Talk:Julie Johnson (politician)

2021 Democrat Protest
User Muboshgu has reverted good faith edits while claiming they are non-NPOV. After reviewing the content, it appears that the sources used covered all reported information from different perspectives (ie. left-wing sources/right-wing sources) and does not constitute non-NPOV. Please explain any non-NPOV before the content is reintroduced into the article.12.227.66.34 (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit was POV, and here's how:
 * like the title of this talk page section, using the Democrat Party (epithet)
 * "fled in secret" no they did not, they were very public about their going to DC. Saying "fled in secret" makes it appear to be nefarious
 * "while asking constituents to provide care packages" what other than making them look like grifters is the relevance? Also, it's cited to the NY Post, which per WP:NYPOST is an unreliable POV source for subjects of American politics
 * "In response to the House members abandoning their elected positions" Defending voting rights is part of their elected position.
 * "vacation in Portugal" If it's true (the article title says "reportedly"), so what? There's of course the implication of dereliction of duty in that.
 * "fleeing their duties": you really felt the need to hammer that point home there
 * Does that clarify it for you? A proper, neutral edit would say that they left the state because they oppose the proposed legislation and why.– Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The title is NPOV since the action was performed by the cumulative members of the Democratic Caucus. That is fact, not just descriptive in any way.
 * Here is another source, and there are many, that detail that the plan was initiated in secret and only revealed once all members arrived in D.C.


 * "Secrecy was paramount, Turner and others said, because they did not want to alert House Republicans of their plans — nor risk some among them succumbing to political pressure and staying behind."
 * 3. The care package line can be removed to focus on Johnson's role. Although, The NY post is not unreliable here as the comments that were made in discussing WP:NYPOST are specifically for their Page Six gossip column, which is not being cited here, and also for one laptop story. None of those items pertain to the material being referenced here.
 * 4. Stating that this is part of their job, this is an opinion that you state, not fact, as they are being paid for being voting members in the House. With this action of "abandoning their elected positions" their pay was cut as reported here.
 * 5. Journalists report the news. That's why we cite news articles that "report" every story that publish. Since it's reported it is taken as a valid information from a news source.
 * 6. That information and wording using "left" can be added, this initial edit was something to be built on as these events are notable. You shouldn't just delete input from others because you don't like it. Either talk about it or help make it better.12.227.66.34 (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have time right now to get too deep into this, but for #5, WP:NOTNEWS is a policy that points out that not every news report is something to include – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The news report came from a journalist. Therefore their reporting has substance. Wikipedia states that articles should display information from all sides, therefore if you have additional information to include, by all means, include it. Support your reasoning with evidence to the contrary and that will be the simplest way to resolve this. Do not simply block deleting work put on wikipedia. As it was stated earlier, either put in the effort to help make this article better or leave it be. There are many other editors that can contribute if you don't have the time.12.227.66.34 (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)