Talk:Rodney Frelinghuysen/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rodney Frelinghuysen. 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) 01:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hal Rogers

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Did not precede Frelinghuysen. Dean Gallo did. I tried to change that before but maybe it just hasn't gone through yet? But it definitely needs to be fixed by someone. 2601:89:C601:CF10:E7:916F:3124:B609 (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Disregard the previous comment by 2601:89:C601:CF10:E7:916F:3124:B609(talk); the article correctly says Frelinghuysen succeeded Rogers as Chairman of Appropriations and succeeded Gallo in representing New Jersey's 11th District. 2601:89:C601:CF10:E7:916F:3124:B609(talk)'s mistaken, though good faith, edits have been properly reverted. Czrisher (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rodney Frelinghuysen. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20131021200011/http://www.ausa.org/legislation/congressionalinfo/Documents/OAS%20112th%20Congress.pdf to http://www.ausa.org/legislation/congressionalinfo/Documents/OAS%20112th%20Congress.pdf

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) 15:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Problems with content in the lede

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

There are a lot of issues with this content that was just reinstated into the lede:

"Frelinghuysen's campaigns have been funded by the aerospace, defense, pharmaceutical and health care industries. On domestic issues, he opposes legalized abortion, Planned Parenthood, sanctuary cities, and federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. He endorsed Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. He voted to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and replace it with the American Health Care Act (AHCA). He was criticized for purportedly failing to have in-person town hall meetings since 2013, as well as writing a letter which had the effect of threatening an opponent's employment."

To start with, neither of the citations after the first sentence verifies the content. This is a dead link, and this is a list of campaign contributors (from the 2012 cycle), but it doesn't say anything about which industries funded him, so fails verification and is probable WP:OR. As for "he opposes legalized abortion," both citations for that are dead links too. Worse still, he actually appears to be pro-choice (In 2017, he voted against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would have implemented a national ban on abortions performed after 20 weeks of gestation)--see New York Magazine. For "he opposes Planned Parenthood" we have yet another dead link. Also, does he oppose Planned Parenthood or oppose federal funding of it? There's a difference. This content, full of dead links and unverifiable, shouldn't be in the body, let alone the lede. There are other issues but we can start there--at a baseline level, content in the article should be sourced and verifiable. Marquardtika (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems like you chopped out an entire paragraph since you found a few dead links. As per the style manual the lede paragraph should summarize the content of the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly. The dead links are a big problem though, especially since the sourcing that presumably was once verifiable isn't even good sourcing--like a NARAL press release, for example. Advocacy groups are not likely to be WP:RS. Other issues are the use of the words "purportedly failing to" (did he or didn't he, and according to whom?) and including the Trump endorsement. I don't see how a Republican elected official endorsing the Republican presidential nominee is notable, just as a Democratic elected official endorsing a Democratic presidential nominee is not notable. It would be notable if someone didn't endorse their own party's candidate. It shouldn't be hard to find WP:RS covering this member of Congress--there's no need to rely on poor sourcing or poor writing, and this article still has much room for improvement as all of the inline tags show. Marquardtika (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You, removing an entire paragraph, including sources, because a few of them are dead links -- rather a flimsy excuse for trying to whitewash this article. Here, you removed a USA Today source for what reason? Frelinghuysen doesn't hold town meetings. What's his job? A representative. He's supposed to represent the people of NJ-11, and he doesn't meet with them? That's important information. Regarding Trump -- it is highly important to know where every congressperson stands with regard to our president -- does he support Trump? It's highly relevant and deserves to be in the lede paragraph.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the USA Today source and replaced it with the New York Times source because the New York Times source actually verifies that he hasn't held a town hall meeting since 2013, while the USA Today source simply included an attributed claim from an activist opposing him ("Juviler said....") See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for more information. If you can't tell the difference between those two types of sourcing, that's a problem. Marquardtika (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Marquardtika,Tomwsulcer. Has this been resolved? If not would you like to open a RfC or attempt to establish consensus as to the state of the lead? _{Adotchar| reply here} 00:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Adotchar: thanks for checking in. There have been improvements to the lede, but I still think the lede (and article as a whole) could be improved quite a bit. I'll think about putting together an RFC with more specifics. In general, it appears the article has become a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, the great wrongs being Donald Trump and anyone associated with him. Marquardtika (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Adotchar: my concern is that "improvement" often translates into turning this article into an advertisement for Frelinghuysen. Some contributors have been systematically removing negatives, stripping key information from the lede, removing references here and here and sometimes removing entire paragraphs for spurious reasons. A key piece of information on any candidate, whether Democrat or Republican, is their sources of funding and there have been consistent attempts to remove this information from the lede and simply bury it below. Right now this article is almost entirely pro-Frelinghuysen. What is needed is a fair and balanced assessment as per WP:BALANCE.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)