Talk:Bob Schaffer

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Reverted edits by The Mystery Man

Reverted edits by The Mystery Man for reasons listed in the history page; given this is a current-event related page dealing with a living figure, let's try to reach consensus on the discussion page before making edits. -- BradJones1 (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing head shot?

I propose changing the head shot on this page to this photo [[1]] provided by the campaign; it's color, higher-resolution, and more current.

BradJones1 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change made seeing no objection on the talk page after 10 days.

--BradJones1 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riddled with favorable POV adjectives

Sounds like its taken from a campaign bio.

Definitely true

I went to Liberty where he was the principal at the time. This is heavily embellished and written the same way that he talks in real life.

This whole thing needs to be overhauled with more neutral language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:8200:5D60:5B2:CFE1:9B20:6E73 (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Removed jargon and NPOV tag

I removed much of the political jargon and the NPOV tag. Of course, how can you describe a politician without some politics sneaking in?--Kevin Murray 22:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC). This article still needs sources.[reply]

Sources

I removed some poorly sourced claims. A letter-to-the-editor alleging a conspiracy of the Department of Interior is not a WP:RS. Neither is DiscoverTheNetworks.org's attempt to paint a group as part of a liberal conspiracy. Furthermore, World (magazine) may or may not be a WP:RS regarding international sentiments. However, I left it in and WP:ATT. Paper45tee (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

The page is now protected for seven days days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any problems with the article? Paper45tee (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV Issues: Marianas Section

First off, I am a Democrat. Anyway, I've noticed this page seems to have a very strong liberal bias compared to similar pages of democratic nominees? Does anyone else agree? --Redwolf75 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm pretty sure nobody else agrees. In fact, the section on the Marianas visit still reads as if it was written by Schaffer's press office. Can we reach any kind of consensus on this? Steambadger (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree either, Redwolf75. The Marianas section needs some serious revision to remove bias - I've tagged it as "neutrality disputed". — Lincolnite (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally started the Mariana Section, so it's been interesting to watch its evolution. I think it will be constantly targeted by both sides until November. Lots of language has been inserted to try and cast doubt on some indisputable events; mainly using weak and obscure sources. I've left most of that stuff even though it is pretty thin, but I just added an image from Schaffer's congressional office that prove that they had foreknowledge that Abramoff's firm Preston Gates planned this trip. It's not "alleged." This section is definitely ripe for sabotage. - Hawk4free (talk) 02:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Environmental Record

I tagged this section as disputed because it's not relevant that LCV does business with an organization that used to be headed by Mark Udall's wife.

It's an attempt to dismiss LCV through guilt by association when there isn't even any association.

If the LCV's environmental claim can be refuted by a reliable source, put that in. If the LCV's motives are personal and not genuine as the current sentence about Maggie Fox seems to suggest, then find a reliable source that says it and put it in.

I nominate that particular sentence for removal. Janus303 (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The LCV connection to America Votes is no less relevant to the discussion than "accusations" by LCV. Accusations by special interest groups are not "election controversies". They are opinion rather than fact, and therefore the bias of the accuser should be disclosed if the accusation is going to be included in the document. It would be fine to remove most of these so-called "controversies", as they are primarily propaganda by opponents of Schaffer rather than anything based in fact. FactCheckCO (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issues

I added neutrality disclaimer on section about the National Alternative Fuels Foundation, as well as changing the section's title. This is another example of opponents of Schaffer trying to use "guilt by association" as Wikipedia-worthy encyclopedic content.

I also removed a sentence earlier in the document with a poll result as polls are nothing but changing and error-prone snapshots in time which are not information about Bob Schaffer, Mark Udall, or anything else.

FactCheckCO 15:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, please understand that I have no "dog in this hunt" as far as Mr. Schaffer and his opponenent for the senate seat in Colorado. But having said that, I can not recall seeing a BLP that has such a strong POV regarding the subject of the BLP. The criticisms section of this BLP clearly violates WP:Coatrack and the prohibitions in BLP:Criticism and Praise. There is inappropriate "guilt by association", unsubstantiated rumors, and inclusion of text from sources that are not reliable. As such, I have removed the section, as we all should whenever we see these in a WP:BLP, be the subject a republican or a democrat. Newguy34 (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the section and removed the two obvious items that shouldn't be there. Please keep in mind that WP:COATRACK is an essay, not policy. Who politicians choose to associate with is significant. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I largely disagree. Coatrack articles run against the fundamental NPOV policy, particularly the requirement that articles be balanced. When a BLP is a coatrack, it is a problem that requires immediate action. The sections in question in the BLP contain inappropriate "guilt by association" and unsubstatiated rumors, vieled in properly cited sources. I consider this a matter for the BLP Noticeboard if it continues. This is a blatant attempt to negatively reflect on the subject of a BLP, sure evidence of which is when the text of the section says something along the lines of "Someone did something bad, and although the subject of the BLP has not yet been implicated to the doer of bad things..." (as was the case with this BLP). Newguy34 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Bob Schaffer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing of this article

I am a student at Liberty University Online, and consequently, Liberty Common School often popped up on my browser. In doing research of the school and its principal (Bob Schaffer), I noticed his wikipedia page was seriously outdated. Additionally, I noticed that a portion of it presented assertions and opinions as facts, arguably a coatrack article, was an attack article and cited a major city newspaper that has since been demonstrably disproven. In an attempt to provide neutrality and update information, my edits were rejected. I have made some sourcing changes that are superficial yet will satisfy wiki policy. However, in the Attempt to Link Schaffer to Abramoff section, I have cited a blog that might not meet the wiki definition of reliable source. I implore you to juxtapose the journalistic integrity of http://www.rossputin.com/blog/index.php/bob-schaffer-and-the-real-cnmi-story-par-2 and the related links with the (lack thereof) journalistic integrity of the Denver Post citation. The former delves into much deeper depths, interviews more sources, and leaves no stone unturned in the reporting that was done so thoroughly over a 10-part series. The so-called acceptable source does not come near the journalism quality in the source linked by me. Additionally, my edits serve to provide balance and neutrality, which I know Wikipedia strives for. I will be making the edits again, I hope you take a close look at the sources and see the benefit the edits serve to Wikipedia readers. Regards, JacksonSarahWY (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use of a blog instead of a newspaper report is unlikely to be regarded as replacing a poor source with a better one. At present it looks as though all your edits are attempting to whitewash Bob Scaffer and remove any criticisms. In addition none of your lengthy additions have been supported by the references you quoted. Worse than this , some of the text has been a direct copyright violation. This has happened twice and if it continues you run the real risk of being blocked from editing.
Please stand back, forget where you go to school and try and see this article from a non partisan point of view. Better would be to try and improve the article of non-Christian Democratic senator in a balanced way with appropriate references. This may help in understanding the view-point of non-involved, non American readers of Wikipedia articles. At present it looks as if you are just too close to the subject to be impartial. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   20:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, references quoted in your latest version, now reverted, include statements by Alumni of the Freedom school, a blog and the views of a very right wing think tank. None of these are robust independent sources.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Schaffer. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bob Schaffer. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_Schaffer"