Talk:Michele Fiore

Source, lack of references/citations

The bulk of this article was written by a single editor with a Nevada IP address (Special:Contributions/67.235.26.12) (the subject is a Nevada politician) earlier this month. That IP hasn't contributed anything to Wikipedia before or since then. Honestly that edit reads like it came from a campaign or PR office. I don't know if anything is technically wrong with it, but it feels like a staffer fluff article to me. Thoughts, anyone? Is this person notable? Is that section compliant with neutrality? pwt (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It is written like a fan page and should be gutted, If there is no objection I will do so shortly Cosand (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed the POV fan page, campaign and PR office content, left her information in regard to her office and election, and added a cited section on her involvement in the Bundy Standoff Cosand (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

No mention of this in the article?

Nevada Republican, Michele Fiore, sends family Christmas card featuring guns WWGB (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well it only came out yesterday, and I'm not sure how important it is to mention. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh, I would call it highly relevant. Not sure why the fact that it "only came out yesterday" is important. It's at least as relevant as the reference to "Simoncini Cancer Therapy," which by the way, the ref #6 doesn't go where it says it is going, but to a generic alternative treatments page. - 108.244.74.98 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Changed Right-to-Try heading, edits to clarify, still needs work

"Using Sodium Carbonate, or more commonly Sodium Bicarbonate, as a cancer treatment is espoused by Tullio Simoncini, Ph.D.,": Even the Simonici outfit doesn't recommend salt water or sodium carbonate, at least on their website.

The sentence starting "Though this method has not been proven" comes off as unencyclopedic speculation as currently written, though the point needs to be there. (And, is it necessary to point out that cancer is not a fungus?)

The previous heading implied that she was describing the bill accurately, that the woo-woo was in the bill and not in Michele's bizarre and dangerous description of it. There's actually an ongoing national push to pass it state by state; by the time Nevada got to it 17 states had passed almost uniform versions already. It's her nutty interpretation that's at issue, not the actual bill (now law).

And, should this section be under "Controversies" instead of "Issues"? Fishlandia (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Right-to-Try remarks were made in 2014 and walked back in 2015.

So I actually listened to the Feb. 21, 2015 broadcast and she doesn't make the "cancer is a fungus" remarks there, instead she opens that show with a walkback about the remarks which she says she made in a February 2014 broadcast. The only source on the Internet I found that also cites 2014, is "If You Only News" ("If you can stomach it, listen to the entire ridiculous episode from February 21, 2014"). I'm not sure about their date of Feb. 21, 2014 because that was a Friday and her show is a Saturday morning show. The IYON article linked to the 2014 broadcast, but that link now goes to the main page of the "Walk the Talk" show. The "Walk the Talk" archive doesn't go back farther than January 2015, nor does it at the Wayback Machine, so the actual 2014 broadcast may be gone.

May also need to move the Simoncini treatment paragraph around as a result.

The American Cancer Society has changed their article, is milder now. I linked to the Internet Archive version, but the current article would do just as well. Fishlandia (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Occupation of Malheur Wildlife Refuge, Oregon

Was she involved? I saw part of a news segment with her on a phone call, speaking with protestors, but didn't hear details. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Early life section?

Why is there no "Early life" section? There is plenty of coverage on it. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

SERIOUS lack of NPOV in this article

This article is a grave violation of NPOV at the moment.

She is controversial, but this article is almost nothing but a laundry list of her controversies.

It is so bad, that outside of the infobox, the lead section, and the weirdly-written election section, you could not really tell she served on the Las Vegas City Council (a pretty notable part of her career). That is obscene. Couldn't mention anything about her time on the council related to the actual job. Not a single thing she might have championed of note?

We're not here to stretch ourselves to find positive slants, but it's pretty obvious there are inoffensive facts and even some positive-looking facts about her that are certainly omitted.

No mention of her early life, education, and early career? That certainly can be written.

On top of that, things are just presented in a weird fashion overall. This article needs serious attention.

This is a REALLY bad article at the moment. SecretName101 (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

neutrality tag in April 2023

has this been adequately discussed and resolved such that the tag can be removed? lacking timely response, I will remove it soibangla (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

What say SecretName101? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I’d say it’s not yet sufficiently addressed at all. It’s neutrality is still on need of remedy. Not even the lede is balanced: most of her political bio is not mentioned: but her legal issues are. SecretName101 (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

On a quick glance, I added {{lead too short}}. The lead doesn't even say that she served in the state assembly. It may not be NPOV and could use a closer look than I am able to give it for now. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)