| Revision as of 06:31, 16 January 2005 editRangerdude (talk | contribs)3,171 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:33, 16 January 2005 edit undoRangerdude (talk | contribs)3,171 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| Thanks for your quick response and for finding direct sources. This article still has a strange tone, full of what look like cheap jabs. At the same time the substantial criticisms mentioned in the Houston Chronicle article are barely discussed. I will remove the NPOV tag from the article, though I believe the article still has a POV. Frankly, there are other people about whom I'd rather research and write articles. Though you may have strong opinions about the subject of the article it is still your responsibility as an editor to write a NPOV article. It's a struggle for all of us. Thanks for contributing. Cheer, -] 01:24, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) | Thanks for your quick response and for finding direct sources. This article still has a strange tone, full of what look like cheap jabs. At the same time the substantial criticisms mentioned in the Houston Chronicle article are barely discussed. I will remove the NPOV tag from the article, though I believe the article still has a POV. Frankly, there are other people about whom I'd rather research and write articles. Though you may have strong opinions about the subject of the article it is still your responsibility as an editor to write a NPOV article. It's a struggle for all of us. Thanks for contributing. Cheer, -] 01:24, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) | ||
| : Like many articles here, this one is a continuous work in progress. I concur fully that there needs to be more general biography to balance the whole of the article. The controversy section should stay though because it is in need of mention simply because she's so polarizing. I'll add what I can to each section as time permits, but as I said it's a problem that will resolve itself simply by expanding the article] 06:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:33, 16 January 2005
Houston Press & Free Republic citations
The Houston Press and the Free Republic may use their Free Press rights to represent their POVs, but Misplaced Pages works on an NPOV basis. The number of citations from the HP gossip columns and weblogs is excessive, considering that they are so obviously partisan. Right now the material looks like it should be re-organized into a section " ==Houston Press campaign against SJL==". I don't follow Houston politics, but even so this appears to be overly reliant on references from her political opponents. -Willmcw 12:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Willmcw - you need to look at the links - especially the Free Republic articles - more closely. They were used as sources because in many cases the articles they contain are no longer online from the original source. One of them is an article from the capitol hill newspaper The Hill. Another is an article from the capitol hill newspaper Roll Call. A third is from the Houston Chronicle. These are ALL mainstream news sources and valid citations. Free Republic simply happens to be the location where electronic copies of the articles can still be found online.
- You are also incorrect in your suggestion the Houston Press gossip column is the only source being used. Only three out of the nine news articles cited are to the Houston Press and the main allegation of the Houston Press stories - Ms. Jackson Lee's disruptive behavior on airlines - is corroborated in The Hill, which also published an account of the exact same thing. You should also know that the Houston Press is a liberal weekly alternative paper that agrees with Jackson Lee on most issues, so she's not simply taking heat from the right wing. I also do not see any weblogs in the links.
- I do agree that there probably needs to be more biographical information on Jackson Lee to balance out the top of the article, but the "controversies" section needs to stay because she is a very polarizing figure in Texas. That being the case, the issue for editing in this article is not what needs to be removed but what could be added to the top section.Rangerdude 00:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- UPDATE - I located one of the articles on The Hill's website and changed the link from freerepublic to the original. I also removed your edit that attributed the airline incidents to only the "Houston Press gossip column", which is not true, and added the reference to The Hill there. Will this satisfy your complaints enough to remove the tag? Also, if you agree that a more detailed biography in the top of the article is needed would you be willing to author it? Often the best way to balance the article is to contribute something new to it.Rangerdude
Thanks for your quick response and for finding direct sources. This article still has a strange tone, full of what look like cheap jabs. At the same time the substantial criticisms mentioned in the Houston Chronicle article are barely discussed. I will remove the NPOV tag from the article, though I believe the article still has a POV. Frankly, there are other people about whom I'd rather research and write articles. Though you may have strong opinions about the subject of the article it is still your responsibility as an editor to write a NPOV article. It's a struggle for all of us. Thanks for contributing. Cheer, -Willmcw 01:24, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Like many articles here, this one is a continuous work in progress. I concur fully that there needs to be more general biography to balance the whole of the article. The controversy section should stay though because it is in need of mention simply because she's so polarizing. I'll add what I can to each section as time permits, but as I said it's a problem that will resolve itself simply by expanding the articleRangerdude 06:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)