Talk:Shelley Sekula-Gibbs

This article was nominated for deletion on 21/8/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is really, really, really biased. Did the Sekula-Gibbs campaign write it??? Good god...PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS ARTICLE OR DELETE IT!!! And it needs to be sourced...Ptown336 00:22, 23 August 2006 Ptown336 (Talk | contribs)

Ptown336: If you believe that the article has problems you are welcome to fix them. Also, there are sources listed out the wazoo. If you would notice that there are several sources listed at the bottom of the article. What information do you believe needs to be added??? It would be helpful if you could provide some specific, concrete examples instead of merely complaining. I look forward to hearing those proposed changes. Thank you. --Getaway 00:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is endemic to candidate articles in general. The only people who really contribute to such articles are usually the supporters (or even campaign staff) except for the rare candidate who inspires serious hatred. IMO the vast majority of candidate articles are badly POV, and frankly nobody outside the district cares enough to devote the energy necessary to fix them. Fan-1967 01:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that essay Fan-1967. However, I did not hear any concrete specific complaints about the article in your essay either. --Getaway 02:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this sound NPOV to you? "Sekula-Gibbs is most notable for her championing of healthcare causes." Or this? "Sekula-Gibbs' role in health care issues is important to constituents in Houston and Harris County." Since you wrote them, and seem genuinely mystified by the criticism, I guess those seem like objective comments to you. And let's face it, since I live 1000 miles away, and have never heard of this person, there's no way I'm going to clean it up. Which is what typically happens with these candidate articles, and why they should all be deleted. Fan-1967 02:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, well, well. We sure like to jump to conclusions don't we?? You are dead wrong, in so many ways and the funny part is you don't even know how you are wrong. I did not write these lines that you have incorrectly stated that I wrote. All of edits are right there in the edit history and it clearly shows that I did not write these sentences!) Also, you took the time to respond to me, with a way off the mark statement I might add, but you couldn't find the time to clean up those lines. That is rich. Also, since you clearly state that you don't care because "I live 1000 miles away" why do you feel the need to comment at all on the article. You say that you don't care. The amount of effort that you have put into this commentary area--about an article you claim not to care about--and the amount of effort that Ptown has put into this commentary area could have probably fixed the lines that you find so offensive. (So offensive, but you yet you just don't care! HA! That hilarious! You slay me with your inconsistent and incorrect statements.) This morass of confusion is quite entertaining.--Getaway 02:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Do I care about this particular article? No, actually I don't, except as a symptom of the general problem with all these candidate articles. This one needs to be cleaned up by someone who actually lives in that district and knows something about her, and that clearly is not going to happen. It never does, and Wikipedia ends up being free adspace for this campaign, and dozens or hundreds like it. Fan-1967 02:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already fixed the sentences that you complained about. It wasn't hard. Also, you are still spending a large amount of time responding to me about an article that you claim that you don't care about. That is funny. You just want to complain. That has nothing to do with the article.--Getaway 02:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Major Revisions Needed

The tone and subject matter lack the objective style of an encyclopedia article. For example, the lines "Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who had represented Sekula-Gibbs' area of residence since it was redistricted into DeLay's district (see 2003 Texas redistricting), decided to retire from Congress instead of face a tough re-election campaign in the following November" portray an uncommon perspective on the issue of DeLay's resignation that is unnecessarily supportive of the candidate in question.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.151.58 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny, 71.248.151.58 did sign the comment and anon Wikipedian just created an account just today and the anon Wikipedian's only edit is put on a POV tag. No explanation and no other changes to the article. Looks like a drive by POV tagging. I reverted it today.--Getaway 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Getaway: It would be inappropriate for the author of a wikipedia article to adjudicate a dispute about an alleged bias in an article. The criticism of the overall tone of the article, in addition to its lack of any counterbalancing perspectives, remains unanswered. Please review the policy on writing biographies:

"Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted. The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view."

This is not, in fact my first and only edit. I have been involved in the Wikipedia project for three years, and I feel that makes me at least able to recognize an article that is in need of revision. I do not have enough direct information on the campeign in question to make edits, so inserting the POV tag was necessary so that others who did have this information could make the necessary changes. I hope I am not coming off as combative, but I will be reinserting the POV tag. As outlined in wikipedia policy, you as the original author should wait until a third and unrelated party reviews the article and decides if revisions are necessary. The problem of non-objective campeign articles is a major problem in our community, so I have spent several months identifying articles that are not written in a proper encyclopedia style. The dangers of bias in a supposedly objective source are somewhat obvious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.151.58 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Your edit history is part of Wikipedia and it is clearly just focsued on this article. You can review your edit history that clearly points out your lack of experience and your focus on just one article here: [1] Articles about living persons should not be edited by brand new Wikipedians. If you really have been involved in Wikipedia for three years then your edit history would show this, but it does not so your comments are completely undermined. You would also know to sign your comments, which you have not done the last two times. Once again, your edit history points out your lack of experience and your focus on merely one article.--Getaway 02:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The edit history only reveals the history of an IP address, which as you may know changes regularly. Because I have a dynamic IP address, all my entries that are more than a couple days old do not show up in my history. Moreover, I choose not to register as a user because I feel that such measures undermine the "wiki" roots of the project. It is obvious that you feel quite strongly about this so I feel it is best to leave it at this: I encourage you to rewrite the article, and in the future I think you should make a much bigger effort to write articles in a formal encyclopedia style.