From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. |
|
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.
|
|
Eddie Bernice Johnson 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." |
[edit] Map may be embeddable
THe map appears to be from a US Federal Government source. That usually means that it is in the pubic domaiin (although the trademarks may not be). You should double check this, but if it is, you should upload it,or a modified versioin of it, to WIkipedia, as internal content is always preferable to external links. --David Woolley 10:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy section removed
I removed the "Controversy" section per WP:BLP. There were no sources cited at all. First, to have a section named "Controversy", you need reliable sources characterizing something as controversial. We can't just say something is a controversy. There has to be notable opinion that it is controversial. The comment she made also needs to be reliably sourced, as well as the claims about her critics. So that's probably three (maybe only two) reliable sources that are required before that section can go back in. Crockspot 01:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)