Talk:Nick Popaditch

Claim that opponent made false accusations regarding 11-year gap in voting record.
Why was my edit on the 14th of January reversed? I pointed out that it's not a "false accusation", but rather one which is to some extent semantically unclear. The video of the ad clearly shows that the claim is that "he didn't vote once in 11 years", and then segues to an interview with Popaditch, in which he says "It's misleading because I have voted several times in the last eleven years. Yes, there was an eleven year period where I didn't vote, but..." thereby confirming that the ad is in fact factually accurate.

In any case, the current version says that it was a false claim, which is demonstrably untrue. It's clearly a true claim, as Popaditch admits. Whether the ad is misleading is one thing, but it is definitively not false.

Further sources can be found here:

"Citybeat reports that Popaditch supporters were angered because they believed Filner misrepresented Popaditch’s voting record in ads, however the ads were technically correct. The ads stated that Popaditch did not vote for many years, which is true; however the ad omits to mention that Popaditch did vote more recently."

http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/4690 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.28.54 (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)  Whoops - 89.247.28.54 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This article should maintain a neutral point of view, and should not be used as an attack space regarding the subject of the article.
 * That being said to state there was a controversy, is sufficient, to allege whether statements were right or wrong is taking a POV on the subject and thus violates said NPOV. If you believe that the controversy is noteworthy enough to create its own article, then you are free to do so. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the current article doesn't say that it is a false claim. It merely states that there was controversy when Filner's campaign ran the accusing ad. That's neutral point of view, because it doesn't make any sort of judement on the merit of the claim. I'm fairly certain that creating an ad for the controversy is not a reasonable idea.  bahamut0013  words deeds 12:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)