Talk:Ed Sullivan Jr.

message: While recent edits are explained thoroughly in the Edit summaries, I want to explain a couple of points.
First, another editor did an extensive redactive edit to address the NPOV issue of an earlier version of the article (see diff in next Talk sections). However, in doing so, that editor did not remove the NPOV tag. In my reading of the article after that –2000 byte edit, the article now has as issues, two major ones:
* lack of information; the redactive edit gutted the article of prose that was self-serving of the subject, but in doing so, removed valid information (rightly so, because it was unsourced);
* lack of referencing and inline citations; there were none before my edits, but I was able to identify one that was relevant to the article in the earlier appended unformatted references, and checked and formatted it, and so the article now has one reference (!).
As this is the state of the article, the opening tags were altered to reflect the real issues of the article.
At the same time, rather than fill the lede with "citation needed" tags, I set the article up for further expansion, by creating suitable sections for expansion later on, and these now have stubs of text, with indicators of what further information and sources are needed.
The Legislative section, in particular, is marked for expansion, for as it stands, it contains a single legislative vote, and so makes the article seem biased.
This and general cleanup — the earlier version was rife with dead links impossible to easily update — were what was accomplished today. See also next Talk section.  
[Disclaimer:  No affiliation with the candidate, or his opposing candidate in this election.]
71.239.87.100 (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: While I understand the need and point of the earlier NPOV edit — see this diff,  — the edit removed pointers to a great deal of additional information that will likely appear in any future, more complete and neutrally presented article. The material redacted is therefore presented here as a potential source for future research, for those wishing to expand the article. Same disclaimer about this editor applies, as stated above.
71.239.87.100 (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Material lost during NPOV edit

message: The Categories includes one for 1954 births, so this year was added to the infobox. However, the following reputable 2010 candidate survey lists him as 44 years old (see , suggestion an approx.  6 year discrepancy, which also correlated with his listed undergraduate graduation year (1991). An authoritatively sourced birth date is needed for this BLP subject.
At the same time, the matter of his having one or two BAs needs still to be clarified (as it appear variously, in this politician's online material). One BA in two areas appears, because it is what appears at the ilga.gov source; while this is personally provided (i.e., staff-populated) information, it is a prominent government information source less likely to contain fabricated content. Still, a better, independent source is needed.
71.239.87.100 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of birth discrepancy