Talk:Joe Sestak

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Joe Sestak. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pa2010.com/2009/04/exclusive-sestak-seen-as-most-likely-to-run-against-specter-in-primary/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160508154938/https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-white-house-counsel-regarding-review-discussions-relating-congressman-se to https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-white-house-counsel-regarding-review-discussions-relating-congressman-se
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707043345/http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/1/477 to http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/1/477
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141126065624/http://www.cff.org/GetInvolved/Advocate/CFCaucus// to http://www.cff.org/GetInvolved/Advocate/CFCaucus/

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) 15:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Bias
The article seems a bit deceptive by suggesting that Sestak being in a service academy during the Vietnam War was service. In a sense it was, but he could easily have just joined the military and served in Vietnam. Instead, he sat in safety as a student while millions of draftees fought the war. Because only Democrats can edit Wikipedia, I wouldn't dream of making any change to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Sestak recently started running for president, and it seems like his article may have been "cleaned" to make him look more appealing: the summary includes unnecessary facts (like how far ahead of other candidates he ran while losing, how his district was Republican, etc) and refers to Katie McGinty, who defeated him in the 2016 primary, as a "lifetime political operative and pharmaceutical lobbyist" even though her resume also included being the governor's chief of staff and an environmental protection official. Overall it looks like someone probably edited the summary recently to be more favorable to Sestak and portray him in a positive light. This should probably be revised for a more neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madoradus (talk • contribs) 04:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Madoradus: this page is clearly biased to present Sestak in the most favorable light possible. Statements like, "even as the national Democratic Party spent 8 times the money for McGinty's 2016 general election campaign as it did for Sestak in the 2010 election," are unnecessary and seem to be included only to create a favorable image of Sestak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.35.27 (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"This wikipedia article paid for by the Committee to Reelect Joe Sestak" I'd say it's embarrassing, but that's modern wikipedia for you. 207.32.162.193 (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Article is too long
This article is too long for a Wikipedia WP:BLP page. There is much information that does not rise to the level of inclusion, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING standards. Interested editors are encouraged to review the article and make appropriate edits to cut back the length and dense detail of the article. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it too long? I don't think so. This article has a prose size (text only) of 40110 characters (6374 words) "readable prose size". Per WP:SIZESPLIT, 40k characters means "Length alone does not justify division". There certainly can be some things that may be better off removed per WP:RECENTISM, but size alone is not a problem here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)