Talk:Deborah Honeycutt

= Notability and undue weight? =

Untitled
Losing political candidates aren't normally considered sufficiently notable for articles here. However I'm a little reluctant to submit this for an AfD because "Medical Director of Clayton State University Health Clinic" sounds like a position that could be notable. Currently the article devotes only a single sentence to her actual notable position, and ten to her failed and failing candidacies. That seems far out of balance to me, per the "undue weight" section of WP:NPOV. Is there any chance of refocusing this article? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a good deal of her notability comes not just from losing an election and being a huge underdog in a second one, but also from the role of BMW Direct in this campaign (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/202247.php).  That said, I don't know if (apart from the medical criteria which I don't know how to judge) she's notable unless/until that angle becomes a more widespread story.   I'd probably err on the side of keeping a short NPOV article just because, if this BMW story does turn out to have legs, it's somewhat futile to delete an article and then recreate it.   But I'm not convinced she's notable just yet.  - PhilipR (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I decided that she was "notable" for a mention because she is the most credible challenger to a third of a major nation's government. I personally think (my own political beliefs aside) that she's a spammer, and that she hasn't a prayer of winning. Still, the voters of her district deserve to know as much as possible. Republican donors who get her spam deserve to know too. --Zimriel (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above because while a losing political candidate, being the director of a university health clinic meets the notoriety guidelines. The fact that she is a political candidate should not disqualify Mrs. Honeycutt from being included in Wikipedia.Whistlesgowhoo (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable
Per Wikipedia guidelines, the mere fact that someone ran unsuccesfully for office is not sufficient to qualify as "notable". Any other mitigating factors or should this article be nominated for deletion? FinFangFoom (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, per WP:POLITICIAN. justinfr (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That alone is obviously not sufficient to qualify as notable. However, Honeycutt's connection to BMW Direct has led to a fair amount of press coverage which warrants, I think, the existence of this article. john k (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See redundant discussion above.  I agree with johnk, barely -- but there's a good deal of uncertainty about how the BMW Direct thing will develop.   If it turns out to be a big scandal, Honeycutt's notability will be higher and we'll wish we hadn't deleted the article.   Therefore, I'd err on the side of keeping it until it's plain there are no implications of the BMW Direct thing. - PhilipR (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

=Copyrighted material=
 * "Biography" section consisted entirely of copied copyrighted material from http://www.honeycuttforcongress.com/BIOGRAPHY.html and was therefore removed. FinFangFoom (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I had adapted the original bio from the junk mail she (or BMW Direct) sent me. I don't think it was copied without attribution. Besides, her bio would seem to be legitimate. --Zimriel (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

= Citation requested =

The idea that we need a citation to say that a candidate who lost last time for 38 points in a solidly Democratic district is expected to lose this time seems silly. If someone wants to add it, though, the Cook Political Report ranks the seat as "Solid D", which ought to be a source. john k (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cite it if you like.  It's certainly authoritative.   The burden of proof is on the author adding the fact (see WP:CITE).   For reference, here's the sentence I removed: "Honeycutt is expected to lose again by a wide margin in the general election in this solidly Democratic district."   I'd probably restate it in active voice: "The Cook Report considers the 13th district to be solidly Democratic," and the citation. - PhilipR (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, never mind, I decided it was more constructive to put the citation in there.  But be advised that in the future you bear responsibility for citing facts that you add, and that under Wikipedia guidelines citation of any challenged fact is compulsory. - PhilipR (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is, of course, true, but beside the point. My statement was utterly uncontroversial and obviously true.  Obviously, one can demand citations for such statements, but there is no reason that one should do so unless one thinks the statement is actually wrong.  There are tons and tons and tons of unsourced statements on Wikipedia.  Your logic suggests that it is acceptable to add "fact" tags to all of them.  This is obviously not the case.  Fact tags should be for dubious statements that might not be true.  The fact that nobody thinks Honeycutt will win this year is not such a statement.  I understand what the rules provide for (and, you'll note, I did research and provide a citation when challenged), but they will only work if people use common sense in applying them.  This is, perhaps, a borderline case, but I still don't think it's good practice to start slapping "fact" tags on obviously true statements. john k (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What's obvious to one isn't obvious to another. WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE aren't standards I made up; they're pretty essential to making edits to high-traffic articles that won't get reverted quickly.   (Of course unsubstantiated facts can sit for years if relatively few people read the article in question, but there are literally millions of places in WP where the fact template could legitimately be applied.) - PhilipR (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that every statement in any article should have a citation, and if it lacks one that it's appropriate to add a fact tag? john k (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously in practice a number of statements are "just accepted", but there's no reason why someone can't challenge them.  I didn't add the  template to other biographical details such as her role in the different medical organizations, but someone legitimately could.   In general Wikipedia culture tends to look at an article with footnotes much more favorably.  For example, today's featured article has probably more footnotes than sentences.   So the  template isn't necessarily a challenge to the veracity of the statement; I often add it just to suggest how an article could be improved.  Any sort of prediction of an election outcome is, in my view, inherently more likely to be disputed, so that's why I thought that sentence in particular would be strengthened by a reference.  - PhilipR (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Hancock article, that just seems like total overkill, stylistically - a footnote for each paragraph would seem like a better way to go about this. That being said, whatever - I'll agree that this particular statement is opinionated enough that probably a source is a good idea, and withdraw from further argument.  john k (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorsement by Atlanta Journal Constitution
I removed the unsourced statement about the AJC applauding her position on issues. My own research shows that they actually endorsed her opponent, David Scott, in that race. Were I feeling less charitable, I'd insert a comment about Scott's endorsement, rather than just deleting the previous statement. Given this and the recent spate of edits by anonymous Honeycutt cheerleaders, I suggest we be quick to revert any statement that's not explicitly supported by unbiased external sources. justinfr (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

=NPOV/COI= There have been a recent series of edits by Ahoneyc151 (talk). Call me paranoid, but it's reasonable this editor may have a connection to the article's subject, especially considering the favourable wording of most of the contributions (e.g., calling her a "historic political star"). I feel I should outright revert all the recent edits, but thought I'd open up discussion instead. justinfr (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I reverted to a version before the Ahoneyc151 edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I put a note on Ahoneyc151's talk page inviting him or her to comment here if they feel the edits have merit. justinfr (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to be NPOV. Best I could...--Zimriel (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Deborah Honeycutt. 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/20081121080031/http://www.deborahhoneycuttforcongress.com/pages/bio.asp to http://www.deborahhoneycuttforcongress.com/pages/bio.asp

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) 19:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deborah Honeycutt. 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/20100728225440/http://honeycuttspeaks.com/ to http://www.honeycuttspeaks.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)