Talk:Adam Putnam/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Adam Putnam. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Bartow HS
Um, I went to Bartow High School, and I don't remember seeing any ranches in the city?
Boston Brahmins
Does anyone know if he is related to the Boston Brahmin Putnams?
Embarassing Copy Restored
"someone in Putnam’s office (perhaps Adam himself?) has been editing the Adam Putnam wikipedia page.
Well, editing would be the wrong word, since judicious use of the delete key is about the sum of what they were doing.
Check out these sections removed on June 26th of this year,
Putnam also garnered attention when he stated “white rednecks” who “didn’t show up to vote for us” cost Republicans their Congressional majority in the 2006 elections. [1]
Putnam also accepted at least $1,000 in contributions from disgraced Republican lawmaker Mark Foley. [2]
143.231.249.138 is the IP address used to make these edits, and it traces right back to Adam Putnam & the U.S. House of Representatives office building." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.239.247 (talk) 15:27, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
- I am removing the information from the article. The first paragraph violates WP:RS which says "blogs should never be used as a source about a living person." The second paragraph violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP which says criticisms of living people must be "sourced to reliable secondary sources." --SirEditALot (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
SirEditALot is considering the rule and not the source which is deemed unreliable by the now quaint criterium of medium. The following WIKI discussion on Reliable Sources points out weaknesses of the rule. As discussed below, established blogs have proven very reliable and central to political events. For example TalkingPointsMemo.com broke the attorney general firing scandal, but Wikipedia makes no mention of this significant fact in the Alberto Gonzales.
This too strict rule may be enough to keep mention of the redneck controversy off this page, but it is an prime example of why ignoring established blogs is someting WIKI can't maintain and will have to change as newspapers lay off more reporting and more reporting is actually done on established blogs. The convenience the rule provided is more and more outweighed by the reliable reporting of blogs. This blog in fact seemed to follow all good rules of reporting and is an excellent argument against the no blog rule. As to the argument that a lot of blogs are crud, so is a lot of print.
Blogs and web forums as reliable sources?
For articles about web topics, many of the most reliable sources are published online. Online magazines often call themselves "blogs," even though they have paid editors and reporters. We should not be biased by the publication media; our criteria should be editorial review and fact checking.
We do allow self-published sources for experts commenting in their field of expertise. We also allow self-published sources as primary references. As such web forums and personal blogs can sometimes be reliable sources, in some situations.
My concern is two-fold: (1) Can we improve our policies and guidelines so people understand these fine distinctions? (2) User:SandyGeorgia suggested that I start a thread here to draw more attention to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization, a situation that needs comments on the reliability of online sources. There is a concern about promoting this article to WP:FA because it relies on web sources, but those are the best available sources for this topic. How do we resolve this? Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 16:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Jehochman, I'm going to be very busy IRL over the next few weeks, and may lose track of this; please ping me if you get any resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've moved this over to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for further discussion. Jehochman Talk 01:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
whilst the strict "no blogs" rules are laudable, especially since it prevents linking to blogs that were set up last thursday (and are then never updated), this rule falls apart when we are dealing with the early blogs which now have 5 year (or more) archives. since a lot of political discussion is happening on the blogs right now, then to ignore the impact of blogs is a weakness in wikipedia entries. For if a story breaks on a blog and then ends up in the MSM, the wiki narrative only shows the MSM "reliable source" and not the blog that broke the story. Maybe , rather than the "no blogs" rule, might we have a "age rule" , where only blogs that have consistent archives going back 5 years are considered as a ref links? It is a difficult one to square I admit - as this could open up the floodgates and break the NPOV attitude of wikipedia. But it is becoming increasingly hard to ignore. What do others think about this? Joflaitheamhain 21:20, 16
factual inaccuracy
HE was not the youngest Congressman ever elected. (sorry I meant to elaborate that I meant Patrick Timothy McHenry NOT Adam Putnam)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Adam Putnam. 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/20070929121049/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061203/11putnam.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061203/11putnam.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- 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) 00:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)