one mention in a BLP - not two mentions.  2.  the text of the bill is a "primary source" and we do not use claims made in a  bill to describe the bill -- we only use what secondary reliable sources state.  3.  Being named as one of a group is generally not considered to allow any claim of primacy of a single person as the prime mover of much at all.  4. where a news story mentions a person en passant, it is editorial judgment as to whether the person was of primary importance in the source.  5.  using Wikipedia for campaigning generally raises hackles - leave the campaign stuff for the brochures and only use key facts for Wikipedia.  6.  A single person cannot "pass" any legislation.  Really. Collect (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Points 1 and 2 I understand. I don't understand why a news article mentioning someone as a sponsor of a bill and then describing what the bill does/who it applies too would not be a reliable secondary source. Points 5 and 6 I get and will try to just stick to facts.KellyBelly98 (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Sponsor" - unless one means "primary sponsor" is fairly meaningless on many bills which can literally be "sponsored" by every single legislator . Stick to important stuff. Collect (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)