Talk:Sandy Pasch

Voting record
I removed comments about Pasch's voting record because the news reports cited did not have a single word about Pasch. Connecting these news reports with Pasch's vote on the issue is against the guideline at WP:SYNTH. Any votes by Pasch that we tell the reader about should be connected directly to Pasch in the news. The Project Vote Smart website cannot be used as mortar to paste together an argument. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that this is a misinterpratation of WP:SYNTH, the addition of a second source is not to "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", as there is nothing in the text that is not supported by the VoteSmart source. The second source was merely to show that the issues being voted on are notable, and did not support any part of the text that was not also supported by VoteSmart. Therefore I will add back these votes, unless you can illustrate how my interpretation of WP:SYNTH is wrong. --Tdl1060 (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The conclusion you are drawing is that Pasch's vote on an issue was notable. However, not one of the news sources noted Pasch's vote. In the Jan. 25, 2011, news item, Pasch is quoted about one of the potential drawbacks of a certain piece of legislation, but her vote is not remarked upon. What you need to find are news sources that complain about or praise Pasch's vote. Binksternet (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That article was written before the vote was taken, but it still shows her opposition to the bill. If an article is complaining about our praising a legislator's vote on a matter than the article is biased and not useful as a source. There are sources that exist that criticize her specific votes but they were removed as biased sources.  These specific bills are notable and I have shown sufficient evidence of that fact.  If you can show where there is a rule, or even a guideline that states that lawmakers' votes should only be referenced by news articles and not a site such as VoteSmart than I will admit that I was wrong and move on.  However I doubt that this will be the case, as I have seen numerous congresspersons' votes sourced to the House Clerk (or Senate Clerk in the case of Senators) which is a primary source.  Otherwise I will readd these votes with only the VoteSmart reference, and using only wording that is reflected in that source. --Tdl1060 (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you can use VoteSmart to show a legislator's vote, but it does not tell the reader that the vote was notable. It is a WP:PRIMARY data source, without editor judgment or commentary, and does not establish notability. For notability, you must find secondary sources such as news articles or opinion columns. The guidelines I am using are WP:SECONDARY and WP:SYNTH, in this case applied more aggressively because the article must conform to WP:BLP. A biography of a living person must have impeccable sourcing. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Okay, if that is the basis for your dispute, then I will add back the votes without editor judgement or commentary, using only the info in the source, strictly following the guidelines of WP:PRIMARY.  I assume that since you have not shown a rule or guideline that states, or even implies, that a lawmaker's vote must be referenced to a news article rather than a site such as VoteSmart, that no such rule exists.  It is questionable whether VoteSmart is even a primary source as it is republishing information that was originally published elsewhere.  It original source of the information being discussed.  But nevertheless I will follow the primary source guidelines when readding the votes. --Tdl1060 (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I dispute Tdl11060's revision that Pasch was a "deciding vote in the Doyle's 2009 budget." I would like to see a source that specifically states these words, "Pasch was one of the deciding votes in Doyle's 2009 budget." Unless Tdl11060 can show me those words explicitly in a source, the revision should not stand. Tdl11060 is engaging in original research and should be prohibited (WP:NOR) from doing so. Also, I feel that this also violates the WP:NPOV policy since Tdl11060 appears to want to associate the fact that Pasch was the one that this tax hike hinged solely on Pasch, which casts a negative, not neutral, light on Pasch and was never stated anywhere in the source. Unfortunately, according to the same source, 49 other members joined her, so I don't see how you could single out any one of the members to say that he or she had the "deciding vote." --Idq000 (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Tdl1060, the consensus here on the talk page appears to be not to include the VoteSmart-referenced votes that you have repeatedly added to the article. It has not been demonstrated that these votes are particularly notable or relevant enough to include here. The issue here is not verifiability, but notability and particularly concerns about the undue weight being given to these votes. Gobonobo  T C 17:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And the same applies to Tdl's edits to the article on Alberta Darling, Pasch's opponent in the upcoming election, where the votes seem to be cherrypicked to look attractive to a certain type of moderately conservative voter. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC) (fully disclosing that he's donated to the Pasch campaign, and has picketed Darling's house in the past)
 * As has been discussed before, anyone is free to add other votes and positions to the articles if so choose, which other editors have done. The bias is shown by other editors who remove certain votes and positions while leaving others based upon how it makes their preferred candidate or their candidate's opponent look.  And regarding consensus, the consensus on the BLP noticeboard was that VoteSmart is an acceptable source.  The fact that a majority on these particular pages disagree due to their support of a candidate is irrelavent. There is no rule or guideline that states that votesmart is not an acceptable source. Also, notability only delimits what topics can have articles of their own, not information can be included in an article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)