Talk:Ed Gillespie

message: As of 3/25/2014 the article makes two mentions of Gillespie's role in "founding" American Crossroads & Crossroads GPS. However, as FactCheck.org notes, 
As such, I'd like to suggest revising the opening paragraph of the article to omit this phrase "and together with Karl Rove, founded Crossroads GPS."
Later, the article notes "Gillespie is an adviser to American Crossroads, a 527 organization that plans to help Republican Party members get elected." As a candidate for federal office Gillespie no longer has any connection to the organization. Additionally, the language is dated and more information exists about the organization's activities, which are well-documented at its page. I'd suggest revising the sentence to read:
"Gillespie has served as an adviser to American Crossroads."
Ericjwilson (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: These seem like reasonable edits, as long as they're properly sourced.CFredkin (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: CFredkin, would you mind making these edits? I am a staffer on the campaign and would prefer they be made by another user to ensure credibility. Ericjwilson (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Crossroads & Crossroads GPS 

message: The material above was deleted by  on the basis that the material is "not notable". This, after I added sources that support the fact that it is notable. There are additional sources that can be used if needed. -  Cwobeel (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please engage in a discussion about this, and present your arguments for deletion. Reverting without discussion is not the way to resolve content disputes. -  Cwobeel (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

text: His lobbying career is covered in the article. Jytdog (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enron 

message: I, user Juankimnoah, submitted the following below factual addition to page "Ed Gillespie."; however, user Jytdog deleted it on the grounds "(BLP violation - need to use reliable sources, and summarize them neutrally."  I attest that my edit clearly hyperlinks to obviously credible sources. Furthermore, the summary is stark and direct. I now seek honorable resolution to this block to positing bonafide information
<redact>
	
At the right of this page displays an excerpt from the Gillespie "Public Citizen" document...
	
-- Juankimnoah (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason you are not able to add the material from Public Citizens into the article is because it is WP:PRIMARY.  You want to use secondary sources.  Please read WP:RS.  Try using an article like this instead.  I don't think you will find a problem with that article and others published in the mainstream media such as the New York Times.  Make sure to follow WP:NPOV if you did.  I'm sorry this was not explained to you.  --David Tornheim (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

text: I redacted the BLP violation that was posted above again.  BLP applies everywhere in WP, including Talk pages.  The problem is not just the source but the content. It is fine to say what happened even if it is very negative but the source has to be high quality and the word choices must be NPOV.   Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than being WP:PRIMARY what other WP:BLP violation are you alleging?  Public Citizen is a well-respected advocacy group having been around for 46 years with revenues of $15 Million.  I don't see how you can say it is not high quality.  The only other valid concern is that it has a bias favoring consumers and that if the claims are not reported in secondary sources, those claims are not sufficiently notable to be included in the article.  I don't see any reason to believe the data is suspect.  --David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You apparently have not read the actual edit. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

text: There was a bunch of history missing from this article.  I added it, and included the source brought by Juankimnoah, in these diffs. Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  I imagine all three of us can agree on that now.  --David Tornheim (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Public Citizen" article 

message: This text is absolutely not undue. The claim is even more ridiculous when the same editor keeps and tweaks another piece of text that emphasizes Gillespie's moderate tendencies. Just as the latter text is reliably sourced and relevant, so is mine. If one text has to go because they relate to the campaign for Governor, then logically both should. That is to say, if the people who are editing this page are actually sincere when they cite Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that - I kept that part of your edit as it was fine. this diff is also nonsense   Gillespie's.... what? Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A WaPo story about a controversial Gillespie hire is not [[WP:UNDUE]] 

message: This sentence is stranded in the "Political positions" section without context: "According to a New York Times in 2014, at that time Gillespie had “ties to both Republican grass-roots and establishment wings”." 108.28.193.226 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that is trying to provide a kind of overview. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non sequitur sentence 

message: This is an unsourced claim. An IP account has repeatedly added it to the article for the last few weeks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bipartisan" lobbying firm 

message: Instaurare changed "the scientific consensus on climate change" to "the scientific opinion on climate change". Per WP:FRINGE, ideas that depart from the prevailing views in a particular field should be described as such in clear language. The term 'scientific opinion' fails to communicate clearly to readers that there is a scientific consensus on climate change (note that the Scientific opinion on climate change does clearly communicate this, so it's unclear what Instaurare's point is with the title of that page). Instaurare of course knows this, which is why the user did this edit: to intentionally make the text hazy and confuse readers as to the scientific status of climate change. Furthermore, the user did not go to the talk after having his ill-advised change of long-standing content challenged. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent edit does nothing to address my concerns. Per WP:FRINGE, we must in clear language identify ideas that depart from the prevailing views in a particular field. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: When editors are flipping something back and forth like this, it's usually best to stick close to the original language used by the source cite.  In this case, we have a public debate between two opponents running for political office in which one asks the other about his views on this topic, and the other dodges at first but later says that he believes there is ample scientific evidence that it is happening.  If the source article had said that Warner had asked Gillepsie about the "scientific consensus," then those words would be the best words to use here in the article.  Same thing if he had spoken of the "the scientific opinion."  But neither formulation was used in the source, so when an editing dispute pops up it's usually best to switch to the phrasing being used in the source article.  There is no WP:FRINGE presentation of ideas going on here; it's not as if the source article referred to it as the "global warming hoax," the "global warming conspiracy theory," or other similar such nonsense.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific consensus on climate change 

message: Can someone explain why Ed Gillespie ran such a racist campaign. 
There was nothing in his background to suggest he would run like this - he had a history of being moderate and had worked for the Bush family?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist campaign 

message: Ed Gillespie had a leading role in the Republican REDMAP project which served as a prototype for the modern-day Republican gerrymandering. This should probably be a section in his article.
Gillespie took partisan mapmaking to a new level. Try turning that into a bumper sticker.
While he is better known as the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, a Washington lobbyist and a counselor to President George W. Bush, Gillespie helped pull off a stunning political coup — one that gave Republicans unprecedented muscle to reshape the nation’s congressional maps to their advantage.
Inaugural RSLC REDMAP Report Predicts Significant Republican Gains
“The Republican Party has an opportunity to impact the redrawing of dozens of congressional districts across the country following this election cycle,” said Tom Reynolds, Vice Chair of the RSLC and head of REDMAP. “In the end, we will see an effect that lasts for the next decade.”
“There is little doubt that the political landscape continues to favor Republicans at all levels this election cycle. Voters are looking to Republicans who will move their states in a direction of smaller government and less spending and who will protect them from what is becoming the repeated Democrat over-reach,” said RSLC Chairman Ed Gillespie. “This report spells out how fragile Democrat majorities will quickly turn into Republican-led chambers resulting in common sense conservative policies.”
GOP REDMAP Memo Admits Gerrymandering To Thank For Congressional Election Success
While the RSLC’s report may come as an unusually candid presentation of the fruits of its gerrymandering campaign, the GOP’s redistricting strategy and emergent advantage is not a newly reported phenomenon, nor is it a practice only exercised by Republicans.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakesmcjunkie123 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ed Gillespie's REDMAP Project 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ed Gillespie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407020138/http://news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2014/04/04/warner-urging-changes-in-aca/ to http://news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2014/04/04/warner-urging-changes-in-aca/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified