Talk:Mike Huckabee: Difference between revisions
imported>Richard Jensen (Please discuss removals of text on this page first.) |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A CZ bio of a current politician has to explain both his strengths and weaknesses. We do so without endorsing him or attacking him. This is not an "ad" (which is not an appropriate term). Please discuss removals of text on this page first.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:30, 12 January 2008 (CST) | A CZ bio of a current politician has to explain both his strengths and weaknesses. We do so without endorsing him or attacking him. This is not an "ad" (which is not an appropriate term). Please discuss removals of text on this page first.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:30, 12 January 2008 (CST) | ||
::Please discuss removals of text on this page first.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 01:14, 14 January 2008 (CST) | ::Please discuss removals of text on this page first.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 01:14, 14 January 2008 (CST) | ||
I agree with this much: potentially controversial removals of text, even of just a few words, needs explanation on the talk page, not just the edit summary. That said, the text in question, "a winsome friendly attitude that puts voters at ease," is exactly as Christian described it in his edit summary: a personal opinion. Christian was mistaken to simply delete the sentence, because you are making a valid point, Richard, which is very important to convey if people are going to get the full story about Huckabee: he is attractive to some Republicans precisely because they find his personality attractive. On the other hand, Richard, as you surely know by now, other Citizens will not let it stand when you engage in such obvious violations of our [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|Neutrality Policy]]. Why is this a violation? It's obvious: some people find him winsome and friendly; others would not opt to shower such praise on him. Hence we must attribute the evaluation to those who are willing to endorse it. | |||
Let's please not discuss this. Please ''don't'' find news articles that say he is winsome and friendly. (Yes, of course they exist.) Just rewrite the sentence or let someone else do so, and ''compromise,'' Richard. As a historian, surely you understand the benefits of intelligent, principled compromise. I will be watching this page. If there's any further insistence of your retaining this obviously problematic sentence in its current form, and you ''don't'' make such easy and obvious compromises, then--in view of very similar sorts of stubbornness we've seen repeatedly--I'll be removing your rights to work on this and all other presidential candidate articles. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:41, 14 January 2008 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 09:41, 14 January 2008
A CZ bio of a current politician has to explain both his strengths and weaknesses. We do so without endorsing him or attacking him. This is not an "ad" (which is not an appropriate term). Please discuss removals of text on this page first.Richard Jensen 23:30, 12 January 2008 (CST)
- Please discuss removals of text on this page first.Richard Jensen 01:14, 14 January 2008 (CST)
I agree with this much: potentially controversial removals of text, even of just a few words, needs explanation on the talk page, not just the edit summary. That said, the text in question, "a winsome friendly attitude that puts voters at ease," is exactly as Christian described it in his edit summary: a personal opinion. Christian was mistaken to simply delete the sentence, because you are making a valid point, Richard, which is very important to convey if people are going to get the full story about Huckabee: he is attractive to some Republicans precisely because they find his personality attractive. On the other hand, Richard, as you surely know by now, other Citizens will not let it stand when you engage in such obvious violations of our Neutrality Policy. Why is this a violation? It's obvious: some people find him winsome and friendly; others would not opt to shower such praise on him. Hence we must attribute the evaluation to those who are willing to endorse it.
Let's please not discuss this. Please don't find news articles that say he is winsome and friendly. (Yes, of course they exist.) Just rewrite the sentence or let someone else do so, and compromise, Richard. As a historian, surely you understand the benefits of intelligent, principled compromise. I will be watching this page. If there's any further insistence of your retaining this obviously problematic sentence in its current form, and you don't make such easy and obvious compromises, then--in view of very similar sorts of stubbornness we've seen repeatedly--I'll be removing your rights to work on this and all other presidential candidate articles. --Larry Sanger 08:41, 14 January 2008 (CST)