Talk:David Holt (politician)

Member of Osage?
He clearly is a direct descendant of an original allottee, but his Senate materials have nothing on his being an enrolled Osage member.Parkwells (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on David Holt (politician). 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426035329/http://www.osagenews.org/article/osage-oklahoma-city-elected-state-senator-district-30 to http://www.osagenews.org/article/osage-oklahoma-city-elected-state-senator-district-30

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) 01:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OKC Mayor David Holt FINAL Portrait.jpg

Dispute over OKC Thunder deal
@Thenightaway, IP editor 68.97.76.169, you have been editing back and forth for 2+ months on this topic. If you think you can come to a consensus via direct editing and edit summaries, no worries, that's perfectly valid. But I thought it might be helpful to discuss on talk to be able to go more in-depth and test out proposed wording without reverting one another's changes. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I know A LOT about United States arena debates and some about the Oklahoma City vote. The bottom line is that there are 50 relevant facts in a debate like this and 50 perspectives.  It is complex and nuanced, to say the least.  And every city's situation is different.  You could write 5,000 words about these arena debates, and people have.  This complexity is not conducive to capturing the entire story in one paragraph in a Wikipedia article.  And when you start to choose which facts to highlight, that becomes an editorial choice itself.  If you share that the team is worth a lot of money, you are pushing the reader to think that the city shouldn't build the arena, that the owners should.  If you then share that the market is very small and other small markets have also had to pay for their arenas, you push the reader the other way.  I could go on and on like this, sharing different facts that push the reader one way or the other.  I think a Wikipedia article should just avoid this dilemma entirely by keeping it simple (ex: There was an arena debate in Oklahoma City - the person in this article made a proposal, and it passed).  Let the reader study the sources if they want to get into the weeds and learn about the different perspectives. The issue with the editor's approach is that the editor has chosen certain facts and has repeatedly deleted any attempt (by multiple users) to add any fact other than the value of the franchise or that some economists opposed the vote (even deleting an attempt to add the perspective of an economist who supported it).  Clearly, the facts currently highlighted in the article are NOT the facts that resonated with the Oklahoma City voters, because the proposal passed with 71 percent, a landslide by any American election standard.  So this section in this article is doing a disservice to the reader by only choosing certain (negative) facts and also using non-neutral language (see the use of "strongly" and "purported" in the sentence about the economists).  I would hope another editor like @Ganesha811Ganesha811 could come in and craft a more neutral section that avoids all of these issues. 68.97.76.169 (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an undisclosed WP:COI single-purpose editor. The editor also claims that there are multiple editors who support their viewpoint, but the editors in question (2600:8803:B98D:8000:60A8:37AB:B157:2BF7, 2600:8803:B98D:8000:9D22:C3EA:9D14:1711, 2600:8803:B98D:8000:908F:7FD6:33AF:3F0B) are clearly sockpuppets. Thenightaway (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Inaccurate, but also a complete avoidance of a serious discussion. @Ganesha811 provided a forum for a serious discussion and I made my contribution.  If you're not going to take it seriously, so be it.  I'll let @Ganesha811try to handle it from here. 68.97.76.169 (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)