Talk:Dean A. Hrbacek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of the WikiProject University of Houston, an attempt to improve coverage regarding the University of Houston. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
UH Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Contents

[edit] Need for neutrality

As is not uncommon with articles about politicians, this article is being subjected to biased editing. Everyone needs to be familiar with WP:NPOV.

Wikipedia is not a campaign site. This article is to be a biography of Dean Hrbacek, not a recitation of all the arguments made by his supporters. We provide an external link to his website, where he can expound his point of view all he wants.

I note in particular the edits of User:Jbgtx. The net effect of this user's edits, if they were allowed to stand (in, for example, this version), would be that the article would have no mention of Hrbacek's use of an altered photo on a campaign flier, and no mention of the report that certain of his charges against a political opponent were found to be unsubstantiated. In addition to the removal of this information about the article subject, the user has inserted negative information about people who aren't the article subject -- that a Republican precinct chair who opposed Hrbacek was censured by the party (apparently in an unrelated matter) and that a broadcaster who criticized Hrbacek was convicted in an unrelated criminal proceeding.

Deleting information about Hrbacek and inserting information about other people is precisely the wrong way to write the Hrbacek bio.

For the reasons I've stated, I believe that the photoshop controversy and Hrbacke's charges against Olson belong in this article. The snipes at Hrbacek opponents do not. What the article also needs is citations for many of the glowing tributes to Hrbacek's inspired leadership and widespread support -- and even with citations, much of that material would have to be recast in neutral terms.

Finally, the practice of simply edit warring, without discussion on the talk page and without even an informative edit summary, is contrary to Wikipedia practices. This project is founded on collaborative editing. If you can't collaborate, go elsewhere. JamesMLane t c 14:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

ANSWER: the comment above shows a deliberate attempt to create a bias that he is accusing others of. The two elements he mentions are an altered photo which was described in the endorsement from the largest regional newspaper the Houston Chronicle and which this person continues to delete in favor of creating a separate piece on the photo op while he also deletes the content of the endorsment as irrelevant. Blatant bias in my opinion to attempt to create a non neutral negative on Hrbacek.
In addition, the retraction that he attempts to insert is a clarification on one name about a series of comments and would require a long explanation about the rest of the content including political rhetoric and the perecieved connections of many individuals to several organizations. The retraction dealt with only one name clarification and the denial that an organization had ties to an individual though multiple people within the organization can be tied to the individual in several scenarios. Would be very complex and inappropriate for a bio and the retraction is merely a clarification with political posturing also involved. Does not belong on a bio unless someone is TRYING to create a negative impression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgtx (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 February 2008

[edit] Specific issues

For convenience I'm listing specific points here, some mentioned above, some not:

[edit] Photoshop controversy and Houston Chronicle retraction of Hrbacek attack

  • 1. Removal of valid information about Hrbacek. The Houston Chronicle did report that there was no credible evidence to support a key point in Hrbacek's attack on Olson, namely Hrbacek's charge that the law firm supporting Olson was tied to Abramoff. That it was "only for one part of statement" (as asserted by Jbgtx in edit summary) is immaterial because it was a key part and showed Hrbacek making a serious but unfounded charge. Similarly, the photoshop issue received enough attention to be notable. It should be reported, and not buried by mere inclusion as a passing reference in an endorsement paragraph (which shouldn't be quoted in full anyway; see below).
Answer: The Hrbacek Photoshop controversy was a global story big enough that it could warrent an entire page. It was lampooned on Countdown with Keith Olberman, ABC's Good Morning America, and a dozen other TV outlets, and was published in hundreds of newspapers all across the world. Even in countries as far away as India (not to be confused with Indiana).--Watchingthedog (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Response: The photoshop episode was one titillating part of a campaign that involves 10 candidates and another candidate who is supported by many DC lobbyists and there was a deliberate effort to make this story bigger than it deserved. This was actually noted in the Chronicle endorsement. The ONLY people who would want more than passing commentary are those who wish to damage Hrbacek. In addition, most of the candidates have photoshopped or air brushed photo's and if there is description of one then should discuss others as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgtx (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 February 2008
As Watchingthedog said, the episode was widely reported. I didn't know about Countdown but I know that Hrbacek was satirized in Wonkette -- an example of how this story was publicized in media that otherwise weren't interested in the 22nd CD.
Your last sentence reveals the fundamental problem in your orientation. You're obviously very committed to the Hrbacek campaign, and you view this article through that prism. This article isn't intended to present a complete and balanced view of the campaign. If it were, there'd be much more coverage of the other candidates. This article is a bio of Dean Hrbacek. If another candidate also photoshopped a photo, put that information in the other candidate's article.
For some races we have enough material to create a daughter article specifically about the campaign. See, for example, Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006. If we do a similar article on this year's campaign and if other candidates in this year's campaign use photoshopped photos and if you can provide citations to reliable sources to establish that fact, then it can be considered for inclusion there. It doesn't belong in the Hrbacek bio, though. JamesMLane t c 01:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


It is confusing to any truly neutral minded person how it is "neutral" to use terms like "embroiled" and to attempt to embelish a negative photoshop incident while anything positive i.e."leadership" or "valuable" is challenged. Whether I am committed to Hrbacek or not is not the issue. The issue is what depth of facts are appropriate for the bio and what is aimed at embellishing plus or minus. What I have seen aims to downplay the positive and upgrade the negative which ultimately can destroy any sense of fairness or neutrality.Jbgtx (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments regarding editor of the community newspaper, the Fort Bend Star

  • 2. Insertion of irrelevant information about Hrbacek critics. There is no reason, in the Hrbacek bio, to report that one of his critics was censured by a Republican Party entity, or that another has an unrelated criminal conviction.
ANSWER: This was not "just an individual" but a newspaper publisher who also dabbled in politics and used the paper and the media as a weapon. The fact that she was involved in the political arena and had an obvious agenda makes the censuring relative to the reasons she attached Hrbacek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgtx (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 February 2008
The publisher's alleged use of the media as a weapon is hardly a surprise -- that's what most media owners do. If, as you contend, the censure had some sort of relationship to Hrbacek, then provide a citation for that fact. Even if it could be supported, it's very peripheral. The bio of Hrbacek doesn't really need an examination of the motives and criticisms of every one of his detractors. I note that you don't offer any defense of including Matthews's unrelated criminal conviction two years later. Can we at least remove that? JamesMLane t c 23:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The description of the situation involves the actual political process and attacks that were specifically political in nature in support of Hrbacek's opponent. The attacks called Hrbacek's character into question and therefore it is totally appropriate to describe the character of those doing the attacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgtx (talk • contribs) 21:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't appropriate. It's an ad hominem argument that tells the reader nothing about Hrbacek. (This article is a Hrbacek bio, not a campaign article, remember?) Our Hrbacek article doesn't even say what Matthews's attacks were, other than the "Osama" silliness. I'm sure he had other bad things to say about Hrbacek. We're not giving the full blow-by-blow of his attack on Hrbacek's character, so there's certainly no reason to go into matters about Matthews's character. JamesMLane t c 01:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


So if I am to understand, in any attack, no matter how unfounded or potentially libelous, it is ok in a bio to describe the attacks in detail but NOT to describe the character or background of the attackers? A defense attorney would be proud of that position but it seems that the attackee is at a slight disadvantage and whether there were a lot or few negative comments is irrelative when you maintain there is no reason to describe the attackers.Jbgtx (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed

  • 3. "Citation needed" tags. The article is full of unsourced laudatory statements about Hrbacek's career. Jbgtx has not provided citations and has, without explanation, removed the "citation needed" tags that I added. See Wikipedia:Citing sources.
Descriptive material relative to the performance of an elected official would involve that which occurred during the time that official served. In addition, there are multiple news sources including the Chronicle endorsment which is a local news source that was aware of all of Hrbacek's accomplishments and generically commentted in the endorsement. The question might be asked if a cite is necessary for each and every single accomplishment and if so the whole bio concept could become so complex as to become ineffective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgtx (talk • contribs) 21:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Not everything that occurred during an officeholder's tenure is attributable to that officeholder. Hrbacek himself has attacked Sekula-Gibbs for exaggerating her accomplishments while on the Houston City Council.
As for citations, the question you raise has been asked and answered. The relevant policy states: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles ...." (footnote omitted). Any list of alleged "accomplishments" of a politician is likely to come within this provision. I haven't flagged a need for citation on the statement that Hrbacek has a law degree, but, as for the more substantive material, yes, every bit of it needs to be supported by citation.
Some Wikipedians would say that I've been too lenient in editing this article in leaving in inadequately sourced material, but I've been trying to make allowances for your inexperience here. That's why I keep wikilinking to the policies and guidelines that you need to know about, especially if you're editing an article about a politician or other controversial figure. JamesMLane t c 02:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


I have sourced everything that was flagged and will provide sourcing on other issues as necessary. It would probably be a good idea to source some of the comments related to other candidates and their fundraising practices also.Jbgtx (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-neutral POV

  • 4. Puffery. I didn't even bother to tag one sentence, but simply removed it: "Hrbacek's leadership and efforts with State and Federal agencies were valuable in accelerating the timeline of the project to expand US Highway 59, which runs through the center of the city, by over 10 years ahead of schedule to relieve congestion on the freeway in rapidly expanding Fort Bend County." This is obvious POV. With an appropriate citation, some reference to this aspect of his mayoralty could be considered for inclusion, but it would have to be worded neutrally.
ANSWER" Statement of fact noted in many local media sources. Obvious ignorance of the local landscape by the critic. Occured during Hrbacek's administration and with his input. If term leadership is considered biased, hard to find another word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgtx (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 February 2008
If it's noted in many sources then provide one of them. Under WP:CITE, the burden is on the person who wants to include the assertion. Your attack on my alleged "ignorance" doesn't override that rule (although it does arguably violate another rule, WP:NPA). Furthermore, you should not remove "citation needed" tags just because you personally happen to believe that the tagged sentence is true.
Even with citations, some of these statements would need to be reworded more neutrally. For example, in the sentence I labeled "puffery", the most obviously biased term is "valuable", not "leadership". Here again, find a citation from a reliable source and we can consider what phrasing of the information would comply with WP:NPOV. JamesMLane t c 23:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems that a lot of semantics are being split here As mayor, Hrbacek lead the city. That made him the designated leader of the city. He lead the city discussion in the project which was good for the city. Valuable seems like an appropriate word and not "puffery". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgtx (talk • contribs) 21:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You believe the project was good for the city. Fine, you're entitled to think so; I'm sure there are people who disagree, and they're also entitled to their opinions. Wikipedia doesn't take sides on such matters. Under WP:NPOV, we report the significant opinions without adopting them. JamesMLane t c 03:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
So you are saying someone in charge when major accomplishments occurred should not be given any credit because SOMEONE SOMEWHERE might disagree, yet a minor negative should be given MAjOR coverage?Jbgtx (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Financial filings

In politics money makes the world go round so when a candidate significantly underperforms others in the race it could be seen as a sign of waining support. As such, the fact that the Hrbacek campaing only collected $37k in net contributions during the fourth quarter of 2007 while his opponents in the Republican Primary were raising over $800k is quite significant.Watchingthedog (talk) 10:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's significant, but the problem is that there are so many candidates in the race. It's hard to tell exactly where Hrbacek stands just by comparing his fundraising with the total for all candidates. I thought it was more meaningful to note that he's fourth among the Republicans in total fundraising. If we have good information about a trend in fundraising (i.e., Hrbacek is gaining on the others or falling behind), we could add that. JamesMLane t c 17:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, though, one of the resident Hrbacek partisans has removed the information that he's in fourth place. The explanation given by Jbgtx is: "This is a dynamic process with regular changes and comparitives are not apperopriate". This is, of course, absurd. In election articles we regularly give comparisons of fundraising totals, endorsements, convention delegate totals, and the like. Furthermore, I have no reason to think that there'll be another official report between now and the primary next week.
Because of the suppression of this information and the information about Hrbacek's lying about Olson, I'm restoring the NPOV tag. I hope that some other editor will re-insert the sourced, factual, relevant information that the Hrbacek boosters would like to censor. JamesMLane t c 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The statement above shows a clear intent to damage Hrbacek and far less than a neutral approach to the comments by JamesMLane. Neutrality should mean neutrality for all posters. It does not mean highlight negatives and downplay positives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgtx (talk • contribs) 21:30, 29 February 2008
A clear trend in net contributions is relevant to this discussion. In the third quarter Hrbacek's Campaign collected $109195. In the fourth quarter, $37,592. And in the first quarter '08: $6,300. This places, Hrbacek in Fourth after the Third Quarter, Sixth in the Fourth Quarter and places him in 8th place in the last major filing before the Primary. There is no mistaking the downward trend. I will attempt to present this with a netural point of view. Watchingthedog (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


I think that it is important if there is to be detailed information on funding that the sources or the funding are also provided and described and will try to cite those soon.Jbgtx (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Your update is not neutral because you state that Hrbacek has not taken money from lobyists when he has infact taken PAC money. This is very misleading. I will add that edit.Watchingthedog (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Endorsement section

  • 5. Endorsement editorial. There's no need to quote the full paragraph from the newspaper's editorial. My version provided a reasonable summary. Even that much is more than we usually do. We can't quote every favorable and unfavorable thing that anyone has ever said about the bio subject.
ANSWER: It is noteworthy that the largest regional newspaper in Southeast Texas endorsed Hrbacek and the wording included pluses and minuses which gave succinct coverage of several campaign points without creating a whole series of OTHER paragraphs with slanted opinions as the critic has attempted. Wants to be concise unless he writes long and critical commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgtx (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 February 2008
Yes, the fact of the endorsement is noteworthy. My edit preserved that information. My edit also summarized the paper's reasoning. If you look at other politician bio articles, you'll see that even my version gives more coverage to this item than we usually give to endorsements. If you believe there's significant information that needs to be in the article but is omitted from my summary, state the specific point here and we can consider it. Similarly, if you think that some of the other paragraphs are slanted, identify the specific problems in a posting here.
You also touch on this issue in your comment below: "in the endorsement from the largest regional newspaper the Houston Chronicle and which you continues to delete in favor of creating a separate piece on the photo op while he also deletes the content of the endorsment as irrelevant." It's false to state or imply that I've deleted the content of the endorsement. It's also false to state or imply that the separate piece on the photo was created after deletion of the endorsement information. If you take the trouble to look at the history of the article, for example this version, you'll see that the photoshopped photo was in the news and was in this article more than a month before the Chronicle endorsement. JamesMLane t c 23:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Endorsements can both hurt and help just as Obama would probably not want the Farrakhan endorsment. As such it should be noted that a leading Fort Bend Democrat has endored Dean Herbacek. The comment maintains a neutral POV by disclosing the nature of the endorsment. --Watchingthedog (talk) 02:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The "endorsement" is basically a non-endorsement that was clearly tongue in cheek from a known Democrat activist who has consistently attacked ALL of the Republicans and posting such an item can ONLY have the intention of unfairly damaging with misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgtx (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 February 2008

[edit] Multiple reverts by Jbgtx

Without responding here concerning these points, Jbgtx has continued to make unilateral reverts that are invariably pro-Hrbacek. JamesMLane t c 18:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Did not mean to violate any rules. New to the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgtx (talk • contribs) 21:36, 29 February 2008

[edit] Response moved from user talk page

Your comments appear to biased than mine. You delete positives and try to highlight negatives. The elements you mention as appropriate are two elements in an ongoing election process and are an altered photo which was described in the endorsement from the largest regional newspaper the Houston Chronicle and which you continues to delete in favor of creating a separate piece on the photo op while he also deletes the content of the endorsment as irrelevant. Blatant bias in my opinion to attempt to create a non neutral negative on Hrbacek.

At the same time you criticize the use of the term leadership for an individual who lead negotians with State and Federal agencies and was highly successful. Leaderhip sounds like the right word even if it is positive.

Response: Hrbacek's campaign site can be used to praise his leadership ability. This biography should remain neutral. For example if Hrbacek was the chair of those meetings it would be appropriate to say that he was the chairman of such a board. If on the other hand he was just a simple participant or non voting member at those meetings then perhaps it would be appropriate to say he participated in those meetings. It might also be appropriate to document the dates of those meetings and give a summary so that the reader can determine the nature of his involvement i.e. Hrbacek was activly involved in the planning meeting on April 32nd (sic) that determined the construction schedule for the new city water mains --Watchingthedog (talk) 09:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Response: So it's ok for you to use terms like "embroiled" as an adjective but not to use terms like leadership as a positive for a person who was the elected leader of the city? Clearly a double standare in my opinion and Hrbacek as the mayor was totally active in the meetings. That was part of his job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgtx (talk • contribs) 21:42, 29 February 2008
The basic facts of the photoshop incident are not in dispute and are supported by citations to reliable sources. Under those circumstances, you're not justified in removing an entire subsection because you dislike one word. If you think "embroiled" is too negative, then fix that word instead of trying to suppress the information entirely. JamesMLane t c 03:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the retraction that you attempt to insert is a clarification on one name about a series of comments and would require a long explanation about the rest of the content including political rhetoric and the perceived connections of many individuals to several organizations. The retraction dealt with only one name clarification and the denial that an organization had ties to an individual though multiple people within the organization can be tied to the individual in several scenarios. Would be very complex and inappropriate for a bio and the retraction is merely a clarification with political posturing also involved. Does not belong on a bio unless someone is TRYING to create a negative impression.

Response: If the full nature of the relationship is too complex and inappropriate for a biography perhaps it would warrant it's own wiki which could be linked from this page. However when the subject of a biography is a political candidate, false attacks against other candidates can be considered pivotal points in the course of a campaign or a political career. Furthermore, a major newspaper such as the Houston Chronicle is unlikely to issue a retraction without thorough research and consultation with the Hearst Corporations' in-house counsel thus adding more weight to an issue than unsourced he-said she-said. --Watchingthedog (talk) 09:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Response: A name clarification does not consitute a total retraction of comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgtx (talk • contribs) 21:42, 29 February 2008
There was only a single name mentioned in the article that was atributed to Hrbacek.[1]> That is the only name retracted in the cronicle corrections story[2]. I will attempt to reinstate while alluding to your uncited claims.Watchingthedog (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hrbacek said that the firm supporting Olson had ties to Jack Abramoff. The Chronicle concluded that there was "no credible evidence" of any such ties. Yes, Hrbacek also made a slight mistake in the name of the firm's managing partner, which the Chroncicle corrected, but that was hardly the key point about the Chronicle report. The summary of the incident that's found here is in keeping with Wikipedia policies and should be reinstated. JamesMLane t c 03:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see my post below about that paragraph. — Athaenara ✉ 02:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of the censuring of a critic of Hrbacek while he was mayor is important because this was not only a newspaper publisher but also a political operative who used the paper as a weapon and because of her actions was censured. It is just as important to make that statement as the statement that the lawsuit he initiated against the person was dismissed. Is it ok to list the dismissal but not the censure? Bias perhaps??

Response: The editorial staffs at newspapers are expected to give opinions on the goings on of all things political within a community. That hardly makes them political operatives.Watchingthedog (talk) 09:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The editorial staff attacked Hrbacek's character in support of his opponent and it is appropriate that any character issues related to the attackers is also made public. If one describes an attack and uses the terms of the attackers in stating the attacks, then the description of character of the attackers is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgtx (talk • contribs) 21:42, 29 February 2008
Response: This Mayor Osoma section never made much sense to me. My recomendation is to delete the section however it appears that some of Hrbacek's supporters believe that that is an explanation for their candidates failure in the 2002 Mayoral election.Watchingthedog (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as the listing of excerpts from the Houston Chronicle endorsement, it seems that the endorsement of the largest regional news source in Southeast Texas would merit at least some coverage since they discussed both pluses and minuses. In fact tht discussion gave coverage to the photo issue which you want to highlight in a separate section. How is it that the positive deserves no mention and the controversy does in your opinion? Once again, suggests bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgtx (talk • contribs) 20:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The above comment was moved here from User talk:JamesMLane. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To keep the various issues separate, I've responded to Jbgtx in the Specific issues section above. JamesMLane t c 00:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

I posted these issues on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Politician Dean A. Hrbacek, where impartial editors may help to address the edit warring and conflict of interest issues, because such exposure may do more to aid resolution than a mere third opinion. — Athaenara ✉ 18:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be the paragraph meant above (I added {{cite web}} format for the citations):

Hrbacek's charges against Olson
On February 18, 2008 the Houston Chronicle reported charges made by Hrbacek that Pete Olson, another candidate in the race, was being supported by a law firm that had ties to Jack Abramoff, a former lobbyist convicted on corruption charges.[1] On February 23, 2008 the Chronicle issued a retraction after determining that there was "no credible evidence" to support Hrbacek's statement that the law firm had any ties to Abramoff or his lobbying.[2]
  1. ^ Alan Bernstein (February 17, 2008). Lobbyists back Olson's campaign. Houston Chronicle.
  2. ^ Corrections and clarifications. Houston Chronicle (February 23, 2008).

At any rate, I wonder if there's some confusion here between an encyclopedia article and a news article.

Wikinews is for the latter; how much detail about the ups and downs of one campaign is actually suitable for an encyclopedia? — Athaenara ✉ 02:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Hrbacek bio can't include every little detail about his campaigns. The Chronicle, however, is a major newspaper in the area. It endorsed him; it also found him to have made unsupported charges. Both of these are notable events that deserve inclusion. JamesMLane t c 07:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears to me that there is a constant trend to try to post negatives and curtail anything that might reflect positives. For example, a very good endorsement by TWO newspapers from different areas is deemed to deserve one line with a reference while there has been an ongoing effort to detail any perceived negatives using embelishing language and very descriptive adjectives. This is a FAR from neutral approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbgtx (talk • contribs) 01:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)