Talk:Chris Gibson (New York politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV?

I worked very hard to try to make this NPOV, but if people have concerns or opinions please make them known here. I appreciate all the help I've gotten here. Hopefully we can take down the POV marker soon. Theeagleman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

P.S. I don't see any notice of this on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVN . Theeagleman (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

RESCINDED

I may have been a bit hasty in tagging the article. After re-reading it, I don't feel it's as biased as I first did, and I have since rescinded the tag. 72.224.34.207 (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

POV wording

Moving this over from my talk page to here, where everyone can participate: Arbor832466 (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

I notice you keep editing the the page Chris Gibson (New York Congressional candidate). You complain that a specific portion violates NPOV, which I don't see but since I wrote the most of the article I'm hardly unbiased on that front and I am more than open to criticism. However I'd appreciate if rather than simply blanking it (in a way that detracts from the articles quality) you would work with me to point out what you say is NPOV.

Thanks,

Theeagleman (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this

He is nonetheless likely to face a tough election where the incumbent has a considerable cash advantage and is widely seen as moderate within the district (a crucial factor in the Republican leaning district) despite a score of only 11 out of 100 from the American Conservative Union and having changed his vote in favor of President Barack Obama's polarizing health care legislation.

could possibly be interpreted as encyclopedic. It's just analysis ("is widely seen," "a crucial factor," "polarizing") and information that doesn't belong in the Gibson article (Murphy's ACU rating, Murphy's health care vote).

I'm going to remove it again because it is clearly inappropriate, and link this conversation on the talk page. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a discussion of the race that is the entire reason for him being notable? It is a brief and sourced discussion of the election and its issues. Again, if you have improvements you'd like to make by all means lets talk about them. I'm going to revert your reversion and open a section to discuss a way to improve the section.

Theeagleman (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: 3rd paragraph in Candidacy for Congress

Instead of blanket deleting as one user continues to do, I'd like to open discussing to discuss this topic and ways to improve this section. I'm going to revert the article again to its past state so that users can see what they're discussing and put a NPOV tag on top of that section while we work this out.

Thanks!

Theeagleman (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be any discussion about the section the user took issue with, I'm going to remove the NPOV tag. When I get a chance I'll try to shrink it down here and move more over to the election section, but for now I'll leave it.

Theeagleman (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

blow-by-blow election coverage

I added the link to the election article, which I presume you weren't aware of. This is where the minutiae of polling, forecasting, who's up and who's down in fundraising belongs. All we need here is the usual brief summary statement of race and opponents. Flatterworld (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Murphy info belongs in Murphy article

Once again, I'm going to remove information that is both POV and exclusively about Scott Murphy from this article. Mr. Murphy has his own article, any info about him can and should be placed there. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

1) As discussed before, if there is relevant information that you feel is being presented in contravention to NPOV you should fix it, not blank it.

2) As also discussed before discussion of an object with another article as it relates to the subject of the current article is quite permissible. It wouldn't be problematic to briefly discuss how the Geography of Greece impacted the battle of thermopylae, so nor is it problematic to discuss (in brief) how various factors-including his opponents voting record-might impact a race.

I am re-reverting-lets wait till after we've discussed it to start making changes unilaterally.

Theeagleman (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Things I removed that are not relevant:

• Scott Murphy's rating by the American Conservative Union
• Scott Murphy's votes on health care legislation

Neither of these things has any place in an article about anyone other than Scott Murphy. If you want to add in CHRIS GIBSON's rating by the ACU or CHRIS GIBSON's position on health care, that would be appropriate. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Those are relevant, in the context of discussing Gibson's election-aka the reason he's a notable person in the first place. I've reported you for violating the WP:3RR. You can find this discussion here: [1]

Theeagleman (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)