Talk:Robert Aderholt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	Robert Aderholt is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
???	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."

Contents 1 Nolan Chart 2 NPOV 3 Foreplay? 4 NPOV Dispute

[edit] Nolan Chart

Since when did we start adding Nolan Charts on Congressman? It's a notoriously innacurate measure of political beliefs. Preston 23:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but it is a measure none the less and popular one at that. Orchid Righteous 05:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The criticism section, and particularly

As of October 2006, it remains to be seen whether or not the Fourth District will continue to suffer economically, missing important opportunities for business development at the expense of powerful special interests with connections to the leadership of the Republican controlled Congress. Representative Aderholt must demonstrate a willingness to move out of lockstep with a Republican Leadership that has become increasingly alientated from the middle class. If he doesn't work with labor to moderate his policies, like many Republicans, he may be replaced with a Democrat who is more sensitive to the needs of working Americans.

seem to be thoroughly biased against Rep. Aderholt. skip (t / c) 07:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the npov tag that I added as the contents I mention above have been removed. Thanks! skip (t / c) 07:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreplay?

Criticism of Herr Reichsfuehrer Aderholt's sexual activity is totally inappropriate for this entry. Whatever he does to propagate facsism in his spare time, his sexual habits are WAY off base and this should be corrected immediately.

Deleted "foreplay" and "doggy-style" comments as per common sense. Eco-Mono 06:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Go back to tings

[edit] NPOV Dispute

Two comments in the "House Record" section appear to be violation of the NPOV policy: "He voted against the free trade agreements with Chile, Morocco, and Singapore, but supported the US-Australia FTA. One wonders what the difference really was among these agreements, though the answer is not hard to find."

"Aderholt caused controversery when he attempted to pass a law to give police a divine right style powers in 2004"

The former is drawing a biased conclusion using unprofessional and judgmental language. An article should not make conjectures about the author's thoughts on a particular subject as the wording of this sentence does.

The second also uses unprofessional language that is inappropriate (namely, the phrase "divine right style powers"). This attempts to paint the subject as autocratic and undemocratic without any justification or evidence. It should also be noted that this statement neither includes details of the negative powers mentioned, the subject's involvement in the legislation, or even the title of the bill. Furthermore, the fact that "controversy" is misspelled in this sentence and that it lacks a period would indicate that the author lacks any serious commitment to serious and accurate reporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montypyth6 (talk • contribs) 18:01, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed the "one wonders... though the answer is not hard to find" quote (see above for the full quote. First of all, it's self-defeating: If the answer isn't hard to find, why is anyone wondering? Also, the answer is most likely that it was in the best interests of his district and constituants to vote against the Chile, Morocco, and Singapore Acts. In a related note, if you refer to the page for Rep. Mike D. Rogers, from Alabama's 3rd District, you'll see that he also voted against the Morocco Act, stating that it would harm Alabama's textile industry. See anything sinister there? I sure don't. So anyways, I removed that line, as it really has no place in the article. SpudHawg948 07:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)