Talk:Ed Lazere
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Promotional tone
[edit]@Bangabandhu: I restored the advertising tag that you removed. The Campaign for Council section reads like a rallying cry, as if Lazere himself were sending out an appeal about the situation as he sees it and his determination to solve it. It tells us what he wants and what he hopes. Wikipedia doesn't speak on people's behalf, reporting on what they hope and want. It reports on objective, verifiable facts. What you wrote is practically begging, "You gotta vote for this guy!" Largoplazo (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- When you reverted my edit you also restored some of the adverbs I'd removed that could be read as promotional. If you think some of the text is impartial, then highlight it and we can find something that works. I was very careful to stick with the tone and focus of the sources I've used. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't notice you'd made changes in the same edit. I restored them. They aren't in the section that I was flagging, though. As for "I was very careful to stick with the tone and focus of the sources I've used", that's missing the point. I'm surprised to see you say that, considering you aren't a novice. Wikipedia doesn't seek to imitate the tone and focus of whatever sources editors are getting information from. The focus here is on a sober presentation of facts, and the tone has to be encyclopedic—objective, neutral. If you're saying either that the section isn't advertising because you adapted what you found in campaign literature, or that it's OK that it's advertising because you based it on promotional copy, you're mistaken. Largoplazo (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for restoring my edits. I wouldn't use campaign material as a RS - I was drawing from Washington Post and City Paper articles. Some of those sources talk in even more laudatory terms and I have paraphrased that in the entry. Can you be more specific in what you find questionable? Bangabandhu (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Do you want me to reproduce the whole section here? I covered all the problems above. They pervade that section from end to end. Largoplazo (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Alright, I've changed tone. I agree with you that it should not read like a promotion, but campaign platforms are legitimate content. Bangabandhu (talk)
- Do you want me to reproduce the whole section here? I covered all the problems above. They pervade that section from end to end. Largoplazo (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for restoring my edits. I wouldn't use campaign material as a RS - I was drawing from Washington Post and City Paper articles. Some of those sources talk in even more laudatory terms and I have paraphrased that in the entry. Can you be more specific in what you find questionable? Bangabandhu (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't notice you'd made changes in the same edit. I restored them. They aren't in the section that I was flagging, though. As for "I was very careful to stick with the tone and focus of the sources I've used", that's missing the point. I'm surprised to see you say that, considering you aren't a novice. Wikipedia doesn't seek to imitate the tone and focus of whatever sources editors are getting information from. The focus here is on a sober presentation of facts, and the tone has to be encyclopedic—objective, neutral. If you're saying either that the section isn't advertising because you adapted what you found in campaign literature, or that it's OK that it's advertising because you based it on promotional copy, you're mistaken. Largoplazo (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)