Talk:Doug La Follette

message: Discussion deleted per WP:LIVING because it contains unsourced and poorly sourced, libelous material which cannot be separated from the discussion as a whole.
Relevant part of WP:LIVING is:
"Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.
Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion A6).
Jimmy Wales has said:
"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1]
He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:
"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." [2]" 
This talk page will be watched closely to see if anyone re-inserts this discussion.  If they do I will take this matter all the way to Jimbo if I have to.
70.108.100.130 21:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted material 

message: I don't see any indication that the Western States Center is an extremist group. They appear to be a standard progressive organization that occupies about the same region of the political spectrum as does LaFollette. -Will Beback 21:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  Inflammatory, one-sided rhetoric and a heavy emphasis on identity politics, plus the dead giveaway which is the use of the term, "anti-immigrant".  If the Western States Center is a "standard progressive organization" then Liberty Lobby is a "standard conservative organization", which they aren't.  The author of that article also wrote for Portland Indymedia (anarchist/extreme leftist) and involved with CAUSA.  A spitball analysis of the Western States Center based on their rhetorical style is: probable offshoot of the Communist Party USA formed as part of their attempt to "mainstream" their cause using identity politics (everything revolves around race, gender, and systemically oppressed groups) and "progressivism" as a cover.  70.108.115.246 23:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This all appears to be your opinion. I see that the organization has received funding from mainstream foundations, like the Tides and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. -Will Beback 23:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you have some evidence for why you think this group is extreme, please provide it. You seem to be basing that judgement on your own political views. -Will Beback 03:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western States Center 

message: I am glad to see that the three revert rule does not apply to removing poorly sourced, libelous material from biographies of living persons.  Now why would Will Beback and [personal attack removed] Felonious Monk not understand this rule?  Are either of them fit to be admins on Wikipedia if they do not understand this simple rule? 70.108.123.98 02:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Three revert rule

message: I find this interesting [ try to edit this page].  I thought, hey, he has a wiki!--Rayc 05:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted the link above.  It no longer pointed at LaFollette's bio. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bio

message: I added a brief clause to the intro that Identified him as a Democrat. This seems to be correct. I feel every US politician with a more-or-less permanent party affiliation should be identified that way in their Wikipedia article, but I don't know if there's a policy on this question.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelMunoz (talk • contribs) 18:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party Identification 

message: The subject appears to have added a space between "La" and "Follette". That's a minor change. (See Cecil B. DeMille vs Agnes de Mille). However I'm not sure that he's widely known as "Douglas J.", instead of "Douglas" or "Doug". Why the extra initial?   Will Beback  talk   23:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no further discussion, I'll move the article to "Doug La Follette".   Will Beback  talk   20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion