Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:50, 11 May 2009

Template:Banner

Personal Opinions

Personal opinions of people highlighted in these biographies should not be put into the article. I believe personal opinions (especially those that are not supported by fact) can be stated in this Discussion area. Articles are supposed to be objective, and including personal opinions renders the articles subjective, and people will be less willing to use Misplaced Pages as an authoratative source.

2006 House Page Scandal

I reverted this, and then self-reverted back when I saw Cantor's name, but then I followed the source to the AP article and it does not support the statement that Cantor was aware of this? We need to be very careful here to not violate WP:BLP. We need a source for this... --plange 05:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Repition that Cantor is Jewish

There is no reason to have both these sentences exist in this article: (1) Cantor is the currently the only Jewish Republican in the U.S. House. (1st paragraph) AND (2) Cantor is the sole Jewish Republican in the House. (4th paragraph) Infernallek 07:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Steve Cohen, D-Tennessee, is also Jewish and won the seat previously held by Harold Ford, Jr.

Therefore, these two redundent sentences would ONLY be true today if stated in the past tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.187.249 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, a senior moment. Please disregard my stupidity for the post of 03/02/09

Recent vandalism

Some people seem to be very irked by how this man blamed Pelosi for the republican vote against the bailout, and are taking out their (justified?) frustration on this article. Hopefully the attacks will die down after a day or so. I doubt it will continue past that, but if it does, we might want to consider semi-protection. BlastYoBoots (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Marriage

I'm not sure why the year of his marriage is 1999 - the cited source says 1989. (The article got reverted when I corrected it.) - 24.183.28.227 (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the "flavorless" food cooked at home by the rep's mother is relevant for his wiki. Changed section to take out irrelevant elements. Nhbunzl (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Subtle neutrality issue

With regards to the passages describing Cantor's statements regarding Pelosi and in response to Obama, the writing seems to be almost championing what he said. Fifty7 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism about Cantor's stance about the American Recovery and ReInvestment act

Some have removed lines regarding the partisan tone Rep. Cantor struck. While the inclusion of this line may seem Anti-Cantor-ish, this sentiment has been agreed upon by everyone, including Cantor himself. He has proudly stated (including on videos on his own site) that he is happy that he had nothing to do with the bill. Including this in the article is important as it is a watershed moment in Cantor's career (when Cantor runs for President, everyone will be pointing to this moment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.18.98 (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As categorized as sneaky vandalism, removed arguments that were cited to opinion pieces, not factual articles. These inclusions of plausible misinformation have been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.182.183 (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. However, those opinion articles were being used for the facts in those articles and not the opinions expressed. Additionally, Cantor's attitude toward this bill (i.e. vehemently opposing it) is an important historical moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.195.229 (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, there is vandalism occurring with regard to the language (i.e. calling the bill the "Democrat's spending bill"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.209.220 (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Position on Israel

Removed the statement regarding Cantor's response to an interview of then-Presidential hopeful Obama. The section included sound bytes from Obama's interview, thus being slanted toward Cantor's position. It is unimportant to the article, as Cantor's position on Israel has already been stated and because the article already mentions that he is worried about President Obama's approach to Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.18.98 (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody from 173.54.18.98, continues to remove the (referenced with citations) account of Cantor's view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Their explanation is that it is redundant or slanted toward Cantor. Those claims are not true. First, it is not redundant. Most people, including Barack Obama, find the conflict to be at the very least unfortunate, and agree that the lack of resolution makes foreign policy in the Middle East more complicated. But Cantor strongly disagreed with Obama's comment to that effect and thinks that the conflict or it's lack of resolution is a symbol of America's greatness. This view has not been mentioned elsewhere in the article and therefore is not redundant. Likewise, it could reasonably be considered a radical view to hold, and simply pointing out that he holds this view cannot be considered "slanted" toward Cantor's position. I'm not aware of many other poeple who think that conflict is a good thing. So 173.54.18.98 you need to justify your continued removal of that paragraph, which is written from NPOV. 71.232.20.61 (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

To say that it is from a neutral point of view is simply not true. If one reads the interview with President Obama, one can see that quoting him the way Cantor quoting him is chopping up Obama's words in an attempt to form a sound byte which makes Obama look anti-Israel. Additionally, the main point is that Cantor disagrees with Obama on Israel; there is no reason to put the political banter which was said by Cantor on the Misplaced Pages page. If that were the case, every article on a politician would be unreasonably long. Therefore, there is no reason to record the back-and-forth; there is only a need to state the main positions. This ensures that this article will remain to be written from a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.208.149 (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The portion of the article quoting Obama specifically does not misrepresent his words. Cantor may have tried to misrepresent Obama's word's in his press release, but so much the worse for Cantor. And there is reason to include this account in the article. Cantor is a politician and this incident conveys important information about his politics. Fears of a trend toward unreasonably long articles about politicians, not exactly an urgent constraint to begin with, simply do not warrant excluding the paragraph in question, which is brief, dense, referenced, and factual in style. 71.232.20.61 (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no argument that the paragraph in question is condensed and referenced. The issue, however, lies in the paragraphs importance. Cantor has had this sort of response to Obama (and other Democrats) on many issues. Additionally, while it may offer a perspective onto Cantor's politics, but it does not convey it an a neutral and fair way. Some may feel that it is slanted towards Cantor, others that it is slanted against him. Due to its lack of neutrality and no specific importance to the article as a whole, it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.208.149 (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How does the newest revision suit you? 71.232.20.61 (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this revision; I don't fully see the need for it to be included (it seems to be somewhat of a random quote), but it does contribute to a neutral perspective on Cantor and merely explains how he feels about the conflict. However, the statement was made, I think, in the context of the presidential campaign and was being used to make Obama look bad and the GOP look good. Most politicians think that a relationship with Israel is a positive thing. Therefore, the inclusion of the statement may make Cantor look good and others look bad. I have not removed the statement but I think a revision/removal should be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.196.214 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In order to keep an NPOV, I changed the statement that the conflict is seen by Cantor as a reminder to the greatness of America to the relationship with Israel. I personally am not a fan of Mr. Cantor, but having the sentence the way you have it is certainly not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.196.214 (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

POV reverts from IP

The IP address 98..... keeps removing the material about the 2008 VP selection, or clouding it up with nonsense POV. The material as it currently stands and well sourced, and follows proper wording guidelines to make it clear this is what an ANONYMOUS source has said, and is not official history. If you would like to add a Reliable Source that directly refutes the claims go ahead, but so far there has been none that I am aware of. TharsHammar and 02:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)