![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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://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)
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:
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)
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.
Thank you for your input and I look forward to your response. Best, Sprinkler Court ( talk) 18:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
and 2Part 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.
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)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.
Thanks, I am still new to this. I have added the reference. MichiganderOne ( talk) 23:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
References
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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://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)
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:
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)
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.
Thank you for your input and I look forward to your response. Best, Sprinkler Court ( talk) 18:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
and 2Part 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.
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)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.
Thanks, I am still new to this. I have added the reference. MichiganderOne ( talk) 23:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
References
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)