Talk:Pete Sessions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Pete Sessions is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.

	This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Pete Sessions is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pete Sessions article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Party affiliation / bias

Is there any reason why his party affiliation is not mentioned in this article? --AllyKatt 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I hope you like the revisions I just did. John Broughton 14:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

wow. yeah, that's extremely biased and relatively innacurate now. that's a lot of POV for a biography, isn't it? AllyKatt 00:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the last two paragraphs of "Political positions" section, those aren't my words - I was putting back what User:Texas2000 had deleted without explanation. I certainly welcome changes or even removal of the text IF there is a satisfactory explanation.

For the rest, I believe that the wording either (a) was already there or (b) comes directly from the Associate Press article, which I cited.

The nice thing about wikipedia is that if you don't like an article, you're free to change it, not just complain about it. Constructive edits are always welcome. John Broughton 14:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

i'd say the reason those were removed was probably the fact that POV is usually not allowed in biography entries, and those paragraphs are quite tainted by POV, especially the last one.

i'm not trying to step on toes, just trying to learn the laws of the land. i was under the impression that as i'm a newbie, i can't edit bios at all. i didn't try on this one, though. i'd hate to just keep going back and forth with anyone without dialogue, yanking out something they've put in.

AllyKatt 02:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. There are no restrictions on bios - newbies can edit them just like any other article. (However, negative info on living people MUST be sourced or it is supposed to be removed immmediately.) POV isn't supposed to be in ANY article; bios are no different in that respect.

The reason I put the deleted text back was (a) the deletion wasn't explained/justified (that's what edit summaries are for), and, for political bios, it's quite common for hit-and-run vandals to simply try to take out what makes the candidate look back; (b) I don't agree with removing unsourced POV; the correct approach, I believe, is to research it, edit it to make it NPOV, and provide a verifiable source. (Of course, if researching shows that the info seems bogus, out it goes, but now there is a reason.) Plus, when text has a quotation, it's pretty easy to do a google search and see where it came from, and add a link. (I haven't; this article isn't a priority for me). John Broughton 02:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome. i can understand your standing on the issue. i just fail to see how anything written by freepress.net could be NPOV. the purpose of that site is to offer a particular POV on current events. while the basic facts of those two sections are accurate, the extreme bias against sessions is blatant. i guess i just fail to see what that bias adds to the bio. it misrepresents the bill, and silver's opinion of sessions is obviously colored by his extreme political standing, and not by session's record. if it's all kosher, i guess i can let it stand. sessions is a friend of my husband's family (so i guess you could claim i have bias of my own), but not a personal project of mine.

AllyKatt 02:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defending either the text or the source; I just think the topic(s) might be relevant to a good wikipedia article. Nor is your indirect connection to Sessions a problem as long as you think you can be objective in your editing. John Broughton 15:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

All that one must do to figure out what is going on here is to view the edit history. Numerous users with different IP's have deleted the biased material (and for good reason) and John Broughton just keeps putting it back and making it more negative. He's done plenty of research to dig up any piece of dirt he could find, but nothing positive. He's obviously on some kind of wikicrusade. POV material does not somehow become NPOV when it's cited with a POV political blog or biased political action groups. I could find a citation for the moon landings being a hoax or that Dick Cheney was the mastermind of 9/11, that doesnt mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. I suggest that nobody use wikipedia as a credible source for politics, it's worthless. Thanks, JB, for helping make it that way.: 17:56, 31 October 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.41.195.181 (talk • contribs).

Wow: I looked at the article history, and saw that I did my initial postings on July 15 and August 23, added some stuff on 14 and 22 September, and have done reverts exactly twice:

• On 21 October, to Skipjones [whose has done five edits to date, all on the 21st]
• On 24 October, to 72.181.2.83 (total posting history: 4 edits)

As far posting postive information, (a) there is a link in the article to the Associated Press profile (a link I added); I certainly would never object to any information from there being added, if it's missing (or from any other acceptable source, of course); and (b) there seems to be a misunderstanding that editors are responsible for searching and adding postitive information to balance negative info (though, perhaps oddly, I've never seen an argument going the other way). That view isn't supported by any wikipedia policy I know of; contrary citation is certainly welcome.

As for moon landings and Cheney as mastermind of 9/11, the criteria for wikipedia postings is very straightforward: WP:V and WP:RS. If you think anything in this article violates one of those policies, please do point it out. John Broughton | Talk 19:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)