Talk:Sue Lowden

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

Opening heading[edit]

I made a few simple edits for grammar, spelling and to clarify the story being told regarding the attempted bombing of Harry Reid's car. The section on the 2008 convention needs to be completely rewritten since it's confusing. I'll read the article that's posted as a reference and see if I can figure out what the original author was trying to say but I'm new so if someone else wants to run with it-go for it.--Bettykin (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Bettykin[reply]

there is much missing from this article, such as the news account of her desire to remove the abortion plank from the republican platform, her numerous votes to raise taxes while in the nevada legislature, and her campaign donations to Harry Reid and the fact that she voted for Harry Reid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.212.126.170 (talk • contribs)

Fortunately, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone (even you!) can edit. Feel free to add content you feel is missing, along with citations supporting it so that others can verify the material. DMacks (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign policy[edit]

Took out "Supports Isreal" as NPOV, cite, ambiguity (what does "support" mean? what does "Israel" mean?) WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Reverted conversion from standard footnotes to "general references" format. The edit summary for the conversion said it will facilitate future edits and article expansion. How? The separate section had no apparent organization differing from the "as used" sequence found in the existing footnotes system. If the subject were so notable she had five scholarly biographies written about her, and these were extensively cited, there might be an advantage in the general format, or a mixed format. As it is, the major change to editing I see if the general format were adopted is to make section editing a tremendous PIA. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings and organization[edit]

The primary reasons for moving the "Policies" section and the two sections about recent controversies under the "Senate run" section were:

  • That's what they all relate too. If she wins election, maybe "Policies" could be separated out and changed to a "Positions on issues", but for now, since the primary source of the section is her campaign web site, it seems pretty "Senate run" related.
  • Separate "Controversies" sections are discouraged, among other reasons because they tend to become troll bait, something the article is not in need of since it attracts enough anyway.

As to the combination of bio and personal life sections, I don't much care either way. From my personal observations, in most BLPs the historical biography seems to be near the beginning, with a separate "Personal life" or "Family life" section further down, but I don't have a strong enough preference to change it back. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't use campaign website references[edit]

When I began improving this article recently, mostly to update the polling, I was disappointed to find very few good references. As much as 80% of the article was copied from "About Sue" on the campaign website, including the adjectives and adverbs!

Campaign websites aren't NPOV. Worse, for an encyclopedia, those sites often disappear after the election.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Residence[edit]

Other than the campaign website, I've not been able to verify that she lives in Las Vegas. All the other references I've found say Carson City, Nevada. Does anybody have verification that she's moved to Las Vegas, like an actual address?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dougieb (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name and relationship details[edit]

Somebody recently removed other details that I'd found:

  • She used the name "Susan" in Washington DC for the USA pageant. She used various names for various pageants. That matches Wikipedia's other articles, too, and therefore I'll add them back immediately. Bolding is the usual wikipedia convention for historical or alternative names found embedded in an article.
  • The month that she married.
  • The fact that her husband was divorced, a serious detail in her "family values" circle.
  • The age difference and wealth factor, controversial in its time.

We still don't have a birth day, although I've found the month. Anybody else have better luck?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi William, just to address your comments above:
  • Do we/you/I use akas for names that are variations of the person's original name and has the use of her "aliasis" risen to the level worthy of inclusion/bolding?
  • Does adding the month of her marriage add anything to the article?
  • I could probably add back the material about her husband's divorce, but would lose the 9 years age difference since we wouldn't get into that unless it has been widely covered and is some type of "issue".
  • age difference and wealth factor controversial in its time? Citations for this and same as above as far as notability, ect --Tom (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

loaded wording[edit]

This is an article about a controversial public figure, during an election. This is a living person. Please don't use words like "Lowden's infamous suggestion". Worse, removing the internal link prevents folks finding the section!

And please don't use a summary of "ce". That was way more than a copy edit!
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi William, sorry about the limited edit summary, I could have added more detail I guess. Just to adress your comments in the section above, you seem to be doing original research/synthesis. Anyways, I think this bio was listed at the BLP board and maybe more eyes would help? --Tom (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that chicken suggestion would probably actually constitute "infamous", but rules are rules. Dougieb (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polling History[edit]

Seems to be a lot missing from article that I found, but from editing an article of her opponent and learning about Lowden, this thing is way too much of a hot potato to get involved in. I did some cleanup here, but am wondering what the value is of the historical poll data. Maybe other than the most recent poll data that I added, poll data would be more appropriate for

Main article: United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010

. Thankfully, the article notes that the election will be over June 8, 2010, so that should cool it down for a while. Dougieb (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current activities in the lede?[edit]

What is she (or what is she DOING) now? Everything in the lede is 'former former former'. 209.121.209.52 (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sue Lowden.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Sue Lowden.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sue Lowden. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sue_Lowden&oldid=1212743915"