Talk:Tim Eyman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | 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] | ||
I added some personal details and more general information, but I don't want to remove the "Non-neutral" flag myself. If others agree that the objectivity of this Wikipedia article is restored and that it is more complete now, I'm hoping that the tag will be removed soon. Danny Goodisman, Seattle
"Tax revolt" is not a POV slogan, but a widely-used term used to describe a series of anti-tax state initiative campaigns. See the article for more info, and note the link to the Cato Institute article, using the same term. RadicalSubversiv E 06:27, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
- Erm, I actually meant to move that to "see also", but forgot to. Sorry. I just didn't like it in the first sentence, where it lacked any sort of flow. Also, it's odd that we say he uses initiatives and referenda to eliminate taxes, then the first initiative we discuss is anti-affirmative action. DanKeshet 18:19, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
What are "car tabs"?
- Added a blurb the first place it's mentioned. Velvetsmog 17:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
When trying to link to the List of Washington initiatives page for I-200, I noticed it wasn't on the list. Using the current numbering scheme, I-200 would have been filed somewhere between 1956 and 1958. Anyone know why I-200 doesn't fit the current numbering scheme?
- I-200 was an initiative to the legislature, rather than to the people -- they're on two different numbering schemes. It was in the late 90s, and abolished affirmative action. RadicalSubversiv E 18:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
It seems to need a bit of an actual introduction as to who Tim Eyman *is*. -- Sotek
Fixed link for I-200 Bdelisle 03:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Why does the intro talk about what some critics think of him? --67.161.117.189 04:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] POV?
The article seems to be a list of grievances with the man, although I can say that the language used does not in itself convey any bias. Right from the second sentence it begins with his critics POV. "His critics in Washington consider him a political operative who uses media manipulation and scare tactics to accomplish his goal of overturning legislation his corporate clients don't agree with." Also, the entire Initiative section is negative, as well as "Eynman's salary".
Here's another gem: "After a slow start, a last ditch plea for funds from direct-mail donors ensured that enough paid signature gatherers could be hired to get I-776 onto the ballot".
Yea I dont' know much about him either, but I definetly think its' POV. Let me know what you think. Adambiswanger1 01:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I withdraw my comment about the article not having any POV language or usage. It does. To say it is "Framed as tax revolt" directly implies that it is deceit or trickery intended to fool the public. Adambiswanger1 01:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you look around for him, you'll see that he gets very little good press, partly because of what he does, who he works for, etc. He's not a popular man and is not well liked. I saw him at the grocery store once in Mukilteo, Washington and saw him get booed (not by me). Aep 06:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your right--he does seem pretty despicable. But there is a way to write an article about a despicable person--it's difficult, though. See Adolf Hitler, Goering, Ivan the Terrible, Osama bin Laden, etc. Adambiswanger1 16:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think any of those people had an initiative filed to declare them a horse's ass (Washington Initiative 831)... Aep 04:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your right--he does seem pretty despicable. But there is a way to write an article about a despicable person--it's difficult, though. See Adolf Hitler, Goering, Ivan the Terrible, Osama bin Laden, etc. Adambiswanger1 16:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
There are definitely POV issues here, but the bias runs both ways. The section entitled "Eyman's salary" is a bit of a white-washing in my addmitedly anti-Eyman opinion. Many accused him at the time of out and out lying about the salary issue. To say that he "corrected his statement" and not to mention the 2002 out of court settlement where $53,000 in fines was paid seems to intentionally hide the gravity of the issue. I think, in general, the article would better conform to standards if there was a controversy section as is so common in biographical articles. Damnedliberal 20:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It appears as if the issues were not solved before the tag was removed. NubianPrince 16:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
I tagged this article with cleanup because it's kind of clumsily written. I feel like it has so much detail that it doesn't make sense and should at the least have a quicker lead and better summarization of the facts. Aep 06:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree; this is one of the most embarrassing articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I mean, look at this: "After initially denying news reports, Eyman corrected his statement about taking less than $50,000 in funds for himself easing the concern and greater support of the public." Easing the concern and greater support? He eased the greater support? The punctuation is enough to make one upchuck. When I have time I will try and go through it and correct it, but honestly, the original work is so poor... Damnedliberal 20:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] what about his supporters?
I am the webmaster for Eyman's PAC site and would like to add what his supporters think about him, instead of just his critics. How can I edit the introduction? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.227.186.92 (talk • contribs).
- Use the "edit this page" function to impliment those changes. I do not agree with Eyman, but I do believe that this page needs some counter-POV in order to balance it and increase its credibility. - Fearless Son 00:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] so you won't let me make changes?
After spending all night editing out Tim's narrative - so the definitions were reduced to accurate fact - instead of your skewed opinions, all previous edits were erased by someone uninterested in facts. Wikipedia - the free dictionary with an agenda, not truth. I will never send donations to this waste of internet space. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.227.186.92 (talk • contribs). Protip: You can revert it back
- Wikipedia itself has no particular agenda, other than expanding its content and trying to keep everything loosely-professional. However, Wikipedia is openly edited by literally thousands of people, many of whom might have agendas of their own. Basically, think of Wikipedia articles as big white boards, and anyone who comes by can write on them, erase them, etc. If you write something on that white board and someone else comes and erases it, you cannot really say that the white board has an agenda that takes offence at what you wrote. Tim Eyman is a very public figure in Washington state and is very political, so it is understandable that he would attract many detractors who could come here to try and vent their frustration. That does not give them justification to deface him though, and as the ultimate goal of all Wikipedia articles on contraversies is neutrality, it would help to have some Eyman praise to match the criticism, balanced on a fulcrum of facts. If you feel like certain parts of an article is in despute, then you can always place tags onto those parts of an article flagging it for discussion in the talk page. If that does not help, you can nominate that article to be seen by an administrator and have it locked up until the despute is resolved. Unfortunately, given your last post I doubt that you will ever look at this again, but I felt that this needed to be said anyway. I hope that your opinion on Wikipedia softens enough for you to come back. Finding balance in political articles is very difficult without multiple points-of-view who can agree to disagree. - Fearless Son 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed talk posts
I have removed several talk posts from this talk page (still viewable in the history.) These posts were clearly not in keeping with the topic of improving this Wikipedia article. There were all about the political issues that Tim Eyman is involved in and looked more like debate about those issues rather than debate about this article. Several of them were addressed directly to Mister Eyman in a form that would be suited to a letter or email to him. Not only are those off-topic, but they are also of an improper format for a discussion of a Wikipedia article. At least one of those posts made the entire talk page difficult for my browser to read due to its unusual formatting. I know that it is highly irregular to delete sections of a talk page, but those things seemed more like vandalism than discussion. If someone disagrees with me about this, then they are free to revert my edit. - Fearless Son 00:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I Strongly disagree with removing "talk" entries irregardless of the slant of the post. The post(s) may give a dissenting or assenting view/opinion of what T. Eyman is trying to do via his intuitive missives. The ‘talk” entries about the entries are just that – “talk.” Unless of course the entries were pure crud or vandalism. Bdelisle 10:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
