Talk:Jim Beall (California politician)

message: In order to better learn and understand a politician, it is a good practice to critically analyze their voting record and the laws they have authored and co-authored. A fair criticism, without hypocrisy, without an angry spirit, and solely based on facts and fair arguments should be added to this article about Jim Beall. Critical analysis is essential to understanding somebody.
I am a resident of Mr. Beall's district, and I had voted for him without any real knowledge about his views, other than the conventional political party slogans I get through normal news channels and political advertisements. I have learned, that is not how I, nor anybody else, should base their vote. A good vote is based on knowledge that includes critical analysis. An uneducated vote, especially a large number of them, can lead to serious consequences.
Here is one reason (which are many) why I think such a new section to this article is important and should be added. Mr. Beall has authored at least one law that is, in my perception, very odd and not in line with the conventional wisdom of most U.S. citizens in our district; in fact, because of that law, it can be easily argued, with facts, that at least one citizen of our district was murdered as a consequence. I have had conversations with many property owners in my neighborhood, and I have learned that none of them know who is Jim Beall, and none of whom I've spoke with have gone to the State of California Legislative website to read about his voting pattern and his legislation. Most voters, is my perception, simply do not know anything about this man, while his work is concerned with and affects the general welfare of the citizens our his district. None the less, I have crossed paths with just a few people in the Campbell Farmer's Market who know of him, but just superficially, and not enough to make an educated decision during an election.
Fair criticisms of anybody, any concept, and any work of legislation and voting pattern is essential to a well informed voter and democracy. Wikipedia is part of a domain of knowledge we all use to learn and add to about such topics.
You can only understand and characterize a person by what they say and what they do. There is no other way to understand them. The goal of this section is to use critical analysis to understand who is Jim Beall, and to not completely rely on just his credentials.
If anybody disagrees with this, please make your argument.
My plan is, at some time in the future, to add this section named "Critical Analysis." It would not be outside of the rules of Wikipedia, and would serve to present a fair analysis, so the public can better understand who is California State Senator Jim Beall and his work.
Thomas Foxcroft (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think an analysis of the sort you describe would conform to WP:NOR. It's great to expand this article with well-sourced factual information, but to synthesize facts into an original work of criticism wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia's mission. BrokeBoneGrinder (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for a New Section Section Going by the Name "Critical Analysis"