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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How should this section be titled? Qqqqqq ( talk) 15:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion there is no way to make the section neutral. Using a voting record does not show a politicians belief. There is no way to know why he voted one way or another. There could have been amendments or other language that prevented or supported voting. Anyway, the section should be left out all together. Let readers do their own research on sites that allow bias opinion. Lets stick to the facts. Gtstricky Talk or C 18:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Some suggestions for resolving the problems with the "Stance on issues and voting record" Section:
Douglasmcmahon ( talk) 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like too see those 'positions' removed, or allow myself, a Republican, to create a section entitled 'Republican Rebuttle'. Please let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.141 ( talk) 20:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the guy from the HOR, it shouldn't matter where he is from, for all you know he works in a Democrat office. Remove those biased words, immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.119.157 ( talk) 23:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this page has a LOT of bias in its opinion stance. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
164.67.181.71 (
talk)
19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I originally raised the question about this page (although I didn't do it correctly and a long time wiki contributor made the actual bias question noted above).
I moved to the congressman's district and was trying to find out about him. I found this page. I was immediately struck by the fact that (although the votes may be accurate) this section is not a “belief” or “positions” section. most people don’t proclaim their beliefs as being against something or opposed to something. we don’t think of our positions as negative. only those who disagree with us tend to do that. as such, it seems clear to me that these are “position” from the congressman’s opponents view point. so they are others views and not this congressman’s positions. I think anyone who is truly being objective would agree.
as for the issue of someone from the IP of the U.S. Congress not being having a valid point of view to make changes or contribute. I can’t comment since I am not sure what rules exist in that area. it would seem like that could be problematic. however, I can’t see anyone from congress contributing anything more biased that this section is.
when a section is titled “beliefs and positions”, I can’t see how anyone but the person being described could accurately state them (unless they were taken from some other documents that the person contributed to themselves ie. an autobiography or position paper or campaign literature, etc.).
as a result, I think the only way to correctly deal with this issue is to do one of the following:
1) allow republicans or this congressman to express an alternate set of positions. 2) do as I tried to do, label this section as democrat or opposition views 3) delete the entire section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm61LV ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
There's been a slow-speed edit war over the last several days, essentially with User:IronAngelAlice on one side and User:JamesMLane and me on the other. This most recent revert is pretty representative of the conflict, so I'll address the two issues in it:
1. Heading - the disputed section deals entirely with gay marriage, and so in the interests of precision it should be titled something like "Same-sex marriage" or (less preferably, in my mind) "Gay rights". My objections to "Civil rights" are, in no particular order, that it's vague (and therefore gives the reader less of an indication of what to expect from the section than "Gay marriage" does), it carries connotations that don't apply here ("Civil rights" makes people think of the 1960s and police officers turning firehoses on black protesters), and it's somewhat POV (by titling the section "Civil rights" and including only the fact that Porter opposes same-sex marriage, there's a subtle suggestion created that he's anti-civil rights - titling it "Same-sex marriage" creates only the impression that he opposes same-sex marriage, which he obviously does).
2. "...which would deny equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian Americans." This is clearly POV language - "deny equal...rights" creates an obvious impressions that the person denying the rights is oppressing. Moreover, there's a segment of opinion that says that all Americans have equal marriage rights, since all are legally entitled to marry a non-relative consenting adult of the opposite sex. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
What's the CAF? Apparently it advocates for energy independence, but I can't find what that stands for. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 05:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
For the discussion behind the semi-protection, see the archived AN/I discussion -- Toddst1 ( talk) 20:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Foreign policy, Government Reform, and Immigration should be added because they are essential issues.
Congressman Porter voted YES on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. He voted YES on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. He voted YES on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination. Congressman Porter also voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections and voted YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits. [5]
Congressman Porter voted YES on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. He voted YES on reforming the UN by restricting US funding and voted to keep sanctions against Syria until WMDs are dismantled. [6]
Congressman Porter voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border, he voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. Congressman Porter also co-sponsored H.R. 4987 which would set a deadline to build the fence along the Mexican border. [7] [8]( PackerFan123 ( talk) 20:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)).
I don't see how it can be considered a smear to quote verbatim what one notable Republican politician said about another. I propose restoring this quotation unless its authenticity is challenged. JamesMLane t c 10:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody know how many semesters of college Jon attended? He didn't complete his bachelor's degree.
From Jon Porter's website: Jon Porter was born in Humboldt, Iowa on May 16, 1955. He attended Briar Cliff College in Sioux City, Iowa. He has two children, J. Chris and Nicole.
There's some pretty blatant plagiarism going on in this article. Examples:
Wikipedia:
Porter has been given a 13% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record.
OnTheIssues.org:
Rated 13% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. [9]
Wikipedia:
Porter has been given a 0% rating by the Alliance of Retired Americans, indicating a record that the ARA believes is not in the best interest of senior citizens.
OnTheIssues.org:
Rated 0% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. [10]
Wikipedia:
He is rated 39% by the NAACP, indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action.
OnTheIssues.org:
Rated 39% by NAACP, indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action. [11]
There are also far too many peacock terms.
Jon Porter has been a strong supporter of the war in Iraq from the beginning of the war in 2003 until the present. On July 19, 2007, Jon Porter voted for an amendment that would have cut off funding for Planned Parenthood and other family planning services that provide affordable birth control. In September 2004, Porter voted to amend the United States Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, though same-sex marriage was already banned in Nevada. (This is part Peacock, part irrelevant).
In any case, if I had my druthers, the Stance on issues and voting record section would be removed.
I'm going to tag this article. -- thequackdaddy ( talk) 00:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Tthough I support Titus over Porter, I honestly thought Thequackdaddy's recent edits were more NPOV than the previous version (why not say "x% from this group," rather than "x% from this group, meaning an anti-y stance"?). I had worked to clean up the POV issues in this article many months ago, but I stopped watching it for a while. It looks to be just as contentious as it was back then. Qqqqqq ( talk) 22:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jon Porter/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This page has a big problem with Bias in the voting section page. Personally, I think it should be deleted altogether or updated |
Last edited at 19:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jon Porter. 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) 17:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How should this section be titled? Qqqqqq ( talk) 15:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion there is no way to make the section neutral. Using a voting record does not show a politicians belief. There is no way to know why he voted one way or another. There could have been amendments or other language that prevented or supported voting. Anyway, the section should be left out all together. Let readers do their own research on sites that allow bias opinion. Lets stick to the facts. Gtstricky Talk or C 18:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Some suggestions for resolving the problems with the "Stance on issues and voting record" Section:
Douglasmcmahon ( talk) 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like too see those 'positions' removed, or allow myself, a Republican, to create a section entitled 'Republican Rebuttle'. Please let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.141 ( talk) 20:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the guy from the HOR, it shouldn't matter where he is from, for all you know he works in a Democrat office. Remove those biased words, immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.119.157 ( talk) 23:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this page has a LOT of bias in its opinion stance. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
164.67.181.71 (
talk)
19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I originally raised the question about this page (although I didn't do it correctly and a long time wiki contributor made the actual bias question noted above).
I moved to the congressman's district and was trying to find out about him. I found this page. I was immediately struck by the fact that (although the votes may be accurate) this section is not a “belief” or “positions” section. most people don’t proclaim their beliefs as being against something or opposed to something. we don’t think of our positions as negative. only those who disagree with us tend to do that. as such, it seems clear to me that these are “position” from the congressman’s opponents view point. so they are others views and not this congressman’s positions. I think anyone who is truly being objective would agree.
as for the issue of someone from the IP of the U.S. Congress not being having a valid point of view to make changes or contribute. I can’t comment since I am not sure what rules exist in that area. it would seem like that could be problematic. however, I can’t see anyone from congress contributing anything more biased that this section is.
when a section is titled “beliefs and positions”, I can’t see how anyone but the person being described could accurately state them (unless they were taken from some other documents that the person contributed to themselves ie. an autobiography or position paper or campaign literature, etc.).
as a result, I think the only way to correctly deal with this issue is to do one of the following:
1) allow republicans or this congressman to express an alternate set of positions. 2) do as I tried to do, label this section as democrat or opposition views 3) delete the entire section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm61LV ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
There's been a slow-speed edit war over the last several days, essentially with User:IronAngelAlice on one side and User:JamesMLane and me on the other. This most recent revert is pretty representative of the conflict, so I'll address the two issues in it:
1. Heading - the disputed section deals entirely with gay marriage, and so in the interests of precision it should be titled something like "Same-sex marriage" or (less preferably, in my mind) "Gay rights". My objections to "Civil rights" are, in no particular order, that it's vague (and therefore gives the reader less of an indication of what to expect from the section than "Gay marriage" does), it carries connotations that don't apply here ("Civil rights" makes people think of the 1960s and police officers turning firehoses on black protesters), and it's somewhat POV (by titling the section "Civil rights" and including only the fact that Porter opposes same-sex marriage, there's a subtle suggestion created that he's anti-civil rights - titling it "Same-sex marriage" creates only the impression that he opposes same-sex marriage, which he obviously does).
2. "...which would deny equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian Americans." This is clearly POV language - "deny equal...rights" creates an obvious impressions that the person denying the rights is oppressing. Moreover, there's a segment of opinion that says that all Americans have equal marriage rights, since all are legally entitled to marry a non-relative consenting adult of the opposite sex. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
What's the CAF? Apparently it advocates for energy independence, but I can't find what that stands for. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 05:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
For the discussion behind the semi-protection, see the archived AN/I discussion -- Toddst1 ( talk) 20:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Foreign policy, Government Reform, and Immigration should be added because they are essential issues.
Congressman Porter voted YES on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. He voted YES on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. He voted YES on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination. Congressman Porter also voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections and voted YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits. [5]
Congressman Porter voted YES on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. He voted YES on reforming the UN by restricting US funding and voted to keep sanctions against Syria until WMDs are dismantled. [6]
Congressman Porter voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border, he voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. Congressman Porter also co-sponsored H.R. 4987 which would set a deadline to build the fence along the Mexican border. [7] [8]( PackerFan123 ( talk) 20:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)).
I don't see how it can be considered a smear to quote verbatim what one notable Republican politician said about another. I propose restoring this quotation unless its authenticity is challenged. JamesMLane t c 10:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody know how many semesters of college Jon attended? He didn't complete his bachelor's degree.
From Jon Porter's website: Jon Porter was born in Humboldt, Iowa on May 16, 1955. He attended Briar Cliff College in Sioux City, Iowa. He has two children, J. Chris and Nicole.
There's some pretty blatant plagiarism going on in this article. Examples:
Wikipedia:
Porter has been given a 13% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record.
OnTheIssues.org:
Rated 13% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. [9]
Wikipedia:
Porter has been given a 0% rating by the Alliance of Retired Americans, indicating a record that the ARA believes is not in the best interest of senior citizens.
OnTheIssues.org:
Rated 0% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. [10]
Wikipedia:
He is rated 39% by the NAACP, indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action.
OnTheIssues.org:
Rated 39% by NAACP, indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action. [11]
There are also far too many peacock terms.
Jon Porter has been a strong supporter of the war in Iraq from the beginning of the war in 2003 until the present. On July 19, 2007, Jon Porter voted for an amendment that would have cut off funding for Planned Parenthood and other family planning services that provide affordable birth control. In September 2004, Porter voted to amend the United States Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, though same-sex marriage was already banned in Nevada. (This is part Peacock, part irrelevant).
In any case, if I had my druthers, the Stance on issues and voting record section would be removed.
I'm going to tag this article. -- thequackdaddy ( talk) 00:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Tthough I support Titus over Porter, I honestly thought Thequackdaddy's recent edits were more NPOV than the previous version (why not say "x% from this group," rather than "x% from this group, meaning an anti-y stance"?). I had worked to clean up the POV issues in this article many months ago, but I stopped watching it for a while. It looks to be just as contentious as it was back then. Qqqqqq ( talk) 22:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jon Porter/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This page has a big problem with Bias in the voting section page. Personally, I think it should be deleted altogether or updated |
Last edited at 19:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jon Porter. 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) 17:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)