Talk:E. J. Pipkin

Should this be moved?
Naming conventions (common names). He is most commonly known as E.J. Pipkin, not Edward Pipkin, so does anyone think this should be moved?-Jeff (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * yes. WillC 19:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I gave this a long enough waiting period, and got one "yes" and no "no"s so time to move it.-Jeff (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In the Voting Record section, the reference provided named Pipkin and Gilchrest, not Pipkin and Andy Harris. I edited the Voting Record to reflect this mistake.\\

I am new to this. I am not sure what your questions are relating to. He is most commonly known as E.J. so alphabetically you would want to move it past "Edward" entries. You will note that I edited the Voting Record section. Will continue to do more as time allows.Goodrepublican (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV problem
The "Voting Record" section seems to have been carefully compiled by somebody looking to poison the well against Pipkin among Republican primary voters. Is there something resembling a neutral summary of his record out there? -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  21:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep you are right. Thats why I edited it using both his Campaign for Senate Page and the Maryland General Assembly bills. If you click the links I included, you will see they go directly to the bills being discussed.Goodrepublican (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I placed the source tag in the "Voting Record" section because there seems to be a reliance on sources that by definition are the "point of view" of an individual (the writer of the editorial) and not necessarily neutral. A neutral source would be the records of the Maryland General Assembly (http://mlis.state.md.us/mgaweb/billinfo.aspx?2006rs) which are available on-line and without cost, or a news article from a reputable newspaper.  These sources would be favored and probably solve the edit war that rages on the article page.Marylandstater (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The candidate's own campaign is never a reliable source for obvious reasons of conflict of interest. An editor can also violate our strictures on neutral point of view by picking and choosing which bills were introduced (especially bills which did not pass), which votes were cast, etc., thus creating an undue emphasis on one aspect or another of the subject's record. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  18:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on E. J. Pipkin. 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/20041231120544/http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?id=MDS2&cycle=2004 to http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?cycle=2004&id=MDS2

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) 10:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)