Talk:Graeme Frost

Reliable sources

A big portion of this article seems to be cited to things that I wouldn't characterize as mainstream, reliable sources (freerepublic.com, thinkprogress.org). Only the first reference, to the Baltimore Sun, qualifies, but with just that it's not much of an article. Are there other reliable sources we can use to flesh out the article, or should it instead be merged into somewhere like SCHIP#Current_bill describing the controversy over SCHIP more generally? --Delirium 21:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense is ThinkProgress not a mainstream, reliable source? According to the wiki, it is a non partisan organization, founded by very respectable academics, politicians, and their aides. It has a budget about the size of the CATO Institute. The editor of the Think Progress blog has the following bio:

Faiz Shakir is the Research Director at the Center for American Progress and serves as Editor of ThinkProgress.org and The Progress Report. He holds a B.A. degree in Government from Harvard University and a J.D. degree from the Georgetown Law Center. Faiz has previously worked as a Research Associate for the Democratic National Committee, as a Legislative Aide to Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and as a communications aide in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. His writings have appeared in the Jerusalem Post, Florida Today, and Salon. Faiz has appeared on CNN, Fox News, and CNBC television, among other places, and has been a guest on many radio shows.

I don't see why ThinkProgress is considered anything other than a mainstream, reliable source.

71.39.78.68 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

There is definitely a controversy surrounding Frost's speech and bio. We need to have a NPOV article without claiming web sources to be left, right or whatever. It's true that we have WP:RS guidelines, but nowhere it gives a list of RS, so before deleting (as opposed to editing) anything please discuss what you are doing on this talk page. Thank you. Mhym 23:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I TAKE EXTREME EXCEPTION TO MYHM'S POV REVERTS OF MY EDITS

I made two or three edits this morning. Each edit had citations including a citation from ABC News. I added a discussion section to the discussion page explaining why one source, Think Progress, should be considered as reliable a source as the CATO institute, since TP is a non-partisan organization, founded by respectable academics and politicians, and has a budget the size of CATO.

In response, MYHM reverted my edits,

MYHM, the first rule of wikipedia is to edit, expand and clarify other people's edits. In the early phase of an article it is likely that edits need other editing.

BULK REVERSION is a POV attempt to control the information posted. It is does not conform to Assume Good Faith. It is a blatant BAD faith effort.

In my edit, I cited ThinkProgress. I think TP is a fine and respectable organization. BUT. If you do not, the citation I linked to provided the additional links to so called mainstream respectable news media for each and every point. A fine way to improve my edit would have been for you, MYHM, to include those citations. But to just revert the entire edit with a bogus claim that it was too NPOV without discussing that is just bullshit.

Please do not revert this article again, without first a) trying to improve it, and b) discussing your issues on the talk page.