Talk:Milton R. Wolf

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

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because his challenge to Senator Pat Roberts has been widely noted in the news, particularly in the wake of Roberts' vote against the legislation that ended the recent government shutdown (which commentators like this one have suggested might be to shield Roberts from this challenger on his right). A Google News search for " 'Milton Wolf' Kansas" yields 638 hits. Wolf has apparently appeared as a commentator on national broadcasts ("Hannity, Fox & Friends, and Rush Limbaugh's show" according to this conservative website. And this conservative politician's distant relationship to President Obama makes him something of a curiosity that will likely continue to attract media attention. I would suggest that Wolf's apparent lack of electoral viability is not the same as a lack of notability for purposes of Wikipedia.

(I'll also remind everyone, in anticipation of further comments on this request for speedy deletion, that this talk page is not a place for comments on the subject of the article. The guy's clearly going to arouse strong feelings on the part of political partisans on the left and the right. If I can restrain myself from making comments on him, so can you.)

--JohnPomeranz (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a follow up. WP's guidelines for the notability of politicians state that "Just being ... an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.' " Note that "independent" in this context means not sources controlled by Wolf.
My argument is that Wolf has gotten the requisite coverage from a sufficient number of reliable, independent sources (and will certainly get more before all this is done, regardless of how the election turn out).
--JohnPomeranz (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To support the argument that there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article," here are a dozen links to consider:
...plus the two already cited in the article, and I could find more if these aren't enough or if you don't find some of the sources above up to snuff. Feel free to use these to beef up the stub article. (I will when I have more time.) I'd add that although the substance of Wolf's Washington Times commentaries (at least 90, by my count) aren't sufficient to establish notability (because he wrote them), the fact that he has been repeatedly published by the Washington Times is relevant, as are his multiple broadcast appearances.
--JohnPomeranz (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, that's quite a load. Frankly, I didn't look at all of them, but several look like they are good sources (and not all of them are purely local, either). That's enough for me to remove the PROD and not take this to AfD. It looks though like this person is notable more as a political commentator than a radiologist, so perhaps the article should be moved to a different title, but that's not a big issue. --Randykitty (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, merely running for office doesn't merit a Wikipedia page. It should be deleted. VonnegutIce99 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... Milton Wolf is an active politician seeking elective office in the US Senate. And he is also a media personality, writing for the Washington Times. I'm curious why he SHOULDN'T have a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.133.186 (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cousin[edit]

When the source says "Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who had a major role in raising the president, is Wolf's mother's cousin," I am presuming the source means that the source says that Dunham and Wolf's mother were first cousins. This would mean that Barack Obama is Milton Wolf's second cousin, once removed. If you're not familiar with this terminology, the Wikipedia article Cousin is helpful. So, in short, I was "following what the source says," to quote the edit summary of the edit I just undid. --JohnPomeranz (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, please re-read what you wrote. 1) Ann Dunham was not the President's grandmother as you originally wrote and then reinstated. 2) As the source article does not at all say that Wolf's mother was Madelyn's first cousin, you have nothing to back up your presumption that they were first cousins, and we don't write based on our presumptions, even if they may be true. 3) That level of detail, even if verified, would be unnecessary unless sources indicate some notability to the detail - it is sufficient to say that they are related, and specifying that they are cousins through Obama's grandmother and Wolf's mother clarifies that they are of different generations which is mildly interesting. Note, too, that the source refers to them as "distant cousins". We are not writing a genealogy, and since unsupported assumption does not belong in articles especially when coupled with misstatements, I believe the way I originally edited it is the correct way to go at present. I am going to reinstate the correct wording - not to edit war, but to remove incorrect info and unverified detail. See if you can find sources that confirm your assumption, and any that give it any importance, and then edit from there - you don't have it now. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 18:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<*blush*> My bad. Missed my error in writing Ann, rather than Madelyn. Given that Wolf's relationship to Obama is one of the things that's driving the coverage that makes him notable (based on how many of articles mention Wolf's relationship to Obama in the lede), I think there's a reasonable argument that the details of that relationship are important and of interest, but I'll find a source before adding any such details. Thanks for fixing this, and sorry to make you do it twice. --JohnPomeranz (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem - I figured it was an oversight. I rewrote the piece a bit - I think it follows more logically this way, as for why there is an article at all. Also added stub tag and some cats. At this point I think his notability is marginal - it may depend on how much coverage his campaign actually gets - but I don't have a problem with having a stub that I hope people will expand, if there is what to say about him in the weeks/months ahead. Tvoz/talk 02:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this guy passes notability or not, it is simpler and better to summarize his relationship to Obama with the common dictionary term for that relationship. It's fine to mention all the intermediate relatives, but that's not a substitute for using the term.
I'm not going to change the wording any further, but in explaining the relationship, it would be simpler to say that Wolf and Stanley Ann Dunham were second cousins, that is, they have great-grandparents in common. Kestenbaum (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request in article history[edit]

Found the following in the article history:

"Thank you, Wikipedia editors, for considering this page. I am Milton Wolf. Suggestion: the main title should be Milton R. Wolf, M.D. (physician). I've been a physician for 14 yrs & a candidate for 3 weeks. Questions?... <email address redacted>"

I've got several points to go through here:

  1. First, thanks for stating you are the subject of the article. Normally the "subject" of the article should not edit the article itself due to conflict of interest. I do encourage you to make requests for changes here on this talk page.
  2. I'll review the edits you made and "scrub" them for Wikipedia policy and guideline. It is our intent to maintain neutral point of view.
  3. The Amazon.com link will likely be removed due to advertising
  4. The Washington Post article will likely be retained because of its reference value.
  5. Naming convention: we usually follow WP:COMMONNAME guidelines. Normally, earned designations such as "M.D." or "Ph.D." or "Brigadier General" or even "Distinguished Toastmaster" are not included in the article title for a variety of reasons (one being the subject wasn't always an "M.D." but the article covers the entire life of the individual). However, it certainly is appropriate to include such information within the text of the article if referenced.
  6. One of our key issues to meet can be found at Biographies of Living Persons. I suggest you review that information and come with any questions.
  7. I suggest you refrain from posting your e-mail address. However, an "external link" to your website is appropriate and I will add it.
  8. I encourage you to create an account for Wikipedia and process your editing through there. Although not required, it certainly would be a good idea.

Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions or comments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of article[edit]

Hello all - I would like to rename this article from Milton Wolf (politician) to Milton R. Wolf. This will be to help avoid confusion with Milton A. Wolf, who, though not an elected politician, was a Democratic Party activist, and was the Carter Administration's Ambassador to Austria. Once we do that, and once we see how events unfold in Kansas, we can determine if it is best to keep the page Milton Wolf as a redirect to Milton A. Wolf (which it is as of this writing), or if it would be better to make it into a disambig page pointing to both Milton A. and Milton R. If anyone has any comments or concerns on this, then let's discuss. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Narrow" victory[edit]

I've made the point in the edit, but there are a number of problems with calling this a "narrow" victory. First, the actual article (which is hardly an objective source) described it as "narrow but decisive," which seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. Second, the fact is that it was a 7 point margin. Trying to label that as "narrow" is not a fact, but a NPOV interpretation. A fairly absurd one at that, 7 points in an election is not exactly a small margin of victory, for instance [[1]] describes just under an 8 percent victory by George Bush as a "substantial margin of victory." Seems to me that the best approach from a Wikipedia standpoint is to simply let the facts speak for themselves, the margin of victory was 7 points and the incumbent was held to under 50 percent. JCO312 (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milton_R._Wolf&oldid=1209702307"