Bob McEwen is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 3, 2006. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) 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 a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added notes about Bob McEwen's spamming. I haven't seen it in the news, but I have received it. Wirehead 20:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do we need all those photos of people who are only marginally related to McEwen's political history? Dobson has endorsed many candidates. Quayle campaigned with a number of candidates. The photo for Portman/Bush is already in Portman's entry. I think that many photos, and so few of McEwen, seriously distract from the very well-written text, because people will expect to see a photo of McEwen and then it's a totally different person. -- JamesB3 14:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An anonymous user, 72.49.119.180, who has never made another edit, on October 12 inserted the information about McEwen's senate run. He noted the creation of a McEwen for Senate page that very day, which suggests to me the editor is involved in the campaign--how else would he know about it that quickly? PedanticallySpeaking 17:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I added the tag "Good article" to this because the writing is clear, concise, informative, and npov. The problems still remain from its failed FAC of having better inline citation and at least one good photo... the old fair-use one just does not look good. - Dozenist talk 23:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
McIntyre/McCloskey facts inaccurate. First, McIntyre was never seated - the House refused to seat either men. Second, the certification was done only after a partial recount showed McIntyre in the lead, not after a full recount. While McEwen's remarks are accurate, the facts underlying the statement as described here are biased.
The inaccuracy was that neither man was seated - the House did not unseat McIntyre, they just refused to seat either on until they "investigated" the election - neither man was sworn in. So, the term "unseated" is inaccurate. Jimi777 It is correct, so I added the disputed tag back. As someone who lived in the 8th District at the time, I remember exactly how it unfolded, complete with attempts at power grabs on either side (Indiana Sec. of State and the US House). The commentary on the Democrats' hold on power may or may not be true, based on your POV, but the underlying facts that McIntyre was seated is not true. Jimi777 -- Jimi777 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Considering the election was still in dispute, "refused to seat either candidate" (to use Charlie Cook's words - a non-partisan source) is better language. See http://www.cookpolitical.com/column/2004/061105.php-- Jimi777 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of his lobbying for Eritrea, a country that openly abuses Christians (among other human rights issues)? http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060416/NEWS01/604160338/1077 http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/eritrea/index.do
I do realize this article, which is largely my work, needs to be updated to cover the campaign with Schmidt. I have been working on other areas in recent weeks and hope after the primary tomorrow to be able to bring it up to date. PedanticallySpeaking 16:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States
Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.-- Ryz05 t 00:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I think an article on McEwan's Export - Scotland's favourite beer - would better serve as an FA. As Arnstein Tranøy points out: This beer kept me alive during four hard years of studying at Stirling University in Scotland. If it did not cost almost £2 in Norway, I would still be drinking it every day.
See http://tuoppi.oulu.fi/kbs-bin/directbeer?Nr=423 son of Davkal 02:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
please REVERT the previous edit
nevermind, that was FAST!
This page has been semi-protected during its stay as a featured article. It will go back to normal status when its stay as a featured article ends or another admin returns it to normal. Capitalistroadster 09:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The article ends in
McEwen also considered a campaign for Lieutenant Governor as the running mate of [[Ohio Secretary of State|Hamilton]], and Warren. ==hfuergueugsrugt78gew465erw5hy2356459465hytjr7rt65fr65tfmjmr5t6njf6m5rt65rtmfnj6m65murermnjft
This is not right. Please correct. -- 80.63.213.182 09:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I recognize this is a well written article but, really, some politician from the USA? I would understand if George Bush (senior, junior or whatever) or Condolezza Rice were featured, but this guy?
Before someone starts explaining me how this article follows all the requirements to become a featured article (yawn), I would like to point out the obvious...that since featured articles appear on the main page, they are the first thing people encounter when entering this website, and reading featured articles is what generally arises interest into the notion of Wikipedia. For example, yesterday's featured article about transhumanism, now that is something that arises world concern. This article about an ex-member of the US House of Representatives? hmmm... maybe it's time to raise the standard on importance/significance for an article to be featured on the Wikipedia main page... Rosa 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
It is really weired. I started reading this article, looking for what is so interestign about this person, and couldn't find out the answer. And I am really interested in American politics. It is important that such an article will exist, but a featured article in the main page of the biggest Wikipedia?! eman 11:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
My opinion, as an anonymous user, is that this is the worst feature article I have ever seen Wikipedia use, smacking of astroturfing and turning Wikipedia into a propaganda machine. There is not a single critical word about the congressman here, and I find this amazing. Almost a comically bad choice of featured article.
I could not find a single piece of interesting information in the article. It would be difficult to list this article even on the newest articles: section of the Main Page
Did you know...
There is very little on Bob McEwen in this article, even less about his contributions and policies. Most of the contents is about minor details of elections campaigns. Much of this material might have better served in articles about the individual races.
The article has plenty of references and footnotes, but it does not seem to link to anything of significance in Wikipedia. For comparison, see the article on Jennings Randolph. (Maybe that should have been worked into a Featured Article instead :-) -- Petri Krohn 15:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not he's a good man is beside the point. This is a really odd selection for featured article. Supposedly, it was picked because it "met the standard" for a good article, but isn't there more to a good Wikipedia entry than meeting some list of standards? Shouldn't a really good article actually have some kind of a point? This is a bland retelling of the bland career of an apparently bland public official, who isn't even currently serving in any kind of public office. Very strange. -- 67.160.74.124 16:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
And, not meaning to pile on, I don't even think this is a very good article by Wikipedia's own standards. It's larded with unattributed, NPOV comments like "McEwen was not a man to mince words." What the heck? What kind of a statement is that? And name a politician to whom that doesn't occasionally apply. Yikes. -- 67.160.74.124 16:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This strikes me very much as a Republican POV article - there is no discussion of criticisms of his voting record, e.g.; does everyone love this fellow? Since McEwen is running in an election, featuring it could be seen as a partisan political endorsement.
Comical choice for "Featured Article"... an undistinguished and unimportant American politician. Huzzah! -- Anon Y. Mouse 18:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I thought it was an odd choice because it had utterly zero international appeal, but now it seems even the Americans reading this feel the same way. It's all very well saying that there are certain criteria and all that, as has been pointed out, but shouldn't the featured article also be something that there's a chance someone might give two hoots about? Lordrosemount 19:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree whole-heartedly with the above sentiments expressed by Rosa and Lordrosemount and others. Though there's not much we can do now about this one, we should all consider this a calling to get more involved with the featured article process. — GT 21:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
If you don't like it, write a great article on someone you think deserves the front page more than him. The topic of FAs are irrelevant, so long as the content is NPOV and properly referenced. From your user pages, it appears none of the last three of you have put significant effort into any article yet. Once you do, nominate it. -- Zanimum 21:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
What's more important for a politician's biography: contributions to policy & legislative/voting records, or their election details? Apparently, the latter. -- Roedelius 23:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I will write an article on some obscure politician from my own country. An article on Commisioner Omar Wahlid of the municipal water works will surely make FA.
Apparently all you need to get an FA is two arrogant admins. It's been entertaining seeing your snide remarks to those who dissented. Can you please post a new Wikipedia policy supporting your belief that only a selected group should have their opinions heard? For example, specific guidelines on how many articles one needs to write before being allowed to express an opinion contrary to your own would be helpful. -- Anon Y. Mouse 00:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Funny, but sad that it's actually true. - Anon Y. Mouse 21:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Why was the article protected for 10 hours?! See User:Raul654/protection for why it shouldn't be protected for more than 15 minutes at a time. This goes against the semi-protection policy. — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-03 19:33
This talk page is funny: the article is so sensitive it needs to be protected despite policy, but it's also so boring no-one would want to read it. :) Henry Flower 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
In all of the talk page I can only see one mention of vandalism, and that was reverted so quickly that it was not a substantial issue. I cannot see why it needs to be protected. The above users talk about the 'so sensitive' nature of the article, but the only thing that I can see people reacting to is regarding how this article got to be put on the front page at all. -- FearedInLasVegas 23:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The talk page has a 'running for office' tag. As I read the article, he isn't anymore, so can we remove the tag? Henry Flower 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. So I've come here to read about this article and what people think about it. I have read the article and I don't think it meets the criteria for featured articles. I don't want to be disruptive, so I'll ask here first: what is the process for nominating an article to be de-featured? Do you have to be able to demonstrate significant changes since it passed FAC? Should I just go ahead and edit the article to improve it? If I think I have improved it, can I submit it to be retrospectively de-featured and then promoted back to featured status based on the changes? (This would involve linking to the version immediately after passing FAC, and comparing to the version being re-submitted to FAC).
In fact, in general, does an article reaching featured status decrease the amount of editing that is done on an article? I have seen plenty of featured articles that could be improved a fair bit, but is there not a process at the end of that to recognise any improvements made to a featured article? In other words, can you get the featured status renewed? Carcharoth 21:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the state-of-the-art in FA's is to use the <ref> tags on dated material and then to have a bibliography of more traditional volumes that usually only identify a year and maybe a month of publication and often bear an ISBN. The latter is often not available on the web for free. The latter is also given a pass on how much input it really had to the article.
But this article's lengthy bibliography is almost all dated to the day. It seems to me that much of that "bibliography" could be folded back into the brilliant prose as inline refs or discarded. Any objections?-- SallyForth123 00:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
So here they are. The only one with a URL (Wilkinson) is no longer online for free. Again, compare for Talk:Jean Schmidt. And again, please note that I put Schmidt's article up for a FAR because, even though she won the election, nobody ever bothered to inline her new articles. But I still think that the SPIRIT of Wikipedia is that most of our refs should point to either an ISBN-bearing publication or a working web page from a reliable source (or a working pointer to archive.org). Sure, the news articles are "available" at a cost, but the overwhelming majority of our readers are never going to pay that cost to read those news articles. When I pulled the article below with a URL (again the Wilkinson article), I did look for other articles about McEwan at the Inquirer. Sadly, the only stuff they continue to make available for free are trivial squabbles from the campaign, once again showing how there is a difference between notable and newsworthy here in America.-- SallyForth123 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I was using a tool to get the wikisource conformant with MoS issues. I have since had it adjusted so that it leaves contractions alone. Sorry about the confusion.-- SallyForth123 22:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
So if someone was to quote him today, would he be referred to as 'Congressman McEwen'? Invmog ( talk) 02:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. This person has recently been in the news over the fallout from Wes Goodman's resignation of his seat from the Ohio House of Representatives. I read the Washington Post article mentioning that McEwen is an executive director for the Council for National Policy (CNP). I have not found information on when he joined the CNP. It would be before 2015 when the accusations came to light within the CNP. I am asking if anyone knows when McEwen joined. Thanks. FunksBrother ( talk) 02:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The article includes paragraphs of unsourced content and hasn't been looked at by reviewers since 2006. Are there any updates on subject's life? ( t · c) buidhe 03:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Reporter's bame is spelled wrong: it's Tom Diemer 2601:194:837F:4270:A11E:E462:EDAA:EB1B ( talk) 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Bob McEwen is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 3, 2006. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) 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 a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added notes about Bob McEwen's spamming. I haven't seen it in the news, but I have received it. Wirehead 20:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do we need all those photos of people who are only marginally related to McEwen's political history? Dobson has endorsed many candidates. Quayle campaigned with a number of candidates. The photo for Portman/Bush is already in Portman's entry. I think that many photos, and so few of McEwen, seriously distract from the very well-written text, because people will expect to see a photo of McEwen and then it's a totally different person. -- JamesB3 14:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An anonymous user, 72.49.119.180, who has never made another edit, on October 12 inserted the information about McEwen's senate run. He noted the creation of a McEwen for Senate page that very day, which suggests to me the editor is involved in the campaign--how else would he know about it that quickly? PedanticallySpeaking 17:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I added the tag "Good article" to this because the writing is clear, concise, informative, and npov. The problems still remain from its failed FAC of having better inline citation and at least one good photo... the old fair-use one just does not look good. - Dozenist talk 23:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
McIntyre/McCloskey facts inaccurate. First, McIntyre was never seated - the House refused to seat either men. Second, the certification was done only after a partial recount showed McIntyre in the lead, not after a full recount. While McEwen's remarks are accurate, the facts underlying the statement as described here are biased.
The inaccuracy was that neither man was seated - the House did not unseat McIntyre, they just refused to seat either on until they "investigated" the election - neither man was sworn in. So, the term "unseated" is inaccurate. Jimi777 It is correct, so I added the disputed tag back. As someone who lived in the 8th District at the time, I remember exactly how it unfolded, complete with attempts at power grabs on either side (Indiana Sec. of State and the US House). The commentary on the Democrats' hold on power may or may not be true, based on your POV, but the underlying facts that McIntyre was seated is not true. Jimi777 -- Jimi777 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Considering the election was still in dispute, "refused to seat either candidate" (to use Charlie Cook's words - a non-partisan source) is better language. See http://www.cookpolitical.com/column/2004/061105.php-- Jimi777 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of his lobbying for Eritrea, a country that openly abuses Christians (among other human rights issues)? http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060416/NEWS01/604160338/1077 http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/eritrea/index.do
I do realize this article, which is largely my work, needs to be updated to cover the campaign with Schmidt. I have been working on other areas in recent weeks and hope after the primary tomorrow to be able to bring it up to date. PedanticallySpeaking 16:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States
Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.-- Ryz05 t 00:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I think an article on McEwan's Export - Scotland's favourite beer - would better serve as an FA. As Arnstein Tranøy points out: This beer kept me alive during four hard years of studying at Stirling University in Scotland. If it did not cost almost £2 in Norway, I would still be drinking it every day.
See http://tuoppi.oulu.fi/kbs-bin/directbeer?Nr=423 son of Davkal 02:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
please REVERT the previous edit
nevermind, that was FAST!
This page has been semi-protected during its stay as a featured article. It will go back to normal status when its stay as a featured article ends or another admin returns it to normal. Capitalistroadster 09:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The article ends in
McEwen also considered a campaign for Lieutenant Governor as the running mate of [[Ohio Secretary of State|Hamilton]], and Warren. ==hfuergueugsrugt78gew465erw5hy2356459465hytjr7rt65fr65tfmjmr5t6njf6m5rt65rtmfnj6m65murermnjft
This is not right. Please correct. -- 80.63.213.182 09:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I recognize this is a well written article but, really, some politician from the USA? I would understand if George Bush (senior, junior or whatever) or Condolezza Rice were featured, but this guy?
Before someone starts explaining me how this article follows all the requirements to become a featured article (yawn), I would like to point out the obvious...that since featured articles appear on the main page, they are the first thing people encounter when entering this website, and reading featured articles is what generally arises interest into the notion of Wikipedia. For example, yesterday's featured article about transhumanism, now that is something that arises world concern. This article about an ex-member of the US House of Representatives? hmmm... maybe it's time to raise the standard on importance/significance for an article to be featured on the Wikipedia main page... Rosa 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
It is really weired. I started reading this article, looking for what is so interestign about this person, and couldn't find out the answer. And I am really interested in American politics. It is important that such an article will exist, but a featured article in the main page of the biggest Wikipedia?! eman 11:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
My opinion, as an anonymous user, is that this is the worst feature article I have ever seen Wikipedia use, smacking of astroturfing and turning Wikipedia into a propaganda machine. There is not a single critical word about the congressman here, and I find this amazing. Almost a comically bad choice of featured article.
I could not find a single piece of interesting information in the article. It would be difficult to list this article even on the newest articles: section of the Main Page
Did you know...
There is very little on Bob McEwen in this article, even less about his contributions and policies. Most of the contents is about minor details of elections campaigns. Much of this material might have better served in articles about the individual races.
The article has plenty of references and footnotes, but it does not seem to link to anything of significance in Wikipedia. For comparison, see the article on Jennings Randolph. (Maybe that should have been worked into a Featured Article instead :-) -- Petri Krohn 15:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not he's a good man is beside the point. This is a really odd selection for featured article. Supposedly, it was picked because it "met the standard" for a good article, but isn't there more to a good Wikipedia entry than meeting some list of standards? Shouldn't a really good article actually have some kind of a point? This is a bland retelling of the bland career of an apparently bland public official, who isn't even currently serving in any kind of public office. Very strange. -- 67.160.74.124 16:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
And, not meaning to pile on, I don't even think this is a very good article by Wikipedia's own standards. It's larded with unattributed, NPOV comments like "McEwen was not a man to mince words." What the heck? What kind of a statement is that? And name a politician to whom that doesn't occasionally apply. Yikes. -- 67.160.74.124 16:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This strikes me very much as a Republican POV article - there is no discussion of criticisms of his voting record, e.g.; does everyone love this fellow? Since McEwen is running in an election, featuring it could be seen as a partisan political endorsement.
Comical choice for "Featured Article"... an undistinguished and unimportant American politician. Huzzah! -- Anon Y. Mouse 18:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I thought it was an odd choice because it had utterly zero international appeal, but now it seems even the Americans reading this feel the same way. It's all very well saying that there are certain criteria and all that, as has been pointed out, but shouldn't the featured article also be something that there's a chance someone might give two hoots about? Lordrosemount 19:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree whole-heartedly with the above sentiments expressed by Rosa and Lordrosemount and others. Though there's not much we can do now about this one, we should all consider this a calling to get more involved with the featured article process. — GT 21:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
If you don't like it, write a great article on someone you think deserves the front page more than him. The topic of FAs are irrelevant, so long as the content is NPOV and properly referenced. From your user pages, it appears none of the last three of you have put significant effort into any article yet. Once you do, nominate it. -- Zanimum 21:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
What's more important for a politician's biography: contributions to policy & legislative/voting records, or their election details? Apparently, the latter. -- Roedelius 23:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I will write an article on some obscure politician from my own country. An article on Commisioner Omar Wahlid of the municipal water works will surely make FA.
Apparently all you need to get an FA is two arrogant admins. It's been entertaining seeing your snide remarks to those who dissented. Can you please post a new Wikipedia policy supporting your belief that only a selected group should have their opinions heard? For example, specific guidelines on how many articles one needs to write before being allowed to express an opinion contrary to your own would be helpful. -- Anon Y. Mouse 00:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Funny, but sad that it's actually true. - Anon Y. Mouse 21:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Why was the article protected for 10 hours?! See User:Raul654/protection for why it shouldn't be protected for more than 15 minutes at a time. This goes against the semi-protection policy. — BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-03 19:33
This talk page is funny: the article is so sensitive it needs to be protected despite policy, but it's also so boring no-one would want to read it. :) Henry Flower 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
In all of the talk page I can only see one mention of vandalism, and that was reverted so quickly that it was not a substantial issue. I cannot see why it needs to be protected. The above users talk about the 'so sensitive' nature of the article, but the only thing that I can see people reacting to is regarding how this article got to be put on the front page at all. -- FearedInLasVegas 23:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The talk page has a 'running for office' tag. As I read the article, he isn't anymore, so can we remove the tag? Henry Flower 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. So I've come here to read about this article and what people think about it. I have read the article and I don't think it meets the criteria for featured articles. I don't want to be disruptive, so I'll ask here first: what is the process for nominating an article to be de-featured? Do you have to be able to demonstrate significant changes since it passed FAC? Should I just go ahead and edit the article to improve it? If I think I have improved it, can I submit it to be retrospectively de-featured and then promoted back to featured status based on the changes? (This would involve linking to the version immediately after passing FAC, and comparing to the version being re-submitted to FAC).
In fact, in general, does an article reaching featured status decrease the amount of editing that is done on an article? I have seen plenty of featured articles that could be improved a fair bit, but is there not a process at the end of that to recognise any improvements made to a featured article? In other words, can you get the featured status renewed? Carcharoth 21:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the state-of-the-art in FA's is to use the <ref> tags on dated material and then to have a bibliography of more traditional volumes that usually only identify a year and maybe a month of publication and often bear an ISBN. The latter is often not available on the web for free. The latter is also given a pass on how much input it really had to the article.
But this article's lengthy bibliography is almost all dated to the day. It seems to me that much of that "bibliography" could be folded back into the brilliant prose as inline refs or discarded. Any objections?-- SallyForth123 00:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
So here they are. The only one with a URL (Wilkinson) is no longer online for free. Again, compare for Talk:Jean Schmidt. And again, please note that I put Schmidt's article up for a FAR because, even though she won the election, nobody ever bothered to inline her new articles. But I still think that the SPIRIT of Wikipedia is that most of our refs should point to either an ISBN-bearing publication or a working web page from a reliable source (or a working pointer to archive.org). Sure, the news articles are "available" at a cost, but the overwhelming majority of our readers are never going to pay that cost to read those news articles. When I pulled the article below with a URL (again the Wilkinson article), I did look for other articles about McEwan at the Inquirer. Sadly, the only stuff they continue to make available for free are trivial squabbles from the campaign, once again showing how there is a difference between notable and newsworthy here in America.-- SallyForth123 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I was using a tool to get the wikisource conformant with MoS issues. I have since had it adjusted so that it leaves contractions alone. Sorry about the confusion.-- SallyForth123 22:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
So if someone was to quote him today, would he be referred to as 'Congressman McEwen'? Invmog ( talk) 02:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. This person has recently been in the news over the fallout from Wes Goodman's resignation of his seat from the Ohio House of Representatives. I read the Washington Post article mentioning that McEwen is an executive director for the Council for National Policy (CNP). I have not found information on when he joined the CNP. It would be before 2015 when the accusations came to light within the CNP. I am asking if anyone knows when McEwen joined. Thanks. FunksBrother ( talk) 02:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The article includes paragraphs of unsourced content and hasn't been looked at by reviewers since 2006. Are there any updates on subject's life? ( t · c) buidhe 03:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Reporter's bame is spelled wrong: it's Tom Diemer 2601:194:837F:4270:A11E:E462:EDAA:EB1B ( talk) 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)