Talk:Howard Rich

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 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.

This article is supported by the Oregon Government & Politics Workgroup.

[edit] NPOV tag

I'm tagging this NPOV because of weasel words, negative coloration caused by overreliance on political opponents for information (lack of balance), and external citations to negative attacks on subject that are promulgated by organizations who are active political players, in some cases giving money to ballot initiative campaigns that run counter to the campaigns supported by Rich.

Example of weasel words/lack of balance:

"In at least five cases, state courts (or elections officials) have disqualified or modified initiatives (or declared thousands of signatures invalid) due to fraudulent signature-gathering techniques or constitutional problems."

"at least?" Doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

Y Done

"declared thousands of signatures invalid" Lack of context/balance. How does this compare to the general rule for initiative petitions?

I believe the context is there in the newspaper articles cited; how to sum it up is a challenge, but I'll work on it.

"constitutional problems" lack of context/balance. Non-encyclopedic. What constitutional problems? What were they? And how does having a "constitutional problem" compare to other initiative petitions?

similar to above.

In general, this article is an NPOV mess. Whoever thought that the external references/links meets Wikipedia standards needs to carefully review what those standards are.Jkought (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed a citation to a blog that shouldn't have been there. (It was redundant anyway, the facts cited were also cited in a the newspaper articles.)

I agree there's much room for improvement here. I'll work on it. -Pete (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)