Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a44a8332ba1670b8

Jump to content

Talk:Zach Lahn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 days ago by CopyleftEverything in topic The Bulwark and FirmTech

Do Not remove this page

[edit]

We should not delete this page on Zach Lahn, at least until November. But even then, Lahn pulled off a rather unprecented upset against frontrunner Randy Feenstra and, more importantly, became the first person to defeat a Trump endorsed candidate in a governor of Congressional race in 2026. Lahn is a populist, MAHA, MAGA, and "Iowa First" candidate which makes it important. It would be in the best interests of Iowan voters to leave this up until at least November. ~2026-31194-84 (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Express that in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Lahn. EagleImperial (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Recreated article

[edit]

I WP:BOLDly recreated the article. This version and the June version are substantially different. This version adds ~15 sources (many of which are very-substantial post-primary coverage) and beefed out Lahn's business career and pre-campaign political career. Also, removed some PROMO fluff. Feel free to raise a new AFD if you feel WP:GNG is not met. CopyleftEverything (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Removed content: 2009 Obamacare comment

[edit]

I think this content, about Lahn's 2009 heckling and question for Obama, should be included.

CopyleftEverything (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Bulwark and FirmTech

[edit]

Hi @Marquardtika: In this edit you removed a source to The Bulwark, saying "not a sufficient source for this, WP:NPOV". The Bulwark has center-right partisan leanings. However, this article cites primary documents (eg, SEC filings), so it seems sufficient for a fact claim. I have restored this content. CopyleftEverything (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's not just that The Bulwark isn't particularly reliable, it's that the way the source is being used is kind of synthy/weasley as well ("However...) as in trying to present a "gotcha!" in wiki-voice. You've also added a source to the Rachel Maddow Show to say he was "widely mocked." You've also added a source to the Iowa Starting Line by Courier Newsroom. We really can't be using shoddy partisan sources like this. We have to do better to maintain WP:NPOV. Marquardtika (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Marquardtika: Fair points!
1. On FirmTech: I changed The Bulwark wording. Suit you? :)
2. On "millions of Montanans": I'm open to other phrasing! Maybe "widely criticized"? Here's what the sources say: "the misstatement took on a life of its own", "#MillionsofMontanans was a popular tweet on the social media site Twitter" (Great Falls Tribune); "often seemed tone-deaf" (Hertel-Fernandez Skocpol Lynch 2016); "expansion supporters have been quick to point this out" (Bloomberg Politics); "botched statement", "gaffe", "hashtag #millionsofmontanans began trending on Twitter" (Talking Points Memo); "a detail health care supporters were eager to point out" (Maddow); "#MillionsofMontanans became a popular post", MT House Republicans "could have used a more competent ally" (Flathead Beacon). We can remove the Maddow source, but the Maddow & TPM sources show (IMO) the huge reach of the gaffe. CopyleftEverything (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply