Talk:Tom Smith (Pennsylvania politician)

Political position re: Abortion
In the political positions section where it states that Tom Smith is pro-life and favours no exceptions for abortions one editor keeps trying to place after the statement "he believes abortion should be banned with no exceptions" the words "including for victims of rape" which is redundant in the fact that no exceptions clearly already means no exceptions. Also to re-emphasize rape which is unnecessary also seems political bias for example if I were to say Barack Obama supports unrestricted access to abortion even in cases of partial birth abortion I would be re-emphasizing the unpopular stance in his position to make him look bad; just saying "he believes abortion should be banned with no exceptions" fully describes his postion on the issue to re-emphasize rape is unnecessary and biased to make him look bad. The source in describing his position only states that he is pro-life with no exceptions, it does not say including for rape though he is later asked a question about rape in the article this was never used in the language characterizing his position since again "no exceptions" covers it already.

Finally if we were to re-emphasize rape it should be "including in cases of rape" very neutral language; not "including for victims of rape" which seems bias and politically charged language. John D. Rockerduck (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The initial response by the politician was given to a question framed in the context of rape (see the Akin reference). The politician's later clarification was also given in response to a question framed in the context of a hypothetical rape of his daughter or granddaughter.  The cited source is an article about not just his stance, but particularily his stance as it relates to a situation involving rape.  Since the source emphasized this, so should our Wikipedia article content.  If you would like to go further in adhering to the cited source, we could add his equating rape with having a child out of wedlock: "It is similar."  Do you think that is necessary?


 * As for your opinion that referring to a raped person as a 'victim' is "bias and politically charged language", I really do not know how to respond to that -- and I probably shouldn't, lest I say something that I'd regret. Let us instead just follow Wikipedia policy and convey what reliable sources convey, shall we? From the source (note my underlines):


 * ''However, he stumbled when asked about how he would convince a daughter or granddaughter who was the victim of a rape that she should carry her potential child to birth.


 * Mr. Smith replied that he "lived something similar to that with my own family, and she chose life. I commend her for that."


 * He added that his daughter wasn't the victim of a rape . Asked what the similar situation entailed, he said she became pregnant out of wedlock.


 * Asked if having a child out of wedlock is similar to rape, he replied: "No, no, no, but put yourself in a father's position, yes. It is similar. This isn't ..." He trailed off, then continued: "But back to the original, I'm pro-life, period."


 * He later reasserted that he was not comparing pregnancies from rape and from out of wedlock: "I said I went through a situation. It's very, very difficult. ... I believe life begins at conception. I'm not going to argue about the method of conception. It's a life. And I'm pro-life. It's that simple."


 * Thank you, by the way, for raising this issue on the talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * First off to say "including for victims of rape" is bias and politically charged language since it is written in a polemic way meant to make Smith look bad while neutral wording would be "cases of rape" since he is against any exception, to include victims seems to be POV since a person arguing against his position would say that to convince someone that his position is wrong for example using that rationale one could say that Tom Smith is against abortion even for poor mothers or any other stark example to argue against his position; which would be POV. Also I would not say Mitt Romney is against abortion except for victims of rape; I would say cases of rape as all other unbias describers would say. You know I'm not saying people who expierence rape are not victims that type of accusation is not conducive towards a civil disscussion and uncalled for.


 * Secondly the article starts out by saying


 * Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tom Smith said during a lunchtime appearance here that he does not support any exceptions under which a woman should be allowed to have an abortion.


 * Then
 * A questioner after his speech at the monthly Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon asked Mr. Smith about his view on abortion, and noted the recent remarks from Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin that victims of "legitimate rape" are scientifically unlikely to become pregnant.


 * he did not ask him whether he was against abortion even for rape but for his views on abortion and akin's recent remark about women be able to stop conception during rape; the question was not framed in rape.


 * The second question mentioned in the article was not whether he was against abortion even for cases of rape but if he would convince hypothetically raped family members to keep the child to birth; this was not his clarification for his postion on abortion but another question asked by a reporter. Never in the article did it say "he believes abortion should be banned with no exceptions including for victims of rape" since no exceptions already includes rape why re-emphasize with extraneous language it you might as well say including for his daughter or granddaughter. Does no exceptions mean no exceptions? just because questions of rape are focused on in the article does not mean we have to focus on it to describe his postion, since wikipedia is not a newspaper so we do not need to summarize news articles but extract the facts from their content like his postion not the reporters' take on it or what they chose to emphasize. Again does no exception mean no exceptions? John D. Rockerduck (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * One would not say a person believes abortion should be banned with no exceptions, even for cases of rape, incest, and at risk to the mothers health because that language is redundant,superflous, and bad grammar since it already stated no exceptions John D. Rockerduck (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You know I'm not saying people who expierence rape are not victims that type of accusation is not conducive towards a civil disscussion and uncalled for.
 * I never made that accusation. Please read more carefully.
 * "including for victims of rape" is bias and politically charged language since it is written in a polemic way meant to make Smith look bad
 * No, it is the language used by reliable sources. Granted, the words do not paint a pretty picture, but that is because being a victim of rape isn't pretty -- and the words aren't biased or polemic (can a person really have a bias for rape?). I do not see why you think the Post-Gazette is trying to "make Smith look bad".  What you are doing is suggesting that we exchange what is conveyed by reliable sources with euphemisms, and that could be construed as trying to make Smith's statements look less bad.  I hope that isn't the case here.
 * Again does no exception mean no exceptions?
 * Apparently not. Look below where Dennis states, "That means there is doubt, at least when it comes to his own family, which opens the door for a possible exception."
 * I'll continue my discussion below, after Dennis' statements. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You did make that accusation As for your opinion that referring to a raped person as a 'victim' is "bias and politically charged language", I really do not know how to respond to that -- and I probably shouldn't, lest I say something that I'd regret So thats patently false secondly
 * No, I did not. You've quoted my words, now you should read them. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * secondly nowhere in the article did it say so starkly that "he believes abortion should be banned with no exceptions including for victims of rape" the proper term is cases of rape, your wording not the source's wording (Also you said sources there is only one source)


 * thirdly no exceptions means no execeptions and if you agree with Dennis than I'll gladly take it out. But the mere fact where talking about his position on the hypothetical rape of his family members is clear sign this section is off kilter John D. Rockerduck (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * See my comments below. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

3rd opinion
I was asked to offer an opinion by Rockerduck on my talk page. He and I haven't crossed paths before that I'm aware of, and I haven't added to this article substantially, if at all, so I feel I can be neutral here.

A couple of things bother me with the current quote "and he believes abortion should be banned with no exceptions, including for victims of rape." Saying it as a flat statement seems stronger than the source states. They asked him, he didn't say "yes", he instead compared it to an out of wedlock pregnancy in his family, so he didn't exactly commit to the point that a flat statement is justified. The source says

They said he stumbled, which means he equivocated and never directly answered the question. That is key. And that example wasn't rape anyway. That means there is doubt, at least when it comes to his own family, which opens the door for a possible exception. This makes it more than just splitting hairs. So, it would be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR to claim he would make no exception.

It isn't enough to be true, it has be verifiable so you would have to have a source that flatly says he doesn't support abortion in the case of rape. He was being intentionally vague, I might add, by repeating the same claim more than once "I'm pro-life. Period" as "Pro-Life" may or may not include making an exception for rape, and assuming he doesn't is original research. As such, we are bound by policy to remove that once part simply because he never did directly answer it in the given source.

I would recommend a full qualification and a direct quote from the source, which would be more accurate:

This would avoid all WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH issues, and is the most accurate way to make the statement. This leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions, just as this newspaper article did for their readers. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to review the issue at hand and for offering some thoughtful input. I've seen you around enough to have developed confidence in your ability to lend a bit of neutral, reasoned insight, regardless of past interactions.  I'd like, however, to offer a slightly different interpretation of some of the points you've expressed above.  Perhaps the following additional sources may also be of help in clarifying the matter:
 * The Philly Inquirer - Additional reporting.
 * HuffPo - with actual video of the exchange.
 * Politics-PA - with actual audio of the exchange, transcript, and video of later clarifications.


 * Saying it as a flat statement seems stronger than the source states. They asked him, he didn't say "yes",...
 * Perhaps true, if that single source was all we had to go by. What actually transpired, however, was two reporters asked him specifically if his "no exceptions" included rape and incest, and he firmly responded, "No exceptions." (See the recordings, or the Politics-PA transcript linked above.) That was before the "daughter or granddaughter" scenario was presented.
 * Vickers: So in cases of incest or rape…
 * Laura Olson, Post-Gazette: No exceptions?
 * Smith: No exceptions.
 * They said he stumbled, which means he equivocated and never directly answered the question. That is key.
 * He did indeed stumble and equivocate, but that was when he was equating pregnancy from rape with pregnancy out of wedlock, and he realized (probably from the looks of disbelief, the pressing requests that he clarify what he just said, and the urgency with which his spokesperson attempted to intercede) he had said too much. He had already answered specifically that there was no exception for rape or incest.  The only question he never answered directly was how he would convince his daughter or granddaughter.
 * So, it would be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR to claim he would make no exception.
 * I do not see it that way. The synthesis isn't ours; it's from the sources, which is the kind of synthesis Wikipedia seeks.  Wording from the Huffington Post says, "he agrees with Akin that abortion should be banned without any exceptions, including for rape and incest victims." The Enquirer states it thusly, "Asked about his stance on abortion during a stop in Harrisburg, Smith said he opposed it in all circumstances, including rape and incest."  It would be synthesis on our part to read into it that he might harbor some secret exception for family members only.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was using the sources that were cited, which shows why citation is so important as the existing one didn't support the statement for the reasons I gave. The Huffington Post article, however, does make the claim clearly and does so without the sloppiness found in much of the reporting on the issue. As to using "victim" or not, the sources use it and while it is a strong word, it is accurate and we aren't trying to water things down, so it is appropriate.  Using a quote might be best here as well, such as


 * [cite]


 * This avoids any controversy and is guaranteed to be accurate. Or the other sources can be used, but I think a direct quote (while not required) has advantages here.  Normally in an article this short, making such distinctions would be bordering on WP:UNDUE, but since he and the media has made such a large issue of his views, quoting it in this way (imho) is appropriate.  Again, this is a 3rd opinion as an editor, not as an admin, and my main concern is that we are extremely careful to be very accurate in how we represent the individual, without sugarcoating it either. There is an mp3 (no need to use that in the cite) and he doesn't actually say "it should be banned without exception..." but he does answer yes quite clearly, so we can attribute the quote to the paper, but not to Smith. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Huffpost is left-wing media organ it uses biased language, and polemics to support its agenda; again just because we cite a source that uses biased language does not mean we have to use that language, only the facts from it. The paper cites smith's no execeptions position on abortion so let's report that position using neutral language like even in cases of rape. To say victims is the huffposts way of trying to post a visual to make it's case against his position. To describe Obama's position on abortion I would not use a fox news article that says "Obama supports abortion even in cases where the child can life independantly of the mother (partial-birth abortion)" when reporting the facts of that statement I would say "Obama supports partial-birth abortion" free of bias and polemics which do not belong in an enclyopedia since it unlike the Huffpost is not a newspaper John D. Rockerduck (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Victim" isn't really a matter of Huff Post or not Huff Post. It is a word that is generally associated with rape.  We wouldn't call them "giver and recipient" or "raper and rapee".  And quoting it with Huff's name allows the reader to weigh it themselves.  It isn't inflammatory in my opinion, as all crimes have "perpetrators" and "victims" and rape is a crime.  What else can we call the person on the bad side of rape?  What more neutral word is there?  If it were qualified or exaggerated I would see the point, ie: "even for victims of the most brutal rapes".  That would be overkill, but calling the victim a "victim" is due to a lack of a better term.  While I don't think Huff is the most neutral newspaper in the world, I don't think the NYTimes is either, but they are both still considered reliable sources.  Of course, you are welcome to get more opinions or start an RfC.  I am not "the authority" here, just another editor.  I just tend to default to using the exact terms a source does.   Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Also note that WP:BLPN is a good board to ask the question as well, since those guys and gals do nothing but deal with BLP issues, which this qualifies as. Since the attitude here isn't so confrontational, an agreement to stick with a decision there would be helpful if you do go. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I gave you a more neutral term "cases of rape" it is more neutral and enclyopedic also that is how political postions are usually described are they not Mr. Brown why change the wording here to paint a picture to make a candidate look bad. Fox News is a reliable source but I would not use there polemics in a encyclopedia. Also cases of rape is a more accurate description since Smith is against abortion in all cases of rape and some cases of rape such as Statutory Rape do not have victims in the sense the article is trying to compare it too. John D. Rockerduck (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Again 'victim" is generally associated with rape as "Cases of rape" is generally associated with political postions so then it would be not a matter of Gazette or no Gazette, as well as Huffpost or no Huff post just because thay went with differant wording does not mean were foreced to deviate from the norm John D. Rockerduck (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:BLPN is likely the best place to get experienced and neutral opinions on it. You don't need to rebut me, as you indicate in your summary, I'm not debating, I just gave my singular opinion.  As I'm not a regular editor here, I'm not taking a side.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If you all want to signal out rape we are at least going to use neutral language, like cases of rape how many times is it described as even for victims of rape for non-op eds it no the majority of articles describe it as "cases of rape" or "even in rape" such as ontheissues.org John D. Rockerduck (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Just added that as a source so now we have use that source (which consequently is more reliable and less bias than the original) also as Dennis Brown stated that original source was not enough to make the conclusion that you did Xeno without original research which is against the rules, so my source however can make an appropiate claim so let's use it's wording John D. Rockerduck (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The new source said circumstances of rape which at least in my mind equates to cases of rape but added two sources that specifical state that as well. Xeno you need to use the talkpage to change the material don't start edit-warring, finally as Brown and I agree on the article in the post-gazzettee does not state that also in order for you to do it that is WP orginal research. Also the source now cited after that comment is it not even the post-gazzette yet the three sources all cited say circumstances of rape not your wording check out citations here 1 2 3 so here some citations that say cases of rape which is commensurate to circumstances of rape 4 5 but I'll compromise and use circumstances of rape which is the neutral language I'm talking about and since all the sources you put in say circumstances I'm sure you will agree. Secondly WP:scope we shouldn't put in every hot-button question he is asked during his campaign in the political postions section or mention todd akin WP:scope it should be included in the campaign article as it was a campaign event and development. John D. Rockerduck (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Give me a non-oped and reliable source which says verbatim that "Tom Smith opposes abortion with no exceptions, including for victims of rape" then we will talk not the an article that mentions his position on abortion then later mentions victims of rape to describe hypothetical raped family members not his position on the issue John D. Rockerduck (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Statements on family member
John Rockerduck, you referred me to the talk page, but I don't see any consensus here to omit the comments, nor indeed any arguments for their omission (you have argued that the term "victim of rape" is biased and that to even follow the sources by mentioning rape vis-a-vis his abortion position makes him look bad, but I don't think anyone agrees with you there, given that your argument is literally "we are Wikipedia -- we shouldn't be going with what reliable sources say!"). As I said: the comments are part of the general problem that the GOP is having with rape in this election cycle, and Smith's comments are persistent in the sources ( and are both from today). Moreover, they are much better sourced than the promotional material that makes up most of the rest of the article. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I reffered you to the talkpage since Xeno had brought up whether or not to include it and reached no conclusion again the words "victim of rape" are meant to paint a very bad picture (as Xeno has conceded) while the term "cases of rape" is the none op-ed version also the source never had that wording which is political spin, yes the article mentioned rape and abortion but never worded as such whenever the source referred to Smiths position it stated as pro-life and agianst any exceptions. We are wikipedia and we should leave out all spin from OP-EDs and articles meant to paint a candidate in a bad light again is the general description for people who make exceptions not "against abortion except in the cases of rape, incest and at risk to the mothers life; not "gainst abortion except for rape victims" why change it here. Also Dennis Brown agreed to talk it out since it violated WP:synth and WP: original research so your wrong on that point.


 * That material is for the campaign not his political positions since Wp is not a newspaper just because we cite an article does not mean we need to make sound like a news article. Also the section is too heavily constitiuted on rape it's political positions and why mention Akin at all this section is not about any question a reporter so happens to ask Smith we need only to state his actual postions see WP:undue. Finally that is an campaign event that hardly sparked any national news like the aforementioned Akin. Does the news not use bias language at times if I'm citing a fox news article would I not just cite the facts not it's polemics or spin because I could find Reliable sources to redescribe many prominant democrats positions with but that would be bias just like this section is John D. Rockerduck (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Also you said "As I said: the comments are part of the general problem that the GOP is having with rape in this election cycle" the election cycle is the key word here this is about Smith's political positions not that wider issue that the Gop is having with rape that is a textbook example of WP: undue where that belongs is in The campaign article or the War on Women page which is a page devoted to that problem not in that section. John D. Rockerduck (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure how to respond to this comment since pretty much everything you said is simply false. Xeno did not agree that the term "victim of rape" was meant to make Smith look bad; in fact, s/he was offended by that suggestion. The term "victim" appears in plenty of non-opeds; it's in the Post-Gazette source cited. Many sources do single out rape from the "no exceptions" stance. Dennis did not agree to remove the mention of rape, since it appears in reliable sources.
 * As for the sliiightly more substantive points: no, you are wrong in saying that Wikipedia must merely report the candidate's political positions. He has his own campaign website for that. We don't suppress notable and well-sourced material simply because it might make Smith look bad; that's for the reader to judge, not us to tell them, and I'm sure there are plenty of anti-abortion people who applaud his statements. Re the War on Women article: it is counterintuitive to suggest that the statements must be discussed there and completely suppressed in the article on the person who made them. A reader comes to this article to learn about Smith and will have no way of reading about him in that article without a link from here. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * firstly Every thing I said was true here Xeno did concede the remarks did not paint a pretty picture as I said his exact words were "Granted, the words do not paint a pretty picture, but that is because being a victim of rape" so what I said was true you calling it simply false is a lie here Dennis Brown agreed Xeno's language was not in the Post-Gazzetttee  he said specifically before anyother additional sources were added "So, it would be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR to claim he would make no exception" again that is not simply false it is true, before calling me a liar read the whole conversation your above arguement is completely false and misleading; Also "sliiiighty" seems condescending to me and uncalled for in a civil disscussion.


 * Now what other non-op eds I seen none, also I never said wikipedia only has to report on the candidates positions I said the Section on Tom Smith's page that is titled political positions must report on Tom Smith's political positions how is that wrong if you what to make another section fine but it can't be in that section. Secondly your trying to put the narrative of the GOP's problem with rape and abortion this cycle (Todd Akin mostly) into this section is does not belong how are Todd Akins remarks such an important event that they need mentioning on Tom Smith page just because he was asked a question about them so was just about every politician do we include everyone's position on akin's comment on their pages to again Wp scope and WP undue.


 * And I would like an apology for falsly claiming what I said was false, I can't move on in this disscussion if your going to call me false when I'm telling the truth it makes; it impossible to disscuss anything. John D. Rockerduck (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So list me other non-opeds that use that language because a Dennis and I agreed on the Post-gazzetteee did not use that language in stating Mr. Smith's position John D. Rockerduck (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If your problem is with the issue being under "political positions" I would be happy to move it elsewhere in the article. If Tom Smith, the article subject, had not made news vis-à-vis Akin's comments, obviously Akin would not be mentioned in this article, but he did, so he is. The Post-Gazette does use "victim" when referring to a raped person in the context of Smith's comments, and I'm not sure how much more clearly I can refer you to an already cited article or make it plain to you that no one but you thinks the term "victim" contains a secret anti-Republican bias. Your sulking about having been called out on posting a comment consisting almost entirely of falsity is your own business. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

He was asked a question about Akin's comments along with most anyother politician, should we then include Akin in everyother politicians who was asked about his remarks poltical positions page. Also Akins remark was only a footnote in the article it was briefly mentioned as being apart of a question, again WP: is not a newspaper we do not have to summarize everything in the article. Also it uses the word victim but never to describe his political postion (which the article only describes as pro-life with no exceptions) but and I asked for articles which decsribe his postion actually postion as that, again from the post-gazzette article just because it mentiones abortion and victims of rape in the same article when referring to different things (victims of rape was used to describe hypothetical raped family members and whether he would convince them to keep the baby not his actual postion on abortion) to put the to togehter is WP orgional research as Dennis Brown stated which you falsley said I lied about did Brown not state that or Did I lie about as you said, which was a reason I was frustrated with you. Your use of the word sulking and misrepresenting my postion is again insulting and violetes wiki Etiquette, please refrain from personal comments. Also your positon makes no sencse to me That if we cite a source that clearly sides with one viewpoint we as wikipedia must side with it as well, wikipedia does not take sides. John D. Rockerduck (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

All souces cited even the ones you cited Roclese say "circumstances of rape" and thats verbatim where in the gazzette does it say verbatim that "Tom Smith is against abortion with no exceptions even for victims of rape" again where in the source you reffered me too is it? yes it mentions his position then later victims of rape but in a differant context to put the two together is WP original research and WP synth. read my latest comments above for all the reliable sources that circumstances or cases. Also it is more accurate since not all rape involves victims per se; such as a few cases of statutory rape where it is consensual but still illegal. John D. Rockerduck (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence
I guess there's some disagreements over the intro to the page, so I thought I'd address it here. Intro sentences should be short, sweet and to the point. Smith was initially a registered democrat until 2011 when he switched parties and ran for senate. Wording it that way keeps it concise as all other articles I see. One example would be Michael Bloomberg's page which words it exactly like that. Please leave thoughts, thanks! MavsFan28 (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The lead section summarizes the content in the body of the article. The disagreement seems to be over the length of time he was a Democrat, which is discussed (and sourced) in the body of the article. Perhaps a word search on the word "decades" would serve you well? I also note the juggling of the order of "Farmer", "Businessman" and "Politician" ... with just a single sentence in the article on "farmer" and a single paragraph on "business man", compared to 7 paragraphs and multiple sections on politics, I've properly re-ordered those descriptors in the WP:LEADSENTENCE. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You didn't really specify that the info was in the source in the body. It doesn't make a lot of sense to source the lead with an article that doesn't mention the facts in question, does it? Again, my point is the begininng should try to be short sweet and to the point. He was a democrat. He changed parties. He ran for Senate. Simple as that. Also, if you bring up wiki policies, it would help if you said how that policy exactly affects the sentence in question. Also....you broke the three revert rule, but I won't throw you under the bus for it :) MavsFan28 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You were the editor who first changed the article to convey that Smith was a life long Democrat instead of a recent Democrat, remember? So it appeared to me you already knew what the sources were saying, and that I didn't need to "specify that the info" was already in the article. I often cite clear, relevant Wikipedia policies during editing discussions to support my edits or arguments. When I go further and quote the specific verbiage from the policy and explain exactly how it applies, I get yelled at for being condescending by experienced editors who "already know what the damn policy says". When I don't hold an editor's hand and walk them through step by step through the relevancies, I also get yelled at. It's a no-win situation for me, I guess.  I agree with you that the lead should concisely summarize the article, and I believe it does.  His notability stems from his participation in politics (not working on a farm or starting a business), so that aspect should feature clearly and prominently early in the lead.  One could argue, per policy: "The lead should ... explain why the topic is notable, ... including any prominent controversies", that Smiths' comments on abortion and rape also deserve mention in the lead, but I'm not advancing that argument. Regarding WP:3RR, please count again, I didn't break it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, thank you very much for getting rid of that old image of Smith; it was not very flattering, and I'm glad to see it go. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The article I used said he changed his registration in 2011. And anyway, I'm sure you know when you source something it should be to the article directly containing the information anyway, not just another article and assume every reader will look at the sources in the body of the article to find the information. You can cite the policy of course, but explaining why the policy favors your viewpoint over mine would be helpful. I could say you violated the 2nd, 5th and 23rd amendments of the constitution, but without backing that up my argument falls flat. Its not a no-win situation, if someone starts a talk page discussion and you respond how they're not completely following wiki's policy and back that point up, its not condescending of you, you're supporting your points. It is condescending to equate me asking you to explain your broad statement to me asking you to "hold my hand and walk me through", but I digress. I think putting the rape comment in the lead of articles like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock would be ideal, but I don't think Smith gained much attention from his comments since basically his whole party feels the same way. But if you feel its needed, go ahead, I'm not really arguing that. By the way, I put the statement in question, you then reverted it (1), I reverted it back (2), you reverted that (3), I reverted that (4), then you reverted again (5) and here we are. Like I said, I won't throw you under the bus for it though, but maybe you should update your userpage. :) Cheers MavsFan28 (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't sourced anything in the lead of the article. That was you.  :)
 * Once you conveyed your confusion here on the talk page, I did respond with further explanation, and I didn't feel it was condescending to do so. And by your remark, I see you agree. :)
 * I see that neither of us are arguing to have Smith's rape comments in the lead; but if you feel that it is necessary, I won't argue against you.
 * By the way, I've never broken the 3RR rule. Just thought I'd reiterate that, as it appears you missed it.  If reverts (1), (3) and (5) are mine as you say in your above example, where is the fourth one that you claim violates WP:3RR?  You do realize 3RR says, " more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period", right? I've only made 3 edits total in the past 95 hours.  Not more than 3.  Let me know if you'd like me to walk you through it. ;)  Ciao, baby. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I sourced my sentence. The lead sentence that I used was sourced properly with the info coming directly from the article I sourced. Your lead sentence did not have a relevant source. Just that in itself would say that my lead would be more apropos. But you actually said your info came from the linked source, which it did not. It came from a source in the body of the article. Every source should be relevant to the sentence that it is sourcing. I'm sure you know that and I really don't think I'm speaking in code here, so moving on....
 * Your lead sentence did not have a relevant source.
 * Yeah, it does. It's in the body of the article, where that content is, and where that linked source is.
 * Wiki's 3 revert policy also says you can't "game the system." You've made a first, third and fifth revert on an edit I made within 72 hours, which is a not so subtle way around the 24 hour window. I've reverted as well, so like I said I'm not throwing you under the bus for it nor am I saying that you're the only person who's ever done it (I'm sure I have plenty of times), just bringing it to your attention since you've said you may sometimes accidently break the rule. Since its not relevant to the topic at hand, moving on....
 * since you've said you may sometimes accidently break the rule
 * No, I didn't, and I don't. I've never broken the 3RR.
 * You've commented here three times already, and have yet to justify how your lead sentence falls more in line with Wiki's lead sentence policy than my suggestion. Backing up your points is not condescending, its necessary to reaching a compromise and conclusion. I don't think just saying a wiki policy qualifies as a valid point. MavsFan28 (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * and have yet to justify how your lead sentence falls more in line with Wiki's lead sentence policy
 * Incorrect. But, taking you by the hand, I'll walk you through this part of the policy:
 * ''Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus.
 * So, if you would like me to duplicate the citation in the lead, we can certainly do that. But cites in the lead for material covered in the body are not necessary.  And I've already justified the better politician-farmer-businessman issue above, and I've seen no disagreement from you on that here.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is the text from this source already cited in the article, which is used to support the fact that he hass been a Dem for 4 decades:
 * Smith, who was a Democrat for four decades while serving as a township supervisor in the 1970s and 1980s, said he joined the party to honor his parents. He was a Democratic committeeman as late as 2010. "It's true I was a Democrat but I was conservative, so I really wasn't a Democrat," Smith explained, adding that he chaired a county Tea Party organization.

Apparently, both of the front-runner Republican candidates were Dems at one time, and that was one of the biggest focus points of their ads and debates: who was still closer to the Democrat party. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You're really going off topic from what my initial post was by focusing on small by-factors. Yes, reverting three times in a three day period would be considered breaking wiki's policy. Its okay, not like I'm reporting it or anything. You told me to look for the info about Smith implying it was in the lead source, which it was not - it was in the body. You're also trying to start a new debate about the order of farmer, businessman, and politician which I am not debating. All I said was "Republican farmer" made no sense. It has since been changed, and the issue is over. But, none of those are relevant to this discussion. Let me break it down like this:


 * You've proposed that the lead sentence be written like this: "Formerly a Democrat for four decades, Smith changed his party affiliation in 2011 and ran for the United States Senate in the 2012 election."
 * You've reasoned that Wiki's policy on lead sentences agrees that, that is the better version but after 4-5 comments on this page, you have yet to justify how it does.


 * I believe the lead should be written like this: "A Democrat before seeking elective office, Smith switched his registration in 2011 and ran for the United States Senate in the 2012 election as a Republican." I'm looking at other articles of politicians who've changed parties like Michael Bloomberg, and that is generally how it is written. Short, sweet and to the point. I'd really appreciate it if you could stop dancing around the actual reason for the disagreement and talk page post, and actually comment on the subject at hand. And I'd really appreciate third party opinions as well even if you disagree, because I don't think 10 comments are needed to figure which of two pretty similar sentences should be used. I just think mine falls more in line with what is done on Wiki. MavsFan28 (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You're really going off topic from what my initial post was by focusing on small by-factors.
 * No, I'm staying on whatever topic you bring up to address. Let's see what what "on topic" subject you'll focus on now...
 * Yes, reverting three times in a three day period would be considered breaking wiki's policy.
 * Ah, very germane to the topic of article improvement! Fine, let's do it. Three reverts over a 3 day (almost 4 day) period doesn't break wiki's 3 Reverts in a 24-Hour Period Policy (WP:3RR) policy. It also doesn't break the "gaming the system" stipulation in that policy.  If you'd like to be stepped through it, just hold out your hand.  Perhaps you are confusing WP:3RR with WP:EW, where even a single revert can be characterized as a violation?
 * You told me to look for the info about Smith implying it was in the lead source
 * No, I did no such thing. Here, I'll repeat what I said exactly.  Oh look, it's still in the edit history!: (copy edit; wording per cited source on primary; WP:LEADSENTENCE (and yes, the 4 decades is sourced)
 * it was in the body
 * Bingo! Now you are getting the hang of this.  I said it was sourced.  And it is.  I never said it was sourced in the lead, nor did I imply it.  As I explained above, since you were the one that first inserted the "Democrat for decades" text, you must have known it was sourced, too.
 * You're also trying to start a new debate about the order of farmer, businessman, and politician which I am not debating.
 * No, I didn't start that, you did, when you kept switching the order even after I explained above why one order was better than the other. If by "not debating", you mean you will continue to revert it without saying a word here as to why ... then I guess you are technically correct.  But that won't end well.
 * All I said was "Republican farmer" made no sense.
 * No argument here about that. No clue why you inserted that in the first place, but I am glad it has been corrected.
 * You've reasoned that Wiki's policy on lead sentences agrees that, that is the better version
 * No, I did not. I think you are confusing what I said about the lead sentence with what I said about the lead section.
 * actually comment on the subject at hand
 * That's what I've been doing, regardless of what topic you've handed to me; be it your misinterpretation of WP:3RR, or your juggling the order of Farmer-Businessman-Politician, or your removal from the lead the fact that he wasn't just a Democrat before switching, but that he was a Dem for more than four decades. Let's focus on that last one.


 * I've added three words (just 3) to the lead to clarify his political affiliation history. Can you tell me specifically what objection you may have for those three words in the lead?  The lead is still concise (with one notable flaw, which I'll refrain from noting until we settle this issue first), even with the three words.  I've seen the Bloomberg article, by the way. I look forward to your response. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

-shut up its the same sentence, i can tell ur all republicans because you wont put on that he said stupid about rape but u cant deny facts HE DID


 * Uh huh, well article is okay as it is now, but as I said I'm not opposed to that being addded even though I'm not sure it qualifies as something he is well known for. Make changes as you'd like, I'm over it. MavsFan28 (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Still?
This is still being debated? I thought it was settled three years ago before he died? The lead should say his occupation, next sentence should say his party affiliation. Done MavsFan28 (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it was settled. This is the first talk page discussion in three years. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree that it was settled. I've returned the lead to it's stable state as it has stood for three years, per WP:BRD. MavsFan28, if you would like to propose an article improvement relating to the party affiliation information, could you please present your reasoning here so that we can discuss it and come to some sort of agreement? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely. But also I would request that you support your claim from the edit that the current version is more in line with WP:LEADSENTENCE. As I stated, if you look through most polticians, you'll see a clear pattern. Just look at Hilary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal, Michael Bloomberg, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney and others as good, current political bios that do the same. The first lead sentence would state their occupation(s), including American/Pennsylvanian politician, and the second would state party, offices they've run for and held, etc. Based on that, I would suggest we keep this article in line with other wiki ones rather than make-up our own rules on how this one should look,
 * I didn't make up the WP:LEADSENTENCE rule, other editors did. The lead sentence, according to the guideline, should succinctly describe the subject and why that subject is notable. Do we agree on at least that much? Mr. Smith's notability is directly attributable to his run for political office as the Republican nominee candidate. Can we also agree on that? If so, I find it odd that you would propose to insert the insignificant factoid that he has been registered to vote for 40 years before the facts that actually make him notable. Being registered to vote (or licensed to drive, etc.) is hardly encyclopedic information, much less lead paragraph information.
 * if you look through most politicians — sorry, I really do not have the time to do that. I'm sure you can find examples all over Wikipedia which support your argument, just as I can find an equal number of examples which run counter to your argument (i.e.; looking just at articles you recently edited, Bill Cole (politician), Al Taubenberger, ...). That's why we follow established Wikipedia guidelines instead of following selectively chosen examples from the millions of Wikipedia articles.


 * What are your thoughts about rewording the lead like this as I suggested here:
 * Thomas Joel "Tom" Smith (October 20, 1947 – October 17, 2015) was a Republican politician, farmer and businessman in Pennsylvania. Smith ran for the United States Senate in the 2012 election, losing to the incumbent Democratic Senator Bob Casey, Jr.
 * Xenophrenic (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, if you are really insistent on removing the party affiliation from the first sentence:
 * Thomas Joel "Tom" Smith (October 20, 1947 – October 17, 2015) was a politician, farmer and businessman in Pennsylvania. Smith ran as the Republican nominee for the United States Senate in the 2012 election, losing to the incumbent Democratic Senator Bob Casey, Jr. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You do have time to look through it, as in the edit history you mentioned four articles that "follow" your stance, though Jindal's clearly does not. Of those articles you referred that I edited, neither is a particularly good article, and the Taubenberger one was recently edited to reflect that. Back to this - I named those ones because they are higher profile than the likes of Santorum that you mentioned in the edit history. They are all edited along the same way of occupation in lead sentence then party later on. Similar to Michael Bloomberg, he was a democrat before seeking elected office, thus party affiliation is a notable sentence. However its overly redundant to mention it twice in back-to-back sentences, thus I suggested keeping the format of notable, current wikipedia articles in the same category. Particularly Romney/Clinton/ John McCain who are gold star, current wikipedia bios of politicians that state their occupation in the lead sentence, then state offices and parties in later ones. When most articles (and all current goldstar bios) follow that, why wouldn't we here?

He's actually well-known in Pennsylvania for his coal businesss which is why his occupations are needed in the lead sentence. Clarification on his party is also neccessary as he served in two different roles as a Democrat politician before seeking state-wide/federal office. Thus, keeping the format suggested by the goldstar bios as well as what he's been politically, I support this version. MavsFan28 (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I know a little better than you if I have time to "look through most politicians". There must be many thousands of them, so I really do not.
 * As for he served in two different roles as a Democrat politician before seeking state-wide/federal office, that would need to be more thoroughly covered and sourced in the body of the article before it is summarized in the lead of the article. As it stands, the lead says nothing about him "serving in two different roles as a Democrat", only that he was registered to vote. And sources like this one indicate he was actually a conservative Republican supporter pushing a Tea Party agenda while in the "role" disguised as a Democrat, before they kicked him out. (Township positions are usually non-partisan posts, by the way.)  That section of the article is in need of work. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant that you named a few other articles in the edit history that you have obviously looked through...not my point, anyway. But to save you time, I linked some current and relevant politicians bios up there that you could take a look at when you have a few moments. Namely, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hilary Clinton who are WP:Featured articles all follow the format I mention. Romney's, who like Smith was a businessman turned politician, names his occupations in the lead sentence, then which party he ran for in the next. Even though those three are well known for offices they sought as member's of their party. It would be good to follow that and specifically mention party affiliation in the next, as I suggested (similar to Michael Bloomberg who changed affiliation to run for an office even though he claimed his Democrat affiliation was not indicative of his views.) As far as the views he held while in those roles, I'd suggest using an Independent source rather than his own words. Its akin to Romney in 2012 saying he governed as a conservative, or Hilary now saying she's always been liberal & progressive. He said it to gain party support. However feel free to change something in that section if you feel necessary though I do think its fine as is. The intro however, should be changed. MavsFan28 (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The few example articles you selected that "follow the format you mentioned" also follow the format required by Wikipedia, the one I mentioned, that the lead sentence should convey why the subject is notable. Smith's only claim to notability is that he was a Republican candidate for a Senate seat. He didn't even exist on Wikipedia until that notability. The gold articles you just mentioned are about people who all have well established notability beyond just presidential candidacy, or even beyond politics, so of course their lead sentences will look a little different.  Your Clinton article, for example, doesn't mention that she is a Democrat anywhere in the lead, and doesn't even hint at party affiliation until the fourth paragraph, so I'm not sure what "format" that article was supposed to exemplify. And of course there are numerous "gold" and featured articles which convey party affiliation in the lead sentence (Mark Hanna, William Hayden English, Joseph B. Foraker, Richard Cordray, ...) especially when that political info is the significant, if not only part of their notability. So regardless, I must still side with Wikipedia's required format over your proposed format.
 * As far as the views he held while in those roles, I'd suggest using an Independent source rather than his own words.
 * You have completely lost me with that one. I haven't mentioned anything about views he held. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You didn't say the word "views", but you talked about how he likely had conservative *views* while being a registered Democrat because in that source, he stated as much. That would likely be him following a common trend of politicians flip flopping to fit the crowd they're trying to get support from. Moving on, I'm glad you found the time to look through articles. As I said, I was looking at more current ones while three of the ones you mentioned were not as recent. But in Pennsylvania, his family is actually very prominent in the farm-land/ coal industry before he was in politics. He was a millionaire many times over. The reason I'm quoting an article such as Bloomberg is that as a registered Democrat he wasn't really involved with politics. But his party affiliation is stated as both his registration prior to running and what he ran as are both relevant. An involved local democratic committeeman for a long time, his switch of party registration to run for Senate is notable. And since that is being mentioned, it is redundant to say that in back-to-back sentences, hence not needed in the first one. MavsFan28 (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not correct. Or perhaps you simply misunderstood me. I'll repeat what I actually said to refresh your memory: sources like this one indicate he was actually a conservative Republican supporter pushing a Tea Party agenda while in the "role" disguised as a Democrat, before they kicked him out. I didn't cite "what Smith stated", I cited the independent PoliticsPA source, which notes that he was a "Democratic Committee member" for less than a year and only attended a few meetings before being ousted for promoting Republicans, arguing against Democrats and spouting Tea Party rhetoric. Furthermore, the independent source, not Smith, observes that "He has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to GOP and conservative efforts over the past several decades", while contributing only once during that time to a Democrat, a mere $2400 to a coal mining supporter. Are you saying he made that one-time $2400 to a Democrat representative because he was "flip flopping" to get his support? The independent source concludes, "it’s tough to paint Smith as a closet liberal", but notes that his detractors have certainly tried to do so. Perhaps you can now better understand why I said the extended party affiliation content needs work before it is summarized in the lead. Do you disagree?  As for him being in the coal industry and being a millionaire, neither of those factoids would make him WP:NOTABLE for a Wikipedia article, but the information can certainly be included along with the information which makes him "notable".
 * Regarding the gold articles we're comparing, the ones you mentioned and the ones I mentioned are equally current and recent. Oh, did you mean the subjects of those articles? I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy which says the lead sentences should be structured one way in articles about older subjects and a different way in articles about contemporary subjects. Am I missing something?
 * Two questions: 1) What reliable sources are you referring to when you say, "An involved local democratic committeeman for a long time...", and 2) Have you given any thought to the two proposals I suggested above, and would you care to share those thoughts? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that you went ahead and implemented your proposed changes, including some which have outstanding objections as noted above, before resolving the issues. That isn't very productive. I've reverted your edit. By the way, I agree with you that the lead needs changing, so please do not misconstrue my edit as an article improvement — we just need to come to agreement on what those changes should entail. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll answer the two questions. He served in the 1970s and 1980s as a Plumcreek Township supervisor which is akin to a committeeman as they make similar votes (where he voted along the lines of his fellow elected Democrats). Hence I was going off of that office & voting record as well. 2) As I've stated, his whole life he's been a (democrat turned republican) politician, farmer and businessman which is why I suggest the wording in the edit I made. The one that I see you suggested up there cuts out the four decades as a democrat (where he was a supervisor/committeeman). And with the articles I mention, it follows a good format. Someone like Bloomberg who was not involved in politics even on the level Smith was, mentions him as a Democrat before seeking elected office as that's relevant.


 * Also, its not really a factor on what the long-standing version of this article was. On the other articles I've mentioned, they've been relevant non-stop for years, so they've gone through many edits and something long-standing really went unchanged. However there hasn't been news on Mr. Smith from the time of his senate loss to his death, so something long-standing just happened to not be changed. Case in point, last week I came across an article of a now-retired athlete who's infobox name had a profanity in it for months. There's no consensus or outstanding objections to the lead as so far, you and I are the only ones to have commented on this. I would like to point out that my only proposed change to this long-standing version is to remove a word that is mentioned twice in back-to-back sentences to avoid redundancy. MavsFan28 (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, I think your second add-on there answered my last point about me only changing one word of it. Very well. The one I suggested is obviously the one I think works best though. MavsFan28 (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Now I see the source of your confusion.
 * Plumcreek Township supervisor which is akin to a committeeman as they make similar votes...
 * Heh, not exactly - He joined the 3-man Board of Supervisors when he was a 27 year old for a single 6 year term between 1975-81, while he was running his company, in a little township of not even 1000 people. Then he dropped out of politics for 30 years until 2010 when he joined and chaired a Tea Party Patriot group and briefly joined the local Democratic Committee as a write-in candidate, (and was quickly revealed as a conservative who supports Republicans, and was ousted).
 * where he voted along the lines of his fellow elected Democrats...
 * Again, no. He voted with his fellow supervisors, Republicans and Democrats alike. Does it say "he voted along the lines of his fellow elected Democrats" somewhere in that source, and I am just missing it?
 * As an aside, I know that a Board of Supervisors is sometimes appointed, sometimes elected, and sometimes is filled through non-partisan elections, where party affiliation is irrelevant. It would be interesting to dig up the records from 1975 to see the details of how Smith joined that Board. We might need to revisit the "before seeking elective office" wording in the lead if he has actually been in an election before that.  But back to the issue at hand...
 * I would like to point out that my only proposed change to this long-standing version is to remove a word that is mentioned twice in back-to-back sentences to avoid redundancy.
 * Really? If that is your only concern, then simply remove the words "as a Republican" from the second sentence to remove the redundancy. That changes the present lead to this:
 * '''Thomas Joel "Tom" Smith (October 20, 1947 – October 17, 2015) was a Pennsylvania Republican politician, farmer and businessman. A Democrat for four decades before seeking elective office, Smith switched his registration in 2011 and ran for the United States Senate in the 2012 election,[1][2] losing to the incumbent Democratic Senator Bob Casey, Jr.
 * While that would address your redundancy concerns, I would still likely be making other changes to the lead after updating the politics and party affiliation content in body of the article. I could use your help with that as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * He used to give speeches to my Young Democrats club in grade school. That was more than 10 years ago, but he definitely did identify as a Democrat at that point (albeit Democrats in the area tend to be more 'conservative' than the mainstream). Although that time was in the 70's/80's, he voted for tax increases that he campaigned against in 2012, showing at least a change in political ideology. Which, though I think its done in many political articles as I said before, I think its especially pertinent here to list him as a American/Pennsylvanian politician, business with a following sentence about party change & his senate run. MavsFan28 (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So you have no objection to the proposed text in bold print just above?
 * Without reliable sources saying so, I can't comment on grade schools having a "Young Democrats" club, whether or not Smith gave speeches more than 10 years ago (and on what), or whether he "identified as a Democrat" while giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to only the GOP. There is also no source for "he voted for tax increases that he campaigned against in 2012". According to this source in our article, the unanimous votes for the tax increases to pay for police, firefighter and road services, which received no objections from the residents, and which still managed to keep tax rates below those of the neighboring townships, didn't "show at least a change in ideology" at all. In fact, according to that source, it's "a narrative of Smith that opponents have been trying to paint for months ... Critics have had a hard time making the Democrat attack stick ... Welch’s campaign is particularly interested in painting that picture."  There is a huge difference between "Mr. Smith changed his ideology" and "Mr. Smith's opponents would like to paint his ideology as xxx", and the sources convey the latter.  Wikipedia can't take sides in that debate. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I stated just that he was known in suburban Pennsylvania as such, not that we should include that in the article based on me saying it. Anyway, as far as the wording suggested - it seems like a reasonable compromise if nothing else is being agreed on and no one else seems to be weighing in on it. MavsFan28 (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll remove the "as a Republican" words as proposed above to remove the redundancy, while noting that neither of us consider that a perfect or complete solution. Perhaps more improvements to the lead can be made after the article body is filled out a bit more. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)