Talk:Jon Porter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Jon Porter 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."

[edit] RfC: POV of positions

How should this section be titled? Qqqqqq (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the question refers to his positions that the "Democrat" (sic) party lists. IMO the way his positions are listed are not done in a neutral way, and I will try to fix that when I get a chance. Something along the lines of "political positions" or similar would be better.Ngchen (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion there is no way to make the section neutral. Using a voting record does not show a politicians belief. There is no way to know why he voted one way or another. There could have been amendments or other language that prevented or supported voting. Anyway, the section should be left out all together. Let readers do their own research on sites that allow bias opinion. Lets stick to the facts. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Section titled "Stance on issues and voting record" exhibits obvious political bias and should be deleted until there is consensus. A quick read suggests no other problems. Raggz (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Some suggestions for resolving the problems with the "Stance on issues and voting record" Section:

  • The section should stay in some form; the current name for it does not exhibit bias and similar sections are found on other congressmen's pages. This is because other than a person's biographical/educational information, the political positions of a person who is notable enough to be in Wikipedia because they are a member of Congress are probably some of the most important pieces of information a person looking up their bio will be curious about.
  • Posting scores from different organizations (like the AFL-CIO) but without biased commentary, similar to Jim Costa, seems like a more factual summary of record.
  • Naming the issue subsections in a less biased way (such as Minimum Wage instead of Opposed Minimum Wage Increases) will help neutrality and also more easily allow for additional information to be added in the future.
  • Adding a "Controversy" section may allow the section on the issues to be more neutral.

Douglasmcmahon (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Douglasmcmahon on all counts, especially the second last one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that the comment I made may breach Wikipedia rules so in the interests of full disclosure I should explain how it came about. I am a Harvard Law student taking a class in Cyberlaw. One of the assignments that we were given was to enter into a debate where there had been a request for comment or the like and try to help to resolve it. As we were asked to do this in groups my comment above actually represents a consensus opinion amongst 6 people where the consensus was reached on another wiki. I won't delete the comment as I genuinely believe it to be helpful but an administrator may wish to consider its place. Also it should be noted the group hasn't made any edits to any other discussion pages on this issue. The dispute that led to this comment is located here Douglasmcmahon (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Positions

I would like too see those 'positions' removed, or allow myself, a Republican, to create a section entitled 'Republican Rebuttle'. Please let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.141 (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your IP address shows you're from the House of Representatives. You obviously have a conflict of interest, and should have no part in this article. You will not manipulate this page to your liking. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the guy from the HOR, it shouldn't matter where he is from, for all you know he works in a Democrat office. Remove those biased words, immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.119.157 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I will not. Feel free to 'report' me for not wanting this article to be manipulated by a known vandal IP. I'm sure that will go over well, if you know how to tell just the right lie. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


I think this page has a LOT of bias in its opinion stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.181.71 (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


I originally raised the question about this page (although I didn't do it correctly and a long time wiki contributor made the actual bias question noted above).

I moved to the congressman's district and was trying to find out about him. I found this page. I was immediately struck by the fact that (although the votes may be accurate) this section is not a “belief” or “positions” section. most people don’t proclaim their beliefs as being against something or opposed to something. we don’t think of our positions as negative. only those who disagree with us tend to do that. as such, it seems clear to me that these are “position” from the congressman’s opponents view point. so they are others views and not this congressman’s positions. I think anyone who is truly being objective would agree.

as for the issue of someone from the IP of the U.S. Congress not being having a valid point of view to make changes or contribute. I can’t comment since I am not sure what rules exist in that area. it would seem like that could be problematic. however, I can’t see anyone from congress contributing anything more biased that this section is.

when a section is titled “beliefs and positions”, I can’t see how anyone but the person being described could accurately state them (unless they were taken from some other documents that the person contributed to themselves ie. an autobiography or position paper or campaign literature, etc.).

as a result, I think the only way to correctly deal with this issue is to do one of the following:

1) allow republicans or this congressman to express an alternate set of positions. 2) do as I tried to do, label this section as democrat or opposition views 3) delete the entire section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm61LV (talk • contribs) 03:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate use of the neutrality tag. To allow beliefs from a Republican point of view is not neutral. It looks like the references for that section all come from the Las Vegas Review Journal or OntheIssues.org--IronAngelAlice (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
All of the stances and beliefs are properly referenced and appear to clearly have a neutral point of view. This edit of yours that was a blatant attempt to completely remove all referenced facts is completely inappropriate. I'm supposed to assume good faith on your intentions, but with all the new accounts that suddenly pop up in an attempt to censor referenced and documented stances and facts joining together with an IP from the House of Representatives, I refuse to feign ignorance. As for your proposed actions, #1 is acceptable if the stances are properly referenced with a neutral point of view and not from a blatant Single-purpose account from the House of Representatives. #2 would be a suggestion to change the label to a deliberate, gross misinterpretation. #3 is unacceptable and only further justifies the notion that you are another account from the House. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)