Talk:Scott Wiener/Archive 1

PR copy
This article reads like PR copy. Not a single negative word. Controversial legislation has been delicately edited to appear diplomatic and confusing. I wonder Wiener's office has a heavy hand in maintenance here? Zmbe (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 3 years later, hasn't changed .Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Fox News Incident
http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2015/07/14/s-f-supe-scott-wiener-to-reporter-fox-news-isnt-real-news/

"Fox News isn't real news"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor7617 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Scott Wiener. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110122071715/http://www.sfgate.com/district8-scott-wiener/ to http://www.sfgate.com/district8-scott-wiener/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Chinese
What is the justification for the Chinese rendering of his name in the lead? Is he half-Chinese? Has he lived in China? Nothing concerning China is mentioned in the article?--176.92.86.228 (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the article body, candidates in San Francisco have to select a Chinese name for Chinese-language ballots due to an election law requirement. While this is interesting and certainly worth mentioning in the body, I agree, it's inappropriate for the lede, as Wiener doesn't seem to have used the name for any other purpose. I'm removing it. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section
He deserves a criticism section as of 2019. His funding sources and overreach (rather than serving his district he attempts to rezone the entire state) has ruffled a lot of feathers and prompted challenger campaigns.

He is highly affiliated with the "yimby" movement that itself deserves criticism based on how most of their collective legislation has failed. 69Avatar69 (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * For clarity and simplicity, I have moved this to a new section. Generally, new comments should be posted on the bottom of the page, per WP:BOTTOMPOST.
 * Articles should avoid criticism sections when possible, and especially biographies of living people. We are not interested in listing editor-selected examples of how he has ruffled feathers, because this risks cherry-picking, among other problems. We are not interested in your opinion (whether we agree or not) that YIMBY deserves criticism. We are mainly interested in summarizing reliable, independent sources. Opinions and opinion sources should be weighed carefully. Opinions are cheap, in other words. They should only be included in an article if there is some specific reason to think they are encyclopedically significant. This is most typically determined by independent coverage of the opinions, meaning that a reliable source is commenting on the opinion and indicating why the opinion matters, not merely repeating it. Opinions should always be clearly attributed so that readers know who is providing the opinion, and readers should have some way of finding further context, if needed. Saying that "Critics claim..." something is a textbook example of weasel wording. It is using Wikipedia to criticize someone, but this is fundamentally not Wikipedia's goal. Every politician has lots of critics, and those critics claim lots of things.  Who are these "critics" and why should readers care?
 * Further, be cautious of terms like "despite","although", "however", etc. as these are red-flags for editorial problems (see words to watch). Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree the language I used ("critics say" etc.) isn't appropriate for Wikipedia which strives to be neutral. I have changed all edits I have done where I think I have editorialized or done original research. However, the first comment on this talk page is on how the article seems to be a PR piece from Wiener's office. Maybe that was the underlying problem of the page and I was (wrongly) trying to counterbalance that.69Avatar69 (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are roughly chronological. The first comment is usually just the oldest comment. It is not automatically the most important comment. There was nothing wrong with commenting where you did, but the article has changed dramatically (for the better) since March 2014. I think it makes more sense to evaluate the article now, on its own terms. If you feel this article currently has promotional problems, please get specific. Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * As it currently stands, I think it is ok. You kept some of my edits that I felt were PR so I'm referring to the page from a few days ago, not 2014. I still think the Chinese reference is unnecessary and may be serving a PR purpose, but I think it's mostly just weird and out of place.69Avatar69 (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)