Talk:Alison Lundergan Grimes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

File:AlisonGrimes.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:AlisonGrimes.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review

deletion guidelines
before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is
    fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try
    Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --

talk) 03:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Senate

Can we mention her potential Senate race? --Alignranch (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issue: This sounds like campaign litterature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV

The "2014 U.S. Senate campaign" section has some POV issues, in addition to information that is not pertinent to Grimes' biography.

"On July 25, 2013, the Republican Laurel County Clerk filed a complaint with Kentucky's Executive Branch Ethics Commission after receiving a fundraising e-mail sent to government e-mail accounts by Secretary of State Grimes." Was there anything to this? Otherwise, it appears to be implicating her in something nefarious when it may be kosher.
Tying Grimes' father to Bill Clinton - how does that reflect on her exactly? Her fathers' issues dating back to 1990: relevance?
"The report discovered that the coal miner in the ad was actually a Ukrainian model and that the photo was taken from a stock photo site. Her campaign said, “a mistake was made by an outside design firm.” This happens to many political campaigns. Has nothing to do with her.
Hollywood connection: a clear attempt to smear her? Republicans often try to bring up Democratic ties to Hollywood in races.

I think all of this should go, but will wait on the opinions of others before doing anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ethics complaint and the Hollywood connection (assume this refers to Democratic Alliance reference) definitely seem relevant to me. The reference to her father and the mining photos not so much.CFredkin (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's too much detail about the problems of Daddy Grimes, but I would not remove him entirely, as there are observers who say he is a factor in the Senate race. The connection to Hollywood stars is just like the connection to Elizabeth Warren: people outside of Kentucky see Grimes as worthy of office, and they see the race as important. The stock photo thing, and the bit about Grimes being disorganized at the announcement of her campaign – this kind of stuff is transitory and not of long-lasting importance. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that I've seen multiple reliable sources discussing the role/impact of her father on her campaign. I would agree that the reference should stay in some fashion.CFredkin (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents:

1) Issues with her campaign roll-out were chronicled pretty heavily in reliable sources (Politico, Washington Post, etc.) so I think they are worth a mention. Seems to be just as relevant as her positive reviews at Fancy Farm picnic. Could be trimmed, though.

2) The county clerk ethics complaint info: we need to figure out if that went anywhere. It was initiated over a year ago, and I'm not seeing follow up news articles. Does that mean it was closed, or that it's still being looked into? If it was not pursued, we shouldn't include it because anyone can file an ethics complaint.

3) I believe her Democracy Alliance participation is relevant, as that's a major and influential group and her appearance received significant press.

4) The Ukrainian coal miner ad seems overboard and not noteworthy enough. I think that can be removed.

5) There should be info about her father, since he is noteworthy and involved with the campaign, but that section needs edits. I think we can remove the Carville quote, for one, because I don't see what that has to do with Grimes herself.

6) I think the Hollywood info is notable. It's receiving a lot of press, and it shows this is regarded as a premier national race. If conservatives get mad about it, that's a point of view. But it's a fact that she'd had multiple Hollywood fundraisers & donors, and that fact has received a lot of press, so it seems relevant here. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your input. Based on this, I'm trimming a few things. Please check my work. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job trimming those sections. I do think though that her father shouldn't be completely missing, given the number of independent sources commenting on his factor in the race. Is there a way of mentioning his connection while avoiding obvious issues in previous versions? Thoughts?Coventgardenw2 (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's been a little under a month and no one seems to have objected, so I'm going to add a sentence in the section concerning the fact that her father has been noted as a factor in the race. Additionally, is it time to take the POV tag off? Cheers. Coventgardenw2 (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Censored content

1. This edit removes well-sourced content regarding the candidate's positions on issues. The edit note claims that commentary on politician's positions does not belong in a bio. That seems absurd to me.

2. This edit also removes well-sourced content (from the Huffington Post no less) and claims that it's right wing spin. Please justify that depiction.

3. This edit makes blanket statements about the mandates for the ACA and also makes claims regarding her support for the state's exchange which are not supported by the source. Criticism of McConnell's stance on an issue, does not constitute a stance on her part. This is plain original research.

4. This edit replaces a statement regarding Grime's opposition to bans on abortions after 20 weeks, which explicitly appears in the source. It also adds a quote from the source which adds absolutely nothing to her stance on any issues.CFredkin (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. The section is to discuss her positions on the issues, not commentary by someone else making opinion claims about her positions on the issues.
The content attributes the statement to a writer from Politico, which makes it perfectly legitimate.CFredkin (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. The section is a giant opinion/editorial about Grimes' positions, not a statement of Grimes' positions. It may belong in the article about the Senate campaign, but it does not belong in the biography's section about her positions. Furthermore, it is highly misleading to use a source written more than a year ago at the very dawn on the campaign to state that she's "reluctant" to discuss positions that she has since thoroughly detailed - and, in fact, are discussed in detail in this very article. She is not "reluctant" to discuss taxes, gun control or abortion - as this very article now clearly shows. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, candidates' stances on issues can always change. These statements are appropriately attributed and dated in the content itself. If you can find a reliable source which contradicts it. Feel free to add it.CFredkin (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Huffington Post article quotes exclusively partisan sources on the issue and it amounts to repetition of a political attack rather than explaining her positions. Her biography is not a
battleground
for making partisan political points.
This would be the first time I've heard the Huffington Post referred to as right-wing. Regardless the content you substituted is false in that it omits the fact that she amended her statement later.CFredkin (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. The sources are incredibly clear. "McConnell has voted to destroy Kynect – and he has said he will do it again. In the U.S. Senate, Alison Lundergan Grimes will fix the law to ensure it is working for all Kentuckians."
This is flat out
WP:original research. The source says nothing about Grimes and Kynect.CFredkin (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Um... no. I'm not sure how a source article where Grimes attacks McConnell claiming he wants "to destroy Kynect" doesn't constitute clear sourcing. If you attack someone for wanting to destroy something... then by clear inference you're arguing it would be a bad thing to destroy it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um... claiming a candidate's stance on an issue is a classic example of original research. You've also incorrectly stated her position on the Act's mandates.CFredkin (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. The quote specifically discusses her position and explains her position from her perspective. That is exactly the point of a section in her biography entitled Political positions. You cannot possibly be arguing that it's inappropriate to quote someone's own statements to support their own political positions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are censoring a statement from a reliable source regarding her stance on abortions after 20 weeks. Period.CFredkin (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section specifically discussing 20 weeks has already been reinserted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post content inserted, as with all content published under the "PostPartisan" banner, is an opinion column, in this case written by self-described "Republican strategist" Ed Rogers and is not appropriate for making factual claims about Grimes' political positions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for Obama

How is that pertinent to her bio? Com'on people, these pages are not a political pamphlet. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's notable because she was a delegate to the Democratic Convention in 2008 & 2012. We have info on that in the article, so it makes sense to follow up with the reliably sourced and neutrally worded information I added about whether or not she voted for Obama in those years. Can you please state a policy reason why you removed the well-sourced content I added? Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is irrelevant to her bio. There is a lot of political bickering this close to the election, and we should not use Wikipedia for that. Should we put on her opponent's article some of the political bickering against him, like his recent botched response about health care in Kentucky in their last debate? Of course not. WP is not a political pamphlet. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[1] that is a reliable source, right? Should we also use that for her opponent's article? Nah... not for nothing this time is called the "silly season". - Cwobeel (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section read: "Grimes was a two-time delegate to the Democratic National Convention, supporting Hillary Clinton in 2008 and Barack Obama in 2012. When asked by the media, Grimes has declined to reveal whether or not she voted for Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012." This seems relevant to me. I'm not sure how this content constitutes political bickering, either. It is concise and neutrally worded, relaying facts portrayed in multiple reliable sources. If you want to add something about health care to McConnell's page, by all means, go ahead, but that's not the issue at hand here. I'm still not seeing a policy reason why we shouldn't include the content I'm recommending, which appears to me to be neutrally worded, reliably sourced, and a fair and accurate representation of the subject's coverage. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your point is re. this article [2]. It's not currently used as a source in this article as far as I can tell. Are you proposing that it be used? Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Champaign Supernova, com'on, really? I am willing to assume good faith here, but this is not a relevant biographical aspect, and is a talking point of her opposition. Read the WaPo article's conclusion, that sums it up quite succinctly: Both candidates stuck to the positions and talking points they have used on the campaign trail. It's hard to see this debate shifting momentum too much one way or the other. Democrats will point to McConnell's health-care comments and Republicans will highlight Grimes's electoral remarks. But they were going to make those points anyway. Enough said. Not encyclopedic, but a political talking point. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what do your above comments have to do with the issue at hand, which is whether or not this [3] should be in the article? The content I'm proposing has nothing to do with the WaPo piece, McConnell, or a debate. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My contention is that it has a lot to do with it: The fact that Grimes refused to disclose her votes, is not encyclopedic. It is a political talking point only relevant to the fact that we are in silly season. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The disputed content is a non-issue, wholly unimportant to Grimes' career. She is not required to report her votes cast as an individual citizen. Nobody is. Leave this stuff out. Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question was asked during a debate. The WP has called it a legitimate question. And Grimes's response has received wide-coverage in reliable sources. That makes it relevant to her bio.CFredkin (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. It's more relevant to her campaign than her, anyway. Why would she admit to voting for Obama when she's running in Kentucky, anyway? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I agree that it should go in the Campaign section. But I don't think that our opinion regarding whether it was a reasonable response by her has any bearing on whether it's relevant to her bio.CFredkin (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for including this. Why are you reverting? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's manufactured news, unimportant to Grimes' career, with no resonance to her status as a political figure. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hai Bink, did you mean to say something about an "echo chamber"? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Massive content deletion

User:Somedifferentstuff, do you really think you can delete well-sourced content comprising 25% of the article without a single Talk post?CFredkin (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a DOUBLE TAGGED SECTION that I cleaned up. You just violated 3RR with 4 reverts and should be blocked.[4][5] -- On top of that you CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT THE 2 HEADER TAGS THAT WERE IN PLACE before my edits. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was a warranted deletion, as most of the material was of insignificant value to her bio, being minutiae and irrelevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was suggested on 9/4 (in the POV section above) that the POV tag should be removed from that section of the article. Before that, there had been no discussion since the tag was placed. As far as I can tell, there's been no Talk discussion to warrant the placement of the Trivia tag ever. If there's dispute over content in that section of the article, then you'd certainly be justified in adding it back. But so far you've made no attempt to discuss the content here, and regardless I don't believe you're justified in removing massive amounts of sourced content from the article without some sort of Talk consensus.CFredkin (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever your concern, reverting five times is not the way to collaborate. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that CFredkin, who is currently blocked, also massively reverted material on the Carl DeMaio (contender for CA-52 district seat) article three times this week, getting away with a warning from editor MelanieN. I and others have noted previously that s/he has posted about 4,000 times since (re?)joining Wikipedia on July 31, 2013, over 90% of those posts being to articles in electoral contests that are very competitive, most in federal elections, some governorships, and was exposed for sockpuppetry last year, raising the question if these edits are being propelled by advocacy for a client list. I have been referred to the COI noticeboard by a dispute resolution volunteer to deal with the difficulties. Activist (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Activist: I don't see any basis for assuming CFredkin is working for clients; I think their edits and position are more easily explained by political advocacy. My own observation is that virtually all of their editing favors Republicans, so they may be influenced by a POV. But this is not the first time you have suggested they are doing it for money; IMO that is an unjustified assumption and a possible violation of AGF/NPA. There are just some people who like to edit articles about politics, and I recognize several of them here, including yourself. I see no basis for concluding that CFredkin is doing it for money while the rest of us are doing it for purer motives. Please withdraw this allegation unless you have some evidence to support it. --MelanieN (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a valid concern. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And would not be unreasonable to ask him to make a formal statement denying it. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it is very inappropriate for you to be making these allegations at an article talk page - particularly at a time when they are blocked and cannot respond. Appropriate places for this kind of talk would be their own talk page or a user-conduct board. And I would encourage you to voluntarily revert them here. MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if we can actually have a discussion of the deleted material? I appreciate that there were POV tags, although I worry about the precedent set by simply referring to these. Imagine a scenario in which someone tags an article, without a Talk Page discussion, then comes back later and removes material they dislike for non-encylopedic reasons simply because "it's tagged." I'm NOT saying that's what's happened here, but I worry about the circular logic being abused in future cases. More substantively, though, I note that there are some TP discussions of topics covered that have been deleted. I think material should pertaining to that discussion should be restored pending stronger claims that they violate POV. I'm just not sure removing well-sourced content for POV reasons, but ending up after some edit back-and-forth with beefed up sections about Grimes' well-received perform at Fancy Farms feels like we've done our job. Shatterpoint05 (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a BLP, editors wanting to restoring contested material that was deleted, are the ones that are supposed to initiate a discussion and argue for the restore per
WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. I suggest that those that want to add the material take one section at the time and discuss. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I see that Champaign Supernova readded it all, and then some, without any discussion here. --MelanieN (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) No, not all. Just a few bits and pieces. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Re-added it all?" Hardly. I re-added information about her participation in the Democracy Alliance, with an additional source from Politico. I added new information about the DSCC pulling ads. I didn't re-add the well-sourced information that's recently been deleted about:

  • Her campaign roll-out
  • Race ratings from Cook & Rothenberg
  • Laurel County Clerk ethics investigation
  • Hollywood fundraisers
  • Debate proposals
  • FEC complaint re. campaign bus

So yeah, "re-added everything?....." Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; my mistake. The material added was similar in tone and byte size so I didn't do a direct comparison. --MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Not biographical, re-order (unless you want to also add to the McConnel article that that he attended an meeting with conservative millionaire and billionaire donors hosted by the Koch brothers? [http://www.thenation.com/a)"

Explain more? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Most of the material in the Campaign section is UNDUE and NOTNEWS, See for example Mitch_McConnell#Elections. The only content there is this: In 2014, McConnell faced Louisville businessman Matt Bevin in the Republican primary.[16] The 60.2% won by McConnell is the lowest voter support for a Kentucky U.S. Senator in a primary by either party since 1938.[17] He will face Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes in the general election. - Which is all we need to have here in the same section. Also, note that when you revert three times in a row ([6], [7],[8]), maybe it is you who is edit warring - Cwobeel (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be citing policies that don't support the removal. And you've been editing long enough to know you're not supposed to disrupt one article to make a point about another article where you've lost a content dispute. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have breached 3RR with this edit [[9]]. You have the opportunity to self-revert, unless you would prefer I file a 3RR violation report. Once you self-revert, I will respond to your question. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please file a 3RR report. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FEC complaint about the bus

I read that as their third revert. I have warned them. Now let's talk about the substance: The material they keep adding is a complaint filed with the FEC by the Republican party. In any campaign, it is routine for the opposition to file such complaints; they usually go nowhere. Unless and until the FEC indicates it is taking this complaint seriously as more than just a run-of-the-mill political tactic, it does not belong in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not describe it as a "run of the mill political tactic", that just sounds like unsourced POV pushing by you.
In fact, the source notes that the complaint actually followed up on an earlier story reported by Politico.

Republicans’ complaint against Grimes comes in the wake of a POLITICO report this week raising questions about the rental costs of the 45-foot-long bus, which she has used to tour across the state since last summer. The total amount the Grimes campaign paid for the bus — about $10,939 — amounted to a daily rental cost of about $456, including fuel and driver costs. Several bus companies have said that a similar size bus typically costs about $1,500-$2,000 per day, including fuel and driver. The difference between the fair market value of the rental and the amount the campaign is paying would be considered an illegal in-kind contribution from a corporation, legal experts say.

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added the content as it seems pertinent to the article as well as the article section, it poses no issue in the area of

WP:UNDUE, and I see no logical or policy-based reason to keep it out. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

To show how routine a political tactic this filing was: the very same Politico source that describes this complaint also says "Pushing back, the Kentucky Democratic Party said Friday it would file an ethics complaint of its own against Mitch McConnell amid reports that the Senate minority leader had breakfast in the Senate with an airline executive and later was rewarded with a $10,000 check to his political arm." I will not be removing it a third time (isn't it convenient, that someone new showed up to restore the material, just as Factchecker/Centrify was unable to do so!), but I believe this is one of many items in this article that are too trivial to include. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Isn't it convenient..."? What are you (bad faith) implying, MelanieN? Since you brought it up, it's a good thing you won't be removing it a third time, you will also be reported for edit warring just as FCAYS has been. The boomerang effect due to general disruption is never fun. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of individual items

If someone wants to take content out, I suggest discussing each piece of content individually. An undiscussed, wholesale removal of a wide variety of content (most of which was included here based on a talk page consensus reached in August), was not helpful. If removal is on the table, let's discuss each item on its own merits and decide what should or should not be included. What is or is not on Mitch McConnell's page can be discussed on his talk page, not here. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is the other way around, my friend. Contested material can only be added upon consensus in BLPs. But it seems that silly season is silly season, and most if not all that material is irrelevant to this biography after the midterms. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE apply here. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please redact "silly season" and any other personal attacks that you make on a daily basis. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard the term "silly season"? It applies to the 3 months before midterms (See Silly_season#Politics. It is not a personal attack against anyone. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard it before, and your intended meaning when you bring it up every single time somebody makes an edit which you disagree with on a politician's article is quite clear. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The intended meaning" is: THAT IT IS NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC MATERIAL, because it will not be biographical relevant after the midterms. You are welcome to add all this and more to the
United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014 article if you want. But this is a biography and all that material does not belong here, NOTNEWS. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
You think an illegal $30,000 campaign contribution will cease to be illegal and will resume its proper status as "not a big deal" after the midterm elections? Or perhaps you think illegal campaign contributions aren't really relevant details about a politician? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a complaint, one of may that parties file against each other during a campaign. If it ends up being an issue, it will be reported widely. There is no deadline. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was an expose by Politico. The GOP complaint was merely a follow-up. In any event, it's relevant, notable, and well-sourced. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You see, the problem is this. If you add that material from that source, we need to add the counterpoint made by her campaign fpor NPOV and balance. (“This is yet another political stunt from the McConnell campaign and his allies to distract Kentuckians away from Mitch McConnell skipping work, selling access to the Senate Dining Room and profiting off of coal miners losing their jobs.” [10], and if we do that this becomes as silly as it can get in silly season. Allegations, accusations, complaints from political opponents have no place in bios. Now if any of these come true, we well of course report them in articles and in BLPs, but not before. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problems whatsoever; this is precisely the kind of material that belongs in the BLP of an active national-scale politician. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is amazing how do we change our tunes depending on what article we are editing [11] - Cwobeel (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It really is, isn't it? #IRONY. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No tune-changing whatsoever. Prohibited editorial conduct is prohibited. You don't get a free hand to editorialize at the articles of politicians you dislike. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you are referring to Cwobeel, Centrify (just looking at the indent). My comment noting the irony was along the same line of your response. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 20 October 2014

Please fix the "dead link" tag at the end of third paragraph of the "2014 U.S. Senate campaign" section. It has a formatting error. Ruby XL (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three, actually: (i) a "[" instead of a "{"; (ii) should be before the </ref> not after it; (iii) |date= was missing. Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DSCC unwithdraws

The paragraph "In mid-October 2014, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee announced that it wouldn't air any more TV ads for the Grimes campaign, but will continue to fund get-out-the-vote operations.[23] According to The Hill, the DSCC made its withdrawal after Grimes "repeatedly stumbled" over the question of whether she voted for President Obama, and commented on Grimes fundraising prowess, which brought in a record $4.9 million for the third fundraising quarter, and had $4.4 million for the final three weeks of the campaign.[24]" has now been rendered obsolete as the DSCC has gone back into the race [12] [13]. It should be removed or updated to reflect this. Personally, I think that saying "the DSCC stopped advertising, then changed their mind" seems like trivial campaign coverage so I'd favour its removal altogether. Tiller54 (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This belongs on
United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014, not here. It has nothing to do with her as a person. It's resource allocation of campaign committees. And again, I don't think her declining to admit she voted for Obama is relevant either. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree. Delete the two sentences. I wouldn't add them to the campaign article either. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The DSCC did in fact withdraw from the race, but reengaged later. It seems reasonable for the full sequence of events to be reflected, but not removed in its entirety.CFredkin (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC) I disagree with this. The DSCC did in fact withdraw from the race, but then later re-engaged. Instead of removing entirely, the full sequence of events should be depicted.CFredkin (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And on how many other candidates' pages is there detailed discussion of the minutiae of the DSCC's movements? Not only is it not noteworthy, it has nothing to do with her, it's a decision made by the DSCC about their own resources. Tiller54 (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

2014 U.S. Senate campaign section, third paragraph. "Te complaint" should be "The complaint". Tiller54 (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 25 October 2014

To remove the paragraph about the DSCC withdrawing from the race, per talk page agreement, and also to correct the typo, as identified on the talk page. Tiller54 (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this. The DSCC did in fact withdraw from the race, but then later re-engaged. Instead of removing entirely, the full sequence of events should be depicted.CFredkin (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And on how many other candidates' pages is there detailed discussion of the minutiae of the DSCC's movements? Not only is it not noteworthy, it has nothing to do with her, it's a decision made by the DSCC about their own resources. Tiller54 (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: The page's protection level and/or your
user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Protected edit request on 26 October 2014

Grimes was endorsed today by two main newspapers in Kentucky. The edit requested is as follows, to be included in the "2014 U.S. Senate campaign" section: - Cwobeel (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On October 26, Grimes received the endorsements from the editorial boards of the

The Lexington Herald-Leader.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "Endorsement - Alison Grimes for Senate". The Courier-Journal. Retrieved 26 October 2014.
  2. ^ "Elect Grimes to Senate for a better future". The Lexington Herald-Leader. Retrieved 26 October 2014.

Why are these endorsements notable?CFredkin (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really asking that question? These are two of the main newspapers in Kentucky (Lexington and Louisville). The Lexington Herald-Leaser has the 2nd highest circulation in Kentucky. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in terms of actually significant information about a political campaign the endorsements of the 2 biggest papers in the state is about as high up as you get.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This should be added. We need an admin here, there are several unanswered edit requests. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admins do have other things to do, and there's nothing time-sensitive here. Of course, the page wouldn't be locked if some of y'all weren't intent on scrubbing out well-sourced political commentary that has negative implications for the candidate... Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: The page's protection level and/or your
user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alison Lundergan Grimes. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Alison Lundergan Grimes. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alison Lundergan Grimes. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Paul "can be beaten"

I ran into an edit conflict, intending to settle the content dispute with a pared-down version of the incident:

==Rand Paul comment== On August 4, 2018, the media reported that Grimes had joked about Rand Paul at an event at Fancy Farm, saying that "Paul can be beaten. Just ask his neighbor." The joke referred to a November 3, 2017, physical assault on Paul by his neighbor, which left Paul hospitalized. Republican commentators condemned the remark.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Jessica Chasmar (August 6, 2018). "Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky Democrat, jokes Rand Paul 'can be beaten': 'Just ask his neighbor'". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 5, 2018.
  2. ^ Alison L. Grimes profile, apnews.com; accessed November 5, 2018.

This version removes the details about Paul's injuries, since Lundergan Grimes did not inflict them. It removes other extraneous detail as well, and it changes the poor Fox cite for a solid WaPo cite. If a decision is made to return this incident to the article, let's not try to pad the text in an effort to grab more sympathy for Paul. Binksternet (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet So, add the pared-down comment, then. It is better than nothing. This comment (and its reflinks) by one of Kentucky's highest-ranking and ambitious state politicians is plainly relevant. Quis separabit? 03:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is. Politicians make jokes at events like Fancy Farm. Why are we adding this one? Is there any significant coverage of it that would demonstrate
WP:LASTING? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
LASTING or Bob Dole quipping that "the most dangerous place in Washington is between Charles Schumer and a television camera",[1] or Barack Obama joking that Schumer brought along the press to a banquet as his "loved ones".[2] So far, I don't see "multiple editors objecting to it", as you claimed. Quis separabit? 04:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ Harnden, Toby (January 14, 2010) The most influential US liberals: 40-21, The Daily Telegraph
  2. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on February 29, 2012. Retrieved October 19, 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
Well, I objected to the padded and POV version which first appeared, so that makes multiple (two) editors against it. But I think the incident shows a spirited streak in Lundergan Grimes, part of the long tradition of political jokes. Presented neutrally, her fans and her foes will be satisfied. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updating needed

This article is badly in need of updating. I will watch it for a while, and if no one more experienced does so, I will attempt it.Dgndenver (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEBOLD. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alison_Lundergan_Grimes&oldid=1207459307"