Jump to content

Talk:Building Industry Association of Washington

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability

[edit]

Shadowjams seems to believe that the BIAW article "obviously and uncontroversially" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. First of all, I don't understand what the WP:NOT issue is with this article. Typically, if there is a notability issue, articles are not tagged for proposal for deletion, but with {{notability}} Nonetheless, I will defend the article's notability and have removed the Prod tag in protest.

From the General notability guideline:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

The BIAW article has

  • "Significant coverage" - I would say that 25+ references is sufficient.
  • "Reliable" - The sources are reliable (local newspapers in the Seattle area)
  • "Sources" - There are multiple independent sources.
  • "Independent of the subject" - I am independent of the subject. I am an engineer not employed by the construction industry.
  • "Presumed" - The article should rely on reliable, published sources. I don't think there is a problem here.

 kgrr talk 21:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

Much of this article is a POV nightmare -- saying that thinking of supporting right-to-work proposals is "anti-union", saying Rossi "forgot his dealings" etc. do not pass muster as being neutrally worded or categorized. Collect (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So a right to work proposal is not anti-union? Common, you know "Right-to-work" is plain-and-simple union-busting. It is designed to encourage "free riders," and to weaken or destroy unions. Perhaps you can balance out the article with a statement that the BIAW feels that no one should be forced to pay tribute to a union in order to get or keep a job in this state. I could not find it. In fact, I did find that BIAW’s Tom McCabe's intention was to use the right-to-work initiative in retaliation for Democratic efforts to fix workers compensation and preventing the BIAW from using premiums to fund conservative politicians and causes.
And Dino Rossi could not remember the details of his dealings with the BIAW under oath. There are many witnesses to his testimony. Find an article where it says that Rossi remembered everything, I would gladly include it to balance out the article. I just can't find that. It just did not happen that way. So how do you propose to objectively word his sudden memory lapse? Perhaps you want to white-wash that part. It is a fact that Rossi had conversations with the BIAW concerning election funding. Rossi was not going to testify against himself or the BIAW, so he just forgot everything.
Balance is achieved through presenting both sides of an issue, objectively if possible - not by whitewashing the article into political correct neutral wording.  kgrr talk 02:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And my case is made. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How?  kgrr talk 04:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You assert a POV as being proper. As the article has misstatements, editorializing, inclusion of press releases etc. there is no doubt that the article has suffered from POV for a while now. (asseting that "Right to work" is the same as "anti-union" is sufficient to show a POV) Collect (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, the purpose of "right to work laws" is to destroy unions, or to at least weaken them. The giving the worker a choice of whether to participate or not is sheer hogwash. Even people that are for "right to work" legislation know this. It really does not matter from which side of the argument you look at it, this is fact. If you come from a conservative viewpoint, right to work means anti union and is a good thing. If you come from a liberal viewpoint, right to work means anti-union and is a bad thing. I take it that there is a minority third viewpoint that believes that "Right to work" is not "anti-union". It must be all those people that are convinced by clever wording that "Right to work" gives worker a choice and thus more freedoms or something. I really did not know such a point of view existed... but there are all types. If you come from a neutral viewpoint, you note the fact that the group is for right to work or anti-union (same thing) and don't attach any good/bad bias on that observation. The fact is that the BIAW did consider a "right to work" initiative for the state of Washington. The fact is that the BIAW did in fact intend to exercise revenge and weaken the influence of unions on the state government. The BIAW's own Executive VP said this. It's a matter of fact. I'm not introducing my bias by coloring this as good or bad.
I don't mind you changing a "charged" word for another, but do you realize that you are introducing your POV by removing statements about how the BIAW uses the Retro refunds its PACs? You have changed the meaning of the article by removing several key sentences. You have also removed the balancing opinion of the United States Fire Administration which is counter to the BIAW's opinion in that sprinklers are necessary. This introduces your POV.  kgrr talk 00:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of sprinklers being balanced might work if the article were on sprinklers. The article is on the organization, and saying what it is for or against may make sense, but using an unrelated organization's opinions is not a balance - it is insertion of a POV. NPOV consists of stating accurately the positions of the organization the article is about. Using an "although" statement is not NPOV in such an article. And since the investigation did not label the use of funds as being an illegal PAC, it is improper for any editor to try implying it was. [[WP:NPOV[[ Collect (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about an organization called BIAW. The section is on homeowner protection. In the opinion of the BIAW, sprinklers are not necessary. They see sprinklers as an unnecessary expense. In the opinion of the the United States Fire Administration (part of FEMA), sprinklers should be required. There are two opinions here one, the opinion of the BIAW an industry group that wants to cut costs, the other the opinion of a branch of FEMA, experts in fire control. I think the opposing viewpoint is very necessary here.
About the 2008 investigation, "The PDC *did* find evidence that the BIAW-MSC was improperly concealing its role in bundling about $585,000 in workers' compensation refunds for donation to the BIAW's political arm." The other *millions* have not been investigated yet. That is what the Wyman report is all about. It has not been published under reliable sources yet, so I can't bring it up in Wikipedia.  kgrr talk 05:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article on sprinklers, or is it on the BIAW? As for the $585K -- I do not recall deleting that part. Your statement about "other millions" requires strong and reliable sources, not just your opinion. Thus, it is improper to make any such claims on WP. Collect (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are going around circles here and not getting anywhere. Clearly the article is about the BIAW and not the effectiveness of sprinkler systems. The BIAW clearly thinks that sprinkler systems unnecessarily raise home prices and thus have fought to repeal housing regulations that require them. Is there another viewpoint about the BIAW I'm not aware of? Do they secretly love sprinkler systems? Do they believe that there is a fair balance between the number of firemen that must die every year and their profits? I have not heard them say that.
So you just marked the new section on worker protection POV. The BIAW does not want any laws that impede their business in any way. Worker protection laws impede their business, so they lobby against them. That simple. kgrr talk 17:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats. The section is POV, and clearly so. Collect (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of POV tags does not remove the POV. Saying that the group calls environmentalists Nazis and terrorists is clearly POV editing per se. In fact, each of rhe sections marked POV should be excised outright as being politically motivatedm and not NPOV about an organization. 24 days without a response here denyuing the POV does not mean that the POV is not there <g>. Collect (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, you are having problems in being objective about writing about uncivil behavior from a group that shares your personal core beliefs. Things outside of that, you label as POV. Your lack of objectivity astounds me.71.231.188.112 (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have made absolutely no claims as to my personal beliefs, I find your post quite wrong. The intent is to have articles worthy of an encyclopedia entirely. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV2

[edit]

Collect: Again, your lack of objectivity astounds me. You did not attempt to correct the "POV" problem, but instead again decided to delete entire sections because they somehow disagree with your viewpoint. I am merely gathering the facts as they are reported in reliable sources WP:RS. If you find articles about the BIAW that counter the facts given in these reliable sources, by all means add them. I can only work with the facts as I find them.  kgrr talk 15:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sections were sufficiently POV by their very titles. I am not involved in any way with Washington, the BIAW, any builder, or any political campaign. I admit that I live in a house without sprinklers. All I want is an NPOV accurate encyclopedia article. By the way, is it considered poor form to attack other editors. Collect (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is in poor form to attack other editors. I did not attack you. If I had really "attacked" you, you would know it. I find it in poor form delete entire sections based on your bogus excuses of POV and SYN, without discussing anything here in the talk section. If you really want an NPOV accurate encyclopedia article, then read some of the references. BIAW is in fact completely anti-environmental.  kgrr talk 22:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gee whiz -- a section named "BIAW is opposed to apple pie" would not be POV? Collect (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was no section saying the BIAW was opposed to apple pie. So I replaced the sections with a change in title and you call this an attack. You could have done this. But noooo.  kgrr talk 16:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you defend your charge that I decided to delete entire sections because they somehow disagree with your viewpoint.? And I submit section names of 5.4 Anti-union 5.5 Anti-public schools 5.6 Anti-tax on builders 5.7 Anti election reform 5.8 Anti Retro-reform are, indeed, a teensy bit POV. Do you know any editor who would use such section headings? Collect (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN

[edit]

SYN means If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. The two sentences are from the same source. They imply the conclusion, not me. This is fine. I am not doing the synthesis.  kgrr talk 16:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Building Industry Association of Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Building Industry Association of Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Building Industry Association of Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page updated to reflect information from this decade

[edit]

Intro: Member data figures are out of date and scope is inconsistent with organization message Background: Taken directly from BIAW site Leadership: Data was 10 years out of date Campaign Finance: Data was 11 years out of date Legal Challenges: Data was 9 years, presented allegations and did not mention the final settlement of the case. Added the settlement, fine and other information from the Attorney General’s website Funding/Programs: figures are a decade old and additional programs were added to the list

Jennifersbiaw (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Jennifersbiaw[reply]

[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Building_Industry_Association_of_Washington&oldid=1211447038"