Talk:Empower Mississippi

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 December 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Mississippi Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Mississippi portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (assessed as Mid-importance).

Neutrality

I don't think the following content adheres to our neutrality policy:

"Mississippi Representative Forrest Hamilton said stated that Empower Mississippi was targeting the public school system, while Representative Pat Nelson stated that Empower Mississippi was supported by outside corporations seeking lucrative software contracts with charter school organizations."

This gives WP:UNDUE weight to the opinions of two of the group's stated opponents. We've already summarized and made it clear with this sentence "Some incumbent Republican Mississippi lawmakers have criticized Empower Mississippi for the group's support of charter schools" that there are Republican incumbent Mississippi lawmakers who oppose the group's activities.

When we put things in articles like "...Empower Mississippi was supported by outside corporations seeking lucrative software contracts..." it is pretty loaded language. It's clearly from an opponent of the group. A reader of the Wikipedia page is left to wonder if the accusations leveled against the group are true. For such a short article, I fail to see why the summaries of quotes by the group's stated opponents meets our need for WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALASPS and WP:IMPARTIALity. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any responses to my WP:NPOV concern, so I've removed the legislator's commentary. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a political action committee. Of course there will be opposition. The article by its very nature is non-neutral. Give the other side a chance to air their opinions. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the article by its very nature is non-neutral." My understanding is that all articles, regardless of what they are about, need to comply with our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Shall we ask for a third opinion? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, the political affiliation of the two state Representatives who criticize the organization should be stated. Second, it would provide better weight if an opinion by a politician supporting the organization was also quoted. As it is, I don't think that the article provides a neutral point of view focusing on two critics. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering our request for a third opinion. Perhaps this recent news article could yield some new material that would help balance the article? [1]. And here's another [2]Safehaven86 (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a stab at reworking the article based on the news articles linked above and the third opinion. What does everybody think? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, how do you think the article is looking now? Thanks! Safehaven86 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, once I have offered a third opinion, my involvement ends. However, since you ask, it does appear to be a modest improvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you think it would be an improvement if we removed this sentence "Republican Representative Pat Nelson, who was defeated in 2015 by an Empower Mississippi-backed challenger, stated his belief that Empower Mississippi's support came from corporations seeking software contracts with charter school organizations."? Thank you. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]