Talk:Mike Sodrel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mike Sodrel article.
Article policies
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents


[edit] Citation two

Citation two suggests that since the "race is a toss up" it must lean democratic. However, the link itself suggests that if it is a toss up, any party can win. What does this have to do with the biography of the Congressman? I deleted it, and it should be either "toss up, and anyone's race", or better, not there at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.205.50.252 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Bias

This article is full of bias, and irrelevant political talk about his acceptance of various campaign donations. This is a serious point of view issue, which is why I am changing some of it. There is no need to negatively point out connections to Tom Delay, or the such, as this is an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.97.177.233 (talk • contribs) .

Agreed on the bias. I have attempted a rewrite that sticks to the facts. Sodrel is involved in a close race for re-election, and the posting of contributors with comments as to the backgrounds of those contributors is an attempt to link the congressman with the names of those people in a sinister way. I have removed the editorializing of contributors and left a listing of donors. However, it should be noted the listing of contributors is partial, and of the donors listed, attempts to distort the picture citing only the contributors some might find to be negative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davhenry (talk • contribs) .

I added back the detail on contributors. There is a proper source (the FEC) and it is highly relevant. These are potential campaign issues, so excluding them from the article would reduce its quality. However, I do agree with your decision to add a more comprehensive list of contributors for balance. Thanks. Propol 19:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it necessary to include comments on Delay and Cunninghan in the context of this definition? If one wanted to find out more about either, they could link to their respective definitions. In your interpretation, you have attached biographical information about two other people in this entry. What is the point then, of linking to Delay and Cunningham? I say, best to leave off the biographical notes on Delay and Cunningham and stick to the subject of this entry. Also, citing sources or not, the inferences as to where and what the various contributions comprise have nothing to do with the entry, but again, with the reference made to them. So, by making editorial comments about the nature of some cotributors, and the way these comments are phrased, indicate a POV bias. Until I can no longer discern a bias of intentions by listing perceived nefarious conduct by donors, I suppose I will have to keep editing this entry.davhenry, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I added back some of the detail about Accenture. The sources (FEC & GAO) are very reliable. I think accepting political donations from a company accused of tax evasion is a legitimate concern. I think it is appropriate to highlight this in Sodrel's article because he chose to accept the money. He easily could have declined the contribution and it would not have been an issue. He opened the door. Also, highlighting a couple of negative facts does not necessarily create a POV problem. Feel free to add anything positive (i.e. accomplishments, etc.) to the article as long as you have good sources. Just so you know, I am trying to compromise, I didn't add back some of the content on Tom DeLay that was deleted. Thanks. Propol 22:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
But to be clear, the way the Accenture segment is phrased, makes it sound as if the Congressman either is hiding his money in a tax shelter, or if he is taking donations from a tax shelter, that he somehow does not pay taxes on the donations from the shelter (which does not make sense under campaign finance rules) The question is whether the commentary about Accenture is A. biased, for has Accenture been charged with something, B. That the congressman somehow is sinister for taking money from something that has not been held illegal in court, C. has any place in the article about the Congressman, other than to highlight a syllogism that says, "If Accenture money is bad, and Mike Sodrel takes Accenture Money, then Mike Sodrel is Bad" This really is a leap. I have left it, until we might come to some better language that reflect propol's concern AND does not make the article bias by inferences to the bad deeds of other companies. I have added a references tab. --Davhenry 03:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Davhenry. Accenture hasn't been accused of any crimes, firstly. Secondly, the point isn't whether or not there is positive versus negative political commentary on Sodrel, there should be no political commentary on him at all. I think the Baron Hill article is exemplory. In terms of campaign financing, there is only one brief mention of labor unions and then a link to a list of contributions. I looked for an article linking Sodrel to any wrongdoing in the Accenture case, but I couldn't find any. --Aldus 22:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of contributors

Exactly what is the point of the list? It takes up a lot of room, and is pretty boring. Why won't a link to another site suffice, particularly because I doubt anyone is keeping this list current? (In particular, why is it notable that Republican organizations have contributed to his campaign?) John Broughton 19:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to make an issue of this in the last few days before the election, but the "Contributors" section needs to be shortened dramitically, if not removed entirely (I didn't see anything even worth adding to the 2006 re-election campaign section, but that's where a remnant might go). The length of this section is a violation of WP:NPOV, because of undue weight. WP:NOT is also applicable - wikipedia articles are not intended for making lists.
For examples articles where the is justification for a (short) contributors section, see Dennis Hastert and Mark Kirk. And I note just about every other article on someone in the House running for reelection will NOT have such a section, even though I'm sure that one could (but should not) be created. John Broughton | Talk 16:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indiana University

For the moment, I removed the reference about Sodrel being an IU alum. (I have access to a database and could not find him in it.) However, given that he grew up in New Albany, it's possible that he attended Indiana University Southeast. If anyone can provide a source, please reinsert it. -- Merope 19:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it may be a case where he attended, but did not graduate. Perhaps someone else knows conclusively. Does Mr. Sodrel hold any degree? Thanks. Propol 03:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The database tracks any attendance, and "alumnus" status is granted to anyone who ever attended. But I couldn't find record of a single class. -- Merope 13:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
He attended IUS, per the AP profile (link in article). Is IUS attendance in your database as well? Does it go back to the 1960s? Does it include classes given by The Indiana University Jeffersonville Extension Center (IUS's prior name) prior to 1968? John Broughton 16:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, there's the thing. It goes back that far for some campuses, but I bet not all of the coursework from when it was the extension center has been imported yet. Cool. -- Merope 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not NPOV

I think this article continues to have serious bias against Mr. Sodrel. When you include stats such as a 0 rating from NARAL, what about some positive ratings from groups as well? I haven't heard any major discussion about Accenture, so I personally do not believe that that passage should be in the article, but will leave it in to allow further discussion.--Whistlesgowhoo 02:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As someone who tries to find common ground when working with other editors, I really appreciate specifics. I'm guessing that you have POV problems with only two sections of the article ("U.S. House of Representatives" and "Contributors"), and possibly only with parts of those two sections, but I'm just guessing. Please help on this.
The best way to correct POV where the issue is what some people call "balance" (or "one-sidedness") is to ADD (quality) information. This article is too short as is; DELETING info (ratings, for example) just makes it worse. I've added the ACU rating, for example, as a "high" rating that presumably offsets low ratings. And I'd guess (without even looking) that the vote-smart site (link in article) has a bunch of ratings by other organizations; you should look there and elsewhere to find info to add. John Broughton 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (P.S. I don't believe I've ever previously seen anyone insert a link to his/her talk page in the middle of an article.)
Note to Propol and Broughton, that is what was removed Sept8; the talk page link had obliterated the now-restored text. Anon. 23:05, 8 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.123.89 (talk • contribs)