Talk:Wolf-PAC

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TimothyS888.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Why does the table in the Progress section say "Dead" for houses where there hasn't been a win yet?
That is terrible and inaccurate wording, and makes it sound like all chance for the resolution to amend (and call a convention) has been defeated for all time, with no chance of turning around the next time a vote is called. This is patently false, as in states where it has passed both houses, it had been defeated the previous time(s), including multiple votes and years back.

I recommend strongly changing this wording, even if to something like "Failed" -- indicating that it has come up for a vote, but that, like all things worth fighting for, it has met early failures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:404:3DF7:4005:C9EB:E2E0:ABAE (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Update--I changed all 25 instances of "Dead" in the table to read "Voted Down" instead. This is a more accurate and clear term, and removes the misleading implications of finality, which aren't true (of a given state's or it's legislative bodies' decisions on this matter, or any matter) and which don't reflect the nature of processes in the United States of America and its form of government, by the very nature of both since founding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:404:3DF7:4005:C9EB:E2E0:ABAE (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Where is the table?
The resolution has been introduces in 19 states. Where is this table??--85.181.203.82 (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine including all past bills as well, but as it stands, we have 7 active or passed bills, and 1 that died almost 2 years ago. Not experienced here. Is there some Wikipedia standard which could be referenced? Khasquakhas (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any WP policy or guideline which suggests what information should be included, as long as it is relevant and verifiable by reliable, third-party sources. Adabow (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We could also have two tables, one with current and pending and another one with past bills. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We could, but why separate them? Each bill's status is clear in the current table format? Adabow (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I fear that the table may become very cluttered with time. Most likely many bills will not make it out of committee and possibly even multiple ones from the same states. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; if and when that happens then we can reassess the situation. Adabow (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The original table had been deleted for so called confidentiality reasons, since wolf-pac does not publish where and when which resolution had been introduced, tabled, died, re-introduced, there is no single credible source for complete information to maintain such table. The only credible source for any progress are the announcements on the TYT channel on youtube when a bill has passed somewhere. So its pointless to go down to that level of random listings/entries, as it is guaranteed to be chaotic, incomplete and permanently outdated information. Greetings from Germany:). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.160.167.81 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 April 2015‎ (UTC)
 * TYT is not an independent source and therefore cannot be considered reliable for that information. More reliable sources are state government websites, legislation records and third-party media. Adabow (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, buts its announcements are announcing factual and verifiable events. I can't quite imagine that someone digs through and permanently monitors every state house or senate across the states to obtain complete information and to maintain such actual, these things change regularly. Greetings from Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.204.236.253 (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No mention of political leanings?
Hi! As this PAC leans very much to the left, I think it is appropriate to include the political stance in the article. If no one objects, I will add one. Wondering what others thoughts are. 2601:18F:4101:4830:50E1:C064:FCD8:92C5 (talk)


 * You would need to find reliable sources that verify any information added to the article. Marquardtika (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? There seem to be no reliable sources demonstrating the claim that it is not a partisan group, but we still include that in the article. 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:3F (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wolf PAC is open to all political leanings, as long as they are against money in politics. Most of its members are left-leaning as many on the right do not differentiate between corruption and free speech. Does the fact that the Republican establishment celebrates corruption make it a left-wing organisation? The Democratic establishment also participates in the corruption, albeit to a lesser degree. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Your screed is not helpful. Would you like to disclose any relationship you might have e with the subject? Generally, members of an organization editing their own article without disclosure is considered bad form. 2600:387:F:4313:0:0:0:2 (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * So is making unfounded accusations. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)