Talk:Mike Gabbard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaiʻi, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. Please participate by editing the article Mike Gabbard, or visit the project page for more details. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a brief summary at comments to explain the ratings.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] Critical passages removed
Since 29 January, BillF (talk · contribs), StanfordB (talk · contribs), and JakeW (talk · contribs), have successively gutted the article of all criticism, including a delete of large blocks of material with no discussion and no attempt to seek references or revise. This accounts for the article's current state, which is basically a pure puff piece for its subject. An attempt should be made to restore balance. -- IslandGyrl 05:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism Politically Motivated
In my last five postings, I have added a sentence related to Mike Gabbard’s announcement to run for State Senate. I corrected an error, which stated that Mike Gabbard lost his race for Congress “overwhelmingly”. I also deleted the ridiculous statement that Hawaiian Toffee Treasures are “blessed”. The external link to the “Anti-Mike Gabbard site was removed because it is defammatory and makes many unsubstantiated and false statements. Ashibaka and IslandGyrl are obviously politically motivated to criticize and disparage Mike Gabbard during an election year. This forum should be used as an encyclopedic reference and not for mud-slinging. - Bill F
- "…obviously politically motivated…" How about turning the passion down a notch, and read Wikipedia policies Assume good faith and No personal attacks? Most articles about political figures include criticism and controversy sections. If you find a passage is unfair, rewrite it to describe the criticism in an neutral way—that is, make it report what was said by whom without taking a position as to whether any claims by either side are true or false. Simply deleting material you don't like, on the other hand, is considered uncool.
- As for the link, I would think any reader would expect an encyclopedia to give "anti" sources as well as "pro". Let the reader hear all sides and decide for him/herself what's true. --IslandGyrl 01:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia Links are Not Inflammatory & Biased
I did a quick survey of the bios for several notable political figures (George Bush, John Kerry, John McCain, Neil Abercrombie, Linda Lingle). None of these political figures had external links that were negative, inflammatory, and based on false, unsubstantiated information. Islandgyrl is incorrect in her assessment of the purpose of a reference tool, such as Wikipedia. - Bill F
- No, there was originally critical material in this article and it is standard Wikipedia practice to require it be rewritten in a neutral manner with citations, rather than simply making it disappear. Wikipedia policy is quite clear on this. People obviously can and do disagree. Here, those who like Mr Gabbard have their POV, those who dislike him have theirs. The encyclopedic course is to create a text that does not favour any particular viewpoint (see neutrality) and does not try to judge who is right.
- I have no particular interest in this subject but if Honolulu mainstream media (see verifiability policy) did report that, for example, Mr Gabbard has ties to an ex-Hare Krishna swami named Chris Butler, then that material can and probably should have been kept in the article or at least linked to. Try phrasing like "A Honolulu Weekly article published on (date) maintained that Gabbard such-and-such." Or: "John Doe, an opponent of Gabbard's, asserts that Gabbard such-and-such." These are legitimate statements, provided they can be documented. Simply stating "Gabbard such-and-such" outright, on the other hand, would be unfair unless there is broadly accepted proof. Can we agree that far at least? --IslandGyrl 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Also, check out the Rick Santorum article, which devotes extensive space to controversies regarding the Senator and does contain critical links. --IslandGyrl 01:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
In an attempt at compromise, I would be willing to accept having an external link to the Honolulu Weekly article, though it by no means is considered “Honolulu mainstream media”. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honolulu_Weekly) MikeGabbard.info breaks both Wikipedia’s “neutrality” and “verifiability” policies because it’s only intention is to defame and slander Mike Gabbard. – Bill F
- In a recent edit summary, Bill F wrote, "Link breaks Wikipedia neutrality policy." Bill F is mistaken. Including links to sources critical of the subject is necessary for a neutral presentation. I also ask that he use the edit summary just to narrowly summarize the edit, and use the talk page for explanation and discussion. Tom Harrison Talk 22:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
3rd Opinion: The Honolulu article information should definately be included, as it comes from a reliable and verifiable source. Remember that one of the key points in WP:V is, "Verifiability, not truth." As for the link to the anti site, I think it can be included, as long as two conditions are met:
- it is clearly labeled an anti-site
- it is a notable proponent of a point of view in this article (taken from WP:EL)
In summary, there seems to be quite a bit of controversy surrounding this elected representative. None of it is represented in the article at all, and that needs to change. --Hetar 22:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with the recent comments made by Tom, Hetar, and Geni. According to Wikipedia Credible Sources Policy “Without credible third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability. Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with care, particularly if the material is negative. If credible sources cannot be found, there may be a problem with the material." The information on mikegabbard.info is original research and has not been published in a third-party source. The external link can also be considered "libel: a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person." - BillF
- The external link to mikegabbard.info is not a source at all; it is a link to a site critical of Gabbard, and is clearly labeled as such. Including that link in the article does not constitute original research, does not violate our guidelines on verifiability, and is necessary for a neutral presentation. If we said in the article something about Mike Gabbard and sourced it to mikegabbard.info, that might be a problem, or it might not. For example, we could write, "According to mikegabbard.info, thus and so. According to a report in the Times (linked), this is not the case, but instead X."
- Separately, please use the edit summary to accurately describe your edit. The summary, "External Link removed: original research, not verifiable, added two external links" seems to suggest you added links, though this is not the case. Finally, as I mentioned on your talk page, please review Wikipedia's policy of no legal threats. Someone not reading closely might mistake your remarks about libel as a veiled threat, which I'm sure you do not intend. Tom Harrison Talk 20:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Politician vanity article
The article has clearly been captured by pro-Gabbard forces determined to remove all criticism. He's a controversial politician, with a long history of anti-gay activism and a lot of skeletons in his closet (Chris Butler, for one). He is LOATHED by many people in the islands. None of that shows up in the article. Article should show both sides. Much work needed. Zora 23:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds familiar.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12535412/from/RS.3/
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
