Talk:Jonathan Stickland

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jonathan Stickland. 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/20140109062336/http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe to http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109062336/http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe to http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe

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

Cheers.— the pest-control industry InternetArchiveBot ]] (Report bug) 23:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

English and spelling
Hello PoliticalPoster007 --
 * One attends college at a named institution.
 * Encompass means to to surround. Wrong word.
 * Children's names don't belong in a political bio, unless they are relevant.
 * District 92 is not a person, therefore who is incorrect.
 * One either works in "a pest-control business", or in " the pest-control industry." Your choice, I don't care.
 * Issues don't do much of anything. Instigated is probably a better word.

This is an encyclopedia. The English needs to be good. I am trying to help you. I left the unsubstantiated claim that he is an "anti-abortion legislator." If you can bring the quote that proves that abortion is his defining issue, it can stay in. Otherwise, it's a POV problem. Rhadow (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Neutrality -- your attention is drawn to the post above. We are arguing about the language, not the content. Rhadow (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Anti vax stuff...
So, here's the thing. We can report what analysis has already been published, but Wikipedia isn't a forum to spout our own ideas about what someone thinks. Posting a tweet from this person and then offering analysis on that tweet is not reliably sourcing content. I removed the following sentence because it is simply a tweet, with accompanying original research. My opinion on whether or not what Strickland is promoting is "over children's health" is of no consequence for this article. What matters is are we reliably sourcing content. This sentence below is an example of us not doing that, so I'm boldly removing it. By all means, if someone reliably sources the printed opinion or discussion of views of what he thinks, go for it. Please don't add it back without proper sourcing.

He has also part of the anti-vax movement promoting "freedom from government" over children's health.

Curdigirl (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)