Talk:Stephen Fincher

Disputed Neutrality
In reading this article, I noticed a lack of neutrality, particularly in the food stamps section. I think this warrants a more neutral rewrite by someone with experience with writing articles pertaining to living/currently-serving politicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimurphy (talk • contribs) 11:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been a bit since this was filed, the wording didn't appear bad, but the size of the section felt WP:UNDUE to me. I'll kill the tag, but feel free to replace if you still feel there are concerns.  --j⚛e deckertalk 00:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Multiple problems with this article
This article has several problems, one being the placement and 'currentism' of the election information. For example, no dates are given for the forecasts, so there's no context. More importantly, material focused on the race itself, particularly the results of the 2008 presidential election(!), belongs in the election article. This article is supposed to be about the person, not the campaign. (Which assumes the person is notable in his own right, which is highly questionable.) There is also clear bias. I have already removed the lede statement which was strongly implying the incumbent was 'chased off' by Fincher, as there was nothing in the referenced article to suggest any such thing. As I have said repeatedly, I believe it's best to mark these articles for Merge but leave those in place (until after the election) which provide non-partisan information about the candidate. Instead I'm seeing several articles now being 'expanded' with material which clearly belongs in the election article, but is being added to the Republican candidate article instead, and in a highly partisan fashion. The reason we have an election article is to provide balance among all the candidates. That's why this material belongs there, not here. Flatterworld (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Forecasts
I moved the Forecasts to the election article because one, they belong there and it's absurd to keep duplicates in every candidate article as they change fairly quickly, and two, the ones listed here were OUT OF DATE. So after I went to the trouble of checking and updating each one, and adding an 'as of' date to the section to make it clear, Inamaka takes it as some sort of personal insult, doesn't bother to look, and restores the OUT OF DATE info back into this article, claiming NO CENSORSHIP!!! in her ridiculous edit 'summary'. :-( You know what? If you can't control your knee-jerk responses to others' edits, it's probably time for you to take a break. I am getting pretty sick and tired of trying to help you out, only to get kicked in the teeth every time. Please. Grow. Up. Flatterworld (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Most Important Point
We have different views here, but it's only a week before the election so let's just leave all the material in this article. My main concern was that the earlier information was out of date. Now it's not. Fine. I don't want ANY of us blocked between now and the election. This is a fairly unimportant issue, and some of you are getting close to the 3R boundary. I don't want someone else jumping in and using that as an excuse for blocking anyone. Let's suspend all arguing for a week, as there are much more important issues at stake. We're all trying to get voters informed, and we need to focus on that. Flatterworld (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are the only one on the verge of violating 3R. I'm not trying to get voters informed about anything. I am trying to create a neutral article and including predictions is not neutral. They are only left there to promote the candidate and I am very uncomfortable with that. Think about it: would we place the predictions in a candidate's article who has a 95% chance of losing? No and neither should we for the favored candidate. This whole article should not exist in the first place. Numerous other articles which similarly lacked notable were merged and redirected to the election article, where they belong. I am going to remove the information one last time to maintain WP:NPOV and hope you will agree that it is not appropriate. Lets use facts, not predictions.--TM 21:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Stephen Fincher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110708200600/http://innovation.cq.com/newmember/2010elexnguide.pdf to http://innovation.cq.com/newmember/2010elexnguide.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-2010-TN-08

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

On Board with Trump
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/356589-former-tennessee-rep-enters-race-for-corkers-senate-seat

"Fincher told the Tennessean he will run to help advance President Trump’s agenda through a “do-nothing Congress.”

--Wikipietime (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)