Talk:Gary Peters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I don't have a problem with this page being marked as a NPOV dispute, but I think that it should only be limited to the section in question. Also, I believe that all information relevant to that controversy be kept in that section.

Unknown person/edits?

I don't know who is providing discussion and editing this article when they don't identify themselves and it's clear they are bias in selecting which sources to use. I am resorting the article to the when the disputed entry came about.

I think we have to ensure all sides are represented.

64.7.188.229 21:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Source Use - Central Michigan Controversy

As someone who does a lot of editing of politician pages (and the creator of this page), I am a little concerned with the use of sources in this article, particularly in the "Central Michigan Controversy." According to WP:RS "reliabe sources" are considered soures that have editorial oversight and are in line with NPOV. Now, a number of sources cited on this page are from the Central Monitor, which is a blog associated with the Young Americans For Freedom, which is an avowedly conservative group, and a group that plays a role in this matter. While there are exceptions for the use of blogs in the case of revealing or clearly speculative matters, the facts that are sourced from these websites are things such as the terms of Peters' contracts as well as the official line of the University. It is my opinion that this article should stick to information that has already been published in reliable places.

In the interest of full disclosure on pertinent matters, I believe it is appropriate, for now, for there to be information included on the Central Michigan controversy. I also think, however, it is important to include the full story. If you read the articles cited from the Midland Daily News, it is quite clear that neither the Central Michigan administration nor the Board of Trustees sees Peter's adjunct appointment for the endowment job to be an issue. If this controversy is relevant it should not be a problem to include the Central Michigan line, as well as the opinion of anyone else directly invovled. Michiganpolitics 14:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't just revert back to your content without some sort of agreement or intervention or consensus amongst other Wikipedia editors. This article has been flagged, and you keep deleting key information.

Can you explain what you dispute with The Central Monitor? I don't see any of their information disputed, and they actually had an exclusive interview with Gary Peters. If he spoke to them, I would the source is more than qualified to be cited. It is a campus newspaper.

Additionally, you are getting facts wrong. It isn't just a campus conservative group. I have come across dozens of letter from taxpayers and students sent to Central Michigan University over this controversy. You can't minimize what's out there.

64.7.187.240 18:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Central Monitor

The Central Monitor is "the conservative voice of Central Michigan" as proclaimed by the front header, and extensivley covers the activities of YAF, which is an avowedly and unabashedly conservative group. I have no problem with information regarding the controversy being in the article, but please stick to NPOV sources. It is simply policy. Michiganpolitics 23:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That argument is absurd. I read the student conservative newspaper, it's credible -- Gary Peters even gave them an exclusive interview when CMU hired him in April. He obviously thought they were a credible NPOV. The New York Times is liberal, the Washington Times is conservative, do we not use them?

64.7.188.122 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why the Central Monitor is not NPOV

You're right to point out that the New York Times and the Washington Times are two edited, respected, credible newspapers that have an editorial staff that can be characterized as liberal and conservative, respectivley. The difference between these two newspapers and a blog that is run by the Young Americans for Freedom Central Michigan is that there is a mechanism for fact-checking and editorial oversight at the newspapers. From WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Also, "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view."

And finally, "Material available solely on partisan (emphasis added) websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article"

I don't mean to be petty about this, but as someone who takes bio articles about politicians very seroiusly (and who has edited/created many) I have a strong commitment to keeping this page NPOV as possible.Michiganpolitics 19:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As an editor of articles on politicians for almost four years now, I think that this is a difficult case, but at this point it is fine to have this blog as a source in the article because the events directly involve those who work on the blog, and the fact that the subject agreed to be interviewed by them shows that it has some credability, though I do not agree with their politics. Academic Challenger 18:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Responding to michiganpolitics:

1) I look at The Central Monitor and I see a conservative student newspaper at Central Michigan University. It appears to have reporters, editors and other staff. Its articles seem to be fair-and-balanced, and I don't actually see you disputing anything that they have reported. What on The Central Monitor is false?

2) Last time I checked, The Central Monitor nor Young Americans for Freedom is partisan. There is a difference between being partisan and conservative or liberal -- partisan is legally defined as Republican, Democrat, etc and not an ideology. Additionally, the "obscure newspaper" justification is interesting, but would that include the dozens of other student newspapers used as sources on Wikipedia? I don't think they're particularly well-know, nor is the Midland Daily News which you have included as a source.

It seems to me that you have a bias against the inclusion of material that is accurate and might come from a conservative point of view. And as Academic Challenger said, Gary Peters -- the subject of this article on Wikipedia -- did give his consent and was interviewed by one of the sources in question. If it is bias and untrustworthy, he certainly would not have given them an interview. 64.7.187.105 20:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

There aren't any other politicians named Gary Peters on Wikipedia, so perhaps we should move this article to Gary Peters (politician). Conrad (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Obamacare ad

A cancer patient who lost her insurance due to Obamacare has created a TV ad about her experience. Peters has contacted lawyers to try to prevent the ad from airing. I think this is worthy of adding to the article.

Sources:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/22/bedford-this-democratic-senate-wannabe-just-picked-a-fight-with-a-mother-who-has-cancer-video/

http://freebeacon.com/cancer-obamacare-victim-at-center-of-political-storm/

71.182.247.111 (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That does not tell the whole story and the ads are clearly misleading. It cannot be in the article. [1]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

text in question

This is the portion of the article in question (which I have removed pending decision here:

Cornered by Obamacare Gary Peters tries desperately—including threatening to use the FCC—to silence a woman with leukemia who lost her health insurance to the Affordable Care Act which Peters voted for.

The video is here:

Julie's Story: It's Time to Listen

This ad and the claims in it have been debunked. As a result I posit this should not be included in the article. Lestatdelc (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 U.S. Senate election - Petroleum Coke

DD2K I believe info about Peters' investments into companies that produce petroleum coke should be included in the 2014 U.S. Senate election section. To date, Peters' investments have been one of the big issues in the race. Peters has even responded to the criticism.

• Detroit News, September 14, "Peters won't sell stock in oil company"

Thank you for your input and I look forward to your response. Best, Sprinkler Court (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Come on, retirement accounts are one of the big issues? Some people may take that bait, but the coverage and situation doesn't rise to the level of inclusion into Peter's biography. Thanks for starting a discussion instead of reverting. Dave Dial (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sons of the American Revolution

I don't know why people keep removing the fact that Peters is a member of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution from the article. Peter's uses that fact in his campaign lit and I am also a member of the society and am aware of Peter's membership. Maybe some Republican operatives don't like the fact that he is a member but he is. He was approved based on proving lineage to an ancestor that aided in the American Revolution.--MichiganderOne (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This very well may be true, but we need a source to verify the information. If you can find a WP:RS to confirm this information, please re-add this information with the source. But unless there's a source for the information, it shouldn't be in the article. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MichiganderOne: The problem is, we don't have an independent reliable source to verify his membership. If a newspaper story states he's a member, we can say he's a member. If SAR says he's a member, we can accept their word for it and say he's a member.

If it's mentioned in his campaign literature, then it's tricky. It may be more appropriate to say that he claims to be a member rather than that he is a member. Wikipedia policies say to put limited faith in self-published sources or statements by the subjects. —C.Fred (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A few points. 1-We don't like to use words like 'claims', they are often considered weasel words. 2-C.Fred and CS are correct, we can't use the material if it is not properly sourced. And 3- Here are a couple sources that cite Peters as a member of SAR. 1

Part of that desire to join the military comes from his family history: Peters’ father was a World War II veteran; his great-grandfather a Civil War soldier and an earlier forefather was in the Virgina militia in the Revolutionary war.

and 2

MISSAR President, Joe Conger, presents United States Congressman, Gary Peters, his membership certificate following his swearing-in ceremony. His father, Herb Peters, has also just taken the SAR oath.

I don't know if people want to reword and add the sources, but they they are. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I am still new to this. I have added the reference.MichiganderOne (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

I restored an NPOV edit from mainstream media sources with linked citations and deleted an edit with one source being biased and the other having details which were left out of the edit and thus changed the context of the material. Thus NPOV was restored. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your reasoning here. However, it might be helpful to also specifically detail the edits in particular, since we might want to have a discussion about them. I *think* the biased source you're talking about is Free Beacon? But there was another, more reliable source there. You're saying that there was more context to be added to the info from that reliable source, so perhaps instead of deleting it, you can restore it and add that context. As for the other edit, which I *think* is the one speculating about competitiveness and late-in-the-game poll numbers, that information, at best, belongs on the campaign page, not this BLP. It's recentism. Anyway, like I said, thanks for posting you're reasoning. Hopefully we can have a discussion about it, or you can just restore per my suggestions if that makes sense to you and everyone else. Shatterpoint05 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the questionable edit in question:

The National Republican Senatorial Committee called on Peters to return campaign contributions from the National Treasury Employees Union, the union that represents IRS employees. Peters has received $8,500 in campaign contributions from the union. Peters was one of 13 Democratic lawmakers who was asked repeatedly to release emails pertaining to the 2013 IRS controversy, but he declined.

Yes, the Free Beacon is the questionable source. As for the reliable MLive source, here is the text from that citation:

Calling to return donations. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is calling on Peters to return $6,000 in campaign contributions from the IRS Employees Union. The release comes as the IRS admitted to targeting Tea Party organizations for audits. The union also donated to possible GOP Senate candidate U.S. Rep Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, as well as Republicans Candice Miller in 2010 and 2008; Thaddeus McCotter in 2010 and 2008. It also donated to Democrats Debbie Stabenow, Sander Levin, Carl Levin, John Conyers Jr, Dan and Dale Kildee. Is the Committee calling for Rogers and other Republicans to return donations? Spokeswoman Brook Hougesen said: “Reps Miller and Rogers didn't call on the IRS to get political and target specific individuals. Democrats were pressuring the IRS to investigate conservatives while collecting campaign cash from the IRS Union.” However, the IRS inspector general's report said there is no evidence of any political motivation or influence from outside the IRS for what happened.

Note that the questionable edit did not mention the union's donation to Republicans so that changed the context of the passage. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that extra detail. Makes sense to me. Shatterpoint05 (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gary Peters (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070311055248/http://www.theoaklandpress.com:80/stories/090106/loc_2006090136.shtml to http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/090106/loc_2006090136.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gary Peters (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140129155056/http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/10GEN/06009000.html to http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/10GEN/06009000.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  Done (non-admin closure)  samee  ^talk 06:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Gary Peters (politician) → Gary Peters – Gary Peters the senator from Michigan is far and away the most notable Gary Peters currently on Wikipedia. As can be seen from this link, Peters' page gets many times more views than any other page with his name. Kingmanatee (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support Primary topic. Google UK results are indicating the same.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Move current page to Gary Peters (disambiguation). Station1 (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Preceded by link

In the sidebar under his picture in the Senate section, the "preceded by" says and links to Claire McCaskill, who is a former Senator from Missouri, not Michigan. I don't know how to edit links but someone should fix this inaccuracy. It should direct to Carl Levin.

That's under Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, a position where McCaskill did precede Peters. Under that, you'll see Carl Levin is listed as preceding Peters as U.S. Senator from Michigan. Marquardtika (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Updating the infobox

Peters is the chair of the homeland security committee and has been since January 20, 2021; he’s also the head of the DSCC; both should be noted in the infobox SRD625 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)