Talk:Patrick McHenry

Removing content

To all the anonymous editors: quit unilaterally removing content without a good reason and/or consensus.--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: RedShiftPA

Removed non-neutral, poorly-sourced content, in accordance with commonly accepted standards for biographies of living persons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.194.118.11 (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

McHenry Daily KOS dispute

Upon a semi-revert war with User:Kallahan, I slightly changed the post I made to be more NPOV by not mentioning the blogs, however, I simultaneously added another link to prove that the term "liberal blogs" is legitimate. This should end this dispute, and no further editing is necessary, as it is clear that this should agree with both of our positions, as the facts are preserved. Also, apologies on the "Preceded" typo. --152.17.138.92 (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this one. On the one hand... the entry says that it's speculation from a blog and I've always been more of the mind set that if an entry says what it is and it's a notbale blog (which Dalykos is)... then it should be allowed. Indeed... this could be a great axample of the lengths DailyKos and other websites are going to in order to hurt McHenry's political career so it may have value from that perspective on top of value from a left wing perspective. On the other hand... ti's a pretty severe peice of speculation. It's largely circumstantial. I'm on the fence... I could go either way.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. My main reason for reverting it was because it was new information that had been removed by an experienced editor. If it had been established information that was removed or if the confrontation was between two experienced editors I wouldn't have done so.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

As it says at the top of this discussion page: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." The more controversial a claim, the more reputable the source required, generally speaking. Speculation in a blog, unless reported on by notable mainstream media (and then cited to those sources), is unlikely to be a suitable source for such accusations and claims. Vassyana (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding edits and edit protection

I accept the current incarnation of the page, but I suggest the community assess whether the speculation contained in the second-half of the Controversy section (previously entitled "OPSEC Violation Video in Iraq's Green Zone possibly resulting in three deaths") should be here at all. I worry that the edits made by 152.17.138.92 are meant to make this article decidedly non-NPOV and, rather than encyclopedic, a partisan outgrowth of political blogs. --Kallahan (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Y'know... I actually meant to side with you and remove it completely. I didn;t realize what edit I was reverting... oh well, can;t do nothing now until the protection expires... if you change your mind you may want to appeal to User:Gonzo_fan2007.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)