Talk:Marty Meehan

Added NPOV tag due to COI

Section on Meehan being Chancellor at UMass Lowell reads like PR... turns out section heavily edited by Web Communications Director at (wait for it) UMass Lowell. Echoes issues with Congressional staff editing page in past. Crammick (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This reads like a campaign flyer

Someone on the Meehan campaign obvioulsy wrote this, or the text was copied from campaign literature. This is in no way a neutral article. Previous unsigned comment by User:141.154.12.175 19:52, 15 January 2006

Seems to be very biased

Must be written by his campaign manager Previous unsigned comment by User:Madfergus 08:33, 20 January 2006

You can see from this article[1] that that is exactly what happened. Peoplesyak 20:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Current Buggery on Fark.com

Fark just linked to a news story about this man's office editing this page to favour him.

• The edit they are referring to is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marty_Meehan&diff=prev&oldid=32874128
• The ip that made this edit is identified as coming from a government source as seen here: http://www.whois.sc/143.231.249.141

Detective work for the day accomplished Specialbrad 20:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The Lowell Sun article mentions the editing of his campaign contribution chest topping some 4.8 million, the highest in the country? Does anyone have citations for this or know whereabouts in the edit history I might find it? I'm searching right now, but I'm having a bit of trouble. From the sound of it, it seems relevant, if not to the article, to the paragraph regarding the Wikifraud. --TheGrza 20:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL, well that campaign promise just came back to bite him -again-! Welcome to TRUE freedom of information! Fosnez 20:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

All concerned here should read this article describing the vandalism to this page (yes, I am a Farker :D). As Specialbrad's link shows, the vandalism was carried out by User:143.231.249.141 (House IP). It seems now that he's just won himself a paragraph on his own page about how he tried to spin this article--talk about backfiring! Greentubing 20:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

TheGrza, you were asking for citations. The Federal Elections Commision lists his current cash on hand at $4,829,540. 70.69.103.241 22:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion concerning conduct from the rest of the United States Congress is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

ick

The mayor of my hometown (Paul Reitsma) destroyed his career by anonymously publishing screeds in praise of himself in a public forum. Wise up, Marty. (And the Martyettes.) Previous unsigned comment by User:24.85.88.129 09:53, 28 January 2006

Check out the current flame on Senator Meehan going on at Fark.com

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1879863&ok=true Previous unsigned comment by User:70.17.116.109 10:00, 28 January 2006

Wiki, you rock

Your tags acknowledging the disputed information and linking to the news article regarding his staff members are appropriate. I no longer feel the need to alter this entry and hope others will note your efforts to make the truth visible as well. Previous unsigned comment by User:12.181.25.75 09:56, 28 January 2006

OK I've been guilty of making silly changes to the Meehan page, but I think in order to make a point you should just let people get creative for a few hours just to mark this occasion. This is definatly a small historical moment. /won't post sillies anymore but hope others do just for a while. Previous unsigned comment by User:69.157.180.10 10:10, 28 January 2006

And I'll just keep removing those silly changes. The allegations have been noted, and the removed content has been added back in. As tempting as these small vandalisms might be, there's really nothing gained by them. Mtelewicz 21:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mtelewicz isn't alone in this either. The current attention being brought to this page brings both those that validate the utility of wikipedia and the vandals. Since all changes are saved, they're also easily undone. Mr. Warhol said that you get 15 minutes of fame...I guess for some it may just come in 10 second chunks as they hope to garble an online encyclopedia and others undo their virtual graffiti. 128.197.126.42 21:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

We have places[2] for people like you. If you like silliness in articles on wikipedia, it really doesn't belong, but as for uncyclopedia; go crazy. Hehe. --Depakote 05:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Edited by his own staff members

Apparently one of Meehan's staff members was editing Wikipedia to reflect more favorably upon him. See the article detailing these allegations as well as the diff of the edits. --Cyde Weys 21:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep the hijinks to Fark.com

Keep the silly behaviour away from Wikipedia. It may be acceptable on Fark.com, but not here. You are causing a pain to users reverting vandalism made by Farkers. Greentubing 21:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There's still an external link to the fark.com discussion board. Should that be there? Previous unsigned comment by User:141.213.209.81 21:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a link from here to Fark is ok but not from Fark to this talk page. Its pertinent to this discussion, no matter how irritating it is. And anyway, I linked to it :p Greentubing 21:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood you. Hm. I don't think a link to Fark in the article/external links section should be there. Greentubing 21:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

IMO, I think the to Fark.com should be removed. Only sites with information that was written by experts or gathered though serious research should be there. I visit Fark.com all the time but I know that its not exactly a good tool for academic research.... theboogeyman 22:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the link in the article to Fark.com should be removed. --Joe Decker 22:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the link. If anyone thinks it belongs there, please feel free to post a dissenting opinion to this discussion. Mtelewicz 22:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As a Farker myself, I would love to get my favorite site some publicity, but I also think the Fark link should be kept off the main page, unless: the editing publicity part becomes such a big issue that online references are cited, AND the Fark thread becomes very pertinent discussion. So far, the thread has not become substantial enough to warrant a link from the Meehan page, and it probably will never be so. --Rhodekyll 00:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"This statement is not true"

Did anyone catch the "(This statement is not true.)" line stuck in the text at the last section of the article? It didn't appear in any edit boxes, but when I deleted the line breaks that surrounded it it was removed. I submitted that at the absolute last second before the protection was placed, I got it in just under the wire... Previous unsigned comment by User:216.198.93.154 21:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy?

According to the Lowell Sun Online article, the buck is stopping at the desk of Meehan's Chief of Staff. So far, nothing to tie this to Meehan, personally. Might there be a more accurate wording of that chapter heading than "Meehan Approved Wikipedia Vandalism"?? Phaseolus 22:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Meehan Staff Vandalism would be more appropriate. 141.213.209.81 22:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Chris

I like the change to "Meehan Staff" text instead of "Meehan Approved", however, I am dismayed that people continue to call it "alleged" or "accused of". The Lowell Sun article in the External Links has *direct quotes* from Meehan's Chief of Staff that staff members replaced the original content with a staff-written biography (that didn't include any reference to his broken campaign promises). It's factually incorrect to continue to call them accusations, allegations, or other terms lacking an assignment of responsibility. The people being "accused" admit their actions in the matter and therefore it's far more accurate to reference the comments in the newspaper article and assign fault where it lies. 128.197.126.42 23:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Meehan Approved Wikipedia Vandalism" sounds about right to me... It was in his best interest so I'm sure he knew and approved of it. It's not like someone randomly did it, it was his staff. I'll bet you all the money I have that he told his staff to do it.

The article says "Matt Vogel, Meehan's chief of staff, said he authorized an intern in July to replace existing Wikipedia content with a staff-written biography of the lawmaker." It seems that Meehan is not the authoritive party, but I'd speculate the conversation was probably had. sohmc 13:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This still reads like a campaign ad...

This article reads like a campaign ad. There are many statements about all the good stuff that he has allegedly done, but no criticsm, no opposing views, and plenty of frosting.

The article even goes out of its way to mention who he is supporting in the 2006 gubernatorial election.

I think it should be reverted to the last 'known good' version, and there should be a section detailing the whitewashing of this entry by his staff. Previous unsigned comment by User:Sukiari 23:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree - having government offices try to alter the public record like this is scary. If they want their information here, they'll have to play by the rules. Allowing this change compromises the integrity of Wikipedia. As an always-editable source, we must be extra-vigilant against this sort of historical revisionism - rernst 23:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

disabling the edit page on this story makes you al smelly mcfarty meehan smelly bum bum heads. There I finaly said it Previous unsigned comment by User:207.139.139.22 23:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess his constituants don't mind having a person responsible for the many thousands of them, who is also incapable of taking responsibility for a few staff members. Previous unsigned comment by User:131.252.200.54 00:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with the rest of you guys; this page is the equivalent of propaganda. A walk down this path is only going to lead to a world of problems later. I'm not being a pessimist here, but there’s next to nothing on him that doesn't show him as some kind of "savior of America" other then the F grade he got from the NRA. Let's see his campaign contributors posted on here or better yet... his voting record. - Ghostalker

Congressional edits?

For more information see Congressional Staffer Edits

These edits range from benificial and informative to libelous and childish. I would seriously recommend admins reviewing the entries of known political IP Adresses. 68.50.103.212 12:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest this article be totally re-written. this is the only way to ensure a fair and NPOV article without any of the inserted material making it through. Flying Canuck 18:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The best thing for now would be to restore an old version of the page before the first suspicious edit, around June 2005. Elfguy 22:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Admitted Wikipedia vandalism by Meehan's Staff" section

I'd like to start a discussion of wether this section should be here. I'm not really sure either way, but I think it would be good to have a discussion of wether this recent event is "encycolpedic" -- has it been included because it will be a "historically" significant? Will anyone care a year from now? Or is it here mostly because the Wikipedia community felt threatened or whatever and there is some emotional urge to include it? Does every time someone (or their staff) "creatively edit" a Wikipedia article about themselves deserve a mention in the corrected article? Along the same lines, can the Wikipedia community really record this event without being influenced by a POV? Ehlkej 05:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It really shouldn't be here. "no self-references" is about being very careful not to flog our own WP-horse, as much as it is about remaining safe for reusers to include elsewhere. +sj + 11:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Another thing to consider: this really flirts with the rule against self-referential content. --Cyde Weys 05:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The rule against self-referential content is mainly intended to allow Wikipedia articles to be freely reused elsewhere and still make sense. If an article were to say "X removed negative information about himself from this site" it wouldn't make any sense if the article were later mirrored somewhere else, whereas "X removed negative information about himself from Wikipedia" remains true no matter where you copy the text to. Wikipedia:Avoid self-references goes into detail on the subject. Bryan 06:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be included, as protection against other public figures editing their own entries. It happened, now it's part of the record. Also, it is certainly a relevant piece of information. Just my opinion... -Jenn 69.111.135.148 06:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I say keep - it's significant enough to be picked up by a number of news sources, and I wouldn't have heard of the guy if not for reading those articles. I imagine it's a similar situation with the guy who was the centre of the Wikipedia prank that made international headlines. StuartH 06:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"picked up by a # of news sources" is good enough to warrant a wikinews article, and external links to that; or to the original news sources. But we don't have a single word in the Meehan article for every factoid that was 'picked up by a number of news sources', not to mention a single sentence for each. And a separate section exagerrates its importance to an outrageous degree. +sj + 11:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be included as well. --Joe Decker 15:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Should it be its own section though? Right now the article is broken into 3 sections, one covering the entire span of his life from birth to election, another from election to now, and another about this single event. Seems a bit unbalanced. Ehlkej 19:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• I say keep it. I've made it into a subsection with a less prominent title. The content is verifiable; that's enough. Melchoir 20:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is significant if only as a reminder that nothing on the Intarweb, wikipedia content included, should be taken without a grain of salt. Even wikipedia articles that may seem be to npov, may not really be, and may have been written by someone with a bias, agenda, or axe to grind. Wikipedia readers, like all consumers of any source, need to be careful, and question authority, even the Wikipedia's. jerry 17:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's extremely important to include this information, both in this case and in all similar cases, because it is significant behaviour which people forming an opinion need to be aware of. Omitting it would lead to distortion. Toby Douglass 22:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be in there. One of the things that makes this guy historically notable is his staff's sanitization of his Wikipedia bio. Otherwise, he's just your typical pledge-violating Congressman, isn't he? :) Kaisershatner 01:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that this man, who has represented a district of 300,000 people for a dozen years, is historically notable because of a staff-members actions re: Wikipedia? His Wikipedia article is currently sorely lacking in content, but the answer is not to write about ourselves and thereby overbalance what was formerly barely more than a stub. +sj + 11:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I really do think that. Hope that answers your question.  :) In representing his district, has he done anything of more than local significance? Has he made an impact on the direction of Congress in some way? Of his Party? IMO occupying a Congressional seat makes you historically notable to be included on "list of US Congressional Reps," etc. but potentially not that much more. Kaisershatner 14:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It should definitely be here; in fact, maybe there should be a page about public figures modifying their own WP articles. This surely isn't the last time this will ever happen. --Deville 04:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a separate page for tracking this kind of effect and event... that would be a suitable place fur such details, not on this bio page. +sj + 11:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

report card

What is this "report card" at the bottom? How is claiming a married man with children to be "Anti-Family" NPOV? Previous unsigned comment by User:67.173.179.97 11:51, 24 November 2005

-That is what the organization has choosen to describe such a grade as. Previous unsigned comment by User:24.61.29.237 14:41, 30 November 2005

Paul Wellstone Reference

Why drag the late wellstone into this? It's a fact that he reneged on a promise, but IMHO that has no place in a Marty Meehan article. Chris 141.213.209.81 23:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on the Paul Wellstone reference: Is it okay that Meehan lied about term limits because another politician and current dead guy did as well? How lame is that? Akin to saying my lie is ok because this other guy lied as well. dumb.

I am a Democrat voter from his district - Tewksbury, MA - and glad to see that now others know how much of a clown he really is. The joke around town in Tewksbury is that the only time he comes to town is when he needs to get on the Highway to drive to Boston!  :) 71.248.161.44 00:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Mike

I see nothing wrong with mentioning Wellstone; the connection is interesting and relevant. It makes no political judgement. And we write about dead people all the time. Melchoir 01:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the article should either say that God smote Wellstone's plane down when Wellstone reneged on his vow before God and Country, or that the article should cite other politicians that reneged on their pledge too. Like Republican John Shadegg. So why isn't John Shadegg, a fellow Republican, a better comparison? jerry 17:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Who was Paul Wellstone? MaxMcCoomb (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Remove neutrality warning?

Can we remove the totallydisputed warning now? I think that any problems with the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article have been cleared up by now. The quality of the article could be a lot better though. 72.2.215.179 03:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied with the neutrality of the article. A couple of examples: there may be more: (1) I find the phrasing of parts of the third and fourth paragraphs of the "early history" section feel more like advertisting than descriptive text. (2) Information about the controversy around Meehan's campaign account, if there is such a controversy, remain missing post Meehan's staff changes. --Joe Decker 18:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting it back, the article is tainted and needs a rewrite. Every sentence will need a citation now. Tempshill 01:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is calling POV editing vandalism in a heading really NPOV?

Are all edits that violate policy vandalism? I am not sure I am comfortable with the current heading, I would change it but I am in generally not very comfortable with meta-sections of articles every time wikipedia makes it into the news. Maybe we should have a Wikipedia content news controversies page and include things like this and the last few we have had there, we could then include it in the See also section of each page and leave it at that? Dalf | Talk 09:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Not all policy violations are vandalism. However,if the article is deliberately altered to a biased (in whatever direction) version, it is considered vandalism. Example: Assume "Some believe X is bad" is true. Now it is changed to "X is bad". This would be vandalism - the accurate content of the article is deliberately changed to a less accurate, less correct version. CharonX 21:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:Vandalism, which clearly states, "Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." Peyna 21:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk page protected?

What is the point of protecting the talk page from edits by anonymous users? I'm not terribly familiar with protection policy at the moment; is this something that is frequently done? It seems excessive. --Saforrest 02:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The site was linked to by Slashdot and Digg. Take a look at the comments rated -1 in any given Slashdot thread to get an idea of what'd happen if this thread was not protected. Imdwalrus 04:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the article page should be locked down also. SYSS Mouse 04:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, more harm than good. Trolls and vandalism attack in seconds after they see their chance, as with people who are really interested will come back. Good idea. --Depakote 05:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SJ, we should remove the Wikipedia section

The media coverage of this incident -- if it is worthy of being called that -- is minimal. Wikipedia content should be determined by external interest. We should not be pressing our own grudges into article space.

Lotsofissues 11:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - I do not like to rely on the mainstream media to decide what is important or not, especially when it comes to politics. — PhilHibbs | talk 12:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The incident should be mentioned briefly and the wikinews article should be linked. It'll stay minimal & appropriate as long as wikinews handles the original reporting. It does not, however, warrant its own section. It should be listed along with any other notable campaign techniques or stunts in a section covering past campaigns, opponents, etc. In theory, all representative pages should have a complete list of their campaigns & their opponents, as well as any unique features of their campaigns, so this section should actually exist. JeffBurdges 14:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, having its own section might be a bit much. The issue did get coverage in many mainstream media outlets, so it is worthy of a mention, but it shouldn't dominate the article. Peyna 14:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed its only been given a subsection, not a full section, so its not as bad, and it could remain as a subsection. But its missleading / POV to keep it inside a section on "Issues", as this goes to "campaigning character", and does not represent his stand on any issue or imply "issue hypocrisy." We should probably just make a new section on listing all the opponents in past campaigns and containing this subsection. People who remember stuff can add interesting features of those campaigns. JeffBurdges 14:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to move "Wikipedia" subsection under a new Section called "Controversy", since it is somewhat controversial for his staffers to have undertaken this stealth campaign of edits. Of course I'm sure you'd log about 800 section changes from his staff IP's if it were named that...--Isotope23 15:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The trend toward adding a "controversy" section on every Wikipedia article to which to condemn all negative comments about the subject is disheartening. Peyna 18:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Call it what you will. I don't mean "Controversy" as a section to "condemn all negative comments about the subject..." I mean that having staffers edit an article to wipe out factual, truthful information is a controversial act. By all means if anyone has a better header name to suggest then do so, but the action of removing factual information from an encyclopedic medium as a vehicle to push an agenda goes beyond simple "campaign actions" as has been suggested above (and yes I'm aware that someone could probably cite dozens of articles where this has happened on Wikipedia). I'd call it "Abuse of the Truth", but somehow that seems a bit more POV than "Controversy".--Isotope23 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversy implies there is some kind of dispute. Given the nature of Wikipedia, there really isn't a dispute. We know what happened, we know how it was done, and it was dealt with. No one claims something different happened. Maybe you could call it an "incident"? Peyna 18:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we know it was Meehan's staffers who did this, or just staffers from the HoR? It could be opposition staffers trying to make him look bad, or one of his own disgruntled staffers.. or his own staffers trying to make him look good. How much is really known at this point?--Paraphelion 18:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It was Meehan's staff; check the reference. Melchoir 19:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was an intern, who are held to very different standards than staff, because they are not paid employees and generally have much less important duties. Peyna 20:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "Incident" would work nicely.--Isotope23 20:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me just make a point that I haven't heard yet: real advances in a work-in-progress, collaborative article do not result from adding a sentence here, a phrase there, and keeping it all in balance. An article really improves in spurts. To remove a new section because it's better than the other sections is to stifle progress. Melchoir 19:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Any organized effort to change an entry deserves note in the person's article. It shows an effort to manipulate, or at the least spin, the media. - Tεxτurε 19:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that this belongs on the Talk page, with all the other meta information. Do we start one of these sections for every house member who has staff that has edited an entry? Does this add value to the article? We have tags to deal with disputed articles, so adding information to an article as a punitave measure isn't wikipedia's way of dealing with this kind of stuff. And I don't think that being slashdotted makes it worthy of an entry either ... Meekrob 23:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If there's a story by the Associated Press, yes, we should. Melchoir 01:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This thing is gaining wings. It's now on Slashdot, Metafilter, and Fark, and it's making a second round through major news organization. In other words, it's now notable enough to be included in this article. --Cyde Weys 02:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If the section dealing with Meehan's abuse of his Wikipedia entry is disproportionately large when compared to the rest of his life, that's only because it's been the subject of extensive media coverage lately. Things will balance out over time; the solution, if it bothers you, is to research and expand the under-represented parts of the article, rather than lopping off bits that've outgrown the rest due to user enthusiasm. -Colin Kimbrell 03:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

it's notable. it's a safe bet that more people outside Meehan's state have heard of him because of this than for any other reason. not that many people have heard of in total anyway; he's just one more back-bencher out 335. Derex 01:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible Citation for House Ethics Violation

I found this document that might work for a citation on the house ethics guidelines but i think it might be a little sketch. I'll take other suggestions. Highlights of House Ethics Rules

Luke 18:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a link for the rule on the house ethics guidelines [3], see specifically the section entitled "CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY BY HOUSE EMPLOYEES". However, we must be careful with this. Unless there is disciplinary action taken against the employees OR someone else reports suspicions that these rules were violated, we cannot say that they may have been, because then we are speculating or making legal conclusions. Peyna 20:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The same document notes that when their House duties are complete the employees are free to engage in campaign activities. This kind of judgement should be left to a lawyer and not cited as fact in the article. Meekrob 23:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I support removing the claim, unless someone can provide a cite to someone else making the claim, then it could be written as "Media source x claims that..." Peyna 23:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

why not write something interesting and useful about Meehan instead?

Click here to see what changes the staffer made in the infamous July edit. I agree that it's of marginal value to insert campaign flyer text, but consider what was there before: (a) an accusation of hypocrisy regarding term limits, (b) an accusation of hypocrisy regarding finance reform, and (c) an implication that Meehan was going to use (b) to go after Ted Kennedy. And, yes, the name of his wife and kids. There's really nothing else of interest to write about a politician who has been reelected seven times? I don't know Meehan, I don't even vote. I have no dog in this fight. But I actually found the campaign flyer more useful. Slanted, sure, but what else is new in this world? What is there now, after all the dust has settled, is also slanted. It's basically the old page before July, but with (c) replaced with notes about the staffer plug, and how the heroes of the free world defeated this evil plot. And that victory leaves us precisely ... where? — Psm 04:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think ideally articles on members of Congress should cover basics about their personal life, perhaps more if there is anything significant in that regard. Then a good coverage of their stated stance on issues, voting records, bills drafted and sponsored, etc. The fact that members of their staff added some fluff to their Wikipedia article is pretty low on the scale of what is of encyclopedic value. Whereas, sponsoring or helping draft a major piece of legislation; having a particularly unique or strong opinion on a topic is probably incredibly encyclopedic content for an article on a member of Congress. Of course, this is how Wikipedia works. A lot of editors feel that every thing they hear on the news or read on Slashdot is worthy of mentioning in an encyclopedia article. They fail to consider whether that event will matter in a few months or not. Encyclopedia articles should be written so as to "stand the test of time." For an example of how bad things can get, take a look at some of the more recent natural disaster articles. They're so full of ancillary information that they are impossible to read. Peyna 04:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines

This sentence "This ran afoul of internal Wikipedia guidelines." in the section about the Wikipedia incident needs to be reworded or clarified to point out specifically what policy or guideline and in what way. It also should probably point out what exactly it means to be a policy or guideline on Wikipedia. Peyna 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly against federal law as well...

His statement about which candidate he supports in the upcoming Governor election runs afoul of federal campaign laws. Please don't just cut this out.

Promoting candidates with government resources is against the law. Again, please don't just silently delete additions that may give Mr. Meehan a black eye.

Sukiari 18:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

We need an independent verifiable source that makes such a claim. "Possibly against federal law," is not something we can say unless 1) we can prove it, which we can't or we wouldn't be saying "possibly"; or 2) someone else (like a media outlet) has made the claim and we can attribute it to them. Otherwise it is speculation and stands on shaky grounds. We can't make legal conclusions. Peyna 18:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Hatch Act does not apply to House employees. [4]. Peyna 18:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been on the phone with the Office of Special Counsel and the Federal Election Commission, who are both researching this issue. They aren't sure if they can get back to me or not yet, I suppose in case they initiate an investigation, but I will made modifications to this page if they do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sukiari (talk • contribs) .

Even if they got back with you, we would need something to verify that is what they actual said so that we can cite to it. Wikisource might be an option for something of that nature. Unless they actually started an investigation, it is unlikely we could say anything from that anyway. Also, most employee issues, reprimands, etc. would be confidential and out of the reach of the public. I'm not here to defend Mr. Meehan, I'm here to make sure Wikipedia becomes a quality encyclopedia. Peyna 18:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if WP:NOR applies to this as well. -Copysan 00:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Communication with Meehan and his response

I contacted Meehan earlier today about this issue. A transcript of my email and his response follow. I was struck by the speed of his response and the rather gracious way he addressed my concern.

From: Andrew Robertson [5] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:26 PM To: Meehan, Martin Subject: Wikipedia editing and ethics.

This is a short letter to let you know that your staff's editing of the Wikipedia, authorized by Matt Vogel, has caused many people to become very displeased with you. I know that , as a Wikipedia editor, this sort of activity is not uncommon, but an encyclopedia is not the forum for expressing who you endorse for Governor, nor is it acceptable to remove information that you may feel is damaging to your upcoming campaign, such as your broken promise to limit yourself to four terms.

I hope you will advise your staff against such tactics in the future. With or without your permission, your staff's actions have given you a black eye in the view of many people, and it is a national news item right now. Perhaps a gracious apology and promise to leave the Wikipedia alone would smooth this over more effectively than any other course of action would.

Thank you for your time. Feel free to respond to me by mail or over e-mail. I'm blogging this.

Note: I edited my physical mailing address from this message.

His response:

Mr. Robertson

Thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate your taking the time to write to me.

As you know, in July of 2005 an intern in my office responsible for updating my personal biography also updated it in my Wikipedia entry. I did not know that this change was being made at the time and only became aware of it when asked by the news media. Though the actual time spent making the update amounted to only a few minutes, I do not consider it time well spent or approve of it. The internet is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions. Part of being an elected official is to be regularly commented on, praised, and criticized on the web. Whatever temptation there may have been to get involved, this activity is best left to the general public.

Sincerely, Marty Meehan Sukiari 06:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hot Stuff, now to get him to do a press release condeming this.... Copysan 07:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Remember though, his chief of staff Matt Vogel authorized the publishing of this article. He may not have known about it himself, but he can't push it so far down as some innocent intern. He likely wants to keep the heat off of his main staff, but an intern's mistakes are too easily forgotten; this should be remembered. Klondike 15:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed someone tried to make a similar addition to the article recently. What we need to be able to do this is a verifiable source that we can cite to. Once we have that, we wouldn't want to copy and paste in the whole source anyway, but you could write a sentence or two saying that Meehan's office published an official response claiming responsibility, whatever. Peyna 04:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't me. I have made mistakes, but never edited the Wikipedia as a cypher. Sukiari 08:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you guys think that that e-mail was actually written by Meehan? How naive, it was obviously written by his legislative staffers, the same ones that edited the article in the first place.

Financing

--Early versions of the financing section seemed to have an anti-meehan slant, speaking of the size of his warchest and speculating on how he is going to spend it. I spent some time on opensecrets, and it appears to me that 4 million really isn't that much money (in American politics). In some districts in texas both the Democratic and Republican candidates raised and spent over 4 million in one election cycle. I have been unable to verify that it is a fact that his is indeed the largest account for a House member. Is this section still slanted? Should we add the average money raised and spent in a house campaign to add perspective to this section?

Meekrob 18:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It could definitely written a lot better. The 4.8 million figure refers to current cash on hand; what was not spent, but was raised in prior campaigns. Opensecrets doesn't provide overall figures for 2006 yet, but based on the 2004 figures, Meehan almost certainly has the most cash on hand out of members of the House. However, you're right, we need to better clarify this. A good NPOV way of detailing his financing would be to present what he has raised during each past election cycle, what he spent, total cash on hand at the end of each cycle, etc. Without drawing any conclusions as to what that may or may not indicate. It would also be fair to characterize those numbers in terms of where he falls in the grand scheme of things as far as compared to his state/geographical area; how hotly contested his district is; compared to all of congress, etc. Many senators have much larger accounts and have raised a lot more. For the house, he does have a high amount of cash on hand, but what does that mean? It means he didn't spend everything he got in the past. Peyna 18:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I added some data about the average amount raised for incumbents vs. challengers which helps to put this in perspective. It helps, but it's not perfect. Peyna 20:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What's to prevent "Wikipedia Sanitation Services" from being a product for sale?

Any PR firm could include it in their list of services, I suppose; in which case the whole thing would be legal,I think, and this issue would be moot,perhaps. Neutralizer 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why I think there should be a serious, long term ban on editing from offending vandal web sites.

Let the PR firms cut themselves off from the wikipedia. A seven year ban would make 'em think twice. Sukiari 08:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

We appreciate all of your efforts, but you should let other editors have their way with your contributions. It can be painful when someone changes all of your hard efforts, but remember that you are also changing the hard work of others. Don't take it personally. I think that the boxes with the committee assignments are distracting and don't serve much purpose when they take up the whole page. The gray background isn't needed. For consistency, we should use section headings for when we have a section divided into other sections, instead of just a bold word at the beginning. Look at some other pages and you'll see that the changes we've made are much more consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Thanks. Peyna 04:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The nature of the staffer's changes

I have changed the text on the controversy to say that the Staffer's changes "included" the removal of facts that cast Meehan in an unfavorable light, rather than that they "consisted of" this. The staffer's changes were, in fact, a wholesale rewrite of the article, including a great deal of additional material, and a great deal of material casting Meehan in a favorable light.

Relatedly, while it is obviously problematic for individuals, or their employees, to rewrite articles that whitewash themselves or their employers, it seems to me that wholesale reversion is not the right attitude here. There is a lot of useful material in the staffer biography, and it seems to me that it would behoove us to use this material to improve our article on Meehan, rather than to engage in wiki triumphalism, which is rather unattractive. We deal with useful, but POV, contributions all the time, and blanket reversion is not usually seen as the best way to deal with this. Normally, we try to incorporate what is good from the POV contribution, and to make sure that the article remains NPOV. From an entirely different perspective, it would be perfectly appropriate to add details to the article based on Meehan's official online biography, which apparently is identical to the one that was put here. At any rate, this doesn't seem to me to be a very big deal at all - it is only notable because it was reported in the press, and because it took us a while to notice it and deal with it. It is, of course, not acceptable for Meehan's staffers to remove negative information about Meehan from the article, but that doesn't mean that it is acceptable for us to ignore those contributions entirely, either. john k 22:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think if you compare the article prior to the offical bio posting [6] with the current article, you will see that a number of positive changes have taken place with this article, including the incorporation of some of the information from that bio. [7]. Peyna 22:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Staff controversy: Linking to Wikipedia history link, self-reference argument

Please see corresponding discussion at Talk:Norm Coleman#Section on Wikipedia

Hello article,

While I think linking to the history comparison where the staffer's additions are shown, one problem I see with this is that it may not be immediately intelligible to readers not also familiar with Wikipedia editing. I think that it is a very valuable piece of 'evidence' in this little scandal, however, I think the contributions can be cited in a way that is more accessible to laypersons, in addition to links to the history comparisons.Yeago 23:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Linking to the history probably isn't the way we want to go. Perhaps a comparison or display of the edits could be put on Wikisource and that would be a more appropriate thing to link to. Peyna 23:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please keep me up to date? I would really appreciate it as it is important for some things I am working on here at Wikipedia, lately. As you saw on VFD. =)Yeago 23:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Many reasons for removing the Wikipedia section have already been stated in the discussion of a similar section on Norm Coleman: (1) Wikipedia:Avoid self-references (2) the "occurrence was of a relatively minor importance to [Coleman]" (3) "When you take the person's career as a whole, [the Wikipedia incident is] a small blip." (4) "No one outside of Wikipedia is going to care or know that someone in their staff edited a few pages on Wikipedia." While the story about Wikipedia is verifiable, that's neither here nor there. Just because information is verifiable does not mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedias are not collections of any random information anyone can dig up on any given subject. Encyclopedias make judgments about the relevance of information. They distinguish the significant from the significant, summarize the relevant data, and offer readers general overviews. 172 | Talk 04:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello there,

Responses to your laundry list:

• 1) Your dim comprehension of WP:SELF is to blame. The intention of WP:SELF is to prevent Wikipedia articles from citing each other as verifiable sources. Verifiability should always go back to the source, and never otherwise. See discussion there for further edification.

It has nothing to do with Wikipedia related-incidents occuring within articles.

• 2) This was a relatively major occurence to Meehan and went to the larger issue of Congressional Staffer Edits. Press coverage should be proof enough. *Shrug*. Sorry its not, for you.
• 3) You've just repeated yourself in order to inflate your position. Please reread above item.
• 4) You've not only repeated yourself for a third time, but you've ignored the hundreds of press articles—each representing vast blocks of people who do care.

Your rant is completely unintelligible. The section in question is not a schizophrenic chronology of Meehan's toothpaste usage, as you'd like us to believe. It was a major press event that Meehan himself felt significant enough to release a press statement on. Had his staff broke into the New York Times and made these revisions, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

It all comes down to your misapplication of WP:SELF. Expect my presence at Norm Coleman soon.Yeago 19:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

While I might disagree about the worth of this bit of information to the article, I think the User:172 needs to refrain from reverting until the issue is settled. That means we keep the status quo (what it was before you changed it), until the problem is resolved. That does not mean that each time you post a comment arguing your position you change the content of the article to reflect your position. Discuss first, then change. This is the most sensible way to deal with problem edits. Peyna 20:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring aside, I raise the following points:

1. This was probably not a relatively major occurrence to Meehan, and I imagine if you asked him about it today, he wouldn't even remember it. This was a staffer, not him. There wasn't even evidence that Meehan himself was in anyway involved in the decision to post the bio.
2. This wasn't even a major occurrence to Wikipedia (although probably more common than people realize). There are all kinds of articles where the people involved in editing the article have a vested interest in the article, whether they are aware of it or admit it. The fact that it was his staff and not him takes this even further. We don't send up red flags whenever someone that voted for George W. Bush edits his article, do we? And we certainly don't mention it in the article.
3. This would be less of a problem if there were more other content in the article. If this article were appropriately expanded in other areas, the marginal value of including the Wikipedia incident would become more apparent and it would probably fall off the radar with hardly anyone noticing.
4. Although, as a final point, given the current state of this article, having the information there is not harmful in anyway (but that does not mean it is beneficial). Peyna 21:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
5. While

Peyna, in order to avoid carrying on the same discussion twice, let's take the discussion to Norm Coleman. It makes sense to hold the discussion there, as Sen. Colemen, being a member of the Senate, of course, is a more prominent public figure. 172 | Talk 02:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Because and edit war has erupted, I've started a poll on the inclusion of this material at Talk:Norm Coleman--agr 13:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Categorization: Articles edited by interested parties

Hello again article,

I placed the article in the above category, however, I believe its going to be voted for deletion.

Could you please go either to VfD or to my Talk page and give some feedback (if you care =] )?

I really felt that the categorization was very helpful and I am curious to know what others think.

Please do not consider this a solicitation for approval votes. Thanks. Yeago 03:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As a friendly note to other editors, please do not remove categories listed on categories for deletion from articles unless the article does not fit the category at all. Peyna 03:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Reader; From Massachusetts

I just spent some time reading the above debate. It's amusing how many people from out of state "know" and "dislike" Meehan? He's very private and I can't say I know him, but I met him about 10 years ago at a small meeting in support of a Mass state representative. Still, I believe Mass voters are the best educated and informed in the country and they know Marty Meehan (for better or worse)/ better than anyone!

1. I do not think that any Politician should be allowed to self adveratise on Wikipedia reguardless of views.
2. I do not think a Politicians Political rivals should be able to malign a Politicians Wikipedia page for Political Goals. The thing with Mr. Vogel? seems like a serious breach of Wikipedia conduct.
3. Agree with him or not, Mr. Meehan is one of the most popular political figures with the voters of Massachusetts. He clearly has a mandate to represent the people of his state.
4. His name is known even far beyond the borders of his small home state and district. He is a clearly national voice for his district who seem passionatly loyal to him. His state is small in size and population but it has a vast social, political, infuential, progressive impact on the rest of the country. Despite the problems facing the rest of the country, Massachusetts is a wealthy/ affluent state. Its GNP are equal to some smaller european countries. Its not bogged own by party politics like its peers on a national level. Meehan would place himself at the top of a new 21'st Century New England Renaisance along with the likes of Republican Governor Mitt Rommney, John Kerry and a handful of others who have brilliant minds compared to our current "Decider and Cheif"
5. I am NOT the greatest fan of all of Meehan's political choices, some are too pandering to interest groups of liberals, but I respect his quiet assurences and thoughfulness. He seems to inspire people. Massachsetts residents seem to "DEMAND" that thier elected officials behave "Sincerely Compassionate." Marty Meehan is thus perfectly suited for the people he represents. For example, In Texas you have to eat beef, go to church publicly (say Amen) and like to shoot gun! In Massachuseets you have to "care about people!" "Walk a mile in thier shoes."
6. Many might would see Meehan's softness? a weakness... like his supporting amnesty for illegals... it is perhaps infuriating to many Mass residents (like me)...but his decisions seem to be made out of consience.

• It seems likely that he is being groomed to fill Ted Kennedy's seat when Mr. Kennedy retires. Is that why he is not observing term limit pledge? His opposision fears him and his appeal and would thwart him any way they can... even here in Wikkipedia!

1. He's a politician and he knows it and he has PR people as do his opponents.
2. Meehan life has been more stable and he's personally more conservative than Ted Kennedy.--merlinus 20:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

So, where's the mention of the edits?

Okay, so I know that it (counter-Wikiguideline editing, questionable facts, & possible illegal endorsements) happened but is the only trace of it in discussion? I actually came to Wiki to find an article about the incident but I found none. Can someone point me to the article, or where it is referenced in this one, because, well, it happened so it's fact & it should be in this article or at least referenced. --Duemellon 03:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Locking the main and discussion pages

Given the LARGE amount of vandalism on both the artical and discussion page by annonymous users(including users removing various comments which were not their own). I would like to suggest that editing both this page and the main page be restricted to registered users. This is not nearlly as harsh as it sounds considering the small amount of effort necessary to register. However, givent that the majority of vandalism on these pages is by anonymous users, it would seem prudent for the time being.75.34.18.247 20:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The above was my suggestion; please forgive the ironic lack of signing in.Jim Tzenes 20:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is alittle late from your comment but it still applies i just undid the latest deletion of the wiki editing controversy which was erased by a unregistared user Gang14 07:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Listing Candidates for Meehan's Seat

If anyone thinks the people who are running for Marty's seat should be put on there please speak up because I personally think that it is useless information Gang14 21:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Useless. - hmwithtalk 07:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I live in Massachusetts and I don't think it useless. Who will replace him is one of the few live political stories at the moment. I would assume the list would be replaced by the name of his successor once the special election is held, but for now it's of interest.--agr 11:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Then when the election is decided I suggest we do that but there is no point to list people running for his seat or even maybe after the primary the two main candates fine but not every person running for his seat Gang14 03:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Gang14 100%. - hmwithtalk 05:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agr & random IP number, I know it's of interest for those in Mass, so maybe it should be put somewhere... but THIS article is not the place. - hmwithtalk 20:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

People print these articles and run off with them; this information is relevant to someone wanting to know more about the man now, can anyone honestly in good faith tell me otherwise? All this over a sentence, come now. - 24.16.121.195 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Until this is all settled by more people I suggest that we leave it as is 129.63.179.138 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I just came in as a third opinion. You don't have to listen to my advice, but I'm offering it. Good luck with the decision. - hmwithtalk 21:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As it is is how I have it now. You can't make an edit and then say, "let's leave it as it is." I'll certainly talk so long as there aren't any further edits. By the way, 129.63.179.138 is a Massachusetts IP address and while Meehan is a Massachusetts politician, I so far know of only two Massachusetts individuals involved in this situation, one of them is Gang14. In fact, the IP address is from Lowell, Massachusetts and the University of Massachusetts Lowell is among Gang14's recent contributions, where he seemed quite the expert. I use different addys, but I don't disguise that it's me. On the other hand, I admit I could be wrong - Martin Meehan is to become Chancellor of University of Massachusetts Lowell and it could be someone else who just happens to be there and looking up his article. I just find it very suspicious, extremely so. I shall save this comment, I expect editing. 24.16.121.195 02:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do go to UMass Lowell but I also live in Lawrence if you look on my main page as well as my other contributions. Second there are thousands of people going to my school. Third why would I suggest to have a discussion when we are already having one. Fourth do you really think I have that much time on my hands to do all that. Fifth when 129.63.179.138 said leave it as is I think they ment the orginal version. And finallly this is being drawn out way to far, like I suggested before wait till after the primary and then put the major candadates there is no reason listing that many people especailly since the link is right there. Gang14 05:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So one, you could use a Lowell IP address. Second, and millions in Massachusetts - why not one of them? Third, because you started the discussion. Fourth, it would only take your not logging in - tada. Fifth, I believe he was you and the original version now is mine, you're the only one so hot against. And finally, yes this is being drawn out way too far, its a SENTENCE - a single, valid, good, SENTENCE! After the primary we can update it with the major candidates, but there is no reason not to have this information and your idea that "since the link is right there" is foolheartedy considering how most use encyclopedia articles - they print and go. The special election page is wonderful, its wonderful for anyone who wants more detail - but the vast majority just wants a good cursory glance of the guy and anything which may be affecting him now, and this would include whoever may end up with his position without all the details. 24.16.121.195 06:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

The edit war between two editors, with little or no discussion here, is very unhelpful. The matter of whether the contested sentence stays in or not is of very little significance. I read the article through before reading the debates here, and the presence or absence of the sentence will make negligible difference. If forced to make a decision, I would say that the list of people who may (or may not) contest an election that is not yet happening is probably superfluous. But both editors should cool off and go and find another article to edit for a while. My comment here is unsigned as per the advice on the WP Third Opinion page. 09:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so you believe my sentence is useless - I disagree, but even if you feel it is unnecessary, can you say it does harm to have it included? I would say at the very least, it doesn't hurt to include the information. I for one would like it if every page included this sort of data, a "what's happening now" section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.121.195 (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

The point of wikipedia is not to have information that does hurt it is to have information that is important Gang14 06:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And if you want a whats happening now go to any news site Gang14 06:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the optimal goal of a Wikipedia article to find as much relevant data for a given person, event, object, science, etc. and provide it in a sensible format with citations as well as where one may find more information on the given article. Optimal goal aside, the point of a Wikipedia article is to provide a cursory overview of a given topic, a starting point if you will - and when it comes to people like Meehan, that means including what is affecting him at any particular time. This sentence fits that goal. Now, if you truly believe otherwise - if you're so for eliminating useless sentences, the war here over this one is a waste of your good time - there are at least millions if not billions on Wikipedia that could use your good work. Besides, as we've already agreed to updating it after the primary, why not let it go? Why not let me keep my sentence? What harm is it in the end? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.121.195 (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Well we disagree greatly on the point of wikipedia then, but that is a different problem all together. Second as our third opinon has pointed out the election technically isnt even taking place yet. Third there is a thing known as to much information. Fourth why cant you wait till the primary to say whos running for his seat? Also there is now a third party candadate running for his seat would you include him as well in your unneeded sentance? Gang14 09:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. sign your comments

Are you honestly saying that a single sentence is too much information? What about his assuming the position as chancellor, it hasn't happened yet either - but it is relevant. If this is about the third party candidate, go ahead and include him too, my sentence has room. That should have been your original tact to begin with. 69.91.209.143 17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the use of the link out to a separate article on the special election for his successor is the right solution. This means the original Meehan article remains concise, the link to the candidates is right there, and much fuller information can be given on the split-out page. You asked for my opinion - there it is. You don't have to agree with it. Now I'll butt out and let you folks get on with your article. Kim dent brown 09:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your opinion, you are in the UK and this is an American politician who American students will look up. I believe this information should be included so those who "print and leave" may have it. If you want to share any further opinions, I would like your opinion with that in mind. 69.91.209.143 17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I must say I find it ojectionalbe for people to insist information I find interesting is useless. Nonetheless, my needs are met by having the candidates' names in a separate article on the special election with a clear link from this article that says look there for info on the candidates. This solution also has the advantage that rapidly changing information can be more easily updated there. After the special election, Meehan's successor's name should be included in this article. I think this edit war should end. --agr 13:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet the special election page does little more than this sentence except link to the candidates individual sites or Wikipedia articles. Even then, last I checked there was a serious flaw when it came to accessing information on the third party candidate as I doubt the real guy was involved in high level crime in California. I believe that one, the special election page needs revision and two, this information, being as small as it is, helps those who would find interest and does not hinder anyone who wouldn't and that that should be the focus. 69.91.209.143 17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Arguing about single sentences is what we do best at Wikipedia. It's an art form here. These arguments can go on for months, even years. The surprising thing is how often the end results are something reasonable. The information you and I find interesting is alive and well and readily accessible from this page. Your comment about third party candidates underlines the desirability of having all the candidate info on a single page where it can be kept up-to-date. If you think the special election page needs more attention, have at it. My favorite advice to editors on the losing end of a debate that seemed soooo important at the time is to take a few days off from Wikipedia. It looks like we will have a beautiful weekend in Massachusets. Enjoy it!--agr 18:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I will instead review the article and remove anything like my sentence, anything unrelated to Meehan himself and accessible elesewhere. We can't have it both ways. 24.16.121.195 00:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Meehan Replacing Kerry Source

"Meehan was mentioned as a possible candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2004, if Massachusetts' junior senator, John Kerry, had been elected to the presidency." I've checked the references given in the article but cannot find it, does anyone know the source on this? 24.16.121.195 00:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask and you shall recieve http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57793-2004Apr30.html Gang14 17:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why wasn't this a reference? 24.16.121.195 20:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

people who are lazy or people who dont know how to add refs Gang14 17:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fairly irritating that. 71.113.46.30 02:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Additions to

Hello Wikipedia editors: I'm with the UMass Communications office and wanted to suggest an addition to the conclusion of Marty Meehan's Political Career section. We've cited several reliable sources within the text below, which was carefully researched. We submit the text for your review and editing as to ensure it complies with your posting policies and guidelines. If it's acceptable, we'd appreciate it if you would consider making the addition to the section of his page. Thanks in advance for your help.

---

Meehan left the U.S. House in 2007 to pursue a new career in higher education, with colleagues and observers in the media noting his commitment to ethics and campaign-finance reform, his quest to force the tobacco industry to be more candid about the health risks associated with smoking and his determination to improve economic conditions in the Merrimack Valley and throughout his congressional district.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, then the dean of the Massachusetts congressional delegation, was quoted in The New York Times saying: “Marty has been a true champion for Lowell and the Merrimack Valley, and our loss in the congressional delegation will certainly be UMass Lowell’s gain.” New York Times Op-Ed columnist Francis X. Clines credited Meehan for his work to tighten ethical standards in the House, and took note of his effort to lengthen the amount of time departing representatives would have to wait before they could become lobbyists. “He labored as one of the House’s most aggressive fighters for ethics reform, taking aim at alumni lobbyists, among others,” Clines wrote. Political commentator Mark Shields wrote about Meehan's ethical focus on big-money interests, writing: “Marty Meehan has made a majority of his colleagues uncomfortable, and he has also made a major difference in the banning of unreported and unregulated million-dollar contributions from our politics. He deserves our gratitude. His courage and his ethical compass will both be missed.” Closer to home, the Boston Globe, in an editorial, noted: “… he took on the tobacco companies, campaign finance reform, and aspects of the Iraq war, and became a leader in each cause.”

---

UMasswebteam (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)UMasswebteam

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marty Meehan. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515205624/http://termlimits.org/Research/1999articles/990628insight.html to http://www.termlimits.org/Research/1999articles/990628insight.html

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) 13:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marty Meehan. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060201024117/http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/incumbs.asp?cycle=2004 to http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/incumbs.asp?cycle=2004

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) 01:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)