Talk:Doug Steinhardt

This page was reworked and rewritten to comply with wiki standards. Please feel free to comment to me for any suggested changes.

This is getting over the top. The paragraphs are not verbatim and the information has been rewritten and reworded to comply. All of them are sourced with external sources and are fact based and not puffery. The guy has an accomplished legal career which led to his political success but apparantly you cant talk about it. This is getting ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poledit2017 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Poledit2017: I marked a single paragraph for revdel - it was lifted directly from the source with Doug replacing Steinhardt. I removed some other poorly sourced promo material - and I accepted the article in the new-page-patrol. Sources here could be improved - many of them are WP:PRIMARY and citation format is not up to snuff - however it would seem that this individual meets notability guidelines per his recent election.Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Much of the facts were, of course, from the official page but they were rewritten and sourced externally from credible news sources or organization webpages. It was not "lifted" if you are implying a copy/paste job.

The guy is a major political figure in NJ and you can't talk about his charitable and non-profit activities? Seriously guys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poledit2017 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Source it to a better source - not linkedin - preferably an independent publication - and word it neutrally.Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I resourced from linkedin to official pages. Poledit2017 (talk)

Please read WP:RS. It might meet WP:V if it is on the org's webpage, but that does mean including it isn't WP:UNDUE. If the media isn't writing about all these good works - it is akin to a tree falling in the middle of an empty forest.Icewhiz (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Icewhiz - So the official website of the government task force is not a credible source? Are you actually joking now? You're abusing your privileges. Whether or not the media is writing these things is irrelevant. This is biographical information on a public figure. I'm sure if I asked the fella he could've provided about 50 more things that I could've mentioned but for biographies of notable people it is important to list at least some notable and verifiable charitable activites. The sources were an objective online news source, official government task force page, official college/hall of fame site, and official large state organization that represents municipal governments. Again, you're abusing your privileges and its sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poledit2017 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm actually trying to help you here - I can see you are new at this. And it is OK. I suggest you look for news coverage or even better book bio (might not exist in this case). Please sign your comments with 4 ~s at the end of each talk page comment.Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've read that site in the past and honestly see you as anything but helpful. You're still not explaining how an official government website, official college/Hall of Fame website, or major municipal government organization are not credible sources. You're stuck on this newspaper thing and it is silly. Not everything notable about someone can be found in a traditional media outlet. The aforementioned sources would be deemed as credible by any other reasonable person not abusing their editing privileges like you are. And now someone is writing that official election results from a county government board of elections is not good enough and needs to be better sources, that is insane. Your view that the only credible source can be 'news coverage' for encyclopedic information is just wrong. Poledit2017 (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can someone explain what better source of election results are than the link to the actual election results posted by the county government board of elections? Poledit2017 (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

That would be a WP:PRIMARY source. We generally prefer to work with WP:SECONDARY sources - e.g. a reputable newspaper covering the elections.Icewhiz (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Whatever, I'm out. You guys are more interested in being in control. I am not intepreting the primary source. I am citing it. It's data. Election results. You would rather have no information than accurate relevant/important information. I tried to participate constructively but you guys clearly have no interest in anything except being in charge. Poledit2017 (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is about collaboration. No one WP:OWNs an article. There are community guidelines and standards. In any event, if you want constructive - drop me a line or alternatively ask at the teahouse.Icewhiz (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I never suggested I 'owned' anything. I read the guidelines as it pertains to the issues at hand and you are the one misinterpreting the community guidelines and standards and being stubbornly inflexible. For example, in primary sources, it states, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Election results published by the county board of elections fit precisely into that exception as to when a primary source can be used. There is no analyzing, evaluating, interpreting, or synthesizing of the data. It's straightforward data and there can be no doubt as to its authenticity. Some of the data for many living people would come from an official biography. While such sources should be used very sparingly, the guidelines permit its use in limiting circumstances one of them being, "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." It should go without saying that an official biography on the website of a major tri state law firm would leave "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" (sans the puffery of course) and it is certainly not based solely on those sources. It goes back to the initial point that not every salient fact about a living person will necessarily be published by a traditional media outlet. This is a point that is clearly escaping you. O.k., I made my point, this time I'm really out. Feel free to have the last word on the matter. Poledit2017 (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply