Talk:Jim Naugle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Jim Naugle was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on July 3, 2007.
August 21, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Speedy Deletion

Jim Naugle is a notable politician, I think everybody agrees. Please let the article be for a couple hours while I add content.--Legionarius 23:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted the editor who placed the tag less than one minute after the article was created. If an admin reads this, please do not delete the article yet. The editor who created the article has worked on few articles, but his efforts were directly responsible for one "GA" and one "B" that is a probably GA candidate (and is listed in the DYK section nomination section). Horologium t-c 23:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digg article

I have removed the article cited on Digg (originally from some online forum called BGay). When the very first sentence manages to screw up a major fact (Naugle's party registration), one does not need to read any further, especially when the article is unattributed and full of subjective nonsense. Get a real newspaper to report on it (or a TV station), and come back then. Horologium t-c 19:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Respect activists

Reproducing the text from the article:

OK, let's look at your friends. There's Bob Cox. There's Fred Guardabassi, who sent a letter to the Sun-Sentinel complaining about "fags" and "queers." And you've got Dr. D. James Kennedy, the reverend who basically believes that homosexuality leads to damnation. Fred's been a leader in this community. I don't agree with everything he does or says, but I respect him just like I respect [gay-rights and city activist] Robin Bodiford. Ask Robin what kind of mayor she thinks I've been.

So, he is saying that he respects gay activists or any other person in general - like he respects Guardabassi. This is what the article says and looks clear to me. I do not see POV here. He used Bodiford as an example, like he could use anybody else, gay rights activist or not.--Legionarius 04:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rapist

Back to the article:

What are your thoughts on Bill Clinton? Is there a statute of limitation on rape? Do you think he's guilty of rape? I think it should be investigated. He abuses women.

I do not think we could quote "rapist", because this is not in the NT article. You could say that he was implying Bill Clinton is a rapist, should be investigated for rape, or that he abuses women, but he never said "rapist". Again, according to the article.

  • just for the record, I never even heard of JN before I did this article for the Fort Lauderdale project.

--Legionarius 04:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA-fail

I had a couple of issues with this piece that prompted me to fail it rather then placing it on hold. I've never previously failed a GA, so I hope I don't sound overly critical here, but I think this piece is a long way from attaining GA-status. Here are 10 points(although these are not the only 10 things I had trouble with) that could be improved upon before resubmitting it.

1. It strikes me as very short for a B-class biography to begin with, and I think its closer to start-class. I know length is not a prerequisite to become a GA, but there is very little about what happened between 1975 and 1985 other than the fact that he served on some city boards (which boards?). The largest paragraph in the political career section is ostensibly a description of the role of the mayor and city manager. There is only one sentence regarding his accomplishments, and little else describing what happened while he served as Mayor (he is the longest serving Mayor in city history--shouldn't there be plenty of information to flush this section out?) In my mind, there is no description of his working relationship with gay-rights activist Robin Bodiford to support the inclusion of the statement in the political views area, but that could easily be remedied.

2. There are numerous sentences that need citations, even if they are from things that have already been cited. Some of them are a major problem. They include:

  • Son of a paint retailer, he studied in a Lutheran school in his early years. (source, what school?)
  • He asserts that his first business experiences were selling fruitcakes for the Cub Scouts and working after school with his father. (source)
  • He co-chaired George W. Bush's presidential campaign in 2000 and Jeb Bush's bid for Governor in 1998. (source, and expand on his role?)
  • In past presidential elections, he supported Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole—all Republicans.(source)
  • Described as a "renegade democrat" by The Washington Post, he said in 2000 that he votes for the candidate, not just the party.(which article? was it an editorial?)
  • Asked why he never became a Republican, he said that as a non-partisan office holder, he did not see a reason to change, but that he would have to do "some soul-searching" if he ran for other offices.(source)
  • "hate-America stuff"(source)
  • Naugle has had a long-running dispute with his constituency's largest regional newspaper, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel; he has claimed it should be called Rainbow Sentinel because of a supposed majority of gay people on its staff, or Scum-Sentinel because they are "an advertising tabloid newsblog"(source, also "supposed majority" should be something like "what he perceives as a majority" although that in and of itself could be NPOV, so its tricky)

3. The sentence "He even suggested that Bill Clinton should be investigated for rape" strikes me as potentially libelous. I wrote an article about a very controversial Mayor who was involved in the cover up of the disappearance of a million dollars from the school treasury. When I was writing the article, the coverup was "suggested". I think its important here to identify the specific quote, and its context.

4. The parenthesis around "(referring to the publication's practice of employing homeless people as street salespeople)." should be removed ant it should be incorporated into the sentence.

5. "He qualifies himself as very conservative and willing to limit government." is a one-sentence paragraph, and also seems to be out of place.

6. All of the controversy should be moved to it's own "Controversy" section and out of the "Political Views" section.

7. The citation formatting is wrong. The news paper articles should go <ref>Lastname, Firstname. “[http://linktoarticle.com Article title]”. ''[[Source]] or [http://source.com Source]'', (pp. X if any). [[Month Day]], [[Year]].</ref> and the others should read “[http://linktoblog.com Blog/Website Article Name]”. Retrieved on yyyy-dd-mm from [http://source.com Source].</ref> This is extremely pertinent because many of the sources are editorials and blogs(I am not opposed to utilizing them, however citing properly helps identify them as such).

8. The external links section should be expanded, both in length and detail (Official Site of what?)

9. There are numerous categories that apply to this politician.

10. The lead section is very short, albeit an excellent start. I have been told the standard is 3-4 paragraphs (at least 1 for a stub, 2 for a start) although this is only a guideline.

Sorry to disappoint you with the fail, I hope it can be improved in the future and eventually resubmitted. MrPrada 03:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time reviewing the article! I made some changes and hope this brings the article closer to GA. I am copying the points you wrote below for making the review easier.

1. It strikes me as very short for a B-class biography to begin with, and I think its closer to start-class. I know length is not a prerequisite to become a GA, but there is very little about what happened between 1975 and 1985 other than the fact that he served on some city boards (which boards?). The largest paragraph in the political career section is ostensibly a description of the role of the mayor and city manager. There is only one sentence regarding his accomplishments, and little else describing what happened while he served as Mayor (he is the longest serving Mayor in city history--shouldn't there be plenty of information to flush this section out?) In my mind, there is no description of his working relationship with gay-rights activist Robin Bodiford to support the inclusion of the statement in the political views area, but that could easily be remedied. Doing...That's a good point, but the funny fact is that is not much. His role as a mayor is limited by nature, since he is a weak mayor. I will dig more information and let you know. The fact that he served in several boards is not well documented, due to the fact that being in a board is very non-notable for this particular city. His relationship with Bodiford is mentioned in just one phrase, but it was the only example that he had a relationship with any gay activist at all - he had lots of trouble with gays. More general phrases, like "he respects gay activists" were the cause of an edit war. The point here is not even Bodiford, but the fact he respects gay activists.

Update: there is not much worth of note. Even his [official list of accomplishments] do not bring anything notable to the table that is a hard fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Legionarius (talk • contribs) 13:43, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

2. There are numerous sentences that need citations, even if they are from things that have already been cited. Some of them are a major problem. They include:

  • Son of a paint retailer, he studied in a Lutheran school in his early years. (source, what school?)
  • He asserts that his first business experiences were selling fruitcakes for the Cub Scouts and working after school with his father. (source)
  • He co-chaired George W. Bush's presidential campaign in 2000 and Jeb Bush's bid for Governor in 1998. (source, and expand on his role?)
  • In past presidential elections, he supported Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole—all Republicans.(source)
  • Described as a "renegade democrat" by The Washington Post, he said in 2000 that he votes for the candidate, not just the party.(which article? was it an editorial?)
  • Asked why he never became a Republican, he said that as a non-partisan office holder, he did not see a reason to change, but that he would have to do "some soul-searching" if he ran for other offices.(source)
  • "hate-America stuff"(source)

All the phrases mentioned are sourced and cited in the end of the paragraph - I just avoided citing twice the same source in the same paragraph, as it was my understanding of the MOS; there are not many sources about him. Should I double-cite? And the Lutheran school was his kindergarten school, not sure if it is worth of being cited... (it is not in that source). About the Washington Post mention, I am citing the source of the cite, since I did not see the article myself and I have to trust the second hand article.

  • Naugle has had a long-running dispute with his constituency's largest regional newspaper, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel; he has claimed it should be called Rainbow Sentinel because of a supposed majority of gay people on its staff, or Scum-Sentinel because they are "an advertising tabloid newsblog"(source, also "supposed majority" should be something like "what he perceives as a majority" although that in and of itself could be NPOV, so its tricky)

Y Done That's a very good point. I changed in the article. The phrase is perfect, because it is what he perceives as a majority, it is not based on proven facts.

3. The sentence "He even suggested that Bill Clinton should be investigated for rape" strikes me as potentially libelous. I wrote an article about a very controversial Mayor who was involved in the cover up of the disappearance of a million dollars from the school treasury. When I was writing the article, the coverup was "suggested". I think its important here to identify the specific quote, and its context. Y DoneThis is a valid point. Actually, he was pretty specific about this issue. The quote is below:

  • What are your thoughts on Bill Clinton? Is there a statute of limitation on rape?
  • Do you think he's guilty of rape? I think it should be investigated. He abuses women.

I added the quote to the article.

4. The parenthesis around "(referring to the publication's practice of employing homeless people as street salespeople)." should be removed ant it should be incorporated into the sentence. Y Done

5. "He qualifies himself as very conservative and willing to limit government." is a one-sentence paragraph, and also seems to be out of place.Y Done

6. All of the controversy should be moved to it's own "Controversy" section and out of the "Political Views" section.Y Done

7. The citation formatting is wrong. The news paper articles should go <ref>Lastname, Firstname. “[http://linktoarticle.com Article title]”. ''[[Source]] or [http://source.com Source]'', (pp. X if any). [[Month Day]], [[Year]].</ref> and the others should read “[http://linktoblog.com Blog/Website Article Name]”. Retrieved on yyyy-dd-mm from [http://source.com Source].</ref> This is extremely pertinent because many of the sources are editorials and blogs(I am not opposed to utilizing them, however citing properly helps identify them as such).

Y Done Fixed the refs that missed information. Hope it is OK now. I am using the CITE template, not sure if the order is wrong.

8. The external links section should be expanded, both in length and detail (Official Site of what?) Y DoneI added the description that it is his personal official site and added a link to his biography in the Fort Lauderdale city site. I do not think there is more that can be added, do you have any suggestions?

9. There are numerous categories that apply to this politician. Y Done I added a couple more. Compared with Bill Clinton, and it looked alright; please, do you have any suggestions?

10. The lead section is very short, albeit an excellent start. I have been told the standard is 3-4 paragraphs (at least 1 for a stub, 2 for a start) although this is only a guideline. Y Done Surprisingly thin for a mayor, specially a long-standing one, there is not much to be said as unusual about his actions. I expanded it a bit, hope it is better now.

Sorry to disappoint you with the fail, I hope it can be improved in the future and eventually resubmitted. No disappointment at all! Well founded criticism is always good and appreciated! Please let me know what else needs to be fixed before going to GA again.

--Legionarius 13:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:edits

I will re-review this article in the next couple of days–my vacation ended so I've had less time to focus on reviewing. MrPrada 22:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No hurry, take your time; just wanted to check if it was in your to-do list. Thank you!--Legionarius 02:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political Affliation

What is democratic about Naugle besides being registered Democrat?

'...he frequently supports Republican candidates.[2] He co-chaired George W. Bush's presidential campaign in 2000 and Jeb Bush's bid for Governor in 1998. In past presidential elections, he supported Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole. He even suggested that Bill Clinton should be investigated for rape. '

"George W. Bush is going to be my favorite President." - Reference 9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe2832 (talk • contribs) 17:35, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Many parts of the article seem to be aimed at painting Naugle as a Republican in Democrats' clothing. From uncited rumors from blogs about who he supposedly supported in presidential elections to the sentence, "He even suggested that Bill Clinton should be investigated for rape," it smacks of POV. Seriously, "He even suggested that Bill Clinton should be investigated for rape?" What exactly is that supposed to mean? 67.135.49.147 16:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The phrase is supposed to mean that he even suggested that Bill Clinton should be investigated for rape, as an illustration that he does not care much for being a Democrat (see discussion above). All the facts were cited and I replace the <fact> tags with the cites that were already in the end of the paragraphs; please read the cite.--Legionarius 03:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that thinking Clinton should've been investigated because of the rape allegations against him was an issue that decided if one was or was not a Democrat or wanted to be one or not. 67.135.49.147 05:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
That phrase ended up like that as the result of the discussion, as the other editor wanted to use harsher wording. Please rephrase if you think it can sound better... --Legionarius 14:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I really can't think of any reason at all for the sentence to in the article in the first place. Seems more like a "See? He wanted Clinton investigated for rape! What kind of Democrat would want that?" smear. 67.135.49.147 04:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense. I moved it to Controversy.--Legionarius 23:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"From uncited rumors from blogs about who he supposedly supported in presidential elections to the sentence" the blog was by Sun-Sentinel Staffer Dan Sweeney, but anyway it is in the same source used as the main basis to the article.
That said, there is not much documentation about JN in print; it would be great if you could add some content to the article.--Legionarius 03:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obviously not a "Good" article

This article is POV disguised as fact. Maybe Naugle is a sleazebag, but that's no excuse for POV. And citing someone else's opinions is still POV. Perhaps Naugle has said flat-out that he doesn't support gay rights (or is it just that he doesn't support gay marriage, or doesn't support certain rights?), but the footnote used for this was slippery and non-specific. And exactly how did he "defend" anti-sodomy laws? The footnote tries to make the argument, using an irrelevant reference to Lawrence v Texas, and cites no apecific news item, just a publication. To rise above advocacy these assertions need specific citations. — J M Rice (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)