Talk:Mitch McConnell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] NPOV
The article seems to have an anti-McConnell bias in the way that it focuses only on his controversies and criticisms. It is apparent, to me, when reading the article that the author(s) support the criticisms. WP:NPOV reviews the best practices of material and tone. 129.65.137.103 17:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've made a few changes that might help. However, we're not mind-readers here. WP:NPOV covers a wide range of ways in which NPOVishness can be missing. Please cite specifics (for example, what matters you think are given undue weight, what information is missing that would help with balance, specific sentences or paragraphs that you think have improper tone, etc.). Please just list a couple, to start the discussion. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have removed the NPOV tag because there was no response to my request for specifics. If it gets reposted, it is important - for improving the article - that the editor explain - HERE - what specifically is wrong - that is, provide at least a few examples. (Or, alternatively, cite a specific part of the NPOV policy as being violated; ideally, both.) John Broughton | Talk 15:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that the "rumor" mentioned about McConnell getting special help getting out of the army is appropriate. It sounds like a very common attack, but lacks citation. Especially to the letter at Kentucky University (if there is such a letter). This letter is mentioned without a citation and doesn't explain what was in the letter. Sounds like rumor and insinuation rather than information.
- I have removed the NPOV tag because there was no response to my request for specifics. If it gets reposted, it is important - for improving the article - that the editor explain - HERE - what specifically is wrong - that is, provide at least a few examples. (Or, alternatively, cite a specific part of the NPOV policy as being violated; ideally, both.) John Broughton | Talk 15:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, I don't understand the relevance of the comment that McConnell only won because Reagon was also running. It could also be said that the other guy lost because of the presidential candidate Mondale was so unpopular. Both suggestions would be POV and are pulled from thin ait. 1984 was a landmark moment in American politics when the Democrats suffered a drop in popularity. Please consider removing some of this information. 128.62.84.26 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)