Talk:Pete McCloskey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
 |
Pete McCloskey 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." |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
Ron Kovic claims McCloskey gave him the passes that let him and other memebrs of the VVAW get into the RNC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs) .
--- An edit I made was retracted by another user as being a violation of the NPOV policy. That's not the case. The current article reads as if the quote taken from the IHR conference was entirely wrong and somehow substantively changed the reason why this is a controversy. I will make the edit again. If it is removed, I will ask that we get someone to help mediate this NPOV dispute, and failing that, look into wikipedia arbitration for this.
Finally, I'd like to note that this is actually a peculiar example of NPOV being raised in a systematic and decidedly non-neutral way. The same person is, with bias, policing the CNI link: first truncating any elaboration on CNI's relationship with the controversy in that entry with a "see McCloskey" remark (while removing pertinent material in CNI's entry about the organization's response to this incident), and then deleting material under the McCloskey entry. i.e.: First "this is better handled under McCloskey" and then deleting material here.
This is the first time I've done editing on these pages, and I was rather amazed at: 1. How quickly the user responded, and 2. How prolific the user has been in removing material in these entries. I would like to mediate this to see if we can come to a mutual agreement on a full account of why this has been a controversy and so that readers of these entries can get as full and non-biased (as possible) text. But, i'll frankly say this looks like a textbook case of an organization having someone police their wikipedia publicity, and I'll opt for arbitration if it appears that the interest in seeing a full and accurate entry isn't a shared motive. p.s. I'll go ahead and register a wikipedia user name to help with tracking this discussion and dispute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.157.18 (talk • contribs) .
What you call "elaboration" is baldfaced violation of WP policy, as you should know if you'd read the documentation I'd linked for you. You inserted "CNI did not, at the time of McCloskey's speech, nor at any point later (while McCloskey served on the CNI board), distance itself from its founder and board member's decision to be the keynote speaker for the Holocaust denial group." That violates WP:OR. What if CNI did distance itself in some newspaper article that you happened to miss? Even if you say you have done careful enough research to announce with certainty that CNI never distanced itself from the IHR speech, why should Wikipedians believe YOU? Next time you add such statements, make sure you have reliable sources for them. Please keep your personal opinions out of the articles and keep your ad hominem attacks out of the talk pages. You'll be well advised to familiarize yourself with WP policy before further editing. Precis 23:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
---
IHR posts their statements as a matter of public record. There has been none distancing themselves from the McCloskey's actions. Public critiques of a lack of these are quite prolific and widely available. It's clear form the record of both this and CNI's entry that you are regularly policing and omitting material relevant to the controversy of both CNI and McCloskey which complies with NPOV standards, while at the same time authoring material that gives false impressions in its summaries and omissions.
If this isn't going to evolve into a back and forth of editing "war" -- and I have no interest in seeing wikipedia abused in that way--than this is going to require some outside dispute resolution, which exists within WIki. You're abuse of this resource needs to end. I'll start looking into options for that. I suspect that, what will surface, is a campaign not unlike Wikipedia saw with hill staffers "policing" the entry of the congress people they served. Wikipedia's processes for this ultimately did a wonderful job of outing them, and I suspect and look forward to what I imagine will be a parallel situaiton here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.157.18 (talk • contribs) .
Keep your unsourced opinions out of Wikipedia. If available sources are prolific and widely available, then pray tell, why aren't you using them? Precis 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Succession
The succession dates are wrong. Leo Ryan succeeded him in the 11th district in 1973, while McCloskey served in two other district numbers until he left office in 1983. 161.185.150.122 (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pete McCloskey.jpg
Image:Pete McCloskey.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
