From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] NPOV Violation

User FebrileCortex has twice inserted the following three sentences which are a clear violation of Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and should not be resinerted into the article on “Todd Russell Platts”:

“As a Congressman, Platts has a mediocre record. He has voted 90% of the time with Tom DeLay, who recently resigned in disgrace, and more than 80% of the time with George W. Bush. Since taking office in 2001, Platts has NOT authored one significant piece of legislation."

It is clearly biased to declare that someone has a “mediocre record,” to state that they have voted with a “disgraced” member of Congress, or to state that someone has not authored one “significant” piece of legislation. --Nsb2119 22:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

FebrileCortex, in my opinion, all of the changes you have made to this article are blatant violations of the NPOV rule. If you disagree, this discussion page is the forum for you to voice your opinions as to why you feel your edits are not a violation of Wikipedia’s NPV rules. I look forward to hearing your input.

--RT007 02:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, all of the changes posted by FebrileCortex are NPOV violations and I will list them below:

• Changing “elected official” to “a politician” - This person is an elected official and FebrileCortex changes it to a term with a more negative connotation. Alone, this is not as egergious as the others, but taken into context of all the changes I believe it should be reverted to “career politician.”

• Changing “moderate” to conservative and removing “despite the conservative nature of his district.” – According to the nonpartisan National Journal 2005 VOTE RATINGS, Congressman Todd Platts has a conservative rating of 61.5 which would qualify him as a “moderate.” According to CNN’s Election 2004 Election Results (posted on their website) the three counties which make up his Congressional district appear to have voted for George Bush over John Kerry by close to a 2-1 margin which would qualify that district as “conservative.”

• Removal of all information that suggest Congressman Todd Platts is a moderate and replacing it with, “for instance, he voted 90% of the time with Rep. Tom DeLay, who recently resigned after being indicted, and more than 80% of the time with George W. Bush. – FebrileCortex has removed valid information that supported Platts’ classification as a moderate and replaced it with politically-biased rhetoric. Stating that a political candidate “voted x% of the time with y,” is commonly used by both Democratic and Republican political campaigns to tie opposing candidates with unpopular members of their party.

• “Platts has pocketed five automatic annual pay raises since taking office.” – All members of Congress receive automatic pay raises so I fail to see why it is worth mentioning in this single member’s article. I imagine this was inserted to tie Platts to an unrelated pay raise within the Pennsylvania state legislature, which was largely unpopular with voters.

• “After five years in office, he still hasn't authored a significant piece of legislation.” – Obviously a statement that someone has not authored a “significant” piece of legislation is a politically biased opinion.

• Changing “changed his views,” to “flip-flopped,” – This one speaks for itself.

If FebrileCortex does not respond but continues to make these NPOV violations, I will contact an Administrator seek mediation or arbitration. --Nsb2119 02:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • FebrileCortex's Response

--Mr. Platts does not have a moderate voting record. He occasionally takes a moderate stance. Saying he has a "moderate" voting record is a biased statement that is a violation of the NPOV rules.

--Through 3/31/2006, Platts voted 90% of the time with Tom DeLay.

--Platts voted against cracking down on the oil and gas industries price gouging.

--Platts voted for the GOP energy bill that gave billions to oil, gas and nuclear industries.

--He voted to cut Federal student aid by $12.7 billion -- the largest such cuts in history.

--Listing a few moderate votes distorts Mr. Platts' voting record.

--The 2005 National Journal ratings contains outdated information.

--Using an adverbial phrase like "ardently opposed" is a politically biased opinion.

--The original Platts bio tried to inaccurately portray him as a moderate when he has consistely voted the GOP party line.

Thank you for responding. I am also glad to see that you have stopped inserting some of your NPOV violations. Obviously you have concerns about this congressman’s voting record, but Wikipedia is not the proper format to discuss someone’s political opinions. You highlight a handful of his votes to counter his classification as moderate, but I would guess that someone who is a supporter of Congressman Platts could highlight just as many to show that he is a moderate, or liberal, or anything else. The classification of Mr. Platts as a moderate is based on a highly-respected non-partisan analysis by the National Journal. You say it has outdated information, so I would propose that when the 2006 National Journal vote ratings are released, that Congressman Platts’ political identification be updated to reflect this new rating.

If you have concerns that the article has specific aspects which violate the NPOV rules, such as the phrase "ardently opposed," then certainly you may express your opinion by changing those individual items (in fact I agree with your NPOV concern over the phrase "ardently" and I removed that word). But that does not justify replacing NPOV violations with other NPOV violations. Your comment that Platts voted 90% of the time with Tom DeLay is a blatant example of an NPOV violation because you are trying to tie him to an unpopular or controversial figure, a common political campaign tactic used by both major political parties (one person’s Tom Delay or George Bush is another person’s Nancy Pelosi or Howard Dean). It would equally be a violation if a supporter of Congressman Platts would say he voted 90% of the time with an immensely popular political figure.

So again, make changes to remove what you consider NPOV violations, but don’t counter them by inserting other NPOV violations.--Nsb2119 04:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Both sides need to stop inserting politically-biased info. Now it isn’t just Febrile Cortex, it is also 64.78.68.110. I have reverted the article to the 15:45, 8 June 2006 format, except I removed the word “ardently,” which shows bias. FebrileCortex, you seemed to not like the section referencing the Washington DC vote, as you wanted to inserted that it has not been signed into law. It seems that an advocate for giving DC reprersentation went through and inserted information on this bill in the articles for all or many members of Congress. But since you seem to have concern about that information, and because it doesn’t seem noteworthy enough to be mentioned in Congressman Platts’ article (he is one of many cosponsors) so I removed that passage altogether. Now, can everyone just leave the article alone. You guys can fight your political campaign somewhere else without ruining Wikipedia.--Nsb2119 21:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] medcabal

Hi -- Nsb requested that the mediation cabal get involved with the dispute here. Are we still needed? Let me know if you could use my input by replying to this message here. Sdedeo (tips) 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Checking in again. Anybody there? If I don't hear back in the next 24 hours, I will close out the moderation and assume things are going fine. Sdedeo (tips) 18:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in response. I believe mediation or arbitration is necessary. FebrileCortex continues to insert what amounts to be campaign year rhetoric in this article, such as “decided to forgo military service (his opponant in 2006 is a military veteran), and making politically charged claims that cannot be verified (supporting the privatization of Social Security). Now a third party has inserted what I consider NPOV violations from the other side (08:05, 16 June 2006 64.78.68.110), and FebrileCortex responded in kind.

The substance of this article has remained relatively unchanged until FebrileCortex startying insterting politically biased comments in it this month, and now others have responded by inserting information biased towards the representative. Therefore, I would propose that the article be locked in its 15:45, 8 June 2006 format which seems to be relatively unbiased (though I would suggest that the word “ardently” be removed from the 4th paragraph. This will prevent either side from using Wikipedia as a campaign tool for the November 2006 elections.--Nsb2119 21:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's begin the mediation then. Here are my thoughts.

First of all, locking is not necessary right now; we are not in an edit war. I ask that people not revert the page any more. If there is a revert war, I will ask for a page lock on whatever the most recent revert is.

Secondly, looking at the edit history (and as you point out) [1], there have been attempts to push POV from both sides. None of this is acceptable.

The most substantive question is how "moderate" Platts' voting record is. I think, from looking at the evidence presented by both sides, that this is hard to quantify. Following Delay's votes 80% of the time (or whatever) is a sign of a conversative record; on the other hand the current article presents reasons to call him a moderate. [2] I'll expand this to include more information from interest groups.

Let me know what you think of the latest version, and let's also wait to hear from FC. Sdedeo (tips) 21:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your article is very balanced. My only question/potential concern would be where you found that Congressman Platts is a supporter of the social security privatization plan. There are votes to reflect positions on the other issues, but I wasn’t aware of any vote on a plan to privatize social security. I am pretty sure none of President Bush’s proposals on this went anywhere in Congress.--Nsb2119 22:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed that; there's no record of Platts I can find on SSP, and I've taken it out. I'll wait around for FC to weigh in. As the campaign season heats up the article will certaintly grow. Sdedeo (tips) 22:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is much more balanced than the original one. Platts has supported Bush's push to privatize Social Security, but that "initiative" has not been turned into legislation, as of yet, and been voted on. But I can provide documentation of Platts' support for that position, if necessary for future updates. I think "Dr." is a bit of overkill describing Professor Phil Avillo; after all, this is Platts' site--not Avillo's. Platts' opponent in 2000 is not described in that way. (FC)

Great, thanks FC. I'll close out the mediation. If you can provide a link to a statement by Platts on the SSP thing, we can definitely include it. Sdedeo (tips) 23:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

See page 3 of Platts' Spring 2005 newsletter: http://www.house.gov/platts/pdfs/Spring2005_newsletter.pdf.

He describes Bush's "Proposals for Strengthening Social Security" followed by a section on "Voluntary Personal Retirement Accounts". (FC)

Great, I'll add that in. Sdedeo (tips) 03:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What about the "Professor Dr." thing? Seems a bit of overkill. The other professor Platts ran against is identified as a "college professor." Thanks for your help. (FC)

Only one tiny correction I see to be made which I didn’t notice until I scrolled through all changes. You incorrectly removed “offshore oil drilling” (you cited ANWR as reason). The two are actually different things. Off-shore drilling is drilling on the outer continental shelf (Gulf of Mexico) and ANWR is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (on land). There is a moratorium on off-shore oil drilling, and I know there was a failed attempt in the House within the last month to lift that moratorium in the Interior appropriations bill. It appears that Congressman Platts voted to retain the moratorium by voting against this amendment (see H.AMDT.842 to H.R.5386). Beyond that I am fine with article. As far as SSP, I just wanted verification as there was no vote I was aware of. Considering the history of edits to this article, I just wanted to be safe.--Nsb2119 05:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)