Talk:Amanda Curtis

Significance of legislation

Wikipedia isn't a mirror of the Montana legislative site. If the legislation referenced in [1] this edit is significant, there will be secondary sources which reference it.CFredkin (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason not to have a simple list of sponsored legislation. After all, some people don't sponsor anything, and she was a freshman legislator. It's relevant, verifiable and it isn't listed as "significant" legislation, it's the record she has. If there is a WP policy or guideline that backs up your position, please post it there. Montanabw^(talk) 23:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Are people forgetting that this is an encyclopedia? Think of the reader, please. If a list of legislation is useful for readers, it should be in the article. It will not be difficult to find additional sources if the legislation is significant. Until that time, instead of deleting, given that this is not contentious, just as a {{citation needed}} or {{refimprove}} so that other editors can help with sourcing. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is some local news from Butte [2] - Cwobeel (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

And here are some additional sources discussing Curtis’ legislation and political positions:

• Kansas City Star [3]
• The State [4]
• HuffPo [5]
• The Hill [6]

- Cwobeel (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. She is 34 year old a freshman state legislator who just got tossed into a shark tank. Sure, she volunteered, but what may not have been significant a month ago is now. What record she has needs to be stated here, neutrally. Montanabw^(talk) 03:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

We have sources for said information; it is comprehensive, so no issues of due weight; and it is obviously relevant. What precisely is the issue here? 59.97.32.195 (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I think that the material is sourced adequately, but I'd like to take Cwobee's advice and use sources to summarize and explain her position, not just put in a clunky list. I kept the failed bills in hidden text in the article for ease of re-adding, but in terms of article style, lists are rather disouraged and a narrative text is better. (Plus, some bill titles are rather meaningless). I'd say it's now more about doing a decent editing job so the page doesn't look like it was written by a bunch of amateurs. Montanabw^(talk) 06:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Positions info

Did somebody find the NRA rating a politically embarassing liability? What exactly was meant by "bounce the rubble" in the rationale? Without a legitimate reason, it's fair game for reinclusion. 69.144.93.138 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I was told we are to minimize the endorsement stuff in these political articles; or at least if we list one thing, to list the whole shitload on both sides. All or nothing, I guess. "Bounce the rubble" is just a comment that she's polling under 40% and doesn't have a lot of hope of winning, so no sense getting on attack mode. Montanabw^(talk) 09:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for both clarifications. 69.144.93.138 (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amanda Curtis. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://convergysvotes.com/voter-resources/official/389771/Amanda/Curtis
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812223352/http://www.kbzk.com/news/franke-wilmer-drops-out-of-race-for-u-s-senate/ to http://www.kbzk.com/news/franke-wilmer-drops-out-of-race-for-u-s-senate/

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) 06:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)