User talk:Swartza04

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! I undid your political edits. If you want to include criticism of politicians, please make sure you use reliable sources. See WP:RS for more information. Generally blogs are not considered reliable because they have no fact-checking or editorial process. You can repost the information if you can provide a reliable source such as a newspaper, magazine, etc. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy - the citation to the blog was only to buttress the argument that Mr. Bright has been criticized for his vote for Cash for Clunkers. The other citations are to polling data from Rasmussen Reports - a reputable polling company. Swartza04 (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing the statistics. I'm saying you have to have reliable sources to introduce criticism into an article, and you have to maintain neutrality. Can you explain why you are only adding criticism to articles about Democratic politicians? It gives the appearance that you are here with an agenda. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable if I simply said something like: "Bright voted for Cash for Clunkers [cite vote] even though x% of Americans disapprove of the bill [cite poll]"?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic; I just want voters to be informed for the mid-term on Tuesday.


 * It would be acceptable to say he voted for the bill if you have a reliable source. The rest of the sentence is non-neutral partisan language. It doesn't belong in any article here. I advise you to cease editing political articles since you seem to have some political motives here and don't understand Wikipedia's mission. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia's mission was to educate? I fail to see how citing two facts ((a) how Mr. Bright voted and (b) polling data on the bill) introduces "non-neutral partisan language." At first you said you weren't disputing the statistics, but now you're calling them partisan. It seems that you're the one with the "political motives." Am I mistaken in believing that Wikipedia is an outlet for factual information? If I am, I'll gladly stop editing political articles.

What if I were to take out "even though" and simply make it two completely factual sentences: "Bright voted for Cash for Clunkers. x% of Americans disapproved of the bill, while x% approved." If you reject that, I think you're being completely unreasonable.


 * Swartza, your attempts to insert your analysis into the articles of Bobby Bright, Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Mitchell and Raul Grijalva are rather blatant. I am -- for now -- going to assume good faith and point you to WP:WEASEL, WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE in the hope that you will educate yourself before making further partisan edits. Arbor832466 (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (To Swartza04) What you want to avoid is making connections where none have been made in reliable sources. If you have a source that connects those two facts, then it should be fine. The "even though" is problematic from a neutrality standpoint. I have no political motives—I try to watch all political articles in Arizona where I am from. If someone adds stuff like that to a Republican article, I would be just as likely to challenge it. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Also: Please do not tag substantial edits with the "minor edit" tag. That's for fixing grammar, spelling, etc. Arbor832466 (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm honestly not trying to antagonize either one of you, so please accept my apologies. Could I just get a straight up or down answer on my question of whether two separate sentences - the first noting the vote and the second noting the polling data - would be acceptable to the two of you? I read the wikis that Arbor833466 posted, and it seems to me as though that would be acceptable, but I would rather get an opinion from the two of you before I do so (which is what Wikipedia recommends).

Again - not trying to be a jerk. Sorry.


 * I'm not antagonized and no apologies necessary. This is a daunting place to navigate on the first go-round. I would recommend including the statement about the vote, and then including a wikilink to the article about the bill. The reader can click through and read more about the bill if desired, including information on public support and so on. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not antagonized either -- sorry if I sounded a bit abrupt. I think what I was trying to get after is that the article is about Bobby Bright, not about cash for clunkers. So, saying that he voted for the bill might be okay (although there have been discussions elsewhere about whether including some votes while omitting others might lend undue weight to the ones that get included) BUT the polling about the bill does not belong because the article is about Bright, not about the bill. Make sense? Arbor832466 (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that all makes sense. Thank you for your help, and again, my apologies.

October 2010
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Bobby Bright. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Raul Grijalva. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Ann Kirkpatrick. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also Harry Mitchell. Please stop with the political cut-and-paste. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)