Talk:Christopher Reed (politician)

Work needed on article

The section I tagged currently reads like an advertisement for Reed - it needs to be balanced and have any weasel-words removed. It also needs to be sourced, noting that self-published blogs are not considered to be reliable sources.

The biggest concern, however, is notability. If Reed were to win the election, he would be clearly notable. Candidates are not considered to be notable "by default" however, and it needs to be demonstrated that he meets WP:POLITICIAN.

I'll work on the infobox, succession boxes and will attempt to find a photo. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Philosopher,

1) I assume that the part of the tagged section which you believe include weasel words and sounds like an advertisement would be the parts about Reed's criticism of his opponent. Are you suggesting removing this information altogether, or just modifying it? Just so you know, I did not write this as an advertisement; on the contrary, I don't support Reed for Senate. I hope we can include all the information while also having an impartial tone.

2) I am surprised by your notability concerns, mainly because the vast majority of Senate candidates who are not incumbents, regardless of whether they have a background in politics. I would propose that if Reed does not win the election (which seems likely) we could then delete the article. But right now he's notable enough for an article, in my opinion.

3) Good. I added some information to the infobox as well. Thanks for helping out.

A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the notability rules here - once someone is notable, they are always notable. (There is no "delete after the election"). And yes, articles about candidates - and even nominees - are deleted all the time at articles for deletion unless they demonstrate that they meet the requirements at WP:POLITICIAN or at WP:BIO.

The weasel words/advertisement words I'm seeing are phrases such as "nomination in hand" (should be "was nominated" or "is the nominee"), "the bill was highly relevant to Iowans" (how? can you source this? is this his claim or a generally acknowledged fact?), "campaign is struggling" (is this your own conclusion? If it is, you can't use it per WP:OR; if it is someone else's conclusion, it needs a reliable source), "strong conservative" (perhaps should be just "conservative").

Also, some of your sources appear to be blogs, most of which are not allowed under WP:SPS (as I noted above). Self-published sources are generally not considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Philosopher,

I understand the notability rules, but what I fail to understand is why being a major-party candidate for a political office on the national level does not qualify an individual for an article on Wikipedia, especially since there are other major-party candidates for Senate out there right now who have never held political office but still have their own articles. In fact, I could name a couple of minor-party candidates for Senate who have never held political office and who have their own articles. Thus, I believe that either being a major-party candidate for the United States Senate is enough to qualify an individual for their own article, or, if your position on the subject is to be applied more thoroughly, there are a vast number of articles which need to be nominated for deletion.

I changed the weasel words that you pointed out; I hope these modifications solve the problem. (I changed the phrase "strong conservative" to "self-described 'solid conservative'", as this is how Reed describes himself on his website. Also, I removed the part about the Farm Bill being "highly relevant to Iowans," although I would argue that it is common knowledge that a significant part of Iowa's economy is based on agriculture. If you consider this to be me drawing my own conclusion, then I suppose the information should stay out altogether, although I would disagree.)

I removed the line about the Coralville Courier and its citation, since it seems that the Courier is certainly a blog. I believe the other source you are taking issue with is the Iowa Independent. Having examined its site, I am inclined to think of it as a credible online newspaper, although it does have some of the features characteristic of a blog. If it is an unacceptable source, I invite you (or anyone who is reading this) to find and cite, say, the Des Moines Register article on Reed's nomination, since I was unable to find said article on their website.

Thanks again. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My concern was that the article didn't make it clear that he was notable. On further reflection, however, the number and variety of reliable sources seem to meet the requirements at WP:BIO. Thanks for addressing my other concerns, though - the article certainly looks much better now! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned finding the Register's look at Reed's campaign - it profiled Reed (and Harkin) on the 17th - the article can be found here. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Philosopher. I'll check it out and see if there's anything worth adding to the article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

Philosopher and JRStutler recently disagreed over the inclusion of information about personal attacks and exaggerations made by Reed in his debate with Harkin, along with additional information about Reed's use of campaign dollars for haircuts, clothing, and makeup. I propose that this information be included in the article, but with changes from the version presented by JRStutler...

1) Let it be written from a neutral point of view. Parts of the way it was written before Philosopher reverted JRStutler's edits were incredibly biased. For example, "Reed launched ye another baseless personal attack against Harkin..." is quite biased in tone. Also, "Republican-leaning Moderator David Yepsen said that in his 34 years covering Iowa politics he has 'never heard a candidate make that kind of serious charge about his opponent'" sounds like it was written by an op-ed writer and calculated to excite Democratic anger -- definitely not encyclopedic. The use of the word "outlandish" in that same paragraph, whether appropriate or not, is definitely not neutral language.

2) Split it off into a new section, "Controversies," since it is fair to say that Reed's attacks at the debate and elsewhere were controversial. The haircut information, since it too is cited, also ought to be included in this section.

3) Do not make the language biased; one of JRStutler's edits that I completely disagree with was his changing of the language in the second paragraph of the "2008 U.S. Senate campaign" section from "Reed charged that Harkin should have been 'elbow-deep' in the issue" to "Reed charged that Harkin should have been 'elbow-deep' in the issue, despite Harkin's shepherding of the bill..." since that change clearly serves to make that part of the paragraph heavily biased against Reed by calling his claims into question. His claims are not being put forth as fact here; the word used is "charged," not "correctly asserted."

If anyone has any objections to this proposal, please discuss them here. Otherwise, I will be making the aforementioned changes in the near future. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm good with it, too...as long as we're removing all bias, not just the bias Philosopher called me on (rightly, imho). Cheers! --averagejoe (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I did it. Hopefully I was able to maintain a neutral tone. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thanks!--averagejoe (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Christopher Reed. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081016012538/http://www.christopherreed2008.com/aboutme.html to http://www.christopherreed2008.com/aboutme.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090703182424/http://www.siouxcityjournal.com:80/articles/2008/04/13/news/local/21ff1bc477fdfd49862574290080b453.txt to http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2008/04/13/news/local/21ff1bc477fdfd49862574290080b453.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080827121841/http://www.rasmussenreports.com:80/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_senate_elections/iowa/election_2008_iowa_senate_election to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_senate_elections/iowa/election_2008_iowa_senate_election/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christopher Reed. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080923015850/http://iowaindependent.com/2427/neophytye-reed-appears-to-take-gop-senate-primary to http://iowaindependent.com/2427/neophytye-reed-appears-to-take-gop-senate-primary

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christopher Reed. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090629182601/http://iowaindependent.com:80/7444/reed-calls-harkin-tokyo-rose-of-al-qaida to http://iowaindependent.com/7444/reed-calls-harkin-tokyo-rose-of-al-qaida
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081016035842/http://iowaindependent.com/4528/gops-reed-says-harkin-backs-marriage-of-man-and-horse to http://iowaindependent.com/4528/gops-reed-says-harkin-backs-marriage-of-man-and-horse

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)