Talk:Interstate 93

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject U.S. Roads (Rated C-class, High-importance)
U.S. Roads WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Topics
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
USRD MTF.svg
This article has a map. If the map has an error, please work with the maps task force to correct it.
USRD KML.svg
This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the maps task force to correct it.
WikiProject United States / Massachusetts / Boston / New Hampshire / Vermont (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont (marked as Mid-importance).
 

List of legislators[edit]

I agree with the other editors who have attempted to remove a list of politicians' names opposed to a failed proposal to fund the widening of the highway with tolls. It constitutes unnecessary clutter of the article. For a dead proposal that is rapidly fading into obscurity, to list a few people who were opposed to it provides no useful information to general readers but merely serves to pat a couple of selected individuals on their backs. The previous sentence, "The proposal faced opposition from state legislators in both states who claimed the tolls would cause severe congestion in the area and lead to an economic burden to local residents.", says all that is needed.--Ken Gallager (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a valid reason to keep it. By only stating that there were members of the Massachusetts Legislature who opposed the project is problematic. The inclusion of some of the specific individuals who opposed the project avoids the {{who}} tag and any accompanying claims of weasel words. The reasons for deletion of the information because there are readers don't care who opposed it is spurious because Wikipedia guidelines list things to avoid when writing an article, and formatting claims in the manner such as found in the proposed changes run afoul of this. In fact, there are WP editors and contributors who specifically look for that type of editorial error in articles. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The phrase was "...Massachusetts state senator Robert Hedlund, (R-Weymouth) and NH representative Frank Sapareto, (R-Derry)..." (opposed the move). The problem is one of due weight at this point.
We had something similar in a state article recently. The US Supreme Court threw out a state law which the state had vigorously supported. An editor tried to say that "Joe Doaks didn't like that and thought the Supreme Court was stupid" or whatever. The problem at this level is that a US Supreme Court decision is big stuff. In that article,we can only say that "the legislature passed a law to circumvent the ruling" or something commensurate with the action. Joe Doaks not liking it, is of no value to the article at this point.
Here we have already said that the legislatures "didn't like it." We limit the naming of legislators to two, for some unknown and non-obvious reason, except it was probably "in the article" which was terribly significant to the media that published it. But it isn't at all significant to any reader outside the immediate area that those two, by name, "didn't like it." Maybe, the federal legislator was important enough to keep in the article. Maybe he will carry some weight. But the legislators are out of it, at this point. And no reader from as close as Pennsylvania, much less Thailand, is going to care. It is a distraction. Student7 (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately that is not the case, as this is not a case of WP:Undue as you claim. If there was significantly more content about the individuals who were opposed to the work then that would be the case. However this isn't a case where the whole legislature was against the project, only certain members. By listing an example of some of those who were opposing the proposal, we avoid the issue I listed earlier. Further, you should leave the text in place until such time that this discussion has come to consensus for in- or exclusion of the data. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 04:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The list is definitely cruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. It needs to go. --Rschen7754 04:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
In my road article writing, I have only mentioned politicians by name when they the leader of the movement for/against the highway. For example, though the articles Interstate 70 in Colorado and Interstate 70 in Utah discuss at length the political infighting between the 2 states and the feds over the route, only one politician in each article is listed by name. I don't see the need for more than that here. However, my bigger issue with this paragraph is the listing of the current price of the tolls. This guarantees the article will be "obsolete ready" in just a few months. IMO toll prices should NEVER be mentioned as they are guaranteed to date the article and require more maintenance. Dave (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Does it really matter who is for or against it? To me, it sounds like adding the names is politically motivated. In that case, it's POV and should be gutted on sight. –Fredddie 17:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no POV as the list is of persons from both sides of the aisle. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 18:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I said POV, not partisan. Put yourself in the shoes of a legislator who voted against the proposal. If you found this article and saw some names who voted no, wouldn't you wonder why your name isn't liated. You voted no as well and your vote counts the same as theirs. I'm saying it's POV to give those legislators a pat on the back but not everybody who voted no. Actually, it's even more POV to give any side a pat on the back for any reason. Also, state and US legislators vote on hundreds of bills and amendments each year, what makes this one important enough to get a mention? That's another side of the undue weight argument. –Fredddie 20:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see why we need to list the people who opposed the proposal. Its enough to just say that there was opposition. Dough4872 01:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
If there was a clear leader in the opposition, then that person's name may be worthy of a mention. Listing some of the legislators who opposed it isn't really adding value, especially if each legislature opposed it based on their own agenda and were not part of an organized group. Dave (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Unless the legislator's role in the aspect of the road's history was so important that the road was officially named after the lawmaker, I say keep the names out as a general rule, and most certainly leave out the party and district parenthetical label. The way I see it, any controversy regarding public policy around the road should be cited to a news source that readers with a particular interest in the controversy could follow off site for further information. If the reputable news source reports in detail the arguments and the most forceful advocates of positions of policy, then the citation avoids the need to worry about weasel words or individual names for our purposes. Fortguy (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Based upon the voices raised here, consensus dictates the exclusion of the information on the legislators who opposed the tolls. Its stays out. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 05:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)