Talk:Pete Hegseth/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Pete Hegseth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
FloridaArmy following me around and deleting spuriously
Great, 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
An 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?
Even 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)
Hand washing controvery
There 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)