Talk:John Yarmuth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Louisville, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Louisville on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] LEO comments

The comment about LEO (", in order for LEO too maintain a semblance of balance in covering the race.") wasn't necessary -- not to mention the poor grammar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dlc3007 (talkcontribs).

[edit] Covering negative information about a living person

I just want to note for everyone, that according to WP:BLP, all negative aspects about a living person have to be absolutely NPOV and credibly sourced. The recent addition (before W.marsh thankfully quickly NPOV'd it) contained obvious biased political baggage and wasn't sourced--that violates strict policy. I will copy this notice to the person originally adding that info. Thanks. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 23:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unnecessary

I don't believe that the paragraph about the campaign volunteer is relevant to the article. This article is supposed to be about John Yarmuth, not the campaign or news trivia. If no one objects, I'll remove that section tomorrow (9/1). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dlc3007 (talkcontribs).

I object to its full removal, although it could be scaled down as part of an overall discussion of his campaign. Yarmuth is a political candidate, and thus a discussion of the campaign is fair game. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a seperate page about the campaign or an entry in wikinews to track the campaign. This is not a new page about the campaigns. Please dont confuse the two. Biography != news.
I don't see how a volunteer Yarmuth may or may not have known deserves more space on a Yarmuth bio than any other single item. I know that a volunteer for Gaitwood Galbraith's campaign got drunk once and shouted obscenities. That doesn't mean that it belongs in GG's bio. What you're suggesting is that every trivial event in the campaign should be -- whether Yarmuth was personally involved or not -- belongs in his biography. That's just silly.
Dlc3007 15:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. Campaign information is fair game. It's his campaign, so therefore it's about him. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 15:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that we seperate that paragraph into a new section specifically for the 2006 Congressional Campaign to differentiate it from the biography. There can also be additional entries with news about the campaign. I will look for outside opinions concerning the inclusion of current events, which may belong in other place like wikinews, for example. Does this sound like an acceptable compromise for the time being? Dlc3007 15:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's a fair approach. And as I said before, I think this event can be reduced and discussed amongst other notable campaign information. Note that many Wikipedia articles cover current and even future events. While all news doesn't belong in an article, noteworthy events do. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 15:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)