Talk:Tom Nelson (Wisconsin politician)

Promo

• "featured in the Post Crescent" - looks like it's a press campaign for Nelson. -- What? The post crescent is for the source of him being valedictorian. I can change it to just being the source, but that isn't a press campaign -- it is citing a news paper.

• "ranked as most famous alumni" - based on the people who went to the website. That one's straight promo. -- That is fine that can be removed

• "profiled by Princeton" - looks like a press brigade for the campaign -- altered, used as a source but intent was not to be a "press brigade"

• entire Family section - looks like it's a campaign presser to be honest, lots of direct quotes and reads like a persuasive essay to marry interfaith. -- Some of this is just your hate for Tom and not based on actual wikipedia rules or standards, but I will reword to make it less "promotional" of interfaith marriage

• entire SeniorCare section - first paragraph has nothing to do with Nelson and is used as context to make his lobbying all the more desperate. Close paraphrasing in sources 17 and 19 ("grassroots", "successfully lobbied"). Sources 23 and 24 fail to establish a link between Nelson's lobbying and the funding's inclusion.

"Nelson helped build a grassroots network of people to support the program and lobby lawmakers in Washington to maintain the state’s waiver. His efforts were ultimately successful." - there really doesn't much better of a citation for that. It is the facts according to the Green Bay Gazette -- it isn't our job to do fact checking for large newspapers we can consider that a reliable source. Removed some of the language to make it more neutral but won't remove cited facts

• entire mill closing section - "added importance" is completely original research. What one special interest group (the union) thinks is of no importance here. Plugging his efforts as county executive is just promo for rallying behind a cause and should be eliminated. -- everything here is cited and factual work by Nelson. Reworded to remove any partiality

• "help Tom Barrett defeat Scott Walker" - a) that never happened, b) the source provided never mentions Nelson, and c) what "leadership position" did he give up?

-- he gave up his position of majority leader. Sentence is edited to reflect your concerns

• The sentence regarding source 39 is way out of the scope of the article and has no connections anywhere else. -- editted
• One local commenter should not be given a paragraph about the lieutenant governor race, unless we give all local commenters a paragraph. - fair, deleted
• Quoting the Barrett campaign, especially in an extremely positive light to Nelson, is straight public relations. -- it is all factual, but I concede your point on it not being impartial. Deleted.
• The paragraph about debates is a paragraph in which nothing happens, not to mention that the most contentious claim in the paragraph isn't sourced. It should not be included. -- cited a few sources as it was highly reported on, let me know if you want more!

• Not promo, but the results of all of the nation's elections are frankly irrelevant.

-- disagree, removed some of the paragraph to compromise

• The race for Outagamie County Executive, I highly doubt, was influenced by political unrest. -- this is true and based on a few sources, but I can remove it because its really not relevant

In that same paragraph, him "standing out" is unsourced and what one county employee says is just not enough to cut it in terms of encyclopedic content. The pure purpose of that is to make Nelson look good. -- that's fine I removed that

• "Their appeal was successful" - once again, what one special interest group does shouldn't be there. The appeal was also unsuccessful, as the judge approved the sale to Industrial Assets. The paragraph is out of the scope of the article and tells the story of the mill, not Nelson, and should be eliminated. -- what do you mean? Their appeal was successful, I am not going to rehash the article for you. You can go read it. The judges ruling extending the time allowed the plant to be saved. It is your personal opinion/bias that keeping open a paper mill and saving 600 jobs is a "special interest"

• The entire sales tax section needs to be fundamentally rewritten if included at all. It essentially boils down to "Nelson opposed the tax, vetoed its inception, but was overridden". -- done, rewritten. left in the part about the ad thing because i think it is interesting, dont think it really reflects good or bad on him that he ran an ad against his board lol

• Source 73 gives zero examples of Democrats who hailed him for his candidacy, yet the prose in the Wikipedia article makes that claim. - just deleted not really necessary

• The part about the Trump-focused attack ad is pure promo for the Democratic Party. - fair enough

• "Endorsements from thirteen labor PACs" is unsourced and should either be sourced or removed.- added sources
• "Wiped out by national headwinds" don't lessen the blow. Say he lost and move on from it. - fair enough

Happy fixing. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed edits, newer to wikipedia so any promo was unintentional but after reading your comments I see your points. I eliminated pretty much all of your concerns, in other places added more citations or reworded. Let me know if any complaints remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiscoDemo (talk • contribs)

Appreciate the work you put in. I'll fine-tune it when I have an opportunity in the next few days. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)