Jump to content

Talk:Chris Jacobs (politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CharlesShirley (talk | contribs) at 20:46, 14 January 2021 (→‎Removal of Capitol information: fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Jacobs (politician). 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) 23:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I see a bunch of names and dates in the infobox, many of which are not present in the body of the article. Not sure what the sources of these names and dates are. Anyone? 24.29.56.240 (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Capitol information

I have restored, again, CharlesShirley's removal of reliably sourced content that is neutral and WP:DUE and I'm correcting my mispoken edit summary. The sources clearly say that he voted against the certification and that his actions and comments helped spur the riots. CUPIDICAE💕 18:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the synthesis information again. But on this talk page, you just made a claim again, without providing evidence. You did not provide a reliable source to support your addition. The Verge's headline is the only thing close to supporting your claim, but that is just one source and it is not a reliable source. The NY Times article does not say it and the WIVB article does not say it. You have not provided a reliable source to support your claim. See: Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. Above you claim, without evidence, that Jacobs' vote against certification "helped spur the riots". Where does it say that in the NY Times article? Where does it say that in the WIVB article? Once again, one headline from an "American left-wing technology news website operated by Vox Media" cannot support your synthesis. - CharlesShirley (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you read the Verge article (not a reliable source), the article flat out states that Jacobs' vote came after the attack on the capitol. His vote could not "spur" the morons into action if the vote happened after the attack. It just can't. So all you have provided is a headline to an article from an obscure left-wing website and the body of the article contradicts its own headline. You have not provided a reliable source. There is no there there. - CharlesShirley (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"American left-wing technology news website operated by Vox Media" cannot support your synthesis. - First, it's not my synthesis, second, you're wrong about bias - a biased source doesn't make it unreliable. Go ahead and read up on that before you continue your egregious POV pushing. CUPIDICAE💕 20:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you see that it is synthesis. It might not be your original idea. But it is synthesis. Where is the reliable source? One headline is all you have provided and the underlying article contradicts the headline. Why are you POV pushing? There are no reliable sources that support your POV but you want to put the POV in the article anyway. Why are you POV pushing? - CharlesShirley (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]