Talk:Wendy Long

Redirect to US Senate race
Recently an editor redirected this pagespace toward that of the US Senate race in which the subject is currently involved. The editor asserted this subject doesn't meet WP:GNG and redirected "per WP:POLITICIAN." Today a new editor reverted that redirect and labeled the redirect vandalism. I've taken the liberty of admonishing the new editor for the label, and suggested we discuss this, since at least one editor disagrees with the change. For the record, I'm the page creator, though I didn't notice the redirect until it was reverted today. Despite my prior work on this page, I have no dog in this hunt; I created the page from sources (some of which have been removed) found during the time of the subject's media involvement with Supreme Court nomination battles in the Senate. The subject seemed to be a paid advocate in favor of confirming Bush nominees, and has since seemed to be a paid advocate opposing Obama nominees. (The advocacy organization with which she has association was formerly the "Judicial Confirmation Network" and then renamed itself "Judicial Crisis Network" after President Obama was elected.) While I'm making no accusation, it's clear that this is an issue related to a political election outcome, the election occurring less than two weeks from today. What do others think about the redirect? BusterD (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I came across this article totally by chance while looking at some of the congressional and senate races, and it is apparent that she does not meet the level of either WP:POLITICIAN or the broader WP:GNG. The article is well cited at first blush, but the citations doe not reach the level required to support the notability of the subject. The vast majority of the cites revolve around her candidacy for the senate seat, a couple of them are editorials she wrote for the Washington Times, one is a very short blurb about her wedding, and the rest of the cites are to either the organization she has founded (which itself does not have an article, and likely does not meet the notability requirements for organizations) or to her own campaign site. She does not meet WP:GNG, because there are not significant independent sources about her (outside of the campaign, covered under WP:ONEEVENT, which states that redirection to the relevant article is appropriate). Because she is not an officeholder, only a candidate for an office, she does not meet the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN, and again, the guideline states that redirection to the election article is the proper course of action. I will submit this article to WP:AFD in 48 hours recommending a redirect (noting the contested nature of the original redirect) if there is no consensus to restore my redirect. I don't appreciate having a policy-based decision tagged as vandalism (and thank you to BusterD for notifying me of the reversion and dropping a note on the other editor's page admonishing him), and while I consider it an obvious candidate for redirection, the community may feel otherwise.  Horologium  (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I came to this page specifically to find out information about Wendy E. Long, as she is on the ballot in new york. I found that there used to be an article here, with a sizable base of content provided by many editors over a long period of time, and from many sources, until Horologium changed it to a redirect, a few weeks before the election. Looking at Horologium's history, I noticed that he had changed some other pages for politicians to redirects, and other editors had reverted them as vandalism. I had assumed that had it not been vandalism, there would have been some discussion before changing a lengthy and informative article to a redirect. I also found it strange that the talk page had been changed to a redirect as well, again without any discussion. I apologize if I was incorrect in my assumptions. Horologium, I now believe that you are not a vandal, but in the future please start a discussion before changing an article to a redirect. I was not alone in interpreting your actions as vandalism.

852derek852 (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response and your gracious apology, User:852derek852. Regardless of individual interpretation, it's our way to assume the editor acted in good faith; the user's clearly stating the reasoning in the edit summary supports such an assumption. Our normal procedure around here is what we refer to as "Bold, Revert, Discuss." User:Horologium has edited boldly (according to that editor's view of policy), you've reverted the change because you disagree (we often disagree on Wikipedia), and now we're discussing the right way forward. Horologium has stated an intention to nominate the page for deletion, putting the matter before a larger body of wikipedians for a structured discussion on the merits. Articles for Deletion procedures normally run seven days or more. My thinking is that with the election upcoming, unless consensus is obvious to delete, the procedure will be left open until the election passes, at which point either the candidate will be a U.S. Senator (meeting WP:POLITICIAN) or will not be (failed candidates are rarely kept under that supplemental notability guideline). It's possible Horologium can be convinced that nominating the (3 1/2 year old) article for deletion less than two weeks before the voting may give the appearance of Wikipedia partisanship, even if unintentionally. (my feeling is because of the guideline, with which I generally agree, Wikipedia tends to cover incumbents better than office seekers, perhaps being seen as unfair in this particular regard) Perhaps that user would be willing to hold fire for eleven days. Let's see what Horologium has to say after your reasonable words. BusterD (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll wait until after the election, but Wendy Long is not likely to win (or even come close). It's not like there are any BLP violations in the article, but it still doesn't belong. My actions were not out of partisan animus, but rather based on policy. I just love how a new single-purpose account accuses me (incorrectly) of vandalism on his pet article, and another infrequent editor uses that as justification to accuse me of vandalism on another article, redirected under the same rationale. But I digress...I'll AFD this article on November 7th.  Horologium  (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That sounds very reasonable. BusterD (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If the consensus after the election is that she is only notable for one event, this should be a merge of the relevant information rather than a redirect. In addition, I would suggest those who want to preserve all their efforts put all their material into her Ballotpedia article, a more specialized wiki. This can be linked to from the Wikipedia election article (example Joyce Healy-Abrams at United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio, 2012). There was a discussion about this on Jimbo Wales Talk page a few months ago. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep Wendy E. Long article.
Keep this article. Wendy Long was worthy of a Wikipedia attention long before she ran for the United States Senate and there is no reason to delete the article about her. Mike Gaynor (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Wendy E. Long. 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/20120628012110/http://online.wsj.com/article/AP3ee080e11183422da069a5a159256e37.html to http://online.wsj.com/article/AP3ee080e11183422da069a5a159256e37.html

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 05:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring over insertion of negative info about minor child
Since November 10, there has been a concerted effort, made entirely by ip editors with little or no editing history, to insert negative information concerning the subject's minor child, a son named Arthur. Several registered editors and at least one ip editor have attempted to remove this material, and each time the material has been reinserted, occasionally with supporting citation from reliable sources. I made an effort to discuss this with one such ip, and was rebuffed. Afterwards I took this to the BLP noticeboard and an uninvolved editor there chose to remove the material. Just now it was again reinserted. Let us discuss this on the talk page as opposed to edit warring in live BLP pagespace. For my part, I do not dispute the truthfulness of the information inserted; instead I question the need to document this trivial family incident in an encyclopedia article about the subject. I consider such insertion a violation of BLP policy, violating both WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. I am also concerned about the concerted effort about inserting this apparently trivial material and wonder if sock puppet behavior is also involved. Would others care to weigh in? BusterD (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with "cherry-picking" articles is that editors are free to choose words, phrases and lines for what they feel supports their view of a particular subject to inflect a certain tone (either negative or positive in light); and although this cannot be proven, it does happen more than not. The best way to counter this is to use the same references cited inline and add to the negative with positive inclusions of quotations that better equal the understanding for the reader; i.e. "... her son who is also named Arthur and who was expelled from private school as told by her campaign". What was left out from this article was the following: "Her latest endeavor involved home-schooling her two children ... because her son was expelled from his private school, St. Bernard’s, after admitting to using racially charged lyrics from a rap song to mock a black student on a school trip. (Ms. Long, who asked that the details of the episode be published, said that other students had been involved, but that only her son and a second boy confessed to their roles. Her son was the only one to be expelled, she said, making him a “scapegoat.”) This needs to be included to provide a [WP:NPOV]. Rather than trying to remove the negative, counter it with sourced positive. Maineartists (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * * The son is not a public figure and more importantly this was/is underage, and per BLP this stuff should not be in. Removing now and going to request protection. NPalgan2 (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't apologize for attempting to be neutral in my wording and place a positive opposing direction toward the subject herself and away from the children; but as you can see (ref: article) your reversion only caused yet another reversion back to the negative blunt statement as before. Maineartists (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This material about her child's expulsion should not be there at all. Maineartists, I hear your suggestion that adding context is better, but this is why the wikigods made page protection. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, let us praise the wikigods, then! It seems that the best for all has finally happened in this case! Best! Maineartists (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Lede
Lede is not the place for table statistics. Percentages and race losses should be included within the proper section: 2012 and 2016 Senate races. Currently, lede does not properly comply with WP:LEAD in a "clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view". Proposing to reduce race stats and focus (re-instating within the article) on subject's personal life and career. Please bring comments and concerns here before reverting. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, shouldn't be in lead. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Should I wait for consensus? I mean: is this what she is really most notable for inclusion: election stats? Maineartists (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have consensus - I don't think that the IP editors who have been inserting this stuff will be engaging on this page. I think that the note that she lost by the largest margin of a major party senate candidate in NY state history is notable if a RS cite can be found.NPalgan2 (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)