Talk:Gregory Creswell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--Redandready (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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]
Michigan Gregory Creswell is part of WikiProject Michigan, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Michigan.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.


The tag disputes neutrality, but gives no reason for the dispute. There is no ongoing debate. I will remove this tag. Please Read:

"Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic."

--Redandready 15:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, it was probably the wrong tag to place. However, the opening sentence alone is far from neutral i.e. raised the bar for minor party gubernatorial candidates reads as far from neutral. I would NPOV the article but I know too little about the subject. Maybe there's a WikiProject who could contribute. I will have a search. CIreland 16:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Michigan. CIreland 16:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] POV issues

I would agree that this has some pretty serious POV/verifiablity issues. I'll start with just the intro:

  • "raised the bar for minor party gubernatorial candidates" - no source for that very POV statement.
  • "instrumental in the passage of a ballot initiative that was opposed by the political establishment" gives the website of One United Michigan as a source, a group created solely to oppose the MCRI, hardly the "political establishment". Also, if anyone was "instrumental", it would be Jennifer Gratz, the executive director of the MCRI.
  • "measure passed, by a landslide" - 58% to 42% is a landslide? [1]
  • "in spite of being opposed by his rivals" - That's what rivals usually do, making this unnecessary POV fluff.
  • "Two of his rivals, Governor Jennifer Granholm and Dick Devos spent millions on their campaigns to defeat Creswell" - Mainly they were tring to defeat each other; Granholm being a Democrat, DeVos being a Republican, and Creswell being a Libertarian.
  • "defeated by Granholm, Creswell placed third" - with .6% of the popular vote. [2]
  • "Only six other African-Americans sought the office of Governor or U.S. Senate in 2006." Actually the source says: "six African-Americans hold major-party nominations this year for senator and governor" that only includes Republicans and Democrats, not Creswell's Libertarian party. Neither source for that sentence even mentions Creswell.

--Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] response to points made on POV issues

  • The users use of the phrase "raise the bar." seems in line with the wikipedian idea of boldness, and the need to assert the significance of the topic to the subject matter, if it is supported. Later in the article statements are made to support this, such as greater spending on advertising, and moving a core issue forward. However, other wording could be used since, "Raise the bar." appears to be most controversial.
  • Anyone who is familiar with one United Michigan knows that it's member organizations and supporters are from a broad base of mainstream politicians and major party candidates. This does comprise the "political establishment." However since "establishment" can be regarded as a pajorative, perhaps a more descriptive phrase is in order.
  • The point here is the weight his rivals held as public spokes-people: Especially a Governor and a very wealthy businessman. The measure is what was opposed by his political rivals. I think that's the writers point. not the trivial fact that the candidate was opposed by other candidates.
  • 0.6% is a correct number as the citation shows. This is higher than the other candidates. However, this introductory statement is only positioning him in relation to other candidates. The percentages should be in the section on the 2006 election, about which there is also an entire article.
  • The indication that the other six were major party candidates, and that the other sources didn't include him neither negates the fact that he is an African-American running for governor, nor that the other six were African-Americans seeking senate or governor. In otherwords, this point does not refute the articles assertion. Mention of the major party status of the other six could be included though.
  • --Redandready 18:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edited for NPOV

I have edited this article for NPOV, based on the discussion. So I removed the tag. The author may choose to reverse these changes, but they should be viewed as helpful. If the changes are reversed, then the NPOV issue may come up again.--Redandready 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I missed a few spots on the first edit. No more "raising the bar" Gratz and Connerly noted in section on advertising.--Redandready 19:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Originator's comments on NPOV

I wrote this article in the spirit of maintaining a neutral point of view. I don't think these changes were necessary, but if it prevents the appearance of bias, and spares us from an editing war, I will leave it alone. The essential content of the article appears intact. The readability and flow seem affected. I will work on my phrasing to enhance clarity and readability.--Libertyguy 21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikify Tag

The placement of external links is consistent with footnotes or references, they need to have that format.--Redandready 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK good point, I was planning on fixing that anyway. I wrote a few articles, in which I used external links that way. I already found "Wikify" tags on them, and have started fixing them. This was next on the list.

--Libertyguy 21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Return of the Check For POV Template

A requirement of replacing this template is to give reasons, or to identify unresolved issues on this talk page. Nothing new, to that effect, has been placed here. I will leave it to see if the editor placing it there is still working on a comment. I will remove it if none appears. --Libertyguy 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Done Waiting Unsupported Tag removed

No one takes that long to key-in why they placed a tag. This is not appropriate. POV tags must be based on a specific concern, or pointing out a specific unresolved issue. They are not to be placed on articles because one "somehow thinks there is bias." The announcement on the Michigan Political project page was about the first resolved posting, not this latest one.--Libertyguy 04:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New NPOV tag

Since Libertyguy and Redandready insist that previous discussions aren't enough and have removed various POV tags placed by three edits in the last week, I'll leave a new note here. I've done a lot of reference formatting, verifying and general editing for tone, but the vast majority of this article still reads like a campaign brochure. There is a definite point trying to be made, specifically that the Libertarian Party is the "third" party after the Dems & GOP, that is being done by stringing together citations. Creswell's website showed up far too often as a citation, and not even specific pages but just the general intro page. Many of the citations didn't support the general point being made, but rather some trivial aspect of the sentence they're attached to. That should be enough to start. 24.4.253.249 09:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is unsigned

Thank you for including a comment with the tag, but identify yourself.

  • Stating that the Libertarian candidate placed third, and that there were characteristics of the campaign that stood out don’t violate NPOV any more than discussing the fact that the Republican ranked second, and mentioning the notable features of his campaign violate NPOV. Infact using different criteria for different parties shows bias.
  • Citing pages created by the campaign as evidence of the campaigns opinion on issues is appropriate as citing a primary source on a candidates position.
  • Positions and advertising tactics are not trivial points but rather one of the things that make a campaign notable.
  • Creswell is not a candidate, so there would be no point trying to make this read like a campaign brochure if that was my intent. It is not.--Libertyguy 12:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no obligation for anonymous editors to identify themselves. Editors are encouraged to create accounts, but it is in no way required. The comments from 24.4.253.249 are not unsigned and the points raised are quite valid. The article read like a promotional advertorial, and not a balanced encyclopedic article. older ≠ wiser 12:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
So noted. I will take this into consideration. I appreciate your interest in this concern.--Libertyguy 13:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
From the official policy on No original research; "An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following... #6. It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." This is EXACTLY what the attempt to show the Libertarian party as the third is doing by stringing together various campaign finance statements. Taken individually the facts are correct, but the synthesis of them into "Creswell places third in money, votes and expenditures" is what violates policy. 24.4.253.249 17:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I did not see the verbiage, "Creswell places third in money, votes and expenditures" in any of the edits of this page. Since it is not there now, I must assume you have already made an edit to remove it. But your interpretation of the "original research" clause is absurd. A summary of numerical data into a statement like "greater than," "equal to," or "less than," "second," or "third." is not original research. Granted if I was reaching a conclusion that was in any way controversial from those numbers, such as "Creswell is the third most popular man in Michigan." Objections would be in order on a number of levels. The statement that he received the "third most votes" or "placed third" is a non-controversial, self-evident restatement of the data. Do you disagree? Can anyone (without saying so just to be perverse) disagree that if exactly two candidates got more votes, and all others got less, that he had the third most votes? If it is necessary to cite a source that actually uses the word, "third" then I suppose you could simply say a citation is needed, but don't think this rule was intended to address such trivial minutia.--Libertyguy 18:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
My concerns are discussed at WP:SYN. 24.4.253.249 16:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove POV-Dispute. Replace with POV-Section if Applicable

This article has been heavily edited by a few different editors. If the overall neutrality of the article is in dispute, then it seems to fall back to the first section. Otherwise, a section by section approach would be more appropriate. I see the word "third" is still there, but I hope we are above debating whether or not original research is required to place third between second and fourth. --Libertyguy 20:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikify Template Removed

Edits made by others and myself sufficient to deem the article wikified. --Libertyguy 20:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More problems

There are some serious problems with some entire sections of this article. Large portions of this article seem to be almost directly copied from here which is not only copyrighted but also written by Creswell or representatives of his campaign. This includes the "Racial preferences" and "Civil liberties" sections. The "Economy" section is from here, as is that massive quote in "Prisons and non-violent crime" which should at least be shortened if not completely reworded to avoid overusing quotes. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please help me better understand your objection:
  • Is the objection simply that the unquoted text too closely resembles the text in the source, and that too much is quoted from the source? If so, I have no problem cleaning this up. Otherwise, note the next two points.
  • It seems to me that the most reliable reference, pertaining to a candidates views, are statements directly attributable to the candidate, so long as there is a verifiable reference. So I don’t see this as an objection. Anything written about what the candidate says, second hand, therefore is less reliable.
  • Also, copyrighted sources are frequently cited in Wikipedia articles. What is wrong with that so long as attribution is given?

--Libertyguy 17:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My problem is the way it is being used. It is presented almost in Creswell's exact words as he gave them to a website that he used to promote his campaign. The point of this article is to present the facts about Creswell, not serve as an archive of campaign literature. It needs to be reworded and reduced in a more neutral tone or formatted as quotes. Except for a few words that were changed to make it third-person past instead of first-person present, it is directly copied. Just because a source is given does not mean it isn't a copyright violation. It is not presented as a quote but as the author's own words. Also, the amount of space given to his platform seems to be a little much. If one looks at the pages of some other politicians, their articles focus much more on things that they did before, after, and during elections rather than what they believed in. If it is reworded and reduced (which would be best), unnecessary embellishments, clearly POV statements, and improbable idealistic statements need to be removed/reworded such as:
  • "According to Creswell ... However, he argued ... argued Creswell" It is not necessary for every sentence to contain things like that. The section is about his platform, so all of it is clearly his opinion.
  • "Creswell expressed the belief that people should be free to engage in any peaceful and honest activity." This is just way too vague and idealistic for an encyclopedia.
  • "To that end we support" - That's what tipped me off that this was copied from a non-neutral source.
  • "He links this with fiscal responsibility" - He links rights for gay couples, medical marijuana, and the right to keep and bear arms with a free-market economy? How?
  • "burdensome regulations" - Just "regulations" or more toned-down "excessive regulations"
  • "He strongly opposed" - Just "He opposed" will get the point across.
  • "He unapologetically supported" - Likewise, just "he supported".

--Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't forget the most damning bit of all, "To that end we support strong protection of..." Pretty clear evidence that the article is being used, intentionally or not, as a vehicle to promote the viewpoint and platform of Creswell and the Libertarian Party. 24.4.253.249 17:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Good catch! That was in quotes, which must have been removed in one of the edits. Certainly he was promoting his party when he said it. It put the quotes back for now. I will re-write this section if someone else doesn't first.--Libertyguy 22:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct tag placement

This discussion has shifted to a dispute over a few subsections of the 2006 gubernatorial campaign section.  The neutrality of this article isnt disputed per se.  Im changing the tags to in accordance with this. --Redandready 15:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I separated out the gubernatorial run info from the issues/positions stuff and tagged the latter for tone; personally, I'm not sure it should exist, but if it does it needs to be rewritten. I've modified the tags further by removing the POV one and adding a {{syn}} to the appropriate line; that's really the only POV that might still be in the reduced section on the 2006 campaign. 24.6.65.83 05:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I have rewritten the racial preference paragraph with a greater attention to tone. I identified his positions, but removed descriptions of his arguments for them.--Libertyguy 08:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Much better. Side question: do you have any idea why Liberarian party of MI appears to have two websites? I don't think it's necessary to have two references for the platform but I have no idea which one should be used, or if it even matters. 24.6.65.83 08:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Now that I know what you mean by changing the “tone,” I will work on the civil liberty, economics, and law-enforcement subsections.
As for platform links. All other things being equal, isn’t it better to have two references for the same information than just one?
...and website issues: It looks like the “michiganlp.org” site is much more recent than the “mi.lp.org” (or it’s perfect clone “lpmich.org”) site. For instance, the “mi.lp.org” has issues of their online newsletter dating back to 1998 [3] . The “michiganlp.org” site only has some of the more recent newsletters.[4]. My best guess is that they are in transition from the former to the later.--Libertyguy 16:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tone of the "Position on issues" section

The tone and style of the "Position on issues" section has been revised. Perhaps the associated tag can be removed.--Libertyguy 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Overall, I think it's a much better article now than a few days ago - thanks for participating. 24.6.65.83 04:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rating

I have given this article a "B" rating as is consistent with the rating given by the Wikiproject Michigan. It has been through an extensive editing process to clear up POV issues, and to wikify it. It is arguably eligible for a GA rating, but I wish to give this further consideration before nominating it in the "Good Article" review process.--Redandready (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)