Talk:George Miller (politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California 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.
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.
George Miller (politician) 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."

Not clear to me why "Justforasecond" has decided to keep adding unverifiable claims and violating NPOV. I edited and added citations to clarify the previous section on "urban gambling"; those have now been removed and replaced by the clearly biased phrases like "an underhanded supporter of urban gambling" and "Miller turned his back on the Lytton's" [sic]. Can you explain why this and the Lytton Band website are full of these NPOV problems that aren't based on any references at all?

Just yesterday we saw reports of wiki-whitewashing of congresspeople's article coming out of the House of Representatives. Interesting that User:Caitlin0052 shows up THE VERY NEXT DAY, well-versed in wiki editing but never having edited before, and edits an article that is barely touched, immediately making POV edits and covering up Miller's sordid support for Casino San Pablo. Perhaps Caitlin0052 is not the newly minted, unbiased user she pretends to be.
Ask someone in Miller's district whether they know about his greenhearted environmentalism...you'll get blank stares. Ask about how Miller helped get a pardon for one of the OVER 200 court-martialed sailors involved in Port Chicago...you'll get a lot of "come again?"....but mention Miller and Casino San Pablo and more often than not, you'll hear about how Miller snuck an amendment into an APPROPRIATION (spending) bill that gave the Lyttons the right to turn a cardroom into their "reservation" and a CASINO. If you're wondering how that is that related to spending, you wouldn't be the only one. I wrote Miller an email about this very issue and got no response. In fact, Miller didn't change his tune until several major California politicians -- members of Miller's party, no less -- expressed their disgust for his actions.
Yet, User:Caitlin0052 demotes this most notorious of Miller's actions from a major section to just a blurb under the petty section called "Local Issues". Justforasecond 03:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you wrote an email to a Congressman about an issue, didn't get a response, then heavily edited a Wikipedia entry on that Congressman in order to highlight that issue... doesn't really refute the NPOV concerns. The fact remains that you're throwing around words like "sordid" without any citations. Miller has a widely available public biography, hence all the references I included.

In fact, I'm adding a POV-section flag, now that I've reread the page on disputes like this. User:Justforasecond's "own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious," and there's been no attempt on his/her part to demonstrate that this is anything other than a personal vendetta. More to the point, this is a bio of a living person, and User:Justforasecond seems to be flying in the face of most of those principles. I've been reading wikipedia for years, and I'm pretty sure that "ask[ing] someone in Miller's district" has never been a substitute for verifiability.

Please Caitlin, stick to facts. I have not inserted any information that came from "asking someone in Miller's district", neither did I insert the word "sordid". Now that we're done with these false allegations; on to POV, you might explain why you thought it worthwhile to de-emphasize Miller's support for urban gambling, placing it in the last section on the page, with a boring looking header labeled "Local topics". Miller's environmentalism? His district includes some of the largest polluters in the state, including a Chevron refinery that regulary has toxic releases. Seems POV to place this environmentalism in its own section, elevating it above the gaming issues. Justforasecond 17:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"covert propaganda"?
what's worse, the kind he's talking about, or the war pr contracts? Okthen 15:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

...huh? Justforasecond 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] welcome back!

Jfas--I hope you had a pleasant vacation. I deleted several sentences from the 'Urban gambling' section because I believe they go into detail that is already covered in the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians article in some depth. Also, 'widely derided and decried' is not encyclopedic, and linking to a news article that uses the word 'underhanded' but does not source it to any person isn't sufficient ground to place it here.

You should also be careful about throwing around accusations of 'censorship'--the rationale that User:MichalZ526 gave for editing the article was a valid one. drseudo (t) 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Thanks. I actually got back a while ago but steered clear of the Lyttons and Miller. "Underhanded" is legit. It wasn't too difficult to google up a reference for Miller described as underhanded (though Harris Miller comes up first). Justforasecond 13:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] indian gaming section

for people in miller's district and the surrounding area, the effect of casino san pablo is far more important than miller's recent trip to darfur. it is also commented on much more in the media. i'm sure miller would want the public to forget about these "underhanded" dealings, but wiki doesn't need to help out. --Justforasecond 19:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think Wikipedia is trying to help George Miller get the public to forget things? Are you trying to suggest that Indian gaming is more important than a mass genocide that is happening in Darfur? --Asbl 19:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I am not. Miller's *job* is to represent his constituents. He failed miserably, looking out for a special interest in a tactic decried by members of his own party(!) and laying the groundwork for a scuorge on a community already plagued by crime and drug addiction. Bringing attention to Darfur is great (though Miller is fairly late to jump on the bandwagon)....but in the context of George Miller, it isn't all that important. Justforasecond 20:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Absl can you show me the section of living persons policy that disallows the "underhanded" comment? Justforasecond 15:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
See the section Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This is poorly sourced, as the source does not say WHO called Miller underhanded. --Asbl 15:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I read "poorly sourced" as the publicition is not a good source, or we don't have the exact issue or article, etc. Justforasecond 15:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the source is not verifyable. If the source doesn't say who called Miller "underhanded", how can it possibly be verified? --Asbl 18:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable is about citations:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. (the chronicle is a reputable source)

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Justforasecond 18:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything you wrote. I am not debating whether the source provided is reputable (it may very well be). But when it comes to negative information about living people, the information in the reputable sources must be verifyable. Since the source did not indicate who exactly called Miller "underhanded", how can it possibly be verified? If you find a source which give more specification as to who called Miller "underhanded", it would be legitimate to add to the article.
You do not even have to name the individuals who called him "underhanded". For example, if some reputable source reference said something like "fellow members of Congress called him underhanded" could be legitimately included in the article as "according to XYZ, fellow members of Congress called him underhanded". Of course, if you have the names of the individual who called him underhanded, that would be the strongest verifyable piece of information.
On the other hand, if all you can find is something like "some constituents called him underhanded", then I would object, because every member of Congress has approximately 650,000 constituents, so it would not be possible to please everybody.
The source you cited doesn't even rise to the level of the two examples I gave above. It is therefore impossible to verify the claim that he has been criticized as "underhanded". --Asbl 18:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I see your point of view, but this meets the verifiable policy criteria. It also matches the sentiment in the area over the casino among those tuned into what transpired so it isn't as if this is an implausible statement. Justforasecond 18:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's only because he is a living person, that negative information must have a higher burden. --Asbl 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've asked around considerably. The info is legitimate, as it is published in a reliable source.[1] Justforasecond 02:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Underhanded'

Jfas, I'm not convinced by the 'discussion' to which you linked. To wit:

1. You failed to mention that the 'quote' in question is a derogatory statement about a living person. This context is nontrivial.

2. You conflate the distinction between 'anonymous quotes'--which take the form '"Blah blah blah," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of whatever,' and the curious case we have here, in which no attribution, anonymous or otherwise was made. (If that sentence had come across my desk as an editor, I would have sent it right back. But that's neither here nor there.)

3. Why the attachment to the word 'underhanded'? Ever since this guy (who is probably a sockpuppet of yours anyway) added the word here, you've been vigorously reverting anyone who tries to remove it, despite any rationales they have to offer. You've gone so far as to accuse those who remove the word of 'censorship'; this is not constructive.

I also would direct your attention to this diff, which shows the difference between the gambling paragraph as it stands now and the way it was five days ago, when jfas last edited it. Here's a hint: there is none. You have simply done a blind revert of the paragraph to 'your' version, despite the work done by User:Asbl in the meantime to shorten and clarify the paragraph. Please try to build towards consensus in the future, rather than reverting whole swaths of text because of a single editorial dispute. drseudo (t) 01:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at a consensus version of this paragraph. It includes 'underhanded,' which I'm not wild about, but it's fairly evenhanded. Let me know what you think. If you blindly revert the paragraph to 'your' version, though, I will be extremely unhappy. drseudo (t) 02:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith Drseudo. I did a lot of legwork to find out whether the underhanded quote was ok to be in here. Justforasecond 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
And for the reasons I stated above, your 'legwork' was not sufficient. Remember this?

The danger with trying to define it, JFAS, is that people will seek loopholes. Probably the only rule of thumb we should have, with negative material about BLPs, is "if in doubt about the source, remove the negative material." SlimVirgin (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, WP:AGF does not come into play here; you have a tendency to reflexively cite this policy whenever your edits are criticized, and it's unseemly. drseudo (t) 02:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Seudo, there is no question about the source for the quote. The source is a reputable newspaper. If you've followed the Casino/Miller situation you will have known that the overwhelming sentiment is that Miller's dealings were "underhanded". To write the article as if there was an equally large number of people that thought his moves were just politics as usual would mislead our readers. The issue has never been whether the episode was "politics" or not. It's whether a man that cloaks himself as a man that helps "the environment" used rather dispicable tactics to establish a casino that is a detriment to his own district. Justforasecond 04:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. drseudo (t) 15:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Haha. Agreed. So let's not try to portray Miller as an environmental crusader/helper of port chicago patriots. Justforasecond 22:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Not responsive. If you're attempting to turn this into an evenhanded, we're-all-equally-guilty shamefest, you should note that I've never laid a finger on the environment/Port Chicago sections. In contrast, the first time you got your hands on this article in November 2005, you added this:

Miller is an underhanded supporter of urban gambling. Until recently, gambling in California had been restricted to "cardrooms" in which the "house" or room operator has no stake in the outcome, and remote Indian reservations. Miller supports large casinos in urban areas that have the type of gambling associated with Las Vegas -- slot machines, blackjack and roulette.

In particular, he has supported Casino San Pablo, owned by the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians. In 2000 he inserted language into a Congressional appropriations bill that backdated the purchase of the casino's plot of land to put the sale before Congress' passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. This allowed allowing the Lyttons to bypass the normal regulatory approval process. The Lyttons evetually revealed their plans to build a casino the size of the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, with 5,000 slot machines.

Did you feel that this was NPOV then? Do you now? drseudo (t) 04:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Good investigative work! My opinion is that there are enough things to hash out in the present. Most of us closed the books on 2005 seven months ago. Justforasecond 04:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental issues

Is there a specific reason for this statement? "Millers [sic] district contains some of the worst polluters in the state, including a large Chevron refinery which has occasional releases of toxic gases."

This should be deleted unless it can be shown that Miller has somehow been responsible for the releases. In addition, there are several refineries in his district; is the Chevron refinery really the worst of them, and are there not other polluters elsewhere in California?

Justforasecond is responsible for that line, as you might have guessed. It's kind of a non sequitur--I am removing it. drseudo (t) 03:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)