Talk:Gary Peters (Michigan politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.


I don't have a problem with this page being marked as a NPOV dispute, but I think that it should only be limited to the section in question. Also, I believe that all information relevant to that controversy be kept in that section.


Contents

[edit] Unknown person/edits?

I don't know who is providing discussion and editing this article when they don't identify themselves and it's clear they are bias in selecting which sources to use. I am resorting the article to the when the disputed entry came about.

I think we have to ensure all sides are represented.

64.7.188.229 21:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source Use - Central Michigan Controversy

As someone who does a lot of editing of politician pages (and the creator of this page), I am a little concerned with the use of sources in this article, particularly in the "Central Michigan Controversy." According to WP:RS "reliabe sources" are considered soures that have editorial oversight and are in line with NPOV. Now, a number of sources cited on this page are from the Central Monitor, which is a blog associated with the Young Americans For Freedom, which is an avowedly conservative group, and a group that plays a role in this matter. While there are exceptions for the use of blogs in the case of revealing or clearly speculative matters, the facts that are sourced from these websites are things such as the terms of Peters' contracts as well as the official line of the University. It is my opinion that this article should stick to information that has already been published in reliable places.

In the interest of full disclosure on pertinent matters, I believe it is appropriate, for now, for there to be information included on the Central Michigan controversy. I also think, however, it is important to include the full story. If you read the articles cited from the Midland Daily News, it is quite clear that neither the Central Michigan administration nor the Board of Trustees sees Peter's adjunct appointment for the endowment job to be an issue. If this controversy is relevant it should not be a problem to include the Central Michigan line, as well as the opinion of anyone else directly invovled. Michiganpolitics 14:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't just revert back to your content without some sort of agreement or intervention or consensus amongst other Wikipedia editors. This article has been flagged, and you keep deleting key information.

Can you explain what you dispute with The Central Monitor? I don't see any of their information disputed, and they actually had an exclusive interview with Gary Peters. If he spoke to them, I would the source is more than qualified to be cited. It is a campus newspaper.

Additionally, you are getting facts wrong. It isn't just a campus conservative group. I have come across dozens of letter from taxpayers and students sent to Central Michigan University over this controversy. You can't minimize what's out there.

64.7.187.240 18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Central Monitor

The Central Monitor is "the conservative voice of Central Michigan" as proclaimed by the front header, and extensivley covers the activities of YAF, which is an avowedly and unabashedly conservative group. I have no problem with information regarding the controversy being in the article, but please stick to NPOV sources. It is simply policy. Michiganpolitics 23:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That argument is absurd. I read the student conservative newspaper, it's credible -- Gary Peters even gave them an exclusive interview when CMU hired him in April. He obviously thought they were a credible NPOV. The New York Times is liberal, the Washington Times is conservative, do we not use them?

64.7.188.122 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the Central Monitor is not NPOV

You're right to point out that the New York Times and the Washington Times are two edited, respected, credible newspapers that have an editorial staff that can be characterized as liberal and conservative, respectivley. The difference between these two newspapers and a blog that is run by the Young Americans for Freedom Central Michigan is that there is a mechanism for fact-checking and editorial oversight at the newspapers. From WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Also, "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view."

And finally, "Material available solely on partisan (emphasis added) websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article"

I don't mean to be petty about this, but as someone who takes bio articles about politicians very seroiusly (and who has edited/created many) I have a strong commitment to keeping this page NPOV as possible.Michiganpolitics 19:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As an editor of articles on politicians for almost four years now, I think that this is a difficult case, but at this point it is fine to have this blog as a source in the article because the events directly involve those who work on the blog, and the fact that the subject agreed to be interviewed by them shows that it has some credability, though I do not agree with their politics. Academic Challenger 18:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Responding to michiganpolitics:

1) I look at The Central Monitor and I see a conservative student newspaper at Central Michigan University. It appears to have reporters, editors and other staff. Its articles seem to be fair-and-balanced, and I don't actually see you disputing anything that they have reported. What on The Central Monitor is false?

2) Last time I checked, The Central Monitor nor Young Americans for Freedom is partisan. There is a difference between being partisan and conservative or liberal -- partisan is legally defined as Republican, Democrat, etc and not an ideology. Additionally, the "obscure newspaper" justification is interesting, but would that include the dozens of other student newspapers used as sources on Wikipedia? I don't think they're particularly well-know, nor is the Midland Daily News which you have included as a source.

It seems to me that you have a bias against the inclusion of material that is accurate and might come from a conservative point of view. And as Academic Challenger said, Gary Peters -- the subject of this article on Wikipedia -- did give his consent and was interviewed by one of the sources in question. If it is bias and untrustworthy, he certainly would not have given them an interview. 64.7.187.105 20:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)