Talk:Matt Schultz

Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

{{WikiProject United States|class=start|importance=|IA=yes|IA-importance=mid}}

Conservatism Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I don't believe the Thinkprogress article referenced in the Voter Fraud section is reliable. Thinkprogress as a publication is of questionable reliability, and the article itself has at least one factual error: It claims that the investigation has cost the state of Iowa $150,000. However the investigation has been funded by a federal grant. The article is clearly nothing more than an attack piece intended to influence public opinion. CFredkin (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bleedingheartland.com is not a reliable source per WP:reliable. It is a blog without editors.CFredkin (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement is not supported by the source provided. The source does not state that the convictions would not have been prevented by voter ID laws in Iowa. It also does not state that no cases of impersonation were reported:

It was found none of the 5 guilty convictions, nor any of the 9 latest convictions would have been prevented by voter ID laws in Iowa. To date, 0 cases of voter impersonation were reported. CFredkin (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source provided clearly indicates that the following statement was made by State Senator Tom Courtney, a Democrat from Burlington (not the State Auditor):

“the review by the State Auditor concludes HAVA does not specifically allow the Secretary of State to hire a law enforcement officer to conduct criminal investigations of Iowans.”CFredkin (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a lot of this BLP was speculative - Wikipedia sticks to facts in BLPs as much as possible. Collect (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Schultz' approval rating as Secretary of State per an unbiased local newspaper, is informative and should be included. -Schultz' challengers in the Republican primary, David Young, & Brad Zaun should be included. As should Democratic opponent Staci Appel. -The statistic of the investigation(representing 0.00075% of the 1.58 million registered voters in the state of Iowa). Was considered highly important in Iowa, and should be considered. -It is important to note that the Schultz' $150,000 investigation yielded 0 cases of voter impersonation that it was searching for, instead prosecuting 20+ cases of felons w/ their voting rights removed. -It is important to use neutral language. "Aggressively championed" is not neutral, whereas "supported" or "pressed for" are. -ThinkProgress.org and BleedingHeartland are reliable sources. The Des Moines Register frequently cites Bleeding Heartland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillingNoise (talk • contribs) 21:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right "aggressively championed" is not neutral and it was taken out by Collect's well chosen revert. As articles are not the news, we don't report on current campaign details. And the "0 cases" was totally uncited. It's "importance" should be dictated by third party sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my restoration of "aggressively championed" (originally inserted by TKN) was unintentional. CFredkin (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polls where half say "no opinion" are not important to be in any BLP, and I would note your interesting labeling of the official Iowa Secretary of State website as "Schultz's website" does not impress me. Bleedinghartland is not RS, and the fact that it gets quoted by a newspaper does not make it RS, and Thinkprogress is considered primarily an "opinion website" for any claims in a BLP. Please read the Wikipedia policies being cited, and avoid edit war like the plague. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should approval rating be included? As well as information relating to the investigation.-TKN — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillingNoise (talk • contribs) 21:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If and only if there is reason to believe that they are relevant to an encyclopedia article about the person. In the case at hand, where it mainly shows "no opinion" it is about as useful as a fifth leg on a horse. Campaign rhetoric about an investigation is not pertinent here at all, unless you think it shows the person is acting criminally in some way, in which case WP:BLP requires strong sourcing for any such accusations or allegations -- far stronger than unsupported claims made by political opponents. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approval ratings change with every poll. Include only if they're notable (e.g., a historic high or low). And there's enough on the investigation in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added information about Schultz' November 2013 visit to Switzerland into the article, citing a report from Iowa's largest newspaper, and adding viewpoints of the two major political parties, in support of the visit, and opposing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillingNoise (talk • contribs) 09:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A report of Democratic operatives attacking Shultz for taking a trip is not notable.CFredkin (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A notable controversy relating to his duties as Secretary of State, as well as his participation in a Young Leadership conference for international affairs is noteworthy. -TKN