Talk:Charles H. Taylor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Charles H. Taylor is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
??? This article has not yet been assigned a subject.
The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Carolina, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve North Carolina-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
North Carolina Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Initial discussion

Article has a clearly admiring tone toward Rep. Taylor. See the extended quote from the Citizen Times. I don't know if the facts are out of order, but the tone should be corrected.

LegCircus 22:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like previously the page had been primarily criticisms of Taylor and somebody decided that erasing all the criticism and writing a bunch of praise would make the article more "balanced."

LegCircus 23:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, references to his CAFTA vote seem to have been excised. Whether or not you agree with the legislation, it made minor headlines earlier this year when he cried on the House floor after Tom DeLay twisted his arm to vote YEA on the bill. This was the impetus for Washington Redskins quarterback Heath Shuler to go for his seat in the 2006 midterm elections -- another fact which is suspiciously omitted.

AnthonySF 21:44, 22 October 2005

I've removed the extended quote, but left mention of it and the link in place. 68.39.174.238 23:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the negatives

70.109.203.236 said, in his edit summary: Entry had been edited to be heavily biased against Taylor. Added edits based largely on more unbiased and less opionated content from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Charles_Taylor)

I'd revert the entire edit except that some information was added and I agree that it should be there. I note the following in explaining why I'm putting BACK most of the stuff that was deleted:

  • The edit shows its bias by including the one favorable thing (Taylor's actions on "Rubbergate") twice.
  • The goal of wikipedia is NOT to have balanced articles. If a person does a lot of newsworthy things that people consider bad (say, Jack Abramoff), then the article should reflect that. If Taylor has done a lot of good things that aren't mentioned, then the solution is to add them, not to delete objective, verifiable but negative information.
  • The goal of wikipedia is not to limit itself to material in sourcewatch.org, and sourcewatch.org in no way is a model for what wikipedia should be.
  • The article is clearly too short now, and pretty bland (a list of committees that Taylor was on - important??), yet another reason why it's biased to remove so much material.
  • This is the only contribution to wikipedia to date by the anonymous user.

John Broughton 12:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in WSJ

Today on Chuck Taylor. If only I kud reed -- Kendrick7 15:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be the one titled "Seat in Congress Helps Mr. Taylor Help His Business: Lawmaker Pushes Earmarks For Projects Near His Land; He Says District Benefits". John Broughton | Talk 17:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note to 69.249.253.211

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

This IP has been editing political articles with the aim of eliminating any negative comments/facts regarding Republican candidates. Viewing 69.249.253.211's edit history would show this.Thesilence 20:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)