Jump to content

Talk:Raúl Grijalva: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 7: Line 7:
{{WikiProject Politics |class=Start |importance=Low |liberalism=y |liberalism-importance= |American=y |American-importance=}}
{{WikiProject Politics |class=Start |importance=Low |liberalism=y |liberalism-importance= |American=y |American-importance=}}
}}
}}

== Recent Additions and Edits to Grijalva Page ==

I'm Rep. Grijalva's communications director, and my account name is Owen Ruagh McCarthy. I recently added information to (and deleted outdated information from) the Congressman's page, and since I'm new to Wikipedia, I wanted to ask others here to check it for neutrality. I have no experience editing pages, and joined so that I could do this -- it's something we've been discussing for some time, because the policy information was badly out of date. I am not covertly editing the page to add a favorable slant, and I want everyone here to be aware of my identity. I thought making the edits myself would save time rather than suggesting them one by one on the talk page, especially since I didn't know how often the talk page is monitored. Please let me know whether anything needs to be altered, undone or redone to conform to Wikipedia standards. Thanks for the help.

[[User:Owen Ruagh McCarthy|Owen Ruagh McCarthy]] ([[User talk:Owen Ruagh McCarthy|talk]]) 21:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks for providing transparency. It's much appreciated. I took a quick look at your edits and see only one specific cause for concern. On Wikipedia we try to rely mostly on independent secondary sources, such as newspapers, magazines, and books, rather than self-published primary sources, like personal or professional websites. See [[WP:PSTS]]. One reason is that those independent sources serve to filter out the less important issues. In this case, you added information about a letter written by the subject to a government department regarding the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Legislators frequently write such letters and if we noted every one then the biographies would be swamped with minutiae. It would be better to wait to report on the subject's letter-writing until it has been reported in a mainstream source. Once we have reference which establishes the notability of the action, then we can use a citation to the primary source for details.&nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 22:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a new edit that removed links to press releases and replaced them with independent sources. Then, I undid all my edits so that a Wikipedia editor can independently decide what should be published and how. The simplest way to republish the correct, updated version would be to simply un-revert my last four reversions, but I won't be doing that myself because I'd prefer Wiki officials to make the final call. Thanks for responding promptly.
[[User:Owen Ruagh McCarthy|Owen Ruagh McCarthy]] ([[User talk:Owen Ruagh McCarthy|talk]]) 23:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks for fixing those cites, that's much better. I've restored your edits since I don't see any further problems. Other editors are, of course, welcome to make further edits as needed. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 23:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


== Death Threats ==
== Death Threats ==

Revision as of 01:09, 1 May 2021

Death Threats

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so I wanted to check first. Rep. Grijalva has received death threats, a window in his office was shot at by a gun, and most recently, someone sent a package containing an unidentified white powder that turned out to be highly toxic, causing the local fire deptartment to shut down the office and raising the incident it to the level of domestic terrorism. Shouldn't these incidents be included in his history, or is it considered too new? Saffi Anne (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Peoples Budget

A short unreferenced section at The People's Budget (2011)#United States of America would be better merged into this article.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Raúl Grijalva. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 13:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Raúl Grijalva. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint settlement

A section concerning a financial settlement of a personnel complaint against Grijalva has been added to the article. I'm treating the Washington Times article as a reliable source, but have changed the inflammatory POV title of the article to conform to Wikipedia standards. Tapered (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding the Justice Democrat affiliation

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.152.14 (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

24.47.152.14, as you know we are discussing "why" right now on your talk page. Summary is that you claim that Justice Democrats are equivalent to Tea Party which is mentioned in the lead of many politician articles. There is no comparison. For one thing, the Tea Party Caucus is an actual congressional caucus while the Justice Democrats is not. For another the Tea Party has received massive publicity for many years and is virtually a household word; not the case for Justice Democrats. Let's continue to discuss on your talk page so we can settle this in one place for all of the half-dozen members where you want to put this in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]