Talk:Cannon family
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
[edit] Names Removed
Can anyone tell me why several members of this family were removed from the listing? --TrustTruth 23:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] David K. Nelson
David K. Nelson's inclusion in this listing does not appear to be appropriate. He is not noteworthy and does not appear to have served in any elected public office. In addition, the fact that he seems to have added his own name to the listing is odd. If no one objects in the next few days, I am going to remove him from the list. --TrustTruth 02:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Removed from the article. --TrustTruth 23:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
My inclusion spoke for itself. I am a Cannon Family member; a double-descent from George Quayle Cannon, no less. My citation with PoliticalGraveyard.com (and almost 200 news-media citations) shows only a part of my 25+ years of political experience, but enough at least for its threshold of appropriateness and noteworthiness. If serving in elected public office is the standard you have for a political family entry, there are certainly MANY edits you should therefore make to the Bush Family, the Kennedy Family and others who routinely include those members who had far less political experience than I and certainly no elected service. Moreover, John Quayle Cannon, Cavendish Wells Cannon and Joseph Adrian Cannon should probably be deleted as well because of their lack of elected office, indeed their lack of substantial political appropriateness and noteworthiness, too. I look forward to your continued deletions in keeping with your standards -- or the reversion of my original two months of genealogical and politically historical work which the official Cannon Family Associations reviewed and approved. --David Nelson 12:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- While there is debate about the threshold of notoriety before an individual merits an article / article section, the key point here is that you made the edit yourself. Here are some guidelines on this. Just relax! --216.195.220.34 17:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Unless the David Keith Nelson information is restored, the reference to the Bush Family has no legitimate reason to appear on this page. He was the only known link between the Cannon and Bush families. Restore both or delete both. 12.72.169.120 00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Feel free to delete the Bush info and to make any other legitimate edits to the article. --70.176.230.115 05:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I believe that he should be re-included. He WAS elected as a delegate to a major political party's national convention. This was enough to merit his inclusion in the family at politicalgraveyard.com, and they're picky. I don't know that he deserves a stand-alone wiki bio, but as part of the family, I believe he does deserve mention. Dr U 04:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Oh, and by the way, even if he is restored, I believe that the Bush relation is distant enough to be meaningless, and should not be reincluded. Dr U 04:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. And see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. --198.134.51.13 21:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that he should be re-included. He WAS elected as a delegate to a major political party's national convention. This was enough to merit his inclusion in the family at politicalgraveyard.com, and they're picky. I don't know that he deserves a stand-alone wiki bio, but as part of the family, I believe he does deserve mention. Dr U 04:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Oh, and by the way, even if he is restored, I believe that the Bush relation is distant enough to be meaningless, and should not be reincluded. Dr U 04:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Extraneous family ties
It seems to me that all the "brother of X, Y, Z" and the like should be chopped from the article -- they seem like vanity and most of them offer little or nothing in the way of understanding of the subject. --Improv 15:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
