Talk:E. J. Pipkin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Should this be moved?
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). He is most commonly known as E.J. Pipkin, not Edward Pipkin, so does anyone think this should be moved?-Jeff (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- yes. WillC 19:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-
OK, I think I gave this a long enough waiting period, and got one "yes" and no "no"s so time to move it.-Jeff (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
In the Voting Record section, the reference provided named Pipkin and Gilchrest, not Pipkin and Andy Harris. I edited the Voting Record to reflect this mistake.\\
I am new to this. I am not sure what your questions are relating to. He is most commonly known as E.J. so alphabetically you would want to move it past "Edward" entries. You will note that I edited the Voting Record section. Will continue to do more as time allows.Goodrepublican (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV problem
The "Voting Record" section seems to have been carefully compiled by somebody looking to poison the well against Pipkin among Republican primary voters. Is there something resembling a neutral summary of his record out there? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep you are right. Thats why I edited it using both his Campaign for Senate Page and the Maryland General Assembly bills. If you click the links I included, you will see they go directly to the bills being discussed.Goodrepublican (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I placed the source tag in the "Voting Record" section because there seems to be a reliance on sources that by definition are the "point of view" of an individual (the writer of the editorial) and not necessarily neutral. A neutral source would be the records of the Maryland General Assembly (http://mlis.state.md.us/mgaweb/billinfo.aspx?2006rs) which are available on-line and without cost, or a news article from a reputable newspaper. These sources would be favored and probably solve the edit war that rages on the article page.Marylandstater (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The candidate's own campaign is never a reliable source for obvious reasons of conflict of interest. An editor can also violate our strictures on neutral point of view by picking and choosing which bills were introduced (especially bills which did not pass), which votes were cast, etc., thus creating an undue emphasis on one aspect or another of the subject's record. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

