Talk:Mark Taylor (American politician)

message: N.b. this article is being used as part of an ongoing political campaign, and inappropriate allegations of the sources of edits have been made as part of a news release.  Wikipedia insists on a Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) in all articles, but agrees with the insertion of any factual information that is relevant to a biography, so long as it is presented neutrally and with citations (WP:CITE).  If information is relevant and verifiable, and if it is presented in a non-prejudicial manner, it is appropriate, and speculations/allegations about who added the information are neither relevant nor germane to the operation of Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone may edit.  Geogre 11:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, Wikipedia neither has the expertise nor the information to confirm the identities of the persons behind the keyboard beyond the information available to all on the history page. Anyone may search via rwhois to determine who an IP address is registered to, but no one at Wikipedia can determine if that registration information is correct. It would appear that these are the edits which have sparked media attention. Readers of Wikipedia are encouraged to examine the history pages and understand how an article has changed over time. --Gmaxwell 12:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Caveats'''

message: This article has been linked from an article on the CNN homepage . Is there a template for an occasion like this where an article might become prone to vandalism? Cheers, --Jpkoester1 13:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a slashdotting template, I believe (i.e. "we're getting slashdotted, so, if you came here to poke around, please read our policies" sort of thing), and there is an in-the-news template (i.e. "this article is part of an ongoing news event, please read our policies").  I'm not sure of their names, unfortunately, as I'm not one of the template illuminati.  In the absence of these, it is perhaps wise to label the first section, above, as I will do in a moment, and to add an additional warning.  At that point, an alert on the article page that directs readers (via link to eliminate folks having to know our topology (yes, I mean even seeing the tabs)) to this talk page ought to do it in the absence of a template.  Geogre 14:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Helpfully, the template is just "slashdotted" which is a redirect to "high-traffic." I've also semiprotected the page. FCYTravis 16:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media attention 

message: It's not appropriate, I think, to direct readers to internal WikiMedia documents, and so I see no profit in making live links in this article to explain the tempest in a teapot of "the edit."  However, as I understand it, Jimbo Wales did not indicate that the edit came from Cox's campaign, only that it came from a particular IP.  The tracing of the IP to Morton Brilliant was done independently.  In other words, no identification of the editor's identity was made by Wikipedia's organization, only the publically accessible information of the editor's IP address, which is available to any reader of this article simply by clicking on the History tab.  Geogre 21:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo Wales and the edit 

message: This section badly needs to be re-written... it misquotes the associated press and it is hard to determine which references were used for which parts of the text...
:On April 26, 2006, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that a paragraph based on opposition research had been inserted into the Wikipedia article on Mark Taylor about the 2005 arrest of Taylor's son on charges of driving under the influence, causing an accident in which a passenger in his car was killed. According to the Associated Press, Internet entrepreneur and Wikipedia co-founder and de facto leader Jimmy Wales told reporters that the edit had been traced back to an IP registered to the Cox campaign, but said he had no way of knowing who made the change. After the story broke, Cox denied any knowledge of the alleged actions and said she had instructed her staff to not make the incident an issue. Her campaign manager, Morton Brilliant, resigned shortly thereafter.[3][4]
70.71.22.45 (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Easiest thing is to just delete the whole section.  Writing about past edit wars over this article as part of this article is just bizarre. David D. (Talk) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

text: We aren't citing the AP for whether or not Wales is the founder or co-founder or not, we're simply quoting the AP for the statement that Wales made. Tarc (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence as it currently stand doesn't simply say that though, it is attributing a quote to the associated press that "Internet entrepreneus and Wikiedpedia co-founder and de facto leader Jimmy Wales told reporters..." as such, the entire section should be either deleted or re-written... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Is it a given that we incorporate JW sourced quotes where ever possible? Even if it looks completely out of place and likely to be of no interest to a reader of this topic? David D. (Talk) 12:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, i think it could be improved by shortening it to just "Jimmy Wales told reporters that..." but again, i think we should go back to the sources and completely re-write the section...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.22.45 (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The media tends to sensationalize for easier consumption.  Just because something is reported does not mean it is notable. David D. (Talk) 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: so how do we decide if it is notable enough to mention in an article? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You really think this is notable? Why? Possibly I could see it being relevant in an article about the campaign but surely not about the actual politician. It wasn't even the main election but the primary. David D. (Talk) 01:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: multiple newspapers reported on this event, and not just the local paper... that is a usually an indication that something is noteworthy isnt it? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in my book. Newspapers and outlets thrive on pop gossip. Likewise, that wikipedians seem to love writing articles about wikipedia is not news in my book, think essay and sam blacketer so called controversies (i'm sure there are more). Sure, they get covered in the media, but only because the media is enamored by wikipedia and social networks.  Being in the news is not the same as useful or encyclopedic. This was a minor incident in a primary. It's as if this is somehow more important than the election process and campaigns themselvers.  How is that possible? David D. (Talk) 02:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia controversy section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Taylor (politician). 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/20070417231636/http://www.factcheck.org/article399.html to http://www.factcheck.org/article399.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915232555/http://marktaylor.com/Mark_Taylor_Bio.pdf to http://www.marktaylor.com/Mark_Taylor_Bio.pdf
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) 15:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified