Talk:Ross Spano/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV issues

There are numerous POV issues here. The focus on the porn flap is WP:UNDUE. The coverage of campaign finance issues/2018 campaign is unbalanced and runs afoul of WP:BLPCRIME. The POV tag should stay until these issues are addressed. Marquardtika (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

"Ross Spano" in Google News has 11,300 results[1]. "Ross Spano porn" has 4,660 results[2] Some of these are false positives, of course, but on the surface of things, that means 40% of news articles involving Ross Spano have mentioned porn to some degree or another. How is this a viewpoint supposedly described by a small minority?

As for the coverage of campaign finance issues, Ross Spano's campaign itself has admitted that it has violated the law. Is it WP:BLPCRIME to mention that someone has effectively pleaded guilty? News articles as a result have not shied away from describing the results as a 'crime'. "Ross Spano crime" in Google news has 6,000 results [3]. The overwhelmingly large coverage of the affair makes some mention of the alleged illegality of the donations.

Your overall behavior with regard to this article has been to argue for scrubbing it of all negative news coverage. If you really believe there is a better way to present the vast majority of news coverage about Ross Spano, then by all means do so. I'm not an experienced editor; I made the edits with the assumption that someone else would eventually iron them out. But to claim that the article cannot contain Spano's own admission that he's committed a crime is patently ridiculous.

Finally, accusing me of being a sock puppet is ridiculous. Yes, more people are editing this article. That's because Ross Spano has been in the news more lately! 193.117.133.202 (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You say "Ross Spano's campaign itself has admitted that it has violated the law" yet the sourcing says Spano "acknowledged that his campaign financing 'may have been in violation' of federal law." The may have is very important. He hasn't admitted to any crime. That's where our WP:BLP violations come into play--we certainly can't report that a person has admitted to a crime when they have not done so. This is a developing story. There's no hurry. Let's see what comes of it, including any legal proceedings/penalties. We're not a newspaper, so we can focus on getting things done accurately rather than following the news cycle. Marquardtika (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Revisions

I removed opinions by the nn operatives and journalist: [4]. I did keep the reaction from Spano's primary opponent, but used better sourcing. Let me know what you think. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a good start, thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the constructive edits - not a wiki expert so glad for the assistance in ironing it out. 193.117.133.202 (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)