Talk:Sandy Pasch

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Wisconsin Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I removed comments about Pasch's voting record because the news reports cited did not have a single word about Pasch. Connecting these news reports with Pasch's vote on the issue is against the guideline at

I believe that this is a misinterpratation of

WP:SYNTH is wrong. --Tdl1060 (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The conclusion you are drawing is that Pasch's vote on an issue was notable. However, not one of the news sources noted Pasch's vote. In the Jan. 25, 2011, news item, Pasch is quoted about one of the potential drawbacks of a certain piece of legislation, but her vote is not remarked upon. What you need to find are news sources that complain about or praise Pasch's vote. Binksternet (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article was written before the vote was taken, but it still shows her opposition to the bill. If an article is complaining about our praising a legislator's vote on a matter than the article is biased and not useful as a source. There are sources that exist that criticize her specific votes but they were removed as biased sources. These specific bills are notable and I have shown sufficient evidence of that fact. If you can show where there is a rule, or even a guideline that states that lawmakers' votes should only be referenced by news articles and not a site such as VoteSmart than I will admit that I was wrong and move on. However I doubt that this will be the case, as I have seen numerous congresspersons' votes sourced to the House Clerk (or Senate Clerk in the case of Senators) which is a primary source. Otherwise I will readd these votes with only the VoteSmart reference, and using only wording that is reflected in that source. --Tdl1060 (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can use VoteSmart to show a legislator's vote, but it does not tell the reader that the vote was notable. It is a

WP:BLP. A biography of a living person must have impeccable sourcing. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Okay, if that is the basis for your dispute, then I will add back the votes without editor judgement or commentary, using only the info in the source, strictly following the guidelines of

WP:PRIMARY. I assume that since you have not shown a rule or guideline that states, or even implies, that a lawmaker's vote must be referenced to a news article rather than a site such as VoteSmart, that no such rule exists. It is questionable whether VoteSmart is even a primary source as it is republishing information that was originally published elsewhere. It original source of the information being discussed. But nevertheless I will follow the primary source guidelines when readding the votes. --Tdl1060 (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Tdl1060, the consensus here on the talk page appears to be not to include the VoteSmart-referenced votes that you have repeatedly added to the article. It has not been demonstrated that these votes are particularly notable or relevant enough to include here. The issue here is not verifiability, but notability and particularly concerns about the undue weight being given to these votes. Gobonobo ^{T C} 17:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the same applies to Tdl's edits to the article on Alberta Darling, Pasch's opponent in the upcoming election, where the votes seem to be cherrypicked to look attractive to a certain type of moderately conservative voter. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC) (fully disclosing that he's donated to the Pasch campaign, and has picketed Darling's house in the past)[reply]

As has been discussed before, anyone is free to add other votes and positions to the articles if so choose, which other editors have done. The bias is shown by other editors who remove certain votes and positions while leaving others based upon how it makes their preferred candidate or their candidate's opponent look. And regarding consensus, the consensus on the BLP noticeboard was that VoteSmart is an acceptable source. The fact that a majority on these particular pages disagree due to their support of a candidate is irrelavent. There is no rule or guideline that states that votesmart is not an acceptable source. Also, notability only delimits what topics can have articles of their own, not information can be included in an article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]