Talk:Brad Ashford

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

Congressional Photo[edit]

Are we not able to get his congressional photo for the infobox? Guyb123321 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brad Ashford. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OR removed[edit]

I've reverted the addition of "the only incumbent House Democrat defeated by a Republican" to a sentence in the lead regarding Ashford's 2016 loss. The statement is supported by two sources: [1], which is only a list of members defeated in the general election, with their parties; and [2], which states "Just one Democratic incumbent had lost by Wednesday, Nebraska's Brad Ashford"; so was apparently written before it became known that Mike Honda had also lost his seat. This apparently prompted the editor who inserted the statement to add "defeated by a Republican", since Honda lost in the general election to another Democrat.

This, I think, is OR. To salvage it, we'd need a statement from a reliable source stating, in so many words, that Ashford was the only incumbent D who'd lost to an R. Otherwise, we could come up with all kinds of demonstrably true but not especially relevant facts: the only candidate whose name began with "A" defeated by someone whose name began with "B", and so forth.

Moreover, even if the statement can be properly sourced, it probably doesn't belong in the lead section, which should be a summary of the most salient facts in the article. Since there doesn't seem to have been a great deal of media attention paid to this fact, it doesn't appear to meet the most-salient test. Ammodramus (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see your reasoning. Ueutyi (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, I believe there is some merits of keeping the statement that Ashford was the only incumbent Democrat defeated by a Republican in 2016, since such events are generally rare, and Ashford was mentioned to be the only two Democrats who defeated incumbent Republicans two years earlier. By the same logic we should put a reference of Ashford losing in 2016 as the only incumbent Democrat by a Republican somewhere in the article, even if not in intro. Ueutyi (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True re. the 2014 election; I've removed that unsourced statement.
I think that in articles on politicians, we need to be very particular about not including statements that aren't well sourced, and that means sourced as to notability and not just to factual truth. Anything else get us dangerously close to WP:SYNTH, and that's a long step in the direction of editorializing: "Of the $NUMBER incumbents who had expressed support for the Affordable Care Act, Ashford was the only one who lost to an anti-ACA challenger" inserted by a pro-ACA editor, for instance; or, undoubtedly, some similar formulation that could be devised by a pro-Republican editor to prove that the American public really supports the R agenda. To avoid this, we need to rely on the most neutral possible sources to call attention to these statistical facts, and to avoid conclusions of our own, however innocuous they may seem. — Ammodramus (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Have a prosperous new year. Ueutyi (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Brad Ashford[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Brad Ashford's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Results":

  • From 2014 United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska: "Archived copy". Archived from the original on January 4, 2015. Retrieved May 11, 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  • From 2014 Nebraska gubernatorial election: "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2018-08-04. Retrieved 2014-05-14. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  • From 2014 United States Senate election in Nebraska: "Unofficial Results: Primary Election - May 13, 2014". Nebraska Secretary of State. Archived from the original on August 4, 2018. Retrieved May 15, 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Reference named "primaryresults":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by Jon698 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Legit 5x expansion, as it was 3,938 characters of prose and is now 20,062, and 20062 / 3938 = 5.09x. Article appears to be written neutrally, is well sourced, and has citations throughout. Hook facts are cited inline. I don't have a preference. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brad_Ashford&oldid=1204869767"