Talk:Rocky Anderson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Peace rally

Thousands? I looked at reports from the local news, and some national ones, and they all said that there were beteeen 800-1000 people. I think the creator of this page went beyond neutrality here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.11 (talk • contribs) 25 Aug 2005

Also, the citation link given seems to have nothing to do with Anderson or the rally. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


I disagree. I was there and there WERE thousands there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLCgal (talk • contribs) 23:09, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I was also there, there were certainly thousands of people present, and not just at the specific location at the park, but along the streets and at the Salt Palace Convention Center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.250.156 (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The media crowd estimates for antiwar rallies are almost always way on the low side, just as police and(in D.C.)National Park Service estimates invariably are. Thus, media numbers can't be taken as a refutation of the crowd size estimate in the story. Ken Burch 20:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Involvement in Legacy Highway and the Olympics

Though I have nothing but antipathy for the man and his policies, we really should add a couple of things to get his page more complete. We're missing the most contreversial part of Rocky's policies - the Legacy Highway/Davis County debate. Additionally, we really should mention his part in the Olympics, which certainly went well. I'm planning on adding some about them and look forward to feedback.--Gillespee 20:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV concerning alcohol

"Ironically, he has been viewed as one of the state's most outspoken supporters of alcohol use," is a statement that at best is open to debate and at worst is pure propogation of a rather negative view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.165.176 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

While I suppose it is open to debate (what isn't really?) I cannot for the life of me think of anyone who is more for alcohol than Rocky. Is it more the tone you dislike? Would changing it to something like: "Ironically, Rocky is one of the most outspoken critics of Utah's liquor laws" make it sound more NPOV?--Gillespee 23:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I would say that "ironically" is a problem. Telling the reader where to find irony in not NPOV. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I myself find it ironic (and more than a little hypocritic) in the disconnect between alcohol and drugs, but you're right so I changed it.--Gillespee 00:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

In two places, I've changed the word alcohol to liquor as it is more accurate. 3.2% or weaker beer (which is still technically alcohol...) is not sold by the state and can be bought in convenience stores, beer bars, grocery stores etc. Limes 16:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D.A.R.E

I've added the D.A.R.E. thingamabob. It may toe the line of relevancy, but I think it's a good episode to illistrate Anderson's governing style--blunt, abraisve, and, IMHO, usually correct. Well: I was in D.A.R.E. in high school, and calling it a "waste of time and money" is being very kind the the program. They spent tens of thousands sending the kids from our high school to Lagoon, a Utah amusment part. We rode roller coasters. They gave us all free tee-shirts. Did it reduce drug use? The first thing many of us did while wearing our new D.A.R.E. tee-shirts was drugs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inappropriatecontent (talk • contribs) 12:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I put things a bit more NPOV in the article itself.  ;-) InappropriateContent Talk 2:30 PM, December 12, 2005

[edit] Fox and Friends/E.D. Hill incident

Due to the coverage the incident recived, I've covered the recent interview/arguement Anderson was involved in on Fox and Friends. Whilst it's a relatively small event, it does offer further insight regarding Anderson's views on various topics from torture to Fox News and/or the "Mainstream media". The only problem is I have no idea who the guy with E.D. Hill was, so for the moment I've just listed him as an "interviewer". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edders (talk • contribs) 31 August 2006.

Oops, sorry. Forgot to sign. Is there a way to make wikipedia automatically sign your discussion edits? Edders 12:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Not if you don't sign. It really has no way to guess where to do it (people intersperse remarks, people come in and correct their own previous spelling, etc.) - Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed POV statements

Removed this from the end of the article: "...as Anderson does not confuse patriotism or support of soldiers with the decisions of governments to place these individuals in harm's way. It seems his point is that such criticism of government action is valid especially when soldiers are dying in an unnecessary war".

Although the "as Anderson" bit was probably meant to reflect the opinions of those supporters cited, it was worded in a way that presented this opinion as fact. If it can be made NPOV I have no problem with its re-insertion. The last sentence, however; was pure POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edders (talk • contribs) 4 September 2006.

[edit] Citation standardization

This article is a mess when it comes to references. Numerous different citation styles are used and we have both a "notes" and a "references" section. Someone should go through and organize the citations and references... But I've decided that I'm too lazy to do it myself. :) Porlob 17:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mormon?

Is there any reason why Rocky is in the Latter Day saint category? Since he is not a mormon, I am confused why he is in this group? Reds0xfan 20:40 24 Sep 2006 (MDT)

It seems that he was raised Mormon, but no longer identifies as such. I agree: that should be removed. Porlob 13:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal cases

I notice that Bott v. Deland, Bradford v. Moench, and University of Utah Students Against Apartheid v. Peterson were all recently delinked in the article. If anyone thinks that any of these have article potential (I suspect they are all borderline), please feel free to relink. - Jmabel | Talk 20:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased

The beginning of this article reads like a campaign speech, I think there are some serious POV issues with it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.11.54 (talk • contribs) 9 March 2007.

[edit] Definite POV

Just removed the loaded term "marriage equality" and replaced it with "gay marriage". Previous posters are correct. This article reads like a campaign statement. — J M Rice 22:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Those favoring same-sex marriage rights believe that marriage rights between gays and straights should be "equal." What is so biased about calling that "marriage equality?"
Changed it back to "marriage equality." It's technically accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.74.67 (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem, 129, is evident in your phrasing: it's that those with a specific position consider it to be "equality." The fundamental issue is simply whether or not homosexuals are permitted to marry; the term "equality" is a value judgment on that point. Furthermore, the term is less informative -- which is actually more important to an encyclopedia, where we shouldn't be assuming that the reader knows what "marriage equality" refers to. -Pete 07:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, biased

Transparently pro-Anderson, which a biographical article should not be. How do you get one of those labels that says "The neutrality of this article has been disputed"? --A. Groff 72.74.3.29 05:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing unusual about how Anderson is handled. See Orrin Hatch for comparison. A biographical piece on a contemporary politician — as long as his or her career has not be scandal-ridden — almost always starts with a relatively straightforward description of the progress of that career, what stands he or she is associated with, etc. - Jmabel | Talk 23:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
If you think this article is biased, read the one on Thomas S. Monson. It reads like a pamphlet from Temple Square.

[edit] Missing notes and citation section.

The newer edition of this page does not contain the original notes or bibliography. They are both absent, though I do not believe them to be completely lost in cyberspace. Morgensternen 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They're still there. What happened is that you added a reference without a </ref> tag. This placed the whole rest of the page inside the tag, making it disappear. Cool Hand Luke 20:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O'Reilly move

Unless there are serious objections, I'm moving the paragraph about The O'Reilly Factor (which, like much of this article, really needs some clarifying links and perhaps some editing) to "Criticism of the Bush Administration". I might restructure the section appropriately to make things chronological. Maxisdetermined 02:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)