Talk:Mark Critz

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

Political positions[edit]

This is a common problem with Wikipedia articles about elected officials. Instead of comprehensive 'summary style' coverage of all votes and statements, backed up with more specifics (see the On the Issues link under External links for an example of this), we get some hot-button, one-issue partisans putting the section in the Undue Weight category. In this case, it's made worse by including the vote but no information as to why he voted that way (I assume he made some sort of statement about it), therefore it's also taken out of context. If something's worth doing, it's worth doing right - or it should be omitted entirely. I see no reason to leave this one vote in the article, so I've commented it out. If someone has time to rewrite the section properly, it can be re-included with coverage of everything else. If not, tough. Flatterworld (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been discussing this article with another user on my talk page, but it's probably more useful to have it here. I'll paste it below:
Arbor832466: I noticed you deleted the reference to Critz' vote for adjournment because "adjournment is not a notable enough vote to get this much weight". Normally, I would agree with you an adjournment vote does not carry enough weight to be notable. However, this event was covered by every major national news media ranging from left to center to right and all over the blogosphere and internet (I could further document). Considering Critz' short tenure in office, it is perhaps the single most discussed vote he has taken and because of that significance I felt it extremely significant as a voting record. Although it is a bit awkwardly placed (perhaps it should go in its own "Significant Votes" section rather than position, it seems the way the page is now organized, it fits best there. It is with this rationale I have restored the reference to the adjournment vote. Reidwiki (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reidwiki
Yeah, I see your point. Was there any coverage of Critz specifically voting for (or against, I don't remember) adjournment? That would add context. But generally I think the problem is that there's nothing else there, not that the adjournment vote itself is irrelevant. I'll leave it in try to find some other issue positions or votes I can add in as well, so the adjournment vote is not so lonely. Arbor832466 (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Arbor832466: Not being hugely familiar with the district's media sources, I don't know of specific Critz coverage. The PA GOP did issue a Press Release Oct 1st http://www.pagop.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=4754 attacking Critz specifically on the issue but I'd prefer a neutral citation for wikipedia. On the other spectrum, I came across an anonymous blogger at http://mark28.blogspot.com/ (CAUTION: THE BLOG DROPS F-BOMBS) whose Sept 30th entry "What Good Are They?" (a self-described "hardcore Democratic partisan" bagging the Blue Dogs) help provide anchoring that the issue evoked strong feelings across the spectrum. I agree with you the reference is lonely and needs some company; the only other major piece of legislation I can think of for the House Critz voted on was the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which had its final vote this past July. (Critz voted against http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll413.xml). What do you think? Reidwiki (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reidwiki
I think just the plain roll call votes are better than partisan blogs on either side. I'll look into local media coverage of his adjournment vote. I agree that the wall street reform bill was a notable vote which belongs in there, as well as maybe the Small Business Jobs Act, which I believe Critz supported. Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully we can all pitch in and get this article in better shape. Arbor832466 (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I pulled together a bit more stuff so I'm going to add back in. I included two pieces of legislation that Critz actually sponsored, as well as a small business bill that has been one of the more notable votes of his tenure. Will also un-comment-out the adjournment vote since it won't be so lonely now. Would still like to see more sources from his district or at the very least from Pennsylvania, though. Arbor832466 (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mark Critz. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Critz. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Critz&oldid=1201239932"