Talk:Bill Posey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT rights[edit]

Soibangla, thanks for self reverting here [1]. PerpetuityGrat was right to remove that section. While no one should doubt that the material is factually correct, the sources didn't establish that it was DUE in this article. The Vox article is little more than an opinion that a particular bill was good and then mentioned the names of those who voted against it. That is the sort of passing mention that shouldn't establish weight for inclusion. I haven't checked all the sources associated with this entry [2] but I suspect the same issue would arise. As was discussed here [3] the issue is establishing weight for inclusion in this article vs say including the list in an article about the law/bill/etc in question. Springee (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the sourcing for the Texas vs Penn section, there are 4 sources. 3 focus on the brief and the lawsuit. The other source simply says "these are the politicians who signed it". That makes it little more than a list and doesn't establish why this material is a notable part of Posey's (or any other) BLP article. Springee (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I self-reverted this only to avoid appearances of warring, though the content is supported by a valid secondary source, WP:RSPVOX. It should be restored, preferably by PerpetuityGrat who removed it on the basis it didn't have a secondary source, so I can confidently AGF. soibangla (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The VOX source doesn't establish weight in this case. Vox simply describes the bill then says the following didn't vote for it. That isn't enough to suggest an individual member's vote is sufficient to pass things like the 10YEAR test. Please note that above I linked to a NPOVN discussion on this type of edit. There is clear consensus that the primary sources previously used don't establish WEIGHT. Several editors noted that a brief/passing or list type mention in a RS is also not sufficient. This view was not expressed by all but none opposed it. Certainly any edit that is made as largely a copy paste to a number of BLP is like an edit with WEIGHT issues. Springee (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]