Talk:Stephen Franks

Untitled
Updating

I am new to Wikipedia so I apologise in advance if I have broken any conventions. I have just updated and condensed elements of this article to take account of changing events. --Taikorea (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Motivations
I am removing the reference to the EFA as the reason for returning to poltics, it is not accurate and furthermore, it is not supported by the reference provided.

--Wchambers (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Wchambers--Wchambers (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. Franks states:


 * "Yet in Parliament, out of the sun and light, the iniquitous Electoral Finance Bill was being forced through. I can’t just put aside the corruption by power of those now running this country."

That's a very clear statement that Franks' candidacy was motivated by his opposition to the EFA. --Lholden (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think it ought to be ommitted for now, because while it may have been a motivation, the source does not state that it was the motivation. Further, I think that consistency is very important and no other candidates articles go into this kind of detail to opine on the motivations of the candidate. --Wchambers (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be 'the' motivation - the article doesn't state that. If no other candidates articles have this sort of detail, then maybe they should. There's no good reason to exclude relevant, referenced information on the basis the such information isn't on other articles. --Lholden (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Should John Key's page state that the motivation for his candidacy is that he wants to be prime minister? The simple fact is that there is no need to contain such subjective information in the biography of a person who is at this stage only running for Parliament.Furthermore, the citation is the personal blog of the candidate, not a third party as mandated by Reliable sources, it is your interpretation of a primary source and therefore violates No original research. Because it was written by the subject on a matter directly related to the subject and therefore breachs WP:SELFPUB and WP: BLP. In all of this the burden of proof is on he who seeks to add or restore. The case for keeping this simply is not made out. Just think, Abraham Lincoln does not talk about Licoln's motivation for getting into politics, though he is much more notable, is dead and has lots of secondary sources which have regard to the matter. Please do not add it unless you can find a reliable, third party secondary source not published by the subject.--Wchambers (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The sentence was not my interpretation of the source. It was a pre-existing statement which I merely re-added to the article. I agree on the third-party source information, although I'm sure I can find one (Franks was featured in The Dominion Post with his mouth taped-up stating the same). Nonetheless, I'm not going to re-add the sentence again, this is a minor issue. --Lholden (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)