Talk:Travis Childers

POV issues

The NRCC link provided also states that Ike Skelton contributed to Childers. Why the continued pushing of the "liberal" tag? Also, as the paragraph currently stands, it also identifies Obama as liberal. A variety of Democrats have contributed to Childers. Why identify them with a label? If nothing else, simply name and wikilink to these individuals, rather than pegging them ideologically. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I recenlty changed the section so that it spells out more clearly "this is what the NRCC thinks". Personally, I am of the opinion that an NRCC link is a great source for what the NRCC thinks (as long is that is clearly explained on the page). Interwebs, removed it and I'm willing to let his revert stand since there was already a potential notability issue (the page is about Childers and not the NRCC). Of course, the section itself deals with other's opinions of Childer's in general. Maybe we should at least put back sentences regarding who's campaigns have endorsed him. (mind you I'm not particularily attached to any of the opinions stated above, I'll leave it to Interwebs to make the call).--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, maybe some of the NRCC stuff can go on Mississippi's 1st congressional district special election, 2008... I have to think about it for a day or two.--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the NRCC charge belongs in the special election article. However, in an article about the man himself and in a subsection about his political views . . . sorry. I would point to BLP and WP:RS and argue that the NRCC is not a reliable source for Childers' political views, thus we should exercise caution under BLP and not include it here. It works perfectly as a charge against Childers in the election article, however. Interwebs (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we pretty much see eye to eye.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

External links

The DMOZ link appears extraneous. Perhaps DMOZ includes one or two links that are better than what we currently have, so should be listed themselves?

I removed the link to his real estate company. I couldn't find any information at the site about him.

I also removed the dead link to his old childersforcongress.com site. I don't know what encyclopedic value it would serve if it did work or there was an archive available. Even when current, such sites rarely meet any WP:EL criteria other than ELOFFICIAL, so once they are outdated they should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

As a politician, links to his previous record in Congress, along with links to his current political issue positions, statements, campaign contributions and so forth, are perfectly valid, relevant and useful. Since you were a major contributor to the effort to delete Template:CongLinks, and then to delete all but its weakest links, including the DMOZ link seems the best way forward. I also disagree with your view on archived official Congress websites, but I will let that pass for now. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you please identify the specific links you're referring to along with your description of what is in them? That way we actually evaluate their merits and consider alternatives. As I had already pointed out, if it is just one or two links, then we could include them directly. More importantly, if there is encyclopedic information that could be included in the article body, we should do so. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, Wikipedians discuss material. If you can't or won't look at the links in the DMOZ category, then I really don't see how a discussion is possible. I have repeatedly explained the sort of links found in the category, there are obviously more than one or two (see bolding above - did you read that?), yet you pretend this is brand new to you at each Member of Congress's article and continue to refuse to explain why you find these links not relevant. As you clearly dislike the topic of American politics, I suggest you find a different area to work in before you find yourself topic-banned. Six months is almost up. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at the links.

I would like to think that you could simply clarify and strengthen your position. Could you try again? --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that you've looked, perhaps you could explain why you don't find these relevant to an article about a politician. Alternatively, you could explain what sort of information you do consider useful. If you won't or can't do that, the link will shortly be restored. See Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It should meet WP:EL in general. Start with ensuring the material provided by the links is not be redundant with anything already in the article, in the references, or in the other external links.

And lets not forget, "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"per Talk page request?" [1] I don't see any request, let alone justification. --Ronz (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Travis Childers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110708130018/http://www.cdispatch.com/articles/2008/04/20/opinion/opinion8730.txt to http://cdispatch.com/articles/2008/04/20/opinion/opinion8730.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080423234022/http://www.djournal.com:80/pages/story.asp?ID=272178&pub=1&div=News to http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=272178&pub=1&div=News
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100615173127/http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/index.html to http://www.house.gov/melancon/BlueDogs/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Travis Childers. 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://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/article/20101102/NEWS01/101102045/Blue-Dog-Childers-unseated-in-1st-District
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029193002/http://majorityinms.com/2010/11/01/miss-right-to-life-grades-the-candidates/ to http://majorityinms.com/2010/11/01/miss-right-to-life-grades-the-candidates/

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) 20:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)