→The third opinion: cmt |
|||
Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
:::::Corbridge, please stop being sarcastic and unproductive. I didn't use scare quotes, I italicized to avoid confusion. I have repeatedly explained to you -- on this talk page and elsewhere -- why I believe your use of the quote field is inappropriate, and have been met over and over again with accusations, mischaracterizations and generally combative comments. The way you are using the quote field does not improve the article it runs contrary to consensus. [[User:Arbor8|Arbor8]] ([[User talk:Arbor8|talk]]) 20:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
:::::Corbridge, please stop being sarcastic and unproductive. I didn't use scare quotes, I italicized to avoid confusion. I have repeatedly explained to you -- on this talk page and elsewhere -- why I believe your use of the quote field is inappropriate, and have been met over and over again with accusations, mischaracterizations and generally combative comments. The way you are using the quote field does not improve the article it runs contrary to consensus. [[User:Arbor8|Arbor8]] ([[User talk:Arbor8|talk]]) 20:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::No. Please stop it. You never concede anything. All you do is explain to me your belief, your opinion. You treat your opinion as if it is fact. You assume that all concensus agrees with whatever opinion you have. You do not provide support for your positions and I ask for your support all the time. When I do ask for support you claim that I am being uncivil. Your comments about my comments are flat out wrong. My paragraph above was not "unproductive and sarcastic". My paragraph above asked you again to provide support for your claim that the article is "promotional". You refuse to response to that issue. You refuse to provide support for your claim. My paragraph above was not "sarcastic and unproductive" because I pointed out again that in your version of the bridge issue you categorically state that the procedural vote would lead to funding of the bridge which is not true. It is not supported by any article in any newspaper anywhere on this earth and instead of responding to that fact you call my paragraph "sarcastic and unproductive." If the paragraph is "unproductive" then it is because you absolutely refuse to explain why the bridge info needs to be written in a way that mischaracterizes the vote. If the paragraph is "unproductive" then it is because you absolutely refuse to explain why the bridge info needs to be in the article at all. If the paragraph is "unproductive" then it is because you refuse to respond to my concern that the bridge information is written in a non-NPOV manner. You are just over and over again calling my comments "sarcastic and unproductive". Please focus on the article and stop focusing on me. Please provide concrete, solid, constructive responses the issues that just outlined again for the third time.--[[User:Corbridge|Corbridge]] ([[User talk:Corbridge|talk]]) 20:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::"Per [[Wikipedia:Link_rot#Alternate_methods]], I've pared down the citation. I would suggest to move past whether inclusion of a quote was "promotion" or not. The main points to consider are if a full quote is/isn't being given for one POV, is there a valid reason why the same is not being done for another side? Personally, I would try not to use full quotes unless the quote is so succinct that a summary is the same size as the quote to begin with. And if one of you is not happy with a summary, quote the specific point that you feel needs to be captured, and collaboratively offer specific alternative text until a consensus is reached. Being a disinterested party, and reading mostly the tone of the discussion and not the content of the article, I think it needs to be realized that [[Wikipedia:Describing_points_of_view|everyone comes in with a bias]] and that is OK as long as it gets presented neutrally once you are made aware of other perspectives though civil discussion. [[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 20:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
:::::"Per [[Wikipedia:Link_rot#Alternate_methods]], I've pared down the citation. I would suggest to move past whether inclusion of a quote was "promotion" or not. The main points to consider are if a full quote is/isn't being given for one POV, is there a valid reason why the same is not being done for another side? Personally, I would try not to use full quotes unless the quote is so succinct that a summary is the same size as the quote to begin with. And if one of you is not happy with a summary, quote the specific point that you feel needs to be captured, and collaboratively offer specific alternative text until a consensus is reached. Being a disinterested party, and reading mostly the tone of the discussion and not the content of the article, I think it needs to be realized that [[Wikipedia:Describing_points_of_view|everyone comes in with a bias]] and that is OK as long as it gets presented neutrally once you are made aware of other perspectives though civil discussion. [[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 20:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:20, 16 March 2011
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article is a mess.
It's a repository of trivial negative information, that really has no business ("sourced" or not) in a living person's biography. I'd be interested in having a look at other similar biographies, to see if they chronicle the subject's traffic violations, as well as the government subsidies of every organization that they own a piece of. This article needs cleaned up in a HUGE way, but there are people editing it that simply won't let that happen. Lithistman (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. Both the traffic violations and the farm subsidies have been covered in the media and are not, in my mind, trivial. The traffic violations in particular generated a large amount of press. Negative information is permissible in biographies, though it should of course be sourced, conveyed in a neutral manner and not be given undue weight. I think the article looks decent the way it is, though it could definitely use a picture and more information on Noem's tenure in the SD House. Gobonobo T C 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- They are traffic violations and farm subsidies are very common in the midwest. The reason these two things received ANY coverage is because her political opponent tried to make hay out of them. And it's not just that that makes this article a mess. It's just not very well-constructed, and the prose is quite lacking as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lithistman (talk • contribs) 20:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's very simple. The worldview of the average high-output and/or compulsively vigilant Wiki editor tends to color everything. Do most people care what steps a town takes to "go green," or which colleges have clubs for gay students? Nope. But Wikipedia editors generally care about these things, and therefore Wikipedia articles tend to represent such. It's just a standard shading thing; Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin's page indicates she's married to a former congressman, but omits the fact that he's now a lobbyist. And if Stephanie's father had his own entry (he was an SD rep), then the average left-of-center Wiki editor would likely deem that the 17 speeding tickets he got weren't raised in the context of a political race, and therefore were not relevant to his achievements. I think you'll have much better luck getting your non-political concerns addressed, and Wikipedia will continue to be an excellent resource for items not of a political nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.19.11 (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- The traffic violations were actually brought to light by KELO-TV first when they did background checks on all the major candidates in the state. It was not originally a smear tactic by the Herseth-Sandlin campaign. Though, they certainly latched onto it and used it in their adds eventually. The farm subsidies are notable because of the ammount. Lithistman is right that farm subsidies are extremely common in the Midwest. I should know, I grew up on a farm. You'll notice that these subsidies come no where near the size of the subsidies of Racota Valley Ranch. In fact they are number 18 in South Dakota. sdgjake (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- The fact is, Wikipedia is a oftentimes a tertiary source. It's not for us to decide whether criticisms of a person are fair or important or not; instead, we have to go by the sources. If a pointless non-issue is a major point of attack in a campaign, or receives substantial media coverage, than it becomes notable. Wikipedia covers a lot of "trivial" but notable political sticking points, like John Kerry's botched Iraq joke, Wesley Clark's comments about McCain, the Obama flag pin issue, and so forth. If Noem's parking tickets are irrelevant, and I believe they are, than the solution is not to excise them from the article. Rather, we should cite another to cite an editorial or notable person that explains that they're irrelevant. Heck, one of the sources has a state Rep. making that very argument.-LtNOWIS (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Tertiary or not, it makes Wikipedia look a bit silly (and very much biased) to list such trivialities in the biography of a notable political figure of whatever party stripe. Simply because some newspaper reports on traffic violations of a candidate, that means that Wikipedia must include it in the biography of that candidate (now representative)? That seems strange to me. Lithistman (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have no knowledge or interest in this topic at all(I stumbled across it whilst patrolling recent changes); however in reply to your comment I don't think the article is biased at all, I read the entire article twice, and it is simply reporting on facts based on secondary sources, which I might add are not challenged for authenticity. Further I'm not sure I'd call six notices for failure to appear in court and two arrest warrants, "trivial", especially for a politician. Further again, I handle see how a small subsection of the article is grounds to declare it "a mess". My question to determine your motives Lithistman, is, are you neutral in this article? Aeonx (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Of course you question my motives. Why not? That's much easier than actually fixing this mess of an article. Lithistman (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- There is a very simple reason why, I insist that you read WP:POV and WP:NPOV before continuing this discussion. If you believe you are neutral (or can edit from a neutral point of view), then you are welcome to be bold to edit the page to make change to improve the quality of the article as you see fit, or even add in sourced information. Aeonx (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- You need to stop with the side-of-your-mouth accusations. I didn't know who this lady was until I stumbled upon it while looking through various biographies. I don't owe you ANY explanation of my point-of-view, but if you insist on knowing, I'm a Democrat, who voted for Pres. Obama, and will likely vote for him again. I just know a mess of an article when I see one. Now please take your insinuations about my POV elsewhere. It's very annoying to be condescended to. Lithistman (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have not asked or insisted for any explanation as to whether you were neutral in any way, I did however inquire as to whether you considered yourself neutral in the article to which a simple yes/no would suffice. I apologize if I have inadvertently given any impression otherwise or acted in a condescending manner. My justification is that I merely formed the opinion based on your comments in this discussion that you were approaching the content of the article from a non-neutral point of view and wanted to draw to your attention that it is Wikipedia policy to write articles from a Neutral point of view. Aeonx (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- One solution would be to move the traffic section from the personal life section to the campaign section, and cover it more from a "the Democrats seized on this issue, the Republicans said it's a stupid distraction from real issues" perspective. But it would look out of place without more campaign details, and might be better suited for the campaign page, which is also short on narrative. -LtNOWIS (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Someone mentioned that earlier, I believe, and that would be much preferable to the current situaiton, at least in the short run. I won't be doing it, though, as I'm not really that keen on having my neutrality questioned, simply for raising concerns. Lithistman (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- One solution would be to move the traffic section from the personal life section to the campaign section, and cover it more from a "the Democrats seized on this issue, the Republicans said it's a stupid distraction from real issues" perspective. But it would look out of place without more campaign details, and might be better suited for the campaign page, which is also short on narrative. -LtNOWIS (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have not asked or insisted for any explanation as to whether you were neutral in any way, I did however inquire as to whether you considered yourself neutral in the article to which a simple yes/no would suffice. I apologize if I have inadvertently given any impression otherwise or acted in a condescending manner. My justification is that I merely formed the opinion based on your comments in this discussion that you were approaching the content of the article from a non-neutral point of view and wanted to draw to your attention that it is Wikipedia policy to write articles from a Neutral point of view. Aeonx (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- You need to stop with the side-of-your-mouth accusations. I didn't know who this lady was until I stumbled upon it while looking through various biographies. I don't owe you ANY explanation of my point-of-view, but if you insist on knowing, I'm a Democrat, who voted for Pres. Obama, and will likely vote for him again. I just know a mess of an article when I see one. Now please take your insinuations about my POV elsewhere. It's very annoying to be condescended to. Lithistman (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- There is a very simple reason why, I insist that you read WP:POV and WP:NPOV before continuing this discussion. If you believe you are neutral (or can edit from a neutral point of view), then you are welcome to be bold to edit the page to make change to improve the quality of the article as you see fit, or even add in sourced information. Aeonx (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Of course you question my motives. Why not? That's much easier than actually fixing this mess of an article. Lithistman (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have no knowledge or interest in this topic at all(I stumbled across it whilst patrolling recent changes); however in reply to your comment I don't think the article is biased at all, I read the entire article twice, and it is simply reporting on facts based on secondary sources, which I might add are not challenged for authenticity. Further I'm not sure I'd call six notices for failure to appear in court and two arrest warrants, "trivial", especially for a politician. Further again, I handle see how a small subsection of the article is grounds to declare it "a mess". My question to determine your motives Lithistman, is, are you neutral in this article? Aeonx (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Tertiary or not, it makes Wikipedia look a bit silly (and very much biased) to list such trivialities in the biography of a notable political figure of whatever party stripe. Simply because some newspaper reports on traffic violations of a candidate, that means that Wikipedia must include it in the biography of that candidate (now representative)? That seems strange to me. Lithistman (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's very simple. The worldview of the average high-output and/or compulsively vigilant Wiki editor tends to color everything. Do most people care what steps a town takes to "go green," or which colleges have clubs for gay students? Nope. But Wikipedia editors generally care about these things, and therefore Wikipedia articles tend to represent such. It's just a standard shading thing; Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin's page indicates she's married to a former congressman, but omits the fact that he's now a lobbyist. And if Stephanie's father had his own entry (he was an SD rep), then the average left-of-center Wiki editor would likely deem that the 17 speeding tickets he got weren't raised in the context of a political race, and therefore were not relevant to his achievements. I think you'll have much better luck getting your non-political concerns addressed, and Wikipedia will continue to be an excellent resource for items not of a political nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.19.11 (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- They are traffic violations and farm subsidies are very common in the midwest. The reason these two things received ANY coverage is because her political opponent tried to make hay out of them. And it's not just that that makes this article a mess. It's just not very well-constructed, and the prose is quite lacking as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lithistman (talk • contribs) 20:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Pro-life activists
I see that you've added the tag "pro-life activist" to several pages. While these folks are all pretty clearly "pro-life," what makes them activists, other than being elected officials who hold that position? Should everyone who campaigned on health care reform be labeled a "health care activist"? Seems problematic to me. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- I categorized the individuals based upon their stated beliefs. That is all one can do. As an editor, how do you decide if someone is sufficiently "activist" to be categorized as such. I take individual at their word. As I pointed out to the editor named "Kelly", the newly elected Congresswoman from South Dakota, Kristi Noem has made it very, very clear that she is hardcore "pro-life". I understand your general concern, but you have not pointed out which one of the people I categorized this way as "problematic." I think you need to be more specific. Which one is "problematic"? And why? Let me ask you: What is inherently wrong with calling someone who campaigned for the health care reform a "health care activist"? If that person ran a political campaign looking to change health care laws then they were "active" in their attempt to provide health care. Why doesn't "health care activist" apply? At what point do you find it ok to make that determination? It doesn't matter because there needs to be an objective standard that determines these things. I choose to take people at their word. I have copied my discussion with "Kelly" below. If you are concerned then you need to open a discussion in the most appropriate place which is the talk page of the individual which you believe doesn't deserve the category and you need to explain why. You have stated that there is a "problem" but you have not outlined what the "problem" is, who the "problem" applies to, and why in that particular's person's article it is a "problem". Merely stating that there is a "problem" is not an actionable concern. As I pointed out to Kelly how can one categorize Martin Sheen as a "pro-life activist", but not Noem, especially after what she has stated on the record concerning abortion. It is not enough for you to simply state that my edits are "problematic" you need to state how you would do them differently and why.--Corbridge (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- How do you decide if someone is an "pro-life activist"? I seem to take the words of Kristi Noem for what they are (clearly activist): "I am, and always have been, pro life. From the miracle of conception to a dignified death, life is precious and should be protected. The federal government has no business forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions. If elected to Congress, I will maintain a 100% pro-life voting record."--Corbridge (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Probably best to open a discussion on Talk:Kristi Noem. This is potentially controversial...trust me. Kelly hi! 02:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I will take your word for it. However, I will point out that Katherine Harris, Nat Hentoff, and Martin Sheen, who are all pro-life, are categorized as "pro-life activists" even though they do not have even a fraction of Noem's commitment to the issue.--Corbridge (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Probably best to open a discussion on Talk:Kristi Noem. This is potentially controversial...trust me. Kelly hi! 02:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- How do you decide if someone is an "pro-life activist"? I seem to take the words of Kristi Noem for what they are (clearly activist): "I am, and always have been, pro life. From the miracle of conception to a dignified death, life is precious and should be protected. The federal government has no business forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions. If elected to Congress, I will maintain a 100% pro-life voting record."--Corbridge (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
<undent>The above conversation is copied from my talk page - I don't have any strong feelings about this either way, just have a lot of experiences with the articles of politicians and I haven't seen this category typically applied to politicians' articles. It seems to be used for people who are primarily known for pro-life activism, as opposed to simply holding pro-life views, and who spend or have spent the majority of their time on this issue, by doing things like protesting, lobbying, or organizing (folks like Marjorie Dannenfelser). For instance, I don't think this cat is applied to articles of politicians better known for outspoken pro-life views, like Michele Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, or Sarah Palin. Kelly hi! 00:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I just want to point out that Michele Bachmann's article does have that specific category. It was added over two years ago in October 2008: Pro-Life Activist category added to the Michele Bachmann article.--Corbridge (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I understand that you personally would like only people that are primarily known for pro-life activism but your personal standard does not explain how people such as Martin Sheen, Katherine Harris, and Nat Hentoff end up being categorized that way. From my perspective, if Sheen has that category but Sarah Palin doesn't then Palin and Huck should have that category. As for your comment that Palin, Huck and Bachmann are better known than Noem, I don't disagree, but whether they are better known really has no bearing on whether Noem should be in the category. The focus should be whether Noem fits in the category. And for me it is clear that she is "pro-life" and it is clear from her outspoken comments concerning abortion on the campaign trail that she is as committed to the issue as much as Sheen, Harris, and Hentoff (and quite possibly Palin and Huck). The category applies. From reviewing the others in the category there is no requirement that "pro-life activism" be the "primary" activity of the individual. That would be Kelly's standard, but a quick review of the individuals in the cat it is clear that the vast majority of them don't fit that standard. And the practice--as far as it goes--looks to be based primarily on whether the person is outspoken in their pro-life beliefs and by that standard Noem fits.--Corbridge (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Primarily" has nothing to do with it. Sourcing does. Otherwise, its original research, specifically prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Regarding your examples, I have looked into them and found: Hentoff is known as an activist in multiple sources. Sheen has even been arrested for his activism. Harris is not an activist, and I have removed the CAT. The "practice" should follow Wikipedia policy, which is that if there is a reliable source (or preferably more than one) which describe the person as a pro-life activist, the CAT can be added. Otherwise, it violates WP:NOR and should be removed. I will not be repeating this across Wikipedia wherever you are waging this edit war, Corbridge; but find sources or drop the subject, on all these BLPs. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- KillerChihuahua, I did not come up with the "primarily" idea. I agree with the source issue. Also, you are wrong to assume that I added the cat to Hentoff, Sheen or Harris. I'm not so don't state an untruth as if it is a fact.--Corbridge (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please re-read what I said. I never stated you added the cat to those articles, merely that they were your examples, which can clearly be seen in this discussion page section. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- KillerChihuahua, I did not come up with the "primarily" idea. I agree with the source issue. Also, you are wrong to assume that I added the cat to Hentoff, Sheen or Harris. I'm not so don't state an untruth as if it is a fact.--Corbridge (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Primarily" has nothing to do with it. Sourcing does. Otherwise, its original research, specifically prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Regarding your examples, I have looked into them and found: Hentoff is known as an activist in multiple sources. Sheen has even been arrested for his activism. Harris is not an activist, and I have removed the CAT. The "practice" should follow Wikipedia policy, which is that if there is a reliable source (or preferably more than one) which describe the person as a pro-life activist, the CAT can be added. Otherwise, it violates WP:NOR and should be removed. I will not be repeating this across Wikipedia wherever you are waging this edit war, Corbridge; but find sources or drop the subject, on all these BLPs. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I understand that you personally would like only people that are primarily known for pro-life activism but your personal standard does not explain how people such as Martin Sheen, Katherine Harris, and Nat Hentoff end up being categorized that way. From my perspective, if Sheen has that category but Sarah Palin doesn't then Palin and Huck should have that category. As for your comment that Palin, Huck and Bachmann are better known than Noem, I don't disagree, but whether they are better known really has no bearing on whether Noem should be in the category. The focus should be whether Noem fits in the category. And for me it is clear that she is "pro-life" and it is clear from her outspoken comments concerning abortion on the campaign trail that she is as committed to the issue as much as Sheen, Harris, and Hentoff (and quite possibly Palin and Huck). The category applies. From reviewing the others in the category there is no requirement that "pro-life activism" be the "primary" activity of the individual. That would be Kelly's standard, but a quick review of the individuals in the cat it is clear that the vast majority of them don't fit that standard. And the practice--as far as it goes--looks to be based primarily on whether the person is outspoken in their pro-life beliefs and by that standard Noem fits.--Corbridge (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note: I have done some checking, and apologies to Kelly - I was in error, and Kelly's instincts were dead on. It is indeed important whether a person is known primarily as a pro-life activist, per instructions on the Category page not challenged in five years. Per Category:Pro-life_activists "It is for activists who are primarily notable due to their pro-life activism. This category is not a list of anyone who is pro-life." I am removing the cat. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Farm ownership years
Thedbu (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The citation offered for percentage of farm ownership only supports that she owned that percentage through 2008, not 2009.
Attends SDSU?
Regardless of the definition of "alumni" (or "alumna" in this case) -- I find it hard to believe that Noem "currently attends" South Dakota State University if she is also currently serving as a member of Congress in DC. Is she currently enrolled? Has she put her education on hold while she serves in Congress? Is she taking classes online? If she's taking online classes, might that be better described as "enrolled" rather than "attending"? Arbor832466 (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Alma Mater dispute
I'm hoping we can resolve a months-long edit war among several users regarding Congresswoman Kristi Noem's alumni status. The facts, so far as I can tell, are not in dispute. Noem graduated from Hamlin High School, attended classes at SDSU and elsewhere and put her education on indefinite hold after her father's death, and is neither enrolled in nor attending college classes while serving as a member of Congress in DC.
The issue, it seems, is whether "Hamlin High School" or "SDSU" should appear after "alma mater" in Ms. Noem's infobox. I'm not partial to one or the other -- I have edited this article in the past, but have not previously entered this dispute. But the constant edit warring needs to stop.
Thanks in advance to everyone taking the time to look this over! Arbor832466 (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- One of the options I tried, which was reverted at some point, was to simply leave the field blank. (As I believe I pointed out in one of my edit summaries, Abraham Lincoln's article gives no alma mater.) I could go either way on what actually goes into the field if one is kept. If someone goes around telling everyone that he went to Harvard, when it turned out he flunked out after on semester, that probably doesn't qualify as an alma mater, in my eyes. However, if someone spent a great deal of time at a school but didn't technically receive a degree (or in Noem's case had a very good reason for leaving) then I wouldn't mind point the college in as an alma mater. My primary concern with the edit warring was my general distaste of situations in which a steady stream of anons rolls by, with curiously similar edits, at similar intervals, ignoring the rather obvious in-text note about changing the entry without a consensus, and none of them using the talk page. AlexiusHoratius 17:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- The reason the field is blank in Lincoln's case is because he taught the law to himself. He did not attend an institution.--Corbridge (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe it's fair to accuse anonymous users of not using the talk page; many are unaware of its existence or simply lack the time to leave comments in it. Regardless, I don't believe it is fair to say that SDSU is Noem's alma mater as she has not graduated. Likewise, it is unfair to list it as Hamlin High School, as she has completed some college coursework. However, by allowing the alma mater to remain SDSU leaves readers with the impression that she has obtained a four-year degree, which she has not. I say it would be better to default to Hamlin High School, as that is her highest level of education received, or to simply leave the section blank. 75.72.166.124 (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)RLR 8 February 2011
- Here's the deal: if you are admitted to an institution and attended it for any length of time - even one day - you are an alumnus of that institution, period. This is not subject to dispute - it is what the word means. For instance, here is the highly respected Merriam-Webster dictionary (an arm of Britannica): ALUMNUS - a person who has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college, or university. Here we have ALMA MATER - a school, college, or university which one has attended or from which one has graduated. OR, not AND. And this is the way I have always heard it used and no other. Now. If the person only attended one class for one day, I suppose a case could be made that calling it it her "alma mater" would be misleading. If she completed even one entire course, there is absolutely no case whatsoever for not calling it her alma mater, and in fact it would be incorrect not to. And in future 75.72.166.124: I would say that in disputes between oneself and dictionary, the dictionary usually has the upper hand. Herostratus (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- 75.72.166.124, I didn't mean to sound didactic. I understand where you are coming from, don't blame you for your stance, and appreciate your contributions to and engagement with the Wikipedia. I does seem odd to use the same word for someone who attended one class and someone who was graduated. But it what the word means and how it is correctly used. Look at it this way - you learned something new! Herostratus (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
It's truly a shame that in a discussion about a clearly disputed section of a Wikipedia page that a high ranking editor, such as yourself, feels free to squelch an opposing view in the manner that you did, Herostratus. I did not say anything that merited that sort of response from an editor and I am ashamed to see that Wikipedia clearly lets their editors cross political lines in this manner. Enjoy your future power trips and the end of civil conversation on the internet. 75.72.166.124 (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- At the risk of being devil's advocate, here are some dictionary definitions that vary from the ones given above.
- The school or university from which one graduated. The term also refers to a school's official song: “The reunion began with everyone singing the alma mater.” From Latin, meaning “nurturing mother.” -- American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
- 1. a school, college, or university at which one has studied and, usually, from which one has graduated. -- Dictionary.com Unabridged
- This definition is very correct, but it does not support TechnoSymbiosis' conclusion. What it does show is that sometimes it is usually the school that one graduates from, but it does not need to be. Also, Wiktionary defines alma mater as a school from which one graduated or attended. Also, there is a fun category in Wikipedia where Wikipedia editors list themselves according to their alma mater and alma mater is specifically defined as a school where one "attends or attended". Example There is just not much evidence out there that supports the idea that SDSU cannot be listed as Noem's alma mater. The overwhelming evidence supports it.--Corbridge (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- 1. a school, college, or university at which one has studied and, usually, from which one has graduated. -- Dictionary.com Unabridged
- The definition may not be as clear-cut as it seems. This is an article about an American individual; what is the standard American definition of the term? Are there any guidelines from relevant WikiProjects that may help? If the line is from a template, does the template talk page hint at how the field should be used? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is precedent all over Wikipedia for this situation. Look at Al Gore. Gore attended Vanderbilt University, both as a divinity student and as a law school. He did not finish either of these programs. However, Wikipedia lists his Vanderbilit as one of his alma maters. All that a alma mater is is a place where someone went to school. There is no requirement that the person graduate. Another very good example of this fact is the article about Bill Clinton. Clinton attended Oxford University as a Rhodes scholar, but he did not graduate. In turn, Wikipedia lists Oxford University as one of his alma maters.--Corbridge (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't come to any particular conclusion above, Corbridge, except perhaps that the definition of the term varies in the wild (which it does). I was simply providing thoughts and questions that may help other editors determine the correct solution. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is precedent all over Wikipedia for this situation. Look at Al Gore. Gore attended Vanderbilt University, both as a divinity student and as a law school. He did not finish either of these programs. However, Wikipedia lists his Vanderbilit as one of his alma maters. All that a alma mater is is a place where someone went to school. There is no requirement that the person graduate. Another very good example of this fact is the article about Bill Clinton. Clinton attended Oxford University as a Rhodes scholar, but he did not graduate. In turn, Wikipedia lists Oxford University as one of his alma maters.--Corbridge (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Barack Obama, attended but did not graduate from Occidental College, but OC is listed as one of the alma maters.--Corbridge (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Idea
I was over looking at Bobby Schilling and I think his info box offers a good example of what we could do here -- list her HS followed by "South Dakota State University (attended)." Thoughts? Arbor832466 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have no disagreement with that. Both schools are her alma maters.--Corbridge (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Fine by me. sdgjake (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Made the change. Arbor832466 (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Fine by me. sdgjake (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The consensus, as I understand it above, was list her HS followed by "South Dakota State University (attended)." Please discuss here if you disagree, rather than reverting against consensus. Arbor832466 (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I simply agreed to the notion that we list both of her schools. There is no need for the phrase "attended" because it is assumed that an alma mater is a school that you attended. Why would SDSU be listed at all if Noem did not attend it? The phrase is unnecessary. It is just attempt to point out that she did not graduate. The fact that she did not graduate is outlined in the article. It is not necessary to repeat it. I don't understand why this is even a question. I'm somewhat baffled by why anyone would want the phrase in there. The school would not be listed in the category "Alma Mater" if she did not attend it, why would you want the phrase "attended" in there? I'm baffled. It is totally unnecessary. I'm just baffled. It is not needed.--Corbridge (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Corbridge, there's no need to be catty. I believe "attended" should be included to signify that she did not graduate (an impression that could easily be left by listing SDSU as an alma mater) without making it seem as if she dropped out, which is not the case either. Perhaps we should not list alma mater in the infobox at all? Arbor8 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- She attended SDSU that makes SDSU her alma mater. The infobox has a slot for the alma mater SDSU is an alma mater. SDSU is listed as her alma mater. There is no need to say "attended" because if she did not attend it would not be her alma mater, but she did attend and it is her alma mater. Now, if some does not know what alma mater means (mere attendance) then they might have the impression that she graduated. But the article explains the situation. The infobox does not say "School from which she graduated." There is no consensus to state "attended". I'm baffled whom are you in consensus with? Me? I disagree with you. Please stop falling back on the artificial concept of consensus (it is artificial because there is no consensus) and explain why we need the word "attended." I'm baffled on why you will not respond to the fact that the word "attended" is redundant and unnecessary. There has been tons of discussion outlining in great detail what alma mater means, it is school that one attended. That individual may or may not have graduated. It is not necessary for them to graduate to call that school there alma mater. I'm baffled on why you have explained why we go out of our way to mark Noem's infobox "attended" when we know, without a doubt that she attended SDSU. That is fact. We do not have to use the word "attended" because the day she walked in that door she became an alumnus. My alumni association has 25% of its paid members made up of people who attended but did not graduate. She attended. She is an alumnus. The word "attended" is not necessary. You have made a case for it other than there may be someone who does not know what the word means and for those people who do not know what alma mater means we have to add a redundant and unnecessary word to the infobox. There is no consensus. You cannot say it is. I'm truly baffled why anyone would want to put that in there. She attended SDSU. SDSU is her alma mater.--Corbridge (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Corbridge, there's no need to be catty. I believe "attended" should be included to signify that she did not graduate (an impression that could easily be left by listing SDSU as an alma mater) without making it seem as if she dropped out, which is not the case either. Perhaps we should not list alma mater in the infobox at all? Arbor8 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Alma mater" means attended or graduated. The fact that she did not graduate is covered in the article. There's really no need to say "(attended)" in the infobox. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Quotes
I've removed some content from this article that is in conflict with the policy of WP:PROMOTION. In several instances, declarative statements about Noem's positions or actions -- which clearly do belong -- are followed by quotes from Noem that make the article read more like a campaign site than an encyclopedia. Arbor8 (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- No. That is not true. The quotes are directly on-point outlining here position. The article does not read like a campaign site that is simply not true.--Corbridge (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Corbridge, it is true. Should we do a WP:RFC? Arbor8 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- No. Your suggestion is way too premature. You have not provided any reasons for your thinking. You just state that you don't like something and that's that. What is the issue?--Corbridge (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are a number of issues, but for the moment I'll confine myself to one: There is one sentence about the Rapid City Journal editorial that was critical of a particular vote of Noem's. The editorial is not quoted. Following that is, quite rightly, a sentence or maybe two about a column Noem wrote in response. Her position is clearly described. But following THAT is a lengthy direct quotation from Noem's column, which shouldn't be there. The fact that she wrote it and her position are notable. The inclusion of a hefty chunk of the column is WP:PROMOTION, particularly seeing as the initial RCJ editorial is not quoted at all. Arbor8 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- No. That's not true. Promotion applies to when someone is using Wikipedia to sell product, etc. That is not the situation here at all. You might not like what she had to say about the RCJ, but that is not relevant. Promotion does not apply. The RCJ criticism is in the article and Noem response that is in the actual article is only a fraction of the criticisms that Noem had for RCJ in response. The quote at the bottom is needed for Noem to point out of the problems with RCJ's original criticism.
- Promotion can apply to a politician, cause, or a number of other things. Whether I like what the RCJ ed board said or what Noem said is immaterial. The point is, it doesn't belong and you have not made a case for including it. If you can better encapsulate Noem's response to the editorial without crossing the line of WP:UNDUE then go ahead, but following "The RCJ wrote a critical editorial stating X" with "Noem responded to the criticism by stating Y and here is verbatim a full third of her column" is not the answer. Arbor8 (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, not so fast. I read through all of the points under promotion and none of them applied. You have not stated which of those points applies to this article and how. You are now trying out "undue weight" because it seems that you have not been able to provide an example of how this article, as currently written, is "promotion". How does promotion apply to this article, what parts and in what way. Now, just slow down, you made the claim now you need to back it up. Pulling out another objection is not support for the original objection of "promotion". Where is the promotion? Where is it in the article? Please provide a solid, concrete example of what you claim. You have not done that. Where is it? How? Please outline in detail. This discussion needs to be about the specific facts of the article as it is written. Please provide those specifics. You have stated your claim in generality now please provide some meat to your claim. Where? How? And when you are completely done with that then you need to provide the specifics for the undue claim.--Corbridge (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Corbridge, since civil, content-based discussion has proven to be impossible with you, I'm going to seek some sort of editorial intervention or mediation. I'll be sure to post a link on your talk page. Thanks. Arbor8 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wow! Unbelivable! I have asked you to provide solid, concrete examples of how "promotion" applies to the article and you claim civility. I think that indicates a lack of support for your position.--Corbridge (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Corbridge, since civil, content-based discussion has proven to be impossible with you, I'm going to seek some sort of editorial intervention or mediation. I'll be sure to post a link on your talk page. Thanks. Arbor8 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, not so fast. I read through all of the points under promotion and none of them applied. You have not stated which of those points applies to this article and how. You are now trying out "undue weight" because it seems that you have not been able to provide an example of how this article, as currently written, is "promotion". How does promotion apply to this article, what parts and in what way. Now, just slow down, you made the claim now you need to back it up. Pulling out another objection is not support for the original objection of "promotion". Where is the promotion? Where is it in the article? Please provide a solid, concrete example of what you claim. You have not done that. Where is it? How? Please outline in detail. This discussion needs to be about the specific facts of the article as it is written. Please provide those specifics. You have stated your claim in generality now please provide some meat to your claim. Where? How? And when you are completely done with that then you need to provide the specifics for the undue claim.--Corbridge (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Promotion can apply to a politician, cause, or a number of other things. Whether I like what the RCJ ed board said or what Noem said is immaterial. The point is, it doesn't belong and you have not made a case for including it. If you can better encapsulate Noem's response to the editorial without crossing the line of WP:UNDUE then go ahead, but following "The RCJ wrote a critical editorial stating X" with "Noem responded to the criticism by stating Y and here is verbatim a full third of her column" is not the answer. Arbor8 (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- No. That's not true. Promotion applies to when someone is using Wikipedia to sell product, etc. That is not the situation here at all. You might not like what she had to say about the RCJ, but that is not relevant. Promotion does not apply. The RCJ criticism is in the article and Noem response that is in the actual article is only a fraction of the criticisms that Noem had for RCJ in response. The quote at the bottom is needed for Noem to point out of the problems with RCJ's original criticism.
- There are a number of issues, but for the moment I'll confine myself to one: There is one sentence about the Rapid City Journal editorial that was critical of a particular vote of Noem's. The editorial is not quoted. Following that is, quite rightly, a sentence or maybe two about a column Noem wrote in response. Her position is clearly described. But following THAT is a lengthy direct quotation from Noem's column, which shouldn't be there. The fact that she wrote it and her position are notable. The inclusion of a hefty chunk of the column is WP:PROMOTION, particularly seeing as the initial RCJ editorial is not quoted at all. Arbor8 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- No. Your suggestion is way too premature. You have not provided any reasons for your thinking. You just state that you don't like something and that's that. What is the issue?--Corbridge (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Corbridge, it is true. Should we do a WP:RFC? Arbor8 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The third opinion
Response to third opinion request: |
Full quotes should be avoided where possible as they tend to clutter text. Alternatives are to summarize the quote and/or take relevant excerpts and use elipses. I would suggest for you two to take the current summary in the article and discuss specifics of what isn't captured yet and modifying appropriately as a compromise to the previous all-or-nothing dialogue. Consider your average reader that wants a relevant summary; the reader that wants details can open up the references. The quote param in a citation template is meant to combat dead links by having a string to search on the Internet to find the lost article. A sentence or two is sufficient there, and a full multi-sentence quote is not needed—Bagumba (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
- That sounds reasonable. Corbridge, what do you feel is missing from this description of the editorial and Noem's response? Arbor8 (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I really don't have much disagreement with the way that it is currently written, but it is not a completely accurate portrayal of the situation. The vote would not have funded the bridge. It was a procedural vote and no one denies that fact. It was not a vote to fund anything. It was a vote to move legislation to a different committee. The phrase "a procedural vote that would have funded the so-called bridge" is a total mischaracterization of the facts. It states "would have funded" and that is not true. There I have provided you with a valid concrete example of how the text is wrong and needs to be fixed. Now, you need to give me a concrete, solid example of how the article violates the "promotion" claim that you made above. You just can't make claims then refuse to provide support for the claim. I am asking again for you to provide a support for your claim. Also, there is a second problem your version of the paragraph. You removed here direct quote from the quote section of the citation. Every time I have placed a direct quotation of Noem in the article you remove it and you state in the edit summary field something to the effect of "redundant" "unnecessary" "irrelevant" "promotion" etc. You have removed each and every quote that I have placed in the article. There is no rule in Wikipedia that supports this position. I have asked you to stop removing the quotes and you have accused me of civility. Your claim of civility against me do not support your edits of removing all quotes from Noem.--Corbridge (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think a better characterization would be that the vote in question was to send the bill, which included the bridge funding, back to committee, while a vote against would have brought it to an immediate floor vote. This article isn't about Noem but it explains the vote we're talking about here. So Noem did NOT vote to fund the bridge, but she DID vote to keep the bill alive (by sending it back to committee) rather than allowing it to be voted on by the full House immediately, where it would not have passed. Is there a less cumbersome way to phrase that? (I'm not being sarcastic -- I'm really asking)
- As to my concerns about promotion, basically I thought (and still think) that 1-2 sentences about the RCJ editorial followed by 6-7 sentences of Noem's rebuttal is NPOV because it gives undue weight to one side of the argument. I hope that clarifies things a bit. Arbor8 (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I really don't have much disagreement with the way that it is currently written, but it is not a completely accurate portrayal of the situation. The vote would not have funded the bridge. It was a procedural vote and no one denies that fact. It was not a vote to fund anything. It was a vote to move legislation to a different committee. The phrase "a procedural vote that would have funded the so-called bridge" is a total mischaracterization of the facts. It states "would have funded" and that is not true. There I have provided you with a valid concrete example of how the text is wrong and needs to be fixed. Now, you need to give me a concrete, solid example of how the article violates the "promotion" claim that you made above. You just can't make claims then refuse to provide support for the claim. I am asking again for you to provide a support for your claim. Also, there is a second problem your version of the paragraph. You removed here direct quote from the quote section of the citation. Every time I have placed a direct quotation of Noem in the article you remove it and you state in the edit summary field something to the effect of "redundant" "unnecessary" "irrelevant" "promotion" etc. You have removed each and every quote that I have placed in the article. There is no rule in Wikipedia that supports this position. I have asked you to stop removing the quotes and you have accused me of civility. Your claim of civility against me do not support your edits of removing all quotes from Noem.--Corbridge (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable. Corbridge, what do you feel is missing from this description of the editorial and Noem's response? Arbor8 (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The Rapid City Journal criticized Noem for a procedural vote that would have funded the so-called bridge to nowhere.[1] Noem responded in a column published by the Journal, characterizing the criticism as a partisan attack and asserting that the procedural vote had no impact on policy or funding for the project, which she does not support.[2]
- Corbridge, what Bagumba was saying in his third opinion is that, in general, Noem's quotes aren't needed. There's really no need to quote Noem in the footnotes, if a short summary of Noem's response is in the main text. (The same goes for practically any quotes -- for instance, there's no need to quote the Rapid City Journal in the footnote, just give a short summary.) If a reader is interested in the exact quote -- that's what the citation in the reference is for. Please take the quotes out of the footnotes -- the only reason to have any part of the text of a reference in a footnote is to locate the cited material in case it disappears or is moved. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, my understanding is that we are discussing this edit, which is inserting a multi-sentence quote from Noem's column into the body of the article. We actually talked about the quote field in refs here and were unable to reach a resolution. I agree with you -- the quote field in refs shouldn't be used to do an end run around WP:UNDUE. Arbor8 (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, the accusation is incivility, not civility. I'd be quite pleased to be accused of civility. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also, do we have to seemingly record every one of her votes? We're a encyclopedia, not a newspaper, or her campaign website. (Or for that matter, neither are we an opposition website.) Myself, unless somehow there is a significant political fuss (and a newspaper editorial is not a significant politcal fuss), I wouldn't include anything about the votes on the bridge or about the continuing budget resolution, and I would find a way to shorten the political positions section through summarization. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I removed the information on the bridge because it seemed to be a short term political push and pull. Arbor is the editor that placed the bridge info in the article in the first place--without any response by Noem. I then removed the information entirely finding it to be unimportant and Arbor then put it back in. I'm willing to shorten the budget vote info and move it to the political position area. But my real opinion about the bridge info is that it does not belong in the first place, but if it is going to be in there (remember the source of the whole "fuss" was a press release put together by the Democratic Party of South Dakota) then we need to let Noem respond. The vote does not "fund" anything and the section makes a bald face incorrect claim that the procedural vote "funds" the bridge in Alaska and that somehow Noem is at fault. It is ludicrous and partisan and not encyclopedic.--Corbridge (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- To be fair, when I first included a mention of the editorial, Noem had not yet responded. I still lean toward inclusion because when a major paper within the district with a historically conservative editorial board comes out so strongly against a Congresswoman they had previously endorsed, it seems notable. But that said, I don't think leaving it out entirely would be NPOV, so I am fine with that outcome as well (although I fail to see the relevance of whether the RCJ was alerted to the vote by the SD Democratic Party or anyone else). Arbor8 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I removed the information on the bridge because it seemed to be a short term political push and pull. Arbor is the editor that placed the bridge info in the article in the first place--without any response by Noem. I then removed the information entirely finding it to be unimportant and Arbor then put it back in. I'm willing to shorten the budget vote info and move it to the political position area. But my real opinion about the bridge info is that it does not belong in the first place, but if it is going to be in there (remember the source of the whole "fuss" was a press release put together by the Democratic Party of South Dakota) then we need to let Noem respond. The vote does not "fund" anything and the section makes a bald face incorrect claim that the procedural vote "funds" the bridge in Alaska and that somehow Noem is at fault. It is ludicrous and partisan and not encyclopedic.--Corbridge (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- However, to ArglebargleIV's point, I do think we need to address the way the quote field is being used/abused in this article. Arbor8 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that we need to address how the quote field is (to use scare quotes as you did above) a valid field and I think we need to address why you believe that all direct quotes need to be removed from the article, which is not based upon any rule in Wikipedia, but merely your preference of style. I do think you need to provide solid, concrete examples of how the article violates "promotion" which is a claim that you have made but you have not provide any solid, concrete examples of it. Also, I think we do need to talk about what support you provide for your claim that the quote filed cannot be used at all. I think we do need to talk about why the quote filed exists if we cannot use it. I think we do need to talk about how can the quote field be helpful to fix dead links if your premise is correct that all quotes must be removed. I think we do need to focus on what the third party opinion you asked for supports the use the quote field in citations but yet you claim that they are being "abused". I think we do need to talk about why the section that we are discussing is even in the article when it is partisan, unencyclopedic, is given undue weight, and is presented in an non-NPOV manner. We do need to discuss the issue that I raised above about how it violated NPOV because it provides a false sense of what exactly happened, being that the version currently in the article falsely claims that the procedural vote would lead directly to funding the bridge in Alaska, which of course is not even close to reality. We do need to discuss why you will not response to that NPOV issue.--Corbridge (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict, will respond to Corbridge directly after this.) I lean against inclusion. My analysis :
- Partisan or not doesn't matter -- and our personal opinion of whether the attack was partisan matters, if possible, even less than that.
- Whether a normal political criticism is ludicrous isn't for us to decide. (Abnormal ones, like this can be categorized by a consensus of the editors as ludicrous, though.) If a wide variety of sources see the attack as ludicrous, we can mention that the attack was seen as ludicrous by such sources.
- What does matter is significance. (Notability, if you wish, but notability doesn't quite cover all the bases that significance does.) Unless there is a reasonable variety of sources that see Noem's procedural vote as significantly affecting her, or see it as a major bone of contention, there's probably little point in putting it in the article. I don't see any significance in this particular vote -- although if the sources are there, I'm willing to be shown that I'm wrong.
- Apart from that, if it was determined that we need to say something about that vote in the article, I'd go with a modified form of Corbridge's suggestion above :
The Rapid City Journal criticized Noem for a procedural vote that would have funded the so-called bridge to nowhere.[1] In a column published by the Journal, Noem characterized the editorial as a partisan attack, asserting that the procedural vote had no impact on policy or funding for the project, which she does not support.[2]
- I would not put quotes in the references -- summarizing both the Journal's and Noem's argument in a sentence each is enough -- with a sentence, Noem has her response represented, and the details and actual columns are available through the citations.
- The larger point -- there's no demonstrated need for quotes in the references for this article. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Bagumba's given some pretty good reasons, based on accepted guidelines, why we probably shouldn't have most of the quotes in the article. He's also explained the purpose of the (rarely-used, incidentally) quote field as enabling searching for alternate citations in case the original citation disappears -- it's not there to store full quotations, especially when summary sentences are there. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Corbridge, please stop being sarcastic and unproductive. I didn't use scare quotes, I italicized to avoid confusion. I have repeatedly explained to you -- on this talk page and elsewhere -- why I believe your use of the quote field is inappropriate, and have been met over and over again with accusations, mischaracterizations and generally combative comments. The way you are using the quote field does not improve the article it runs contrary to consensus. Arbor8 (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- However, to ArglebargleIV's point, I do think we need to address the way the quote field is being used/abused in this article. Arbor8 (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- No. Please stop it. You never concede anything. All you do is explain to me your belief, your opinion. You treat your opinion as if it is fact. You assume that all concensus agrees with whatever opinion you have. You do not provide support for your positions and I ask for your support all the time. When I do ask for support you claim that I am being uncivil. Your comments about my comments are flat out wrong. My paragraph above was not "unproductive and sarcastic". My paragraph above asked you again to provide support for your claim that the article is "promotional". You refuse to response to that issue. You refuse to provide support for your claim. My paragraph above was not "sarcastic and unproductive" because I pointed out again that in your version of the bridge issue you categorically state that the procedural vote would lead to funding of the bridge which is not true. It is not supported by any article in any newspaper anywhere on this earth and instead of responding to that fact you call my paragraph "sarcastic and unproductive." If the paragraph is "unproductive" then it is because you absolutely refuse to explain why the bridge info needs to be written in a way that mischaracterizes the vote. If the paragraph is "unproductive" then it is because you absolutely refuse to explain why the bridge info needs to be in the article at all. If the paragraph is "unproductive" then it is because you refuse to respond to my concern that the bridge information is written in a non-NPOV manner. You are just over and over again calling my comments "sarcastic and unproductive". Please focus on the article and stop focusing on me. Please provide concrete, solid, constructive responses the issues that just outlined again for the third time.--Corbridge (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Per Wikipedia:Link_rot#Alternate_methods, I've pared down the citation. I would suggest to move past whether inclusion of a quote was "promotion" or not. The main points to consider are if a full quote is/isn't being given for one POV, is there a valid reason why the same is not being done for another side? Personally, I would try not to use full quotes unless the quote is so succinct that a summary is the same size as the quote to begin with. And if one of you is not happy with a summary, quote the specific point that you feel needs to be captured, and collaboratively offer specific alternative text until a consensus is reached. Being a disinterested party, and reading mostly the tone of the discussion and not the content of the article, I think it needs to be realized that everyone comes in with a bias and that is OK as long as it gets presented neutrally once you are made aware of other perspectives though civil discussion. Bagumba (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- ^ a b "Noem votes for wasteful project". Rapid City Journal. 2011-03-09. Retrieved 2011-03-10.
- ^ a b Noem, Kristi (2011-03-14). "Criticized vote wasn't about 'bridge to nowhere'". Rapid City Journal. Retrieved 2011-03-14.