Talk:Brad Schneider

Untitled

This page needs a lot of work, I'm working on it in my sandbox and will transfer changes as soon as they are ready. There is some information missing and other information with questionable accuracy. Basenter (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I just added my updates that I think will make the page much better. I kept most of the content the same, but I changed the wording of a few passages. I left in a comment saying Schneider supports JStreet, but the only source on it was from the Republican Party of Illinois in an attack ad. If we can't find another source I think we should delete this. Basenter (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune Endorsement Source

CFredkin The source you deleted is archived here. Should we have deleted those passages? The source is no less reliable even though the Tribune presumably took it down for the 2014 cycle. I'll leave it as is for you to decide what to do. Basenter (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I couldn't find it. However, I'm not sure that it makes sense to have candidate questionnaire responses and statements made as a candidate in the Tenure section. I think the Tenure section should include content based on his actions (e.g. votes, legislation sponsored) in the position. Most of the remaining content in the section is also sourced to candidate profiles and questionnaires. I suppose some of it could be moved to the Elections section....CFredkin (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit is an attempt to address my comment above.CFredkin (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin, I think it may be better to have an issues section outside the "House of Representatives" section. Similar to Senator Durbin's page for example. Thoughts? Basenter (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'm ok with structuring it that way. Do you want to take a crack at it?CFredkin (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand why so much content was deleted without a debate. I am restoring it so that we can discuss one item at the time. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

1) These coalitions should have a secondary source to indicate their significance.

2) Source doesn't say "widely considered".

3) If these and these endorsements are notable, they'll be mentioned in a secondary source.

4) This and this edits were made because currently almost all the content in the Tenure section is based on candidate questionnaires and campaign statements. I believe the content was originally added when Schneider was a candidate. Now that he's in the office, statements of support should be made based on actual votes, legislation sponsored, etc. I'm ok with some statements that were made when he was a candidate. But currently there are far too many.CFredkin (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe my most recent edit addresses User:CFredkin's and User:Cwobeel's concerns. I focused the tenure section on legislative history, but where there wasn't enough, I kept in the campaign statements. This is a work in progress and I plan on expanding both the number of issues and the depth of each. Basenter (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice job.CFredkin (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Thank you for taking the time and doing this. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)