Talk:Committee to Defeat the President

There's been a rash of edits that have massive NPOV problem, WP:UNDUE problems, and some more general encyclopedic issues (repeatedly using "The Committee" instead of just "the PAC" makes it seem like we're being spoken to by Big Brother, imo) so I've reverted them. My advice to Doctorstrange617 (talk) is to actually discuss each of these proposed changes rather than forcing them in en masse. Ewen Douglas (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Ewen, I already gave you examples of edits you made that made no sense. You then suggested that I make edits one-by-one, which I did, only for you to get rid of them again. It comes across as very adversarial to me. For example (once again), Ted Harvey has published op-ed columns in the Daily Caller and dozens of other news outlets, which you deem irrelevant fo some reason. Every time I try to make such factual corrections or strengthen the page with additional sourcing, you step in and roll the back. It's almost as if you have some agenda against this Committee to Defend the President. I followed your directions from last time, so what do you expect from me now? I'm not asking for all of my edits to be accepted, no questions asked, but there's absolutely no reason for you to delete all of them. It's getting ridiculous. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That's not at all what I said. I suggested you start with the easiest one (multiple op-eds). I went ahead and did that one for you, as it's fact-based and fairly uncontroversial. I also suggested that you DISCUSS each controversial edit that you want to make, here, BEFORE you actually make the edit. There's a lot of problems with them. Also, you removed sourced material, and your only explanation, in your edit summary, was that "it was false". That's just not the way it's done here. Ewen Douglas (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Two edits that need to be made: One, to use the term "right-wing websites" is both biased and not entirely correct, since Ted Harvey has also published op-ed columns in mainstream news outlets that are by no means "right-wing." Changing it to "The Daily Caller and other news outlets" is more impartial and factual. Second, the information about Guy Short's Trump comments have nothing to do with the PAC itself. They might have a place on a "Guy Short" page, but not on this one, since they're irrelevant when it comes to the PAC's actual activities. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, on #1 - if you have examples of op-eds that he's written for non-right-wing websites, please list them here. I have not seen any so I believe the most accurate description is "right-wing websites" at the moment. It's not biased - unless you consider "right-wing" a slur.

On #2 - the Guy Short info comes from of the few articles online that fit two criteria for this page: one, it's an article that deals directly with the Committee to Defend the President as its main subject. Two, it's from a reliable secondary source. There's very few of those articles on the web that satisfy both criteria. It's a fact-based piece, not an op-ed, and there's no reasonable argument to be made for its deletion other than "I don't like it because it makes the subject of the article look bad." That's not a valid reason for removing it. Ewen Douglas (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to correct one thing I said above. I did find two more reliable sources about the PAC. They happen to mention that Guy Short was the founder of the hybrid PAC. I did not know that before. In light of that info, I can't believe you're suggesting that the very founder of the organization that is the subject of the article should be stricken from the article. That's incredibly brazen. Ewen Douglas (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)