|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brian Schweitzer article.|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Needs more info
Who's saying Schweitzer is going to run for President in 2008, I have yet to hear a single shred of a rumor that would mandate mentioning of his potential candidacy. Personally I feel he would make a good Vice Presidential candidate to run along someone like Senator Evan Bayh, but thats my opinion... which is far from a legitimate rumor.
- Also, a first term governor usually won't take a shot at the White House. I'm removing it. -Leo McGarry
Needs more info
Um, what are his policies? What are his positions on the war, health care, regaining stae controll of electricity, etc.? Sirota raves about him, but damnit we need more info! That's why i came here, sheesh!
I don't know much about him, but I should mention that today (23 August), Brian Schweitzer was featured in a section of the BBC Ten O'Clock News, about the current oil crisis in the US, and his plans to convert coal to oil. --Dreaded Walrus 21:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Vice Presidential Nomination?!?!
I live in Montana, and this is the first that I've heard of it. There is no citation in the article about any talk of Schweitzer receiving the Vice Presidential nod. If anyone has one, please note it. I will be removing the statement soon. Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's no decisions on that as of now, however he is apparently one of the people being considered as B. Obama's VP 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this article written with a neutral point of view? The edit made by GovSchweitzer (check the edit log) doesn't seem very neutral to me. Any comments?
- The section Controversy being removed by a number of users is a definite COI, IP Address 188.8.131.52 is registered to state government computer and user GovSchweitzer, as noted above, isn't very neutral. I will not take a strong hand beyond this because I am member of the opposition party here in Montana. snachodog (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- if it helps, I (a Canadian who didn't know who Brian Schweitzer was until this week), have re-added the Controversy section with a, perhaps more notable, reference to a New York Times article. Some of the edit war seems to be about how quoting a "self-promoting link to a minor blog" is unencyclopedic. OK, well how about quoting the reference to a major American newspaper like the New York Times. Thomas Dzubin (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to bring this NPOV issue up again. I don't even live in Montana or have any serious opinions about Schweitzer, but when I come across this article, there are sections that read as if they are written from someone campaigning against him. Prime example: At this very moment, there is a line in the governorship section that says "he would support regulating water on YOUR property. you can read about it here." or something along those lines. Not only is that poorly written, but things like that just look like subjective political garbage. Say it more eloquently if you must make a political observation about his opinions, and perhaps it would be good to put that into context as well. It's just sorta thrown in there. Rob Shepard (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, I just want to say, I totally agree. I DO live in Montana, and I'm quite the fan of Governor Schweitzer, so I'm far from objective, so I'm not the one to re-write the article. But it definitely needs work. I'd encourage you to engage in the effort and I promise to do my part to help in any way I can. Dlabtot (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether you are pro or anti-Brian, the bottom line is that his press secretary was caught red-handed editing this article off of a state government computer. See article here. Tacky, even if "correcting the record." But also typical of the cult of personality and control-freak attitude of the administration, which has given him the nickname "Governor B.S." and is going to hurt his own party one of these days. He has been compared to Huey Long in more than one blog, such as here. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not live in Montana, and had never heard of him before reading a quite neutral piece on another topic; since I did not know of him, I called up this to learn. I must say that it appears irreparably biased, to the point that the only solution is a virtually complete rewrite, removing ALL adjectives and commentary, either positive or negative, about either Mr. S or his political opponents, past or present, or their actions. It may even be necessary to remove any commentary which reveals his party affiliation. It is almost as though no one who has been involved even understands the meaning of NPOV. Since I am not qualified for such a project, and expect none of the people involved to heed my comment, I will only add that this is the most biased piece I have ever read in Wikipedia, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of any neutral reader, and constitutes a stain on the reputation of Wikipedia, and of anyone involved, in my view.220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry about the 2 reversions title "controversy" I'm new at this. I do believe that this belongs in the article and the reason why is that this is a big issue in the state of Montana. This was reported in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/us/12montana.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin and on Fox News http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/11/montana-governor-apologizes-for-joke-about-tampering-with-06-ballots/, which now brings Montana in the the lime light of the nation. This was also brought up by the chief political news director for the AP that once thought that the Governors race would be a blow out and now that's in question http://www.helenair.com/articles/2008/09/14/top/75st_080914_chuck.txt. Because there has been an edit war about this, I won't put it back until those who have been removing my edits have a chance to explain why they think this doesn't belong in the article.Help2008Montana (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would vote to leave this, as it is a real news story and has other sources as listed by Help2008Montana. snachodog (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The issue is not that the story doesn't belong. The issue is that, in the context of a four year governorship, this is not worth 2/3 of the content of the article. An appropriate reference would be one line (with sources) in the section about his job as governor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you regarding your facts. First if the story belongs then why did you remove it altogether, second the story didn't take 2/3's of the over view of the Governor. The article is very important because the Governor stated that he committed voter fraud through the Governors office which the voters of Montana gave him in 2005. This is a relevant story and there are many editorials calling for a investigation. http://pioneer.olivesoftware.com/Default/Skins/BDChronicle/Client.asp?Skin=BDChronicle&Daily=BDC&AW=1221629047906&AppName=1 This is one of the most important issues to our freedom in this country and if the Governor can turn a few dials to change the out come of an election then I think that people need to know. Without any other discussion on the issue in the next day then I will offer a shorter revised version of the article. Help2008Montana (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Whenever anyone adds new information to a Wikipedia article, that article can be temporarily out-of-balance in terms of the apparent relative importance it gives to the different sections in the article. The way to solve this is to add more information to the other parts of the article, not to delete the information you don't like or think is unbalanced. If Wikipedia editors always deleted information that temporarily unbalances an article, the articles wouldn't have a chance to grow, it seems to me. I've looked at a few other articles on Wikipedia about governors, and they are much more comprehensive than Schweitzer's currently is. His article needs more information, not less.Help2008Montana (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The article currently reads like a mere "puff piece" - anyone with the slightest discernment would dismiss the whole thing for purposes of forming an opinion of the subject's accomplishments, character, and particularly, deficiencies. Including SOME traceable account (NYT should do) of his gaffe regarding his election tampering cannot in any way be optional. Removing it is not only reprehensible from the standpoint of partisanship and slighting truth, but also deprives the article of a shred of credibility that it now utterly lacks, and desperately needs.Joe (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Third Opinion: Election Excerpt
I disagree with Help2008 Montana: this disputed section should not go in this article. Its relevancy is debatable, and the section in question is too long, making the article disproportinately about an "alleged" election issue. If you include a specific act or issue of his as governor, you should also include every other equally relevant act and issue.
Thank you for your opinion. The size of the post could have been reduced with some highlights, but to remove it all together is not correct. The following link is to the Governors press spokesman that removed the "controversy" section - http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080918/NEWS01/809180307/1002/news01 - "I deleted a partial transcript (of the speech), with editorial comments" is this right. I know other politicians in the state that have had untrue or exaggerated comments written about them and they modified the comments. She had every right to balance the transcript - as well as the comments - but I didn't put any comments in only the Transcript and where it came from and links to other articles regarding the issue. It is obvious that this page is being controlled by Governor Schweitzer and his staff. These pages are for the public to add to comment on and modify both good and bad.Help2008Montana (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Help2008Montana, I suggest you review WP:WEIGHT as well as WP:SPA and WP:AGF -- Dlabtot (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
When clicking on the Footnote, showing a pdf-table of Montana electricity, I got the following rather dire warning from McAfee SiteAdvisor:
"psyrk.us may try to steal your information.
Why were you redirected to this page? When we visited this site, we found it may be designed to trick you into submitting your financial or personal information to online scammers. This is a serious security threat which could lead to identity theft, financial losses or other dissemination of personal information."
I am not proficient enough to judge this warning.
Also, the warning then called my attention to the fact that in the Footnote itself there is no title given, just "".
I still hope it is all an innocent overreaction by McAfee.
Seems unbalanced treatment
- If you think you can improve the article, give it a try. Dlabtot (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)