Talk:Tom Luna

message: From a discussion on my talk page:
Scientizzle is doing a one-man edit war to get in the political talking point <g> that Luna has never had anything to do with education etc. (except as a member of boards of education).  I think he needs to be told why such is unwise.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You could tell me yourself, Collect. I'm a reasonable person, an experienced editor, and have clearly tried to find middle ground. To be accused of POV pandering is uncalled for. I think an accurate article should include information on why Luna is a contentious figure for some people and am simply trying to provide that information, sourced to major media outlets. — Scientizzle 15:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: HuffPo is an opinion source -- the articles which are opinion articles should not be used to make "statements of negative fact" in any article, and esecially not in any BLP.  I assure you that I hold the same position across all BLPs -- an article saying "John Gnarph has never been elected to US President" is just as useless -- saying what a person has not done is inane and, in the case at hand, simply a silly season political sort of edit.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: HuffPo can be an opinion source, but if you look at the actual source, it's a reprint of an AP article. And other sources verify that this is one of the critiques that have been made against his reform plans--and also that some supporters like that fact. It's relevant to the larger picture of his work in education. It probably wouldn't be relevant that your fictional John Gnarph was never elected to the Presidency, but it might be relevant if John Gnarph had never studied medicine and was working to alter healthcare policy. It would be specifically relevant if supporters and critics said it was in reliable sources. — Scientizzle 15:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

text: And don't tell me I'm campaign[ing][ just because you disagree with my wording. I've not been dismissive of your concerns, please return the favor. — Scientizzle 15:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

text: PS-sorry RPOD for taking over your talk page...I'll be happy to take it elsewhere. — Scientizzle 15:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Once again: I fully agree that any statement should be clearly contextualized. The source used, this AP article--no longer cited from the Huffington Post but now KBOI-TV--is a news feature (not an opinion blog as stated erroneously above). In a section about criticisms directed at Luna, particularly from the Idaho Education Association, you can find the following text:Another point of contention is Luna's resume. He received a bachelor's degree from an online college and was president of an industrial truck scale company before he was elected to Idaho's top education post. He has never been teacher or principal, but served on education boards and spent two years traveling around the country as an adviser to then-U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige.I attempted, specifically to addLuna has never held a position as a teacher or principal,ref a fact that has been a source of contention for those opposing his plan[s] which may have been imperfect but clearly attempted to supply some context to the claims. I even added a source that specifically praises that aspect of his resume. I'm perfectly willing to go with a consensus on this, but I'm not willing to have others continuously mischaracterize the sources and especially my contributions. — Scientizzle 17:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I copy edited the section. --Mollskman (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed the information added by Scientizzle, which I think might not be adequately described by the "ce" of your edit summary. Also, the statement "he worked in education" would normally lead one to believe that Luna was an educator. It might be better to eliminate that phrase altogether. The other question is whether this criticism is sufficiently important to include - it's not clear that this is the case. The Bonner AP piece looks like a RS, but this specific criticism in still only merits a fairly passing mention. Hal peridol (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, I removed that part. --Mollskman (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - and as pointed out by The Red Pen of Doom, I did only mean the less specific information. Also, to clarify my above statement, the "not a teacher/principal" criticism only received a passing mention in the AP story - unless there is more to it, I don't think it should necessarily be mentioned in this article. Hal peridol (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion blogs and things someone hasnt done 

message: This piece appeared in the Idaho Statesman today. He contacted the Wikimedia Foundation, but per our standard with on-wiki editorial matters, I declined comment from us and suggested he try to reach out to the editors who are working on the article. Thanks, Matthew (WMF) 15:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Popkey never responded to my email, though he did contact me on my userpage. This piece, from Boise State Public Radio, was published late last night (and updated this morning); I corresponded several times with the author, Adam Cotterell. — Scientizzle 19:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I will also note my personal disappointment that Popkey's piece repeats the laundry list of bad-faith edit summaries levied at me by other editors... — Scientizzle 19:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I will say that I am sorry that it looks like my description of "electioneering"   got attached to your edits instead of the yahoo that made it[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Luna&diff=510035168&oldid=509996212] !-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. — Scientizzle 20:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idaho Statesman story about edits here