Talk:David Holt (politician)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Oklahoma Mid‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Member of Osage?[edit]

He clearly is a direct descendant of an original allottee, but his Senate materials have nothing on his being an enrolled Osage member.Parkwells (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Holt (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/20120426035329/http://www.osagenews.org/article/osage-oklahoma-city-elected-state-senator-district-30 to http://www.osagenews.org/article/osage-oklahoma-city-elected-state-senator-district-30

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) 01:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

OKC Mayor David Holt FINAL Portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over OKC Thunder deal[edit]

@Thenightaway, IP editor 68.97.76.169, you have been editing back and forth for 2+ months on this topic. If you think you can come to a consensus via direct editing and edit summaries, no worries, that's perfectly valid. But I thought it might be helpful to discuss on talk to be able to go more in-depth and test out proposed wording without reverting one another's changes. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know A LOT about United States arena debates and some about the Oklahoma City vote. The bottom line is that there are 50 relevant facts in a debate like this and 50 perspectives. It is complex and nuanced, to say the least. And every city's situation is different. You could write 5,000 words about these arena debates, and people have. This complexity is not conducive to capturing the entire story in one paragraph in a Wikipedia article. And when you start to choose which facts to highlight, that becomes an editorial choice itself. If you share that the team is worth a lot of money, you are pushing the reader to think that the city shouldn't build the arena, that the owners should. If you then share that the market is very small and other small markets have also had to pay for their arenas, you push the reader the other way. I could go on and on like this, sharing different facts that push the reader one way or the other. I think a Wikipedia article should just avoid this dilemma entirely by keeping it simple (ex: There was an arena debate in Oklahoma City - the person in this article made a proposal, and it passed). Let the reader study the sources if they want to get into the weeds and learn about the different perspectives. The issue with the editor's approach is that the editor has chosen certain facts and has repeatedly deleted any attempt (by multiple users) to add any fact other than the value of the franchise or that some economists opposed the vote (even deleting an attempt to add the perspective of an economist who supported it). Clearly, the facts currently highlighted in the article are NOT the facts that resonated with the Oklahoma City voters, because the proposal passed with 71 percent, a landslide by any American election standard. So this section in this article is doing a disservice to the reader by only choosing certain (negative) facts and also using non-neutral language (see the use of "strongly" and "purported" in the sentence about the economists). I would hope another editor like @Ganesha811Ganesha811 could come in and craft a more neutral section that avoids all of these issues. 68.97.76.169 (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an undisclosed WP:COI single-purpose editor. The editor also claims that there are multiple editors who support their viewpoint, but the editors in question (2600:8803:B98D:8000:60A8:37AB:B157:2BF7, 2600:8803:B98D:8000:9D22:C3EA:9D14:1711, 2600:8803:B98D:8000:908F:7FD6:33AF:3F0B) are clearly sockpuppets. Thenightaway (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate, but also a complete avoidance of a serious discussion. @Ganesha811 provided a forum for a serious discussion and I made my contribution. If you're not going to take it seriously, so be it. I'll let @Ganesha811try to handle it from here. 68.97.76.169 (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]