| Revision as of 15:00, 10 September 2009 editBfigura (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,776 edits →Fundraising for Wilson article: reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:19, 24 July 2021 edit undoPearBOT II (talk | contribs)Bots171,709 editsm Merge Archives and Auto archiving notice per TfDTag: PAWS [2.1] | ||
| (219 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| <!-------DO NOT EDIT TEXT ABOVE THIS LINE-------> | <!-------DO NOT EDIT TEXT ABOVE THIS LINE-------> | ||
| {{ |
{{archives|small=yes|index=/Archive index|age=7|bot=MiszaBot III}} | ||
| {{archives|small=yes|index=/Archive index}} | |||
| <!--PLEASE LEAVE YOUR MESSAGE AT THE BOTTOM, NOT THE TOP, OF THE PAGE!!!--> | <!--PLEASE LEAVE YOUR MESSAGE AT THE BOTTOM, NOT THE TOP, OF THE PAGE!!!--> | ||
| == Hello == | |||
| {| class="toccolours" | |||
| |- style = "background:azure;" | |||
| | ] | |||
| |align="center"|You are invited to participate in ], a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about the ] area. <br> | |||
| |} | |||
| == ] nomination of ] == | |||
| ]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for ]. The nominated article is ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "]"). | |||
| Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to ]. Please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). | |||
| You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. | |||
| '''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --] (]) 01:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Fundraising for Wilson article == | |||
| While I'd agree that actblue is certainly a partisan source, I'm not sure that it's inaccurate when reporting fundraising numbers. I'd also disagree with your assessment that The Nation is not a reliable source for the same thing. (And having one's actions lead to an opponent doubling or tripling his contributions is probably signifigant). If the numbers show up in a clearly indisputable source (NYTimes, CNN, etc), I think it would be worth re-adding them. Best, --] <sup>(])</sup> 14:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is NO credible evidence, at this time, that the Democratic candidate received any more money last night than Wilson did. I have seen website after website arguing that even if you don't live in SC then you should give $$$ to Wilson for calling Obama a liar--which is the exact opposite of what the Nation and actblue or claiming. Also, Misplaced Pages has a very, very, very clear rule that partisan websites are NOT the correct source to support facts. And finally, when it comes to Congressional funding-raising what one politician raised in one night based upon the one speech or debate is a silly barometer of the race. The the only credible discussion on a supposedly encyclopedic website should be the quarterly or yearly numbers released by the ]. That's what the pros, Cook, Rasmussen, etc., look at and that is the standard that Misplaced Pages should follow, not the next day opinion of a partisan hack source such as the Nation or actblue.--] (]) 14:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not going to disagree that ActBlue is partisan, although I'd have some issues with labeling the Nation as a hack journal (although clearly FEC numbers are more reliable). However than debate that (since the Nation is no more neutral than AEI or others), I'd posit that if a major news outlet (NYTimes, Fox, AP) reports it, it's fine for us to use that. While we should always include the best references, the face that we won't have FEC numbers for a quarter or so doesn't mean we shouldn't include any coverage at all. Best, --] <sup>(])</sup> 15:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:19, 24 July 2021
 Archives | |
Index
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |