Jump to content

Talk:Ned Lamont

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleNed Lamont was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 5, 2013Good article nomineeListed
November 14, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Is "perennial candidate" editorializing?

[edit]

In the first sentence. It seems derogatory, but I'm not sure what it should say instead. Salelder (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's run in three elections (including the current gubernatorial election) over the last 12 years. Considering the numerous elections that have taken place over that timespan (both federal and state), three hardly seems "perennial" to me. Woko Sapien (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

[edit]

Change Lamont's status as Democratic nominee to Democratic governor-elect, his opponent conceded to him. Shazzio (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

[edit]

Change the information under the heading '2018 Connecticut gubernatorial election' to reflect the results of the election (Lamont defeated Stefanowski) Shazzio (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

[edit]

I think we should settle the issue of whether to have "Ned" included in the lede section. I know it's been omitted before because of the Manual of Style, but I feel like that really only applies to cases where the nickname is obvious (i.e. Tommy = Thomas, Nick = Nicholas, Kathy = Katherine, etc.).

Other Neds have had the clarifications in their lede section: Edward Almond, Ned Martin, Ned Davis (politician), to name a few. So I'm not sure why this article should be any different. Woko Sapien (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woko Sapien, ."Ned" is a common hypocorism. MOS:NICKNAME is the specific guidance for this issue. It says not to include hypocorisma. Those pages you listed are wrong. Thank you for pointing them out because we can correct them. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: That's fair enough. Still, random editors have occasionally tried to add his nickname to the opening sentence in the past (I'm certain in good faith). I've added a separate sentence to the lede with a source that should hopefully settle the issue for good. Woko Sapien (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Calidum: "Ned" is a common hypocorism for names like "Edward". It's so common that they use it in Westeros. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference provided does not mention claim in Early Political Career.

[edit]

Under the section "early political career", the claim "During his term as chair, the state saw its unfunded liabilities reduced and pension fund performance improved" the reference (27) does not mention anything to backup this statement. Request edit to remove that statement without factual reference. Jonshef (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the unfounded claim (seemed like original research). I've also added an additional source to confirm the existing information there. --Woko Sapien (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delisted. charlotte 👸♥ 13:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2013. There are uncited paragraphs and the article itself might need to be updated. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.