Talk:Zephyr Teachout

Untitled
While a page on this professor was previously deleted, it appears that she is now a candidate for Governor of New York. That, in combination with her professional accomplishments, may merit a reappraisal. Rahul Mereand-Sinha (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Actress?
This was in the text, unsourced. I only did a cursory search, but couldn't find anything to corroborate it. If there is a citation then it should be restored.
 * ===Acting===
 * Teachout is also an actress, and has acted at the Unadilla Theatre in East Calais, Vermont, for several summers over the last twenty years, beginning with roles in two Shakespeare plays, as Katherine in Love's Labour's Lost in 1994, and as Imogen in Cymbeline in 1995, both under the direction of Tom Blachly. Her most recent role was as Winnie in Samuel Beckett's Happy Days in 2012, under the direction of Bill Blachly.

Bangabandhu (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Zephyr Teachout. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20132218203500/http://law.fordham.edu/faculty/zephyrteachout.htm to http://law.fordham.edu/faculty/zephyrteachout.htm

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) 11:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent addition
Regarding this edit, the information added was not neutral. Additionally, being only mentioned by one website in one article does not strike me as particularly outstanding, and the article itself contains no direct endorsements. Dustin ( talk ) 17:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Campaign website not WP:RS
This recent edit is problematic. Mayday PAC is a Super PAC. It says so right on their Wikipedia page, not to mention their website. Teachout's campaign website is not a WP:RS for this article. Please see WP:SECONDARY, WP:SPS, and WP:SOAP. The "Controversies" section is not a WP:BLP violation (although it could use some work and should be renamed). Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: "Mayday PAC is a Super PAC... it says so right on their Wikipedia page". Wikipedia is not a WP:RS, especially when a claim is left unsourced on Wikipedia. But even if it was, just a few sentences later, it says "Mayday PAC has since announced a new, local approach citing "Across the country, citizens are passing reforms to their local campaign finance laws. This takes courage that is currently lacking in Congress."

So, it might be fair to say that Mayday was a Super PAC, but it makes much more sense to identify Mayday as what it currently is.

The problem is that Mayday contradicts itself on what it is. On their official facebook page, here, they identify themselves as such" "MAYDAY.US is a cross-partisan, national, grassroots campaign to fight big money corruption by electing candidates to fundamentally reform our campaigns!". See: https://www.facebook.com/MAYDAYUS/about/ On their website, they write that they are a "crowdfunded Super PAC" but then write "Mayday (MAYDAY.US) is an independent political action committee (PAC)". A PAC and a Super PAC are not the same thing. Therefore, to maintain WP:NPOV, the best way to do this is just to identify the organization's name.

On reflection, I agree that a campaign website is not a WP:RS in this case, and will redo the relevant additions and citations to reflect this.

The "Controversies" section is a pretty clear WP:SOAP violation. That website, "Trichordist", is a personal blog, and provides no references for their claims. I cannot find any similar or related claims in any other publication, let alone from a source that would be considered reliable. See WP:RS for guidelines. Note especially the guideline from WP:BLP that says: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

In accordance with this policy, I'm adding sources where appropriate, and reverting any other unsourced or poorly sourced contentions in good faith. To prevent an edit war, WP:EW, I won't do any reverts after this, but I will ask that you make any further changes manually, and address each issue point by point before reverting them, or refer to the talk page first. BirdyTom (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Please stop adding campaign website and campaign/candidate-authored white papers as sources. They are not reliable because they are promotional. This is an encyclopedia article, not a campaign website. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

2014 Primary results vs. polling
I added a sentence comparing her 2014 primary results (33%) to what the polls suggested (26%), and this addition was reverted without giving any reason; a citation was not asked for. I think the point of her outperforming the polls is informative and should have been retained. Frank Lynch (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)