Talk:Barbara Comstock

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maura Larkins[edit]

I was curious about the reasons for deleting Wikipedia articles, so I read this one. I Googled Barbara Comstock, and found that the information presented was confirmed by the website of the US Department of Justice, and the law firm where Comstock currently works. I have no connection to the author or Barbara Comstock, but I feel strongly that true, verifiable, and verified information should not be deleted. That policy just maintains ignorance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mauralarkins (talk • contribs). 19:22, December 30, 2006

The article does not provide any verifiable sources, nor does it indicate in any way how the subject is notable. Mere existence is an poor excuse for an encyclopedia article. Perhaps there is something more noteworthy to say about the subject, but there is nothing at present to indicate this. older ≠ wiser 19:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bkonrad 19:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The website of the US Dept of Justice is not verifiable? The law firm website I gave is not verifiable? I wanted to work on an article about which I have NO biases, and this is it. Are you particularly uninterested in United States government? Maybe you should set up a rule for yourself not to work on articles about American government. Plenty of people in the US are interested in the people who make decisions about terrorism cases and other matters of both national and worldwide importance. There was never at any time any negative information about this person.
By the way, "older" might not necessarily be "wiser," but the two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they go together more frequently than "younger" and "wiser." Have you perhaps found that as the years go by, you get no wiser? Mauralarkins 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was no specific citation provided for the information you claim came from the Department of Justice website. Wikipedia:Citing sources provides some guidelines about how to cite your sources. This is an essential step for contributing information to Wikipedia. It is not acceptable to cite the "website of the US Dept of Justice" without providing a specific source within that website -- just as it would be unacceptable to cite a library, rather than a specific publication contained within the library. You mentioned the name of a law firm, but did not provide any link to the website, let alone to a specific page within the website as would be necessary for citing a source. I have never claimed that there was any negative information in the article, only that there were no verifiable sources provided and no indication of why there should be an encyclopedia article about this person. older ≠ wiser 21:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maura Larkins[edit]

I have added links to the US DOJ webpage with Comstock's statement, a CNN interview of Comstock, and her personal webpage on her law firm's website. I feel it would be inappropriate to transfer information from her self-promoting web page to a Wikipedia article. Mauralarkins 01:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Bkonrad[edit]

It's fine with me if you delete this page. I didn't start the page, and I chose it randomly to see if it would get deleted even if I added links and quotes showing that this person was the chief spokesperson for the DOJ and John Ashcroft. I'm personally glad that I learned about Barbara's existence, because I like to know about people in politics and people in power. But my experiment was simply an effort to find out if Wikipedia would decide to limit others' knowledge of her. I'm a liberal myself, so obviously Barbara Comstock is no hero of mine. Still, I think it's a clearly unbiased article, and I'll be interested in the outcome no matter which way it goes.Mauralarkins 22:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latest outcome is victory in the Virginia House of Delegates so any notability issues are now over. And if you're a liberal, it was a bad day for you but a great day for anyone with brains. She's a hero just for being someone with common sense in an area permeated like a bad disease by drooling morons on the left. 72.154.144.85 (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed content[edit]

In edit #1, I removed content sourced to PoliticusUSA, which is not a WP:reliable source.

In edit #2, I removed content which is not supported by the sources provided. Before restoring, please indicate here where the content appears in the sources, specifically.

In edit #3, I removed content sourced to an opponent's political ad, which is not a WP:reliable source.CFredkin (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources, if you look for them.
For the first one, the Andrea Mitchell interview is available online so it is easily verifiable.
For the second edit: [1] “Finally, Comstock cast herself as the sensible choice for Republicans by wrapping her congressional bid in Wolf’s legacy and attempting to soften her own conservative record in the legislature, including a vote for a controversial mandate that women seeking abortions first submit to an invasive ultrasound”.
Rather than go around the pedia deleting content, maybe put some work and find sources. (Yeah, I know about the "burden"), but we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to whitewash or edit out controversial stuff that politicians say. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stipulate that the transvaginal ultrasound reference is well-sourced, now that Cwobeel has found another, reliable source for it. However, the other content in edit #2 above still needs reliable sourcing.CFredkin (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source?[edit]

This edit restored content from InTheCapital. The content had been removed due to concerns over the reliability of the source. There is no evidence of editorial control at the source, which is one of the key requirements for WP:reliable sources. The edit comment for restoring the content is that the site has sister sites which are reliable. I don't believe this has any bearing on the reliability of this site. If you still believe that this site is reliable, please seek consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard. This content should not be restored until the burden of evidence is met per WP:BLP. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a better source that corroborates the content. There's also this source [2] which I'm pretty sure is reliable.- MrX 21:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no evidence of editorial control at the source", says who? Do you have anything to substantiate that claim? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Barbara Comstock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbara Comstock. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Conservative Review grade[edit]

Is this particularly relevant? I don't think so. Conservative Review is one of many interest groups on both the left and right that issue scores to members of Congress. I don't think it is routine to include such scores unless they are included in secondary sources, so as to establish their particular notability/relevancy. The only source here is a primary one. Champaign Supernova (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While no discussion has yet taken place here, this information has been re-inserted. My concern is that members of Congress are routinely given "grades" by hundreds of interest groups. We can't include them all here, so the standard for inclusion, per WP:SECONDARY, should be that a particular grade was found notable enough to cover by an outside source. That doesn't seem to be the case here, at least as far as I can tell. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The material has been re-added again, but the editor who is adding the information has not yet taken part in the discussion here. Please, OakTreeByWindow, make your case here and hopefully some other editors will weigh in so we can reach a consensus on whether to include this information or not. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information provided is accurate, sourced and part of Comstock's record. Comstock's page includes endorsements she received from various organization without any secondary sourcing to indicate their notability. The information I posted is on solid footing.

OakTreeByWindow (talk)OakTreeByWindow

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barbara Comstock. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Review Grade[edit]

I have again posted Barbara Comstock's Conservative Review grade because it is relevant information to her page. It was removed within minutes by editor Snooganssnoogans without explanation. I went back and reinstated the information and explained that it is relevant and sourced. Snooganssnoogans again quickly removed it explaining "That's not why I removed it."

This is the forum for settling this dispute and working toward language that we can agree upon. Snooganssnoogans?

(OakTreeByWindow (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The Conservative Review is a fringe outlet (redacted). I do not think we should add grades of politicians by this outlet, unless these grades are deemed notable enough to warrant coverage and context by independent reliable sources (e.g. the Washington Post). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're definition of an "independent, reliable" source belies a certain bias, I think, as is your characterization of Conservative Review. This is not about what sources you or I like or dislike; the information posted is sourced and the reader can make his or her own judgment on those sources. (OakTreeByWindow (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

You're mistaken about how Wikipedia works. Read WP:RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the page you cite: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." I think it is you who is mistaken about how Wikipedia works. You don't like Conservative Review and have stated a bias against it above. Comstock's page is full of information from sources I might distrust. The solution is not engaging in a edit war (as you did), it's adding additional information for context and balance, as I did. (OakTreeByWindow (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment - How notable is the Conservative Review's opinion? Is the Conservative Review a reliable source? Are we going to add their rating to every political bio? I would not include their rating unless there was consensus to include. --Malerooster (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)ps, it looks like above sections questioned this 2 years ago? --Malerooster (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbara_Comstock&oldid=1206767190"