Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:23, 31 January 2010

Biography: Politics and Government C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

U.S. Congress C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

United States: North Carolina Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina.

External link

The external link contains some interesting propaganda. The page on MediaMonitors is a blatant attack on Bill Frist (which has little relevance to this article). Burr's exploitation of the autistic community is mentioned in the MediaMonitors page in passing, but Burr isn't the main topic of that page and his involvement in mercury-related drugs and political fallout thereof isn't mentioned in the Misplaced Pages article at all. Someone needs to find a more neutral POV article to be used as background about the drug law (and perhaps incorporate some of his views on the topic into the wikipedia article).--24.211.160.85 01:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)d

Miscellaneous

Supposedly, at Reynolds, Burr was known as "the Flying Cheetah" by his classmates. Burr denies this statement. His spokesman, Doug Heye, told the Raleigh News & Observer, "He has no idea where that nickname came from in the bio."

This information was contributed by an internet user with the IP 67.151.54.133, possibly someone at the United Talent Agency.

 Search results for: 67.151.54.133

   PaeTec Communications, Inc. PAETECCOMM (NET-67-151-0-0-1) 
                                     67.151.0.0 - 67.151.255.255
   UNITED TALENT AGENCY PAET-AN-UNITE-1 (NET-67-151-54-128-1) 
                                     67.151.54.128 - 67.151.54.159

   # ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2006-02-02 19:10
   # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanimum (talk • contribs) 15:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why this error, that Richard Burr is said to be descended from Aaron Burr, when he is descended from the brother of Aaron Burr is included in both this bio and the bio of Aaron Burr is of little concern. The real concern is the fact that such false information could stay for long online. Here is a source: http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200409220840.asp Isn't it time for Misplaced Pages to clean up its mistakes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.82.116 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Environment

I've excised the recent addition:

"By voting against the environmental position on every vote tracked by Environment America, Burr and 25 other senators were characterized as "natural disasters" by that federation of environmental groups. Among those was a vote against a bill to provide legal protections to two million acres of federal lands in nine states, which passed. "

This strikes me as POV, even if it's based on a cited source; the "natural disasters" phrase particularly so. Moreover, since one-quarter of the Senate is given that epithet, it doesn't seem to indicate that Burr's positions on environmental issues are particularly extreme relative to the body as a whole.

--Ammodramus (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like it might have been more diplomatic to improve it rather than excise it, and the reference, but no sweat. The edit wasn't POV; that was the way the source described those who voted entirely against the environmental positions, "natural disasters." Those who voted entirely for the environmental positions were deemed "champions." It may seem like sharp language to you, but sources don't need to be POV, only the text inserted by Misplaced Pages editors, and the above text is an accurate, non-handpicked, NPOV description of Environment America's report. Since you find the tone too sharp though, I've no problem with working together and rephrasing the section. DanielM (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my edit was undiplomatic. Had I but world enough and time, I'd have set to work improving the article. However, this would've entailed rewriting the whole "Political positions" section.

It's true that we can quote a cited source without violating NPOV, even if that source uses inflammatory language. However, using a single such source and no other is a violation of the NPOV spirit, if not of the letter.

I think this is especially true in this case. Environment America's metric doesn't seem very sensitive to nuance. When I looked at their 2008 ratings posted at Project Vote Smart, I found that of the 84 senators whom they rated, 19 received grades of zero and 31 received grades of 100. They divide Congress into sheep and goats, but they don't make much of an effort to measure degrees of sheep- and goathood. If we're going to describe Burr's position on the environment, I think it'd be much better to give a more general summary of his ratings by a number of groups (available through Vote Smart).

I question, however, whether it's desirable to describe Burr's environmental record in the article. I don't get the impression that the environment is one of his signature issues; and I think his position could be predicted with some accuracy from the simple knowledge that he's a conservative Republican.

This, I think, is a problem with a lot of WP articles on politicians. The sections on their positions and voting records are assembled a bit at a time by many editors, each of whom comes in and inserts a sentence or a section about an issue of particular concern to him. There's no structure and no attempt to give a coherent overall picture of the pol's positions.

I'd like to suggest the approach I took in rewriting Bill_Nelson#Political_actions_and_positions. (Admittedly, Nelson was easy: he hasn't been the most active or controversial of senators.) Describe the guy's stand in general terms, using his own literature, the general liberal/conservative ratings from Vote Smart (e.g. National Journal, ADA, Eagle Forum, Club For Growth), and his record of voting with his party's majority (available through a WaPo website). Describe his signature issues (e.g. tobacco for Burr), and the ways in which he deviates from the positions you'd expect him to hold given his left-right position and party affiliation. There's no real need to say that a liberal Democrat voted for the Ledbetter law, or that a conservative Republican voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act: it's what you'd expect them to do from the general description.

I go into this proposed structure in considerable more detail at Talk:Bill_Nelson#Major_rewrite_of_section; but I've been verbose enough already, and won't lengthen this diatribe even more by pasting it in here.

--Ammodramus (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean about absence of coherence among articles in a like group such as senators, Ammodramus, but I don't see it as a problem. There's a chaotic element to any Misplaced Pages article because any editor can come in and add what he or she chooses, as long as it comports with the rules. Absent some overarching effort by a group of editors, one is unlikely to find standardization among all articles about U.S. Senators, or any other like group. As well, I for one don't think standardization would be desirable. The diverse character and uniqueness among entries is a strength. Though it may offend some individuals' sense of order, I don't think it's a problem. It's the nature of Misplaced Pages. As for your other comments... I disagree that a conservative can be expected to vote against the environmental position every time or most of the time, and thus it's not worth mentioning in the article. There are conservatives with strong environmental credentials, such as Gov. Douglas of Vermont. I did not know that Sen. Burr's record was what it is until I viewed the EA report. The environment is an important matter, and coverage of a voting record on the environment is warranted, though perhaps not mandated, in the article for any senator or congressperson. DanielM (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Indisputably, environmental issues are important, and there are situations in which a politician's positions on them should be described. However, I don't regard this as such a situation.

Project Vote Smart, in their section on interest-group ratings for congressmen, divides them into 37 categories, of which "Environmental Issues" is one. It seems reasonable to assume that every one of these 37 issue categories is considered important by a large number of people. By the "X is an important issue" argument, then, we should have at least 37 paragraphs in the political-positions section of every congressman's article. This would be cumbersome, to say the least.

Our duty to the readers is to convey lots of information in an economical way. We can't do that by presenting them with an immense heap of data containing every fact that every editor considers important.

The logical approach is a genus-et-differentia one. If we describe the pol's position in a general right-left liberal-conservative Republican-Democrat way, that gives the reader a set of default assumptions; we can then refine the description by describing where those default assumptions fail or fall short.

A reasonable default assumption is that a Republican generally described as conservative will receive low ratings from environmental-advocacy groups. Think of it in probabilistic terms. Suppose you had to give me a dollar for every conservative Republican who got poor ratings from LCV, Sierra Club, et al.; and I had to give you N dollars for every conservative Republican who got good ratings from them. What would N have to be in order to keep you from losing money? I'd hazard that 5 would be too low, and even 10 would be risky.

We should describe the pol's environmental position when the default assumption is untrue (as DanielM says is the case with Gov. Douglas), or when it's not strong enough-- for example, in the case of Jim Inhofe, who's one of the more outspoken AGW skeptics. However, for someone like Burr, the default assumption is close to correct, and providing more details adds little to the reader's understanding.

--Ammodramus (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Structuring the article based on "default assumptions" sounds to me like relying on stereotypes. I disagree with that approach. DanielM (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC) If the article becomes so bogged down with minutae such as a majority of the 37 issues you refer to, editors can prioritize and has it out at that point. I do not think it has reached that point. DanielM (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the "Environment" section. Before my edit, it read:

"Burr has generally received low ratings from environmental-protection organizations such as the League of Conservation Voters and Republicans for Environmental Protection. He voted against the environmental position on each of seven bills tracked by Environment America, a federation of environmental groups. Among those was a vote against a bill to provide legal protections to two million acres of federal lands in nine states, which passed. 25 other senators similarly voted against each of the seven bills. He has received favorable ratings from the American Land Rights Association, a land-owner rights action group."

There were a number of problems with this paragraph.

• It places undue weight on Environment America's rating. As I discuss a few posts up, EA's rating system is not a subtle one: over half of senators rated receive either perfect scores or zeros. Other groups use rating systems that are more sensitive to intra-wing differences.

• EA also has a short history: it was founded in 2007. It seems more appropriate to cite ratings from groups that've been around longer and had time to establish reputations. (Beside, how important can an issue orgnaization be if there's no WP article about it?)

• The description of EA as "a federation of environmental groups" is a bit disingenuous. According to their website, the groups are Environment Arizona, Environment California, Environment Colorado,...

• The description of the bill in the third sentence is unsourced, and seems biased to me. The fact of its passage seems irrelevant to the article.

• The description of ALRA is incomplete: they also concern themselves with restrictions on the use of federal lands.

I've reluctantly included EA in the list of environmental-protection organizations in the paragraph. Any more emphasis on that particular group seems misplaced. I've also added a (referenced, of course) description of ALRA from their website.

--Ammodramus (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Environment America text is not unduly weighted at all. It's short and to the point, provides a single example to give some detail to the section and make it more informative to read. I picked the example more or less at random. More questionable is your insertion of ALRA and wrapping it up as "Wise Use" movement, a somewhat Orwellian naming convention, without telling the reader that it's a group known for opposition to environmental protections. DanielM (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Using the phrase "federation of environmental groups" seems entirely straightforward and balanced to me. Perhaps you're engaging in some conspiracy theory development, Ammodramus, but I don't think you've researched it enough. Bloomberg.com news refers to them as a "coalition." You're welcome to suggest some other appropriate word, but I find this word micromanagement a bit nitpicky. DanielM (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to take my fellow editor at his word about his semi-random selection of Environment America. I'm removing their numerical rating of Burr and replacing it with thh passed" refers to the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. I've replaced that not-altogether-unbiased description with the bill's name and an internal link, and a brief statement of some of the arguments for and against it. I continue to believe that this is a level of detail unnecessary for this article; but if we must have such details, they should be NPOV.

--Ammodramus (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Ammodramus, to get your last comment first. I think the sentence about legal protections to the two million acres is unbiased. That's what it did. As begins to seem habitual for you, you just make an assertion about bias and don't explain why. The statement is NPOV and innocuous and accurate; the only thing I see that the description can be fairly faulted on is it is an incomplete description of the bill which had other non-central measures like some money for paralysis research. The central part of the bill was the environmental protection part though and the sentence is not biased at all. Nor was the fact of its passage unsourced, it was in the PDF at the reference that you keep deleting. If your objection was that it's incomplete, it could be addressed simply by inserting the word "mainly," not writing some mini-essay.

"Wise Use" is not as widely understood as you suggest. The fact that you capitalize and wikilink it doesn't diminish its suggestive and potentially misleading quality, plus it really has no place here at all, because the article is about Sen. Burr, not the ALRA. If you insist on "Wise Use" we should insert the words "so-called" in front of it. DanielM (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It is biased for you, Ammodramus, to insert a Republican party group as a reference for Burr's environmental credentials. DanielM (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll address DanielM's comments in reverse order.

Republicans for Environmental Protection gave Burr a rating of 29%. This does not suggest that the group gives high grades to all Republicans. To me, a 29% from an organization that might be inclined to overlook the environmental sins of a fellow Republican is a stronger indictment than a much lower numerical rating from a group whose members might share a broad-spectrum Green philosohy, and who might therefore be inclined to condemn a conservative Republican for reasons beside his environmental positions.

Wise Use: We need to characterize ALRA in some way; otherwise, coming as it does after a list of environmental-protection groups, it might be taken as yet another one of them. As I've argued above, calling them a "property-rights organization" fails to describe a major aspect of their position. Using "so-called" would be blatant editorializing: see WP:ALLEGED. Capitalizing the phrase signals that it has a meaning apart from its literal one; the internal link allows the reader to find out what that meaning is. By analogy with "pro-life" (used uncapitalized and with an internal link two paragraphs above the one under discussion), we should use "Wise Use" or "wise use"; I'm inclined toward the former, since the term isn't as well-known to the general public as "pro-life".

Description of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009: There are two issues here. First, "protection" has strong positive connotations: it implies that harm or evil is being averted. I'm not au courant with Wise Use literature, but I suspect that their description of the bill would speak of "restrictions" or of "withholding from productive use" or the like. A genuinely neutral description of that aspect of the bill would be something like "added two million acres to the National Wilderness Preservation System" or "conferred National Wilderness status on two milliion acres".

Second issue: That description only covers one aspect of the bill. As the "Omnibus" in the name suggests, this bill contained lots of material. That the environmental-protection aspect was central and that all the other features were peripheral is a subjective judgement. As an analogy, let me suggest the current health-care bill. By some quantitative measures, abortion is a very minor aspect: abortion-related language is a tiny fraction of the bill's total verbiage; abortions would probably represent less than one percent of the medical procedures financed under the bill; and spending on abortion would probably represent less than one percent of the federal funds spent by the bill's provisions. Nevertheless, the issue was a deciding one for many people. So with this bill: an aspect of it that might seem trifling to one person might seem critical indeed to another.

Since it wasn't possible to describe every aspect of this large and complex bill, I tried a second-best approach: briefly describing arguments by its supporters and opponents. Ideally, of course, I'd have used a well-referenced statement of Burr's reasoning behind his vote for the latter; but I couldn't find such a statement. I therefore listed three arguments from the supporters of the measure and three arguments from the opponents, with three references each. I tried to choose the three strongest and most frequently used arguments on each side.

--Ammodramus (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You've written quite a lot of verbiage here, and I'm not going to try to match it. I don't think a Misplaced Pages editor has to write discussion in large quantities to make a case for his or her edit. Reliable sources such as the AP refer to the ALRA as a property-rights group. We don't have to get into descriptive detail of the ALRA in the Burr article because you think that doesn't fully capture what the ALRA does. Reliable sources briefly categorize it as a property rights group, so can and should we. I'd suggest you edit the ALRA article if you want to get into all the detail you think is necessary for people to fully understand the ALRA. Also, you've continually deleted the text I put in and my reference for the rating an environmental group gave to Burr. Even though you've inserted a Republican party-affiliated group, I have left that in. Please stop deleting this sourced, NPOV, informative, appropriate text from the Burr article. I'm prepared to defend my edits should you revert again.DanielM (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

1. http://www.environmentwashington.org/reports/other-issues/more-issues/congressional-scorecard-2009
2. http://www.environmentwashington.org/reports/other-issues/more-issues/congressional-scorecard-2009
3. "Interest Group Ratings: Senator Richard M. Burr (NC): Environmental Issues". Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2010-01-07.

• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class U.S. Congress articles
• Unknown-importance U.S. Congress articles
• Unknown-subject U.S. Congress articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed North Carolina articles
• Unknown-importance North Carolina articles
• WikiProject North Carolina articles
• WikiProject United States articles