Talk:Ed Gillespie

American Crossroads & Crossroads GPS
As of 3/25/2014 the article makes two mentions of Gillespie's role in "founding" American Crossroads & Crossroads GPS. However, as FactCheck.org notes,

"Ed Gillespie, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Karl Rove, who served as senior adviser to President George W. Bush, were instrumental in helping to launch American Crossroads in 2010. Although neither serve in any official capacity, Gillespie and Rove “encouraged the formation” of American Crossroads and serve as “informal advisers” and fundraisers, says the group’s spokesman, Jonathan Collegio."

As such, I'd like to suggest revising the opening paragraph of the article to omit this phrase "and together with Karl Rove, founded Crossroads GPS."

Later, the article notes "Gillespie is an adviser to American Crossroads, a 527 organization that plans to help Republican Party members get elected." As a candidate for federal office Gillespie no longer has any connection to the organization. Additionally, the language is dated and more information exists about the organization's activities, which are well-documented at its page. I'd suggest revising the sentence to read:

"Gillespie has served as an adviser to American Crossroads."

Ericjwilson (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * These seem like reasonable edits, as long as they're properly sourced.CFredkin (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * CFredkin, would you mind making these edits? I am a staffer on the campaign and would prefer they be made by another user to ensure credibility. Ericjwilson (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Enron
The material above was deleted by on the basis that the material is "not notable". This, after I added sources that support the fact that it is notable. There are additional sources that can be used if needed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please engage in a discussion about this, and present your arguments for deletion. Reverting without discussion is not the way to resolve content disputes. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Since has not replied in this thread, can we reinstate the material above? 108.28.193.226 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * His lobbying career is covered in the article. Jytdog (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"Public Citizen" article
I, user Juankimnoah, submitted the following below factual addition to page "Ed Gillespie."; however, user Jytdog deleted it on the grounds "(BLP violation - need to use reliable sources, and summarize them neutrally." I attest that my edit clearly hyperlinks to obviously credible sources. Furthermore, the summary is stark and direct. I now seek honorable resolution to this block to positing bonafide information

At the right of this page displays an excerpt from the Gillespie "Public Citizen" document... -- Juankimnoah (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC).
 * The reason you are not able to add the material from Public Citizens into the article is because it is WP:PRIMARY. You want to use secondary sources.  Please read WP:RS.  Try using an article like this instead.  I don't think you will find a problem with that article and others published in the mainstream media such as the New York Times.  Make sure to follow WP:NPOV if you did.  I'm sorry this was not explained to you.  --David Tornheim (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I redacted the BLP violation that was posted above again. BLP applies everywhere in WP, including Talk pages.  The problem is not just the source but the content. It is fine to say what happened even if it is very negative but the source has to be high quality and the word choices must be NPOV.   Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Other than being WP:PRIMARY what other WP:BLP violation are you alleging? Public Citizen is a well-respected advocacy group having been around for 46 years with revenues of $15 Million.  I don't see how you can say it is not high quality.  The only other valid concern is that it has a bias favoring consumers and that if the claims are not reported in secondary sources, those claims are not sufficiently notable to be included in the article.  I don't see any reason to believe the data is suspect.  --David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You apparently have not read the actual edit. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There was a bunch of history missing from this article. I added it, and included the source brought by Juankimnoah, in these diffs. Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I imagine all three of us can agree on that now.  --David Tornheim (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained recent reversals
See here.

1: This is inappropriate for the lede: "Gillespie, along with Democrat Jack Quinn, founded Quinn Gillespie & Associates, a bipartisan lobbying firm. Gillespie is also the founder of Ed Gillespie Strategies, a strategic consulting firm that provides high-level advice to companies and CEOs, coalitions, and trade associations." The first firms is mentioned once in the article, the other firm never again in the article. A WP:LEDE should summarize the content of the main body. It's extremely problematic to use the firm's own puffed up language ("strategic consulting firm" instead of lobbying firm, "provides high-level advice"). The other firm is described as "bipartisan" without any source.

2: I am of the view that when possible (when no vital information is lost), we should seek to trim text. This is my preferred version of the latter part of the lede: "Gillespie ran for Virginia's U.S. Senate seat held by Mark Warner in 2014, narrowly losing to Warner by a margin of 0.8%.[1] In June 2017, he won the Republican nomination for Governor of Virginia in the 2017 election where faces Democratic nominee Ralph Northam." I don't see how the much lengthier version is better (does anyone care when somebody announced their candidacy?): "In January 2014, Gillespie announced he was running for Virginia's U.S. Senate seat held by Mark Warner. In the 2014 general election, Gillespie ended up narrowly losing to Warner by a margin of 0.8% in a surprisingly close race.[1] In October 2015, Gillespie announced his plans to run for Governor of Virginia in 2017.[2] In June 2017, he won the Republican nomination for governor in the 2017 election and faces Democratic nominee Ralph Northam in the general election.[3]"

3: Having multiple one-sentence or two-sentence paragraphs looks extremely ugly and makes it hard to read and navigate the article. For example, if there are only 5-6 sentences about his 2014 run, why keep them split up in three paragraphs?

4: This reliably sourced and accurate text was removed without explanation from the Governor's race section: "Up to June 2017, Gillespie ran as an establishment Republican and focused on economic issues rather social issues.[29][30][31] The August 2017 move to hire the controversial Trump operative was described by the Washington Post as an effort to "win over Trump voters".[28] According to Politico, "Gillespie’s out-and-out breaks with Trump during his primary campaign have been rare."[31]"

5: Reliably sourced text on (A) both Gillespie's criticism and support of Trump's action, (B) Gillespie's position on climate change, and (C) Gillespie's position on same-sex marriage was removed without explanation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In your diff you:
 * removed a bunch of stuff about his lobbying
 * garbled the chronologial order
 * added some random political positions
 * added wierd references like this:
 * What in the world is a facebook pagelink doing in there? Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * (I) The "bunch of stuff about his lobbying" that I removed was precisely two sentences in the lede, which failed WP:LEDE guidelines. (II) I made zero changes to the chronology. (III) On what basis should the positions that I added be excluded from the article while the positions that others have added be kept - they are reliably sourced and mirror the content that is found on countless other politicians' pages. (IV) That reference was auto-generated when I punched in the WaPo link. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

A WaPo story about a controversial Gillespie hire is not WP:UNDUE
This text is absolutely not undue. The claim is even more ridiculous when the same editor keeps and tweaks another piece of text that emphasizes Gillespie's moderate tendencies. Just as the latter text is reliably sourced and relevant, so is mine. If one text has to go because they relate to the campaign for Governor, then logically both should. That is to say, if the people who are editing this page are actually sincere when they cite Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with that - I kept that part of your edit as it was fine. this diff is also nonsense According to the New York Times, Gillespie's has been largely focused on economic issues rather social issues..... Gillespie's.... what? Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"creature"?
User:Instaurare what is this about? Creature? And why you are removing the sourced content about Morgan. Please explain. Thx. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You also made the statement very general, but it can only charaterize Gillespie up to the date it was published. His approach might change any time after the point the article was published; politicians often tack this way or that way as campaigns unfold.  And in fact, by taking on Morgan, he actually has tacked from the place where he was when the Times piece was written.  So please come and explain. Thx  Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please read the edit summary and WP:DTTR. "Creature" is part of the direct quote from the NYT story, and I reduced, but did not remove, the content about Morgan because it is WP:UNDUE and falls under WP:COATRACK. I incorporated your point about the overly general statement, so I changed it to "in June 2017" the NYT did that. Instaurare (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The creature thing is a really blatant BLP violation. I am very aware that you chose that lovely word "creature" from the NYT. too tempting, i suppose.
 * It is a remarkable thing that somebody running as an establishment candidate kicked over and hired a Trump guy who had directly criticised him. You have given no reason for removing that information.
 * I cannot figure out where you are coming from, but your edits make no sense. And you are not following BRD which you should be doing rigorously as this is both BLP and american politics. Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Non sequitur sentence
This sentence is stranded in the "Political positions" section without context: "According to a New York Times in 2014, at that time Gillespie had “ties to both Republican grass-roots and establishment wings”." 108.28.193.226 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that is trying to provide a kind of overview. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Restoration of rights is a pretty major issue in this election
Last-minute ad campaigns also tend to be important (which is why they're saved for last; the candidate is making his closing argument). See, e.g. The last link shows that Gillespie is giving it high billing on his own website as well. Katarina Couteau (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Gillespie’s ads are poisonous to Virginia and the nation, WaPo
 * Virginia’s GOP Governor Hopeful Takes Aim At Voting Rights Again, HuffPost
 * Northam’s Restoration of Rights To Violent Felons Had One Major Problem…, Republican Standard
 * Truth tracker: Ad in Virginia governor race takes aim at restoring rights for felons, Wavy
 * Gillespie draws attention to felon rights restoration in latest ad, WRIC
 * Ed Gillespie’s Scaremongering On Felon Voting Rights Is a Sloppy Return to Crime Hysteria, Reason
 * Gillespie ad blasting McAuliffe rights restoration policy as soft on sex offenders draws outrage from Democrats, Richmond Times-Dispatch
 * 8 Times Ralph Northam Supported the Automatic Restoration of Rights for Violent Criminals, Gillespie for Governor
 * WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We are not here to cover the blow-by-blow of the campaigns. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you differentiate between "blow-by-blow" and major events in the campaigns? Katarina Couteau (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We can't know what is "an important event in the campaign" until after the election. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Even then, how do you know? If he wins, maybe it was because voters loved his stance on that issue. If he loses, maybe it was because voters hated his stance. Or maybe they voted the way they did for totally unrelated reasons. There probably won't be extensive polling of voters to determine why they voted the way they did.


 * Aside from that, ThinkProgress (not the most neutral group, but still a notable organization) says restoration of rights is the "voting rights issue at the center of the Virginia election" since it could affect not only this election but future elections, given the sheer number of Virginians whose eligibility to vote is at stake. Gillespie also chose to "highlight" (i.e. pick out and emphasize) his policy differences on that issue here, suggesting he views it as important too.


 * The "2017 gubernatorial run" section doesn't have a lot of content so maybe it would be undue weight to add the restoration of rights content there, but it could probably go under "Political positions". Katarina Couteau (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's better. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And i just removed it, as that was done by a now-blocked sock. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please find RS description that the Northam campaign "defended" the ad
(i) This Wikpedia article uses Fox News' interpretation of a statement by the Northam campaign. Fox News is not a RS. If you believe that Fox News is a RS, why not use the Northam campaign's own statement from the Fox News source?

(ii) This Wikipedia article also claims that the ad "drew widespread condemnation", which is found neither in the Fox News source or the Hill source.

(iii) Furthermore, this revert removed the Nortam campaign's statement that it was appropriate to pull the ad. This is important, no? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See section above. Please do not do the blow by blow thing. That is not what WP is for. Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This article is not the place to decide whether Fox News is an RS. I did not see the Northam campaign statement saying it was appropriate and think that is good to include. And I did not include the full Northam campaign statement to keep the WP:WEIGHT down but it should be included. Finally, to say that a story that has received local and national coverage from Politico, Washington Post, ABC, NY Daily News, Fox News, and others is not worthy of inclusion is unreasonable. Another user has restored the content. I will add the Northam campaign statements in full per above. Instaurare (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * please join the discussion here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog, I addressed the concerns above by incorporating the full statements. Please write out your concerns here so we can attempt a compromise. Instaurare (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, there have now been three attempts to add content about inflammatory ads coming out in the last weeks of the campaign and how the various sides did or responded to them. We are not a newspaper and we are not here to record the blow by blow of campaigning.  Well after the election when people look back and discuss what was of enduring significance here we can add stuff about all that.  What is enduring is what Gillespie has done, and his policy proposals.  One of the sets of ad stuff got translated into a policy position and that made sense.  Again, see above. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , please attempt a compromise. I made numerous changes to the text per the concerns raised above and through edit summaries, but you have been just deleting everything. I am attempting to build a consensus. It appears you are the only user involved who doesn't believe the content belongs at all. TJH2018 restored the content, and Snooganssnoogans objected to the omission of the full quote (which I addressed) but not to including the story. It would appear there is consensus to include it. We can address your "blow by blow" concerns by doing things like removing the Sarah Huckabee Sanders quote, but when an event is receiving significant national coverage (ABC News, Washington Post, Fox News, NY Daily News, etc.) I don't think WP:NOTNEWS applies. (Anecdotally, I live in Pennsylvania now and I've been hearing about it even up here.) Please suggest a compromise. Instaurare (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the ads accuse Gillespie of something, I think it does belong on his Wikipedia page but in a much more trimmed fashion. On the Northam page, it should at most be two sentences (because it's an ad by someone else, it would be ridiculous to have it be the longest paragraph in Northam's bio): one that describes the contents of the ad and the the group that funded + the second sentence noting that the ad drew controversy, and that while the Northam campaign did not condemn the ad immediately, it did support the removal of the ad after the fact. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Can you propose a trimmed version here and we can discuss it? Instaurare (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The question in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, is what in all this, is of enduring interest, that reflects accepted knowledge? That is our mission.
 * The answers here are all "This is Very Hot News", and these answers don't speak to the mission of Wikipedia.
 * There is no doubt that it is physically possible to add content about this (it "can" be done, but I can also fill the page with "cow cow cow cow cow cow". )
 * Stepping up a level, there are definitely sources about this. (so it "can" be done under the very baseline V policy)
 * The question here, is what should we do? Everything good about Wikipedia, happens because people do what they should do, aiming for the mission of Wikipedia, per WP:NOT and the rest of the policies. All of them.
 * I am very open to hearing answers that speak to the mission - what is "accepted knowledge" here that is of enduring importance? What is not just "news" about the compaign? Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's just hot news. This is an indelible part of the campaign now. If this article is supposed to capture notable information about Ed Gillespie, it must include information about his campaign and the events that occurred in it. If we are not including information that received extensive local and national coverage, and was part of a major theme of the campaign (the role of Gillespie-type Republicans in the Trump era and how they are perceived), then what are we doing here? Please see the proposed text below. Again, I urge you to work towards a consensus compromise - you have pointed out a lot of perceived problems but have not attempted to make any edits. Instaurare (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

New proposed text ''A week before the election, the Latino Victory Fund, which supports Northam, released an ad depicting a white man in a pickup truck with a Gillespie bumper sticker, a "Don't tread on me" license plate, and a Confederate flag chasing down two Latino boys, a girl wearing a hijab, and an African-American boy, and cornering them in an alley before the ad cuts to one of the children waking up and realizing it was a nightmare. The ad was condemned by Gillespie, many conservatives, some Democrat members of the House of Delegates, and the Washington Post editorial board, which called the ad "vile". Northam campaign spokesman Ofirah Yheskel defended the ad, saying, "It's not shocking that communities of color are scared of what his Trump-like policy positions mean for them." The ad was pulled the following day in the hours after the terrorist attack in New York City, in which a man killed several people by running them over with a truck. A Northam campaign spokesman said it did not ask the Latino Victory Fund to pull the ad, but that it was "appropriate and the right thing to do."''

Instaurare (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In light of the reports presented by WAVY-TV, Fox 5 DC, and the Washington Post, I don't think the notability of this incident is disputable anymore. Also note the Roanoke Times calling it "the most controversial ad thus far in Virginia’s governor’s race." I have added the above proposed text with the new citations. Instaurare (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Notability" is something that applies to articles and even articles can be deleted if they fail NOTNEWS.  You have't made any statement about how this is of enduring importance, reflecting accepted knowledge.  It is obvious to everyone, including me, that there is lots of news about this
 * In any case, the content you posted did not have consensus, even from others.
 * I remain keenly interested in hearing something from you (or others) that speaks to the problem I am articulating, about what WP is, and what it is not. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , You have made a couple vague comments about the paragraph and some sort of larger issue but not made any constructive attempts to find a solution. You have said there is no consensus to include it, but you are the only editor in the discussion thus far who thinks it doesn't belong at all. You've also come close to breaching WP:3RR. It's supposed to be bold, revert, discuss, not bold, revert, revert, revert, revert. Instaurare (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are not fighting just as hard to include content about Gillespie's own incendiary ad about northam "Restoring rights of unrepentant sex offenders" -- which I also removed content about -- is extremely telling. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that removal. Is it this one? Because I actually think it should be included. What's your objection? Instaurare (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is an entirely inauthentic response. It is not credible that you are not following the campaign or the editing of this article, and your question about "why" is answered in the section above to which I have already referred, in the edit note in the diff you linked, and is (of course) the same thing I am saying here. I am not continuing this discussion here since there is now an RfC. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on Latino Victory Fund ad
Should the article include content on the Latino Victory Fund ad as covered by these two removed diffs and discussed in the section above? Instaurare (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, the content is clearly reliably sourced and the incident has received very widespread coverage, from local and national outlets, including the Washington Post, Politico, ABC News, several local newspapers and TV stations, etc. If the section about his 2017 campaign does not include content about perhaps the most major incident of the campaign, what's the point? Instaurare (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No and there are now two issues. First no argument has been made addressing NOTNEWS; there are of course many sources about this.  Probably as importantly the editor pushing so hard for this, did nothing when I removed NOTNEWS content about an inflammatory ad by Gillespie which were also widely condemned.  No pushing, no RfC.  Not about that. This is blatant POV editing, all caught up in the fervor of the wacky season.  And that is all this is. We have no idea about the enduring importance of this stuff; it is all RECENTISM and we are not here to "report" on blow-by-blow electioneering. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In the case of the editorial you cite - it's a single editorial. I don't know that that issue has received widespread national coverage. Instaurare (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And why are you not advocating that we add content about the Gillespie ads that talk about how "MS-13 is a menace, yet Ralph Northam voted in favor of sanctuary cities that let dangerous illegal immigrants back on the street, increasing the threat of MS-13.... MS-13’s motto is kill, rape, control. Ralph Northam, weak on MS-13, putting Virginia families at risk.”  Gillespie has run shitloads of controversial ads which have been widely condemned in many, many news outlets.  But about THiS you are jumping up and down. To me this is all NOTNEWS shit that we do not do here. You have articulated no coherent principles by which you are editing or that differentiate WP from the blogosphere.
 * If you were pursing the values and mission of WP, you would be reaching for a source like this that lays out the big picture, and is at least trying to put Gillespie's race-baiting/fear mongering ads, and the outrageous response that you are so worked up about, in a larger context about politics in the trump era, including how mainstream republicans like Gillepsie can or cannot survive in this context.
 * But instead you are here beating a political horse to death about one ad, with no context. Not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The principle is building an encyclopedia. The purpose of this article is to document the life of a notable person. An article containing a subsection about his campaign, without going into detail about one of the major incidents of the campaign, is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. That's why we don't cover the numerous ads before the Latino Victory Fund ad, because they didn't have a lasting impact. Instaurare (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Something like this, which I copied from the Northam article after I fixed it, would make some feeble gesture toward encyclopedic content. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally proposing a real solution. Your proposed edit is fair enough and I have added it to the article with some rearrangement and an additional source. Instaurare (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are satisifed you can withdraw this CFWOT RfC so you don't waste yet more people's time. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Profanity and accusations of wasting people's time? I don't understand the hostility. I begged you to propose a compromise, you repeatedly declined and told me to open an RfC. I did that, you proposed a compromise, and then profanely accused me of wasting people's time. I don't get it. Please refresh yourself on WP:CIVIL. Instaurare (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I killed the RfC since there is no dispute anymore. If you continue wasting people's time with RfCs before discussion is done and maintaing them after the issue is resolved, I will seek a TBAN at AE from US politics. Walk more carefully in the silly season. Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not appreciate the threat. Instaurare (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather not wade into this - things are always going to be heated when discussing politics, but...can we try to cool it down a couple notches? I support the compromise (considering that I wrote it myself, over at the Northam page), although I'd honestly be fine with moving any discussion about campaign ads out of Northam and Gillespie's personal pages and into the Virginia gubernatorial election, 2017 page. I do think that the ads should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. I haven't agreed with all of Instaurare's edits, but I'm assuming good faith and would expect others to do the same. Thanks. --Jpcase (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"Bipartisan" lobbying firm
This is an unsourced claim. An IP account has repeatedly added it to the article for the last few weeks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Scientific consensus on climate change
Instaurare changed "the scientific consensus on climate change" to "the scientific opinion on climate change". Per WP:FRINGE, ideas that depart from the prevailing views in a particular field should be described as such in clear language. The term 'scientific opinion' fails to communicate clearly to readers that there is a scientific consensus on climate change (note that the Scientific opinion on climate change does clearly communicate this, so it's unclear what Instaurare's point is with the title of that page). Instaurare of course knows this, which is why the user did this edit: to intentionally make the text hazy and confuse readers as to the scientific status of climate change. Furthermore, the user did not go to the talk after having his ill-advised change of long-standing content challenged. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The most recent edit does nothing to address my concerns. Per WP:FRINGE, we must in clear language identify ideas that depart from the prevailing views in a particular field. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * When editors are flipping something back and forth like this, it's usually best to stick close to the original language used by the source cite. In this case, we have a public debate between two opponents running for political office in which one asks the other about his views on this topic, and the other dodges at first but later says that he believes there is ample scientific evidence that it is happening.  If the source article had said that Warner had asked Gillepsie about the "scientific consensus," then those words would be the best words to use here in the article.  Same thing if he had spoken of the "the scientific opinion."  But neither formulation was used in the source, so when an editing dispute pops up it's usually best to switch to the phrasing being used in the source article.  There is no WP:FRINGE presentation of ideas going on here; it's not as if the source article referred to it as the "global warming hoax," the "global warming conspiracy theory," or other similar such nonsense.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Racist campaign
Can someone explain why Ed Gillespie ran such a racist campaign.

There was nothing in his background to suggest he would run like this - he had a history of being moderate and had worked for the Bush family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Ed Gillespie's REDMAP Project
Ed Gillespie had a leading role in the Republican REDMAP project which served as a prototype for the modern-day Republican gerrymandering. This should probably be a section in his article.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/gillespie-took-partisan-map-making-to-a-new-level-try-turning-that-into-a-bumper-sticker/2017/10/31/03dd5b32-ba93-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?utm_term=.bc9f58d4f6bf '''Gillespie took partisan mapmaking to a new level. Try turning that into a bumper sticker.''']

While he is better known as the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, a Washington lobbyist and a counselor to President George W. Bush, Gillespie helped pull off a stunning political coup — one that gave Republicans unprecedented muscle to reshape the nation’s congressional maps to their advantage.

Inaugural RSLC REDMAP Report Predicts Significant Republican Gains

''“The Republican Party has an opportunity to impact the redrawing of dozens of congressional districts across the country following this election cycle,” said Tom Reynolds, Vice Chair of the RSLC and head of REDMAP. “In the end, we will see an effect that lasts for the next decade.”''

''“There is little doubt that the political landscape continues to favor Republicans at all levels this election cycle. Voters are looking to Republicans who will move their states in a direction of smaller government and less spending and who will protect them from what is becoming the repeated Democrat over-reach,” said RSLC Chairman Ed Gillespie. “This report spells out how fragile Democrat majorities will quickly turn into Republican-led chambers resulting in common sense conservative policies.”''

GOP REDMAP Memo Admits Gerrymandering To Thank For Congressional Election Success

While the RSLC’s report may come as an unusually candid presentation of the fruits of its gerrymandering campaign, the GOP’s redistricting strategy and emergent advantage is not a newly reported phenomenon, nor is it a practice only exercised by Republicans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakesmcjunkie123 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ed Gillespie. 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/20140407020138/http://news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2014/04/04/warner-urging-changes-in-aca/ to http://news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2014/04/04/warner-urging-changes-in-aca/

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) 04:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)