 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 January 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
FloridaArmy following me around and deleting spuriously
editGreat, I can add a new conservative stalker to my list whose sole purpose in this harassment exercise seems to be to baselessly revert my edits because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. If the Washington Post says that an event is "notable", it's good enough for Wikipedia. Please provide a policy-based reason why an attributed quote to the Washington Post on a notable event in Hegseth's life should not be included to his Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- 1) I'm not a Conservative. 2) I'm not following you around. This article is on my watchlist. I probably edited it before. 3) I was the second editor to remove your onappropriate and policy violating addition. But by all means please link to your edit so we can evaluate it. In future please remember to refrain from smears and personal attacks and to use neutral headings. I have no objection if you want to redact or refactor. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please explain what was "onappropriate and policy voolating" about my edit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's a coatrack, synth, and BLP violating paragraph that is also undue weight. Please explain why it should be included. Reporters grt criticized all the time. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Every single source that's cited is about Hegseth and the interview he conducted with Trump. The Washington Post literally describes it as "notable". You're just mentioning a bunch of policies that you do not understand. How can multiple sources that are explicitly about Hegseth be WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK??? Where is the WP:BLP violation??? How can something be WP:UNDUE when four RS are about the same damn thing, and one of them literally calls the event "notable"??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- It's a coatrack, synth, and BLP violating paragraph that is also undue weight. Please explain why it should be included. Reporters grt criticized all the time. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- Please explain what was "onappropriate and policy voolating" about my edit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
"Pete's friends like him"-style content
editAn IP number (who apparently knows how to post 3RR templates to userpages) is edit-warring to insert "Pete is nice"-type content[1], which of course does not belong in an encyclopedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- The cite was irrelevant, but if it can be traced back to something of substance, worth including. -- Anewkindofeditor 03:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anewkindofeditor (talk • contribs)
Why Mention Possible Koch Funding When Funding by Soros-Linked Groups Almost Never Is?
editEven though Wikipedia generally tilts toward the Left and is often called "Liberalpedia," it seems wrong to mention possible Koch-related funding when many articles on groups funded by Soros (or linked to such entities) are not thusly identified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I removed the info from the lead section, noting the details are in the article body, though another editor considers it a necessary part of the article summary. —ADavidB 00:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Why is wikipedia so noticeable partisan and bias?
editEverything that I read on wikipedia seemed to have an extremely bias leftist view on anything I ever searched and then I looked it up and sure enough original creator of wikipedia and most honest journalist exposed wikipedia for being a hack partisan cheerleading site for the liberal agenda. Good to know, I will never go on here again and I am SO glad I never donated when wikipedia was asking for money- Pete hegseth, you are the man! Thank you for your service, I watch all your content, Wikipedia are joke hack liberal losers. 2601:41:4301:7770:E80E:15D0:B13E:E312 (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Hand washing controvery
editThere were articles stating that Pete once said "I probably haven't washed my hand in ten years" JayBirdtyper (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Controversies?
editHow is pointing out that Congresswoman Talib is an Hamas supporter controversial?-She is in fact and has been quoted as such. 168.103.165.237 (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- The source reports on Hegseth saying the congresswoman has an 'agenda', beyond support. What are your "quoted" sources? —ADavidB 22:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)