Talk:Dale Folwell

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.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: North Carolina Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

Possible Conflict of Interest Editing[edit]

I also reviewed the conflict of interest policy. This user name (Folwellla) is maintained by Rep. Folwell's legislative office. I am a state employee working for the representative. As stated in a previous entry, we've tried to source all of the material through the legislature's website or through news articles and other resources. I welcome any future editing of the page from a third party editor. The history page shows I monitor and respond to edits when they are made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folwellla (talk • contribs) 13:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State employee or paid directly by the person is irrelevant. If there is a close relationship to the article's subject, there is potential for conflict of interest. I don't mean you can't edit the page, just that one needs to be very careful when editing or reverting that you're not there to just guard his image. So far, it seems the article is fairly decent (with exception, I personally think, to the unnecessarily detailed Legislative Accomplishments section). -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rep. Folwell's Notability[edit]

I just reviewed Wikipedia's notability rules regarding politicians. Rep. Folwell seems to clearly be a notable politician. [Notability] Rep. Folwell holds an office in the state legislature. He is also in a leadership position in the legislature. It appears that qualifies him to be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folwellla (talk • contribs) 13:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that Rep. Folwell himself meets notability standards because of his time in office and leadership. I didn't question that. Primarily, I just don't see the need to list so much under Legislative Accomplishments. Wikipedia doesn't need to list every bill that was passed, just ones with major importance, notability. It is puffery to list so much. The article doesn't need to list every single detail about the person, just notable details. Especially if someone spends a long time in office, the article length would be ridiculous. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to criticism of "campaign website profile"[edit]

We have tried to write the article in a neutral and fact based way. Rep. Folwell is a state legislature. We've highlighted his legislative accomplishments. I disagree that it is campaign related. There are no calls to action. There is little information beyond his legislative history. Everything is sourced through the NC General Assembly's website or statewide media. I'll review the conflict of interest page, but I've tried to present a middle-of-the-road bio on Rep. Folwell. It's a snapshot of his time at the NCGA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folwellla (talk • contribs) 13:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like campaign website profile[edit]

I'm sorry, this page just reads more like a campaign website profile. Much of the info here is not needed, not truly notable. I marked it for possible conflict of interest editing. Needs to be cleaned up some for notability and neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoannaSerah (talk • contribs) 02:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SB 514 and rearranging[edit]

I took the listing for SB 514 out of the Legislative Accomplishments section because, while he is a vocal proponent of the measure, it was not a bill he introduced or co-sponsored. It belongs in a separate section. Secondly, I don't know that the recent addition of the sentence about divorce is really needed. I improved the citation, but not yet certain this should be in here. I'm leaving it for now. Want to hear other views. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove radio interview reference[edit]

Divorce is not the issue on the N.C. ballot next spring. It's marriage. Folwell's position on marriage garnered international press, and it's common knowledge to interested parties. Referencing one interview over another is not notable. He made multiple TV, radio and newspaper interviews on the subject. Links to several are already on the page. Vitocmarda (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agree That sounds very reasonable to me. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Folwell's response to the interview question is relevant because sheds light on his position on the amendment; Folwell has cited protecting marriage as a motivation for his for work on the amendment. The interviewer was suggesting that restricting divorce might be a way to protect marriage. You make a good point that Folwell has made multiple interviews. I'd suggest that this one should be included with those. It is no more or less notable, so either include all or none I'd say. A neutral point of view would seem to suggest that interviews that reflect favorably and, arguably, unfavorably on the subject be included. 24.88.252.140 (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]