Talk:National Federation of Republican Assemblies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents[hide] |
[edit] Please discuss instead of edit-warring
I've noticed a number of reverts that don't have any explanation either in the edit summary or on this talk page. Instead of reverting, please explain and discuss your differences here. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you, Sbowers3
I've noticed the same thing. The root of the problem seems to be a fellow named Rod Martin, who is connected with a website, TheVanguard.Org -- both Martin and TheVanguard lost notability elections last year. Prior to that, they both won notability elections, but apparently when they won elections it was due to vote fraud. Apparently Rod Martin or a confederate put up extremely laudatory and factually wrong entries about himself and his website, and then voted for it multiple times, which led to the debacle.
This raises the question: what does this have to do with the NFRA? Well, it is related because Rod Martin apparently became president of this organization. Information about Rod Martin is therefore relevant to the NFRA Wikipedia site, especially since by Wiki rules Rod Martin does not qualify for his own entry (lost notability election). A separate question is: what information about him is relevant? Well, presumably his political career (a failed attempt to be elected to Congress) and serial violations of campaign finance law (the FEC doesn't typically fine first offenders). Also, given that he advertises himself as "Doctor Rod Martin" on the strength of his law degree, it is worth noting that he surrendered his law license to his state's Supreme Court and can no longer practice.
If the people who continually try to erase facts from his entry want to add more context to his bio, that's fine. But erasing documented facts is very bad Wikipedia form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.254.47 (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was hoping to be able to undo the text that was added on March 17 that gave the objectives and the beliefs of the organization, since these are not in question. Cbrown285 (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Martin
I've looked at a dozen or more articles about roughly similar organizations. It is normal to mention the president of the organization but not to go into any details about him. The article is about the organization, not its president. I'm going to make an edit along those lines, and hope that others will accept it. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] On the Martin issue
sbowers3... I edited to mention Mr. Martin as the leader of the NFRA without going into biographical details. As you mentioned, most other organizations Wikipedia entries do not have such details. If the person feels Mr. Martin needs his own page, they should create it for him and push for notability and link from here. Is that acceptable? CorpITGuy (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- That would be consistent with other articles. If the president is notable, they link to his article. My guess is that Martin is not notable, but if he does eventually get an article, then certainly this article should link to him (if he is still the NFRA president at that time). Sbowers3 (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- The problem is that most notable organizations will have notable presidents as such. Because Martin is not notable (he failed a notability election last year), there is no other place to put relevant info. His biographical info is at least as relevant as the hundreds of empty words that are in the platforms reproduced here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.254.47 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- How is that information relevant if he isn't notable? The logic isn't there. Additionally, what does Martin's congressional campaign have to do with the NFRA? I don't see any proof that it is relevant to the NFRA. Either Martin is notable (and you clearly believe he is not) or he isn't (and thus no bio info is needed, anywhere). This article should not be a place for anyone to "right the wrongs", real or perceived, you or others may have with regards to Martin. That doesn't belong on Wikipedia and is in violation of the rules. CorpITGuy (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The answer is, obviously, that Martin is the president of the organization. This has nothing to do with "righting wrongs" and everything to do with providing context. That has everything to do with Wikipedia. I would say, however, that manufacturing a nonexistent "consensus" does violate Wikipedia rules and I would ask you not to do that. STOP DELETING RELEVANT INFORMATION ABOUT AN ORGANIZATION'S PRESIDENT FROM THE ORGANIZATION ENTRY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.1 (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- All I see is an anonymous IP address from one part of one city (which I believe I won't give out because it violates Wikipedia rules) who also participated in Martin-bashing articles in the past is now posting material that clearly goes against what all OTHER organizations' Wikipedia entries look like versus 3 other posters, one of which has an extensive editing history. CorpITGuy (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You have already made statements about what state I am coming from, which I assume violates Wikipedia rules as well. Bizarrely, you make irrelevant claims about my "Martin-bashing", despite the fact that 90% of your changes are, I suppose, "Martin-boosting." You also lied about "3 other posters," since you and I and sbowers are the only ones in the discussion. The fact is that Rod Martin's multiple sockpuppets were kicked off Wikipedia for election fraud. If anything deserves scrutiny on Wikipedia, it is behavior like that, which you are continuing. You are doing your best to continue in Rod Martin's abuse of Wikipedia rules. Go away, irrelevant and dishonest sockpuppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.2 (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This enty is about the NFRA and should not include the biography of Martin. If you want to continue your "Martin-bashing" do it elsewhere. As far as indicating that I am "Martin-boosting" you are far from the truth, I am just trying to keep the NFRA page consitant with other organization pages on Wikipedia, that is about the organization. It seems to me that you need to stick to the Wikipedia rules and stop adding personal information in the wrong area. cbrown285(talk)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It is not "Martin-bashing" to include biographical information about the President of NFRA inside the NFRA entry. Of course you are "Martin-boosting"; you posted that Rod Martin is a leader in the conservative movement! And you posted that he was a counsel for Paypal. One of these claims shows that you are ill-informed and without historical judgment, and the other is false. Naturally you provided no source for either claim. Of course there is no "Wikipedia rule" that you cannot supply biographical info about an organization's leader inside the organization's entry. It makes perfect sense to do just that, especially when it has already been decided that Wikipedia should not contain a special entry for Rod Martin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.2 (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- (1)Rod D. Martin was special counsel to the CEO of PayPal. That is a well-documented fact; perhaps not on Wikipedia, but there are plenty of sources for that not edited or able to be edited by Mr. Martin himself. (2) To suggest bad motives on the part of cbrown285 is in violation of Wikipedia rules. (3) There are now three in the discussion. I included cbrown285 since he or she clearly changed your edits. (4) I still don't see an answer to the following question: if Mr. Martin isn't notable enough to win election, how can you in the same breath argue he is notable and should be mentioned in this article? (5) Please provide evidence that I am a sockpuppet, as you have accused. Otherwise this is a hollow, personal attack in clear violation of Wikipedia rules. I see you have a history of saying this about users (Mars-Sekhmet) and you didn't provide proof there, either. CorpITGuy (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Congratulations, Rod! I smoked you out! Please, go ahead and give us your source on the counsel claim. All it does, in any case, is demonstrate the point that the biographical fact that Martin surrendered his law license is more relevant now than Rod Martin's supposed legal credentials. I don't care about cbrown's bad motives, his bad actions (inserting false and unverifiable puffery about Rod Martin) are bad enough. For the 853rd time, the facts of the bio are notable because we are discussing the bio of the organization's president. If you think these facts about the organization's president are not notable, request a deletion of the entire article, Rod, and stop edit warring. Finally, any idiot can see that Mars-Sekhmet was a Martin sockpuppet -- he participated in a fraudulent election on Rod Martin and then came back to insert Rod Martin in the NFRA entry. The fact that you continue to edit war instead of discussing the matter civilly shows that you are not a serious Wikipedia contributor. Go away, Rod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.2 (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You answered none of my questions yet continue to vandalize this article. Stop it or ask for arbitration. I am not Rod Martin. I live in (somewhere other than FL), and, best I can tell, Rod Martin lives in Florida. Any mod can feel free to check out my IP addresses (I login with two - one from my home and one from an air card). Don't make accusations you cannot prove. CorpITGuy (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I have answered every one of your questions, sockpuppet, but it is hardly my fault that you aren't smart enough to understand the answers. You also don't understand the difference between vandalism and a difference of opinion. We are having a difference of opinion over the relevance of information. You think a party platform is relevant to NFRA, whereas I think it is empty advertising. I think that the political and professional bio of the NFRA president is relevant to the NFRA, whereas you think this is information that must be suppressed. Could we compromise by putting them both in, or would you object to that too, my little sockpuppet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.2 (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Can I suggest that you both review WP:DR and get some help in finding consensus on this issue. --Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 14:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- All I can say is that there needs to be no personal information about the president of the organization on the article. I think you are showing your intent to personally attack Mr. Martin by insisting that information that is not relivent to the NFRA be posted on this article. If you feel so strongly in getting information about Mr. Martin out there, create a page on him. Oh wait a minute you indicated that he is not a notible person so no page is currently there. STOP your attacks and move on. cbrown285(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Mediation
I have applied for mediation pursuant to Wikipedia rules. CorpITGuy (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- For whatever reason the case at the Mediation Cabal has been closed. I don't understand why and will post a message to the talk page of that editor. I see that my request for page protection went through which should help to prevent edit warring. Hopefully the case will be reopened, however for all interested parties the link to the discussion is here--Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 06:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Hi, I'll mediate this case, if that's ok with everyone. Could I suggest the disputed text is rewritten from a third person perspective, so instead of saying "we believe", the text would read "the National Federation of Republican Assemblies believes"? Also, perhaps the text could be shortened, and put into paragraphs, instead of bullet points? PhilKnight (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
(outdenting) I believe the heart of the dispute is this. An IP continually inserts information about the organization's president. Others (I think everyone else) thinks that information is not relevant. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks for the explanation. PhilKnight (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The notion that the political and professional history of an organization's president should be whitewashed from the organization's Wikipedia entry is surely a controversial one. See comments on mediation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.254.47 (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I posted a series of points on this issue on the main page for this dispute in the mediation cabal. Does everyone see that or should I move it over here? CorpITGuy (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hi CorpITGuy, I don't think copying your comments here is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- If the IP account doesn't show, can we close this case? PhilKnight (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Please see my discussion on mediation page, which is where I thought we were supposed to discuss the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.254.47 (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Reintroducing previously reverted content
Reintroducing previously reverted content isn't helpful. I suggest the disputed text is rewritten from a third person perspective, so instead of saying "we believe", the text would read "the National Federation of Republican Assemblies believes". Also, I suggest the text should be shortened, and put into paragraphs. Finally, I would recommend that changes are proposed on the talk page in order to save time spent in sterile edit wars. PhilKnight (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with all of that plus the recently reinserted text is a distraction from what I thought everyone agreed was the main point: whether to include certain material about Martin. I'd really like to settle that issue before expanding into other areas. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Minor clean-up
I removed external links to members - Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place for that, but the group's website is (surprisingly, the NFRA's official site was missing from the ELs). We also don't include "news stories" they put out, but I threw it under the ELs. I also agree with PhilKnight's suggestions. Let's also keep the POV to a minimum, guys (e.g. "Conservative", which meaninglessly linked to the Conservative article when that term means different things in different countries, juxtaposed with "radical left-wing"). --David Shankbone 19:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Semi protection
I've semi protected the article following an IP account repeatedly including negative material concerning a living person against consensus and the WP:BLP policy - specifically the lack of a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. PhilKnight (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Some big edits (feedback solicited)
I thought that since we have a lot of experienced Wikipedians monitoring this page at the moment it would be a good time to collaborate on making this article better. I've added a history section, sourced from an NFRA affiliate's website. I've also added a style of government section (someone PLEASE help me come up with a better name) and moved the info about Rod Martin there. I linked to Wiki articles, but tried to keep them consistently on track. I seem to have read some Wiki rules that made it clear I shouldn't link to the Las Vegas article, for instance, since the NFRA really has nothing to do with Las Vegas. I'd certainly welcome suggestions and edits. Thanks a lot... CorpITGuy (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)