Talk:Kelly Craft

not sure how what hotels she stays at is relevant to her Political involvement and donations
i wanna be able to go to wikipedia to get a clearer perspective than what activist media (salon.com this time) offers. i can live with having to asses salon.com and similar outlets are credible, but having to find out that Snooganssnoogan has a history of making partisan edits to push a lefty agenda is something i hope wikipedia isnt turning into. then again, im checking the history of an editor so i guess its too late for that. is orange man really so bad uve to ruin wikipedia over him jesus christ

anyway u might have guessed im not really interested in having a discussion myself but hoping somebody whos more invested in the well-being of the platform is willing to


 * RS find this notable enough to cover. I don't know about you, but I find it relevant context that someone who literally puts money in Trump's pocket then gets nominated for prestigious government positions by Trump. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

the issue isnt whether the washington post is a reliable source or not (contestable; covington, jussie smollet, russia gate, 'manufactored' border crisis... all being inaccurate likely due to misalign trump/republicans). regardless whether their reporting is factually accurate, u and theyre drawing a conclusion based on correlating factors on whether kelly crafts stays at trumps hotels is a campaign contribution to trump. that reasoning fails to stand up to any scrutiny. i dont have a subscription to the washington post so im unable to verify which is the hotel in question, but after a 10 sec google search i found out all trumps hotels are marketed as luxury hotels, which i can only assume are nice to stay at. is every person staying at a trump hotel or making a transaction for any trump product making a campaign contribution to his campaign? making an conclusion based on whether a person gets a position in trumps administration after the fact just reeks of confirmation bias. tbh thats a generous assessment, at best id say its a conspiracy theory, at worst its a malicious smear.

also didnt a judge rule that the washington posts coverage of the covington situation is non-libelous due to it being opinion? like i get theyre an established platform but come on, just because their facts are accurate doesnt mean theyre not aligning them in a way to to form a narrative thats not accurate.

to answer ur claim that anyone who gets a position in trumps administration who made a private transaction with any of trumps corporations is a campaign contribution is accurate: no, not relevant. it excludes the legitimate factors and pushes the narrative of corruption and bribes being involved.
 * Agree that it is irrelevant.2603:7000:2143:8500:C84A:1CF1:CBD5:345A (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong name and link on photo
The photo has the name "Kelly Kraft" and links to the male golfer with that name. I'm not familiar with how to change that. TucsonBarney (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been addressed. --2603:7000:2143:8500:C84A:1CF1:CBD5:345A (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion
An editor deleted a swath of text as not RS supported. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kelly_Craft&diff=1025848252&oldid=1025847142 But it is all RS supported. The deletion was improper, and has been reverted. --2603:7000:2143:8500:C84A:1CF1:CBD5:345A (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You made several enormous edits where you both removed a bunch of reliably sourced content and added poorly sourced puffery (the "Daily Signal" and the like are not RS). If any of the content is actually reliably sourced, feel free to restore it. And do not remove reliably sourced content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * My response is here, in the url that follow .. (as I am trying to keep the conversation in one place at this point). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Snooganssnoogans#Deleting_RS-supported_text_as_.._not_RS_supported --2603:7000:2143:8500:C84A:1CF1:CBD5:345A (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * IP user, please do not re-add challenged content. The onus is on the proponent of challenged content to obtain a consensus for it. I happen to agree that much of this content is puffery, poorly sourced, unencyclopedic, or undue weight such as the exact size of her hometown, a random quote from the Canadian ambassador, and her step-grandchildren's nickname for her. Neutralitytalk 18:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Neutrality. First, the editor deleted RS-supported material. Which he admitted was appropriate. How is that ok? Second, in his first round of deletions he when it came to specifics named one. Only one. That he felt a source was not an RS. I deleted that source. And all text that was wholly supported by the RS. I addressed his specific concern. Third, I'm now restoring deleted content that was not objected to by him specifically. Since a major objection of his - which I am surprised by - is the size of the addition before, I am adding it in bite sized form. Even though I cannot understand, when we have entire articles added of much larger length, how that can be a legitimate complaint. Nor a reason for deleting material one agrees is RS supported and fine ... just because one fails to identify that material that is of concern, and discuss it on the talk page. Which one might consider possibly a better option. BTW, when an RS speaks of the size of one's hometown it is presumably relevant - and far batter than saying "from a small hometown." And a quote from a Canadian Ambassador, re a US Ambassador to Canada, is not indubitably "random" - that strikes me as an unusual description. Any material that is not RS supported should not be in the article unless RS support is supplied - such material has been identified already, and was already addressed. I've now added RS-supported material, and ce. If anyone has an issue with any aspect of this bite-sized edit, lmk here on the talk page - since there has been agreement that the prior editor reverted RS-supported material, and was concerned about size of edit, and we can discuss the specific - emphasis on specific - concern. It's not cricket to delete RS-supported material that is not in fact challenged, let alone challenged on any legitimate basis, I am sure we can all agree. 2603:7000:2143:8500:9979:940B:2D8A:6CEF (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)