Talk:Jon Porter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC: POV of positions[edit]

How should this section be titled? Qqqqqq (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that the question refers to his positions that the "Democrat" (sic) party lists. IMO the way his positions are listed are not done in a neutral way, and I will try to fix that when I get a chance. Something along the lines of "political positions" or similar would be better.Ngchen (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Section titled "Stance on issues and voting record" exhibits obvious political bias and should be deleted until there is consensus. A quick read suggests no other problems. Raggz (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions for resolving the problems with the "Stance on issues and voting record" Section:

  • The section should stay in some form; the current name for it does not exhibit bias and similar sections are found on other congressmen's pages. This is because other than a person's biographical/educational information, the political positions of a person who is notable enough to be in Wikipedia because they are a member of Congress are probably some of the most important pieces of information a person looking up their bio will be curious about.
  • Posting scores from different organizations (like the AFL-CIO) but without biased commentary, similar to Jim Costa, seems like a more factual summary of record.
  • Naming the issue subsections in a less biased way (such as Minimum Wage instead of Opposed Minimum Wage Increases) will help neutrality and also more easily allow for additional information to be added in the future.
  • Adding a "Controversy" section may allow the section on the issues to be more neutral.

Douglasmcmahon (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Douglasmcmahon on all counts, especially the second last one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has come to my attention that the comment I made may breach Wikipedia rules so in the interests of full disclosure I should explain how it came about. I am a Harvard Law student taking a class in Cyberlaw. One of the assignments that we were given was to enter into a debate where there had been a request for comment or the like and try to help to resolve it. As we were asked to do this in groups my comment above actually represents a consensus opinion amongst 6 people where the consensus was reached on another wiki. I won't delete the comment as I genuinely believe it to be helpful but an administrator may wish to consider its place. Also it should be noted the group hasn't made any edits to any other discussion pages on this issue. The dispute that led to this comment is located here Douglasmcmahon (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Positions[edit]

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)[reply]

Your IP address shows you're from the House of Representatives. You obviously have a conflict of interest, and should have no part in this article. You will not manipulate this page to your liking. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I will not. Feel free to 'report' me for not wanting this article to be manipulated by a known vandal IP. I'm sure that will go over well, if you know how to tell just the right lie. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]


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)[reply]

This is not an appropriate use of the neutrality tag. To allow beliefs from a Republican point of view is not neutral. It looks like the references for that section all come from the Las Vegas Review Journal or OntheIssues.org--IronAngelAlice (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the stances and beliefs are properly referenced and appear to clearly have a neutral point of view. This edit of yours that was a blatant attempt to completely remove all referenced facts is completely inappropriate. I'm supposed to assume good faith on your intentions, but with all the new accounts that suddenly pop up in an attempt to censor referenced and documented stances and facts joining together with an IP from the House of Representatives, I refuse to feign ignorance. As for your proposed actions, #1 is acceptable if the stances are properly referenced with a neutral point of view and not from a blatant Single-purpose account from the House of Representatives. #2 would be a suggestion to change the label to a deliberate, gross misinterpretation. #3 is unacceptable and only further justifies the notion that you are another account from the House. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV of gay marriage section[edit]

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)[reply]

I wouldn't accuse IronAngelAlice of edit warring when s/he has added this material only twice. On the substance of Sarcasticidealist's comments, however, I agree. I'd add that the "which would deny...." language doesn't give the reader any additional information. All it does is highlight one side of the argument. We could highlight the other side by adding "which would restrict marriage to the traditional understanding that has been in place for centuries." Neither addition would be appropriate. I haven't looked at the article about Same-sex marriage but I assume that each side's position is thoroughly explained there, so a reader of the Jon Porter article who wants to know more can click the wikilink and find the marriage equality point explained. (If it's not explained there, definitely add it there.) JamesMLane t c 21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I was using "edit war" in the broadest sense - not only to indicate activities that violate Wikipedia's community norms. There have also been more than two reversions on each side - here are my reversions on this subject matter: [1],[2],[3],[4], and that's without factoring in your one revision. So I think it's fair to call this a slow speed edit war, just not an actionable one. But that's semantics. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. The source we are using has the title "Civil Rights" for this section, not "Gay Rights."
2. The term "Gay Rights" is also biased because it implies that Gay Rights are special rights. There is no inherent bias to "equal rights." To claim that gay people have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex misses the point entirely.
But in essence, to avoid a continual edit war, it seems to be we should use the language that is in the source.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - the source uses the term "civil rights" as a broad category across all the politicians it covers, and it sticks all sorts of different legislation in there, not just constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Here, however, we're not using it as a broad category, we're using it to refer specifically to same-sex marriage. I do take your point about "gay rights" being sub-optimal, though - how about "same-sex marriage"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that you're expanding it to include more than just gay marriage, I think I can live with "civil rights". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAF?[edit]

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)[reply]

Thanks, Will. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protect[edit]

For the discussion behind the semi-protection, see the archived AN/I discussion -- Toddst1 (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new edits[edit]

Foreign policy, Government Reform, and Immigration should be added because they are essential issues.

No need for the editprotected template - the page is only semi-protected, so you'll be able to make the edits yourself once your account is four days old. For what it's worth, your proposals seem reasonable to me, though they could do with fewer capital letters. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statements of his political positions need to be more neutral than the example below. Best practice is also to link to a specific bill, so that the reader can follow up the capsule summary by getting more information about the actual content of the bill. JamesMLane t c 22:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Government Reform[edit]

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]

Foreign Policy[edit]

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]

Immigration[edit]

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)).[reply]

Cheney speech[edit]

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)[reply]

I don't think it contributes anything to the article, frankly. I don't think it's a smear, I just think it takes up space without doing anything to increase the reader's understanding of the article topic. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement. It lacks sufficient context to be anything but guilt by association. ThuranX (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that Cheney endorsed Porter and hosted an event for him would be relevant, I would think. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that were actually a particularly notable situation. However, Cheney has endorsed and hosted for many candidates within his own party. Had he thrown an event, that it, initiating and taking full managerial control of the procedings, that might be more significant, but 'hosting' means a quick speech and gladhanding time, not anything really significantly notable in itself. ThuranX (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully with ThuranX. It's the nature of party politics that politicians in the same party say nice things about each other. We could fill the page of every Republican congressman with laudatory comments made by high-profile Republicans - hell, in the leadup to the 2006 elections, the administration was saying nice things about Lincoln Chafee. It's only worth including if it's somehow outside of the ordinary - across party lines (in the case of Feingold's and Lieberman's praise of McCain, for example), or controversial, or otherwise extensively remarked on by the media. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Education Level[edit]

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.

Plagiarism and Peacock Terms[edit]

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)[reply]

You're unlikely to get much support on all but the first and third items. The second is sufficiently reworded, and sourced. as for the last part, clarity is hardly a problem, and a voting record of continued, uniform support is strong support. As for the next, the affordability is a keystone of Planned Parenthood's premise. As for the final part, again, a clear indication of his background isn't out of place either. Looking to gut an article's materials just before an election is going to be seen as a POV push. ThuranX (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was only a small sample. Here are 2 more from the same section.
Wikipedia
In March 2007, Porter voted against restricting employer interference in union organizing.
OnTheIssues.org:
Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007) [12]


Wikipedia
In January 2007, Jon Porter voted against raising the federal minimum wage to $7.25.
OnTheIssues.org
Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007) [13]
I recognize that doing this before an election might be seen as a POV push, but plagiarism in any form is unacceptable. However, if it must wait, so be it. Getting it right is more important than doing it now. As for the plagiarism comment, simply "rewording" a sentence does not constitute a valid use. Plagiarism is use of someone else's work either verbatim or with minimal alterations. Going from "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" to "Rated 0% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record" is a minimal change.
--thequackdaddy (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we get that you don't like Porter. You may even be aware of how his staffers attempted to manipulate his article earlier this election cycle. It's irrelevant. First of all, again, most of what you cite isn't plagarism. There are only so many ways to convey some of the specific language of his votes, and whatever can be done has been, esp. in that minimum wage sentence, which is quite different. That you're taking the time to line-by-line this article through google to find similar material shows your efforts are a POV push. Further, minimal changes without attribution constitute plagarism. If our material is sourced, and reworded as best as can be, then we've met the minimal threshold. That you continue to ignore the attribution component is further evidence of your POV intent. Drop it and move on. ThuranX (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I did not search line-by-line through Google to find these examples. Because they are all written in a very similar style, it's quite clear that the same author wrote them. Notice the repeated use of the word "indicating." And lo-and-behold, the quotes all come from the exact same web page--not website... the same page. This was a cut and paste job. Merely "rewording" it is not enough. If you want to quote the website, then put it in quotes. Otherwise--even if you put a footnote behind it--you have not sourced it. Thanks so much! --thequackdaddy (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SO, your fingers are broken? You have a problem with it, you can fix it, if it's so bad and so urgent. ThuranX (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you really need to chill. You get agitated way too easy. I've made some changes to the article. Let me know what you think. On a side note, I'd recommend that you review the assume good faith guidelines again. Thanks!--thequackdaddy (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a 'dude'. Further, Ivve reverted most of your edits, as they only serve to clean-up the article for undecided viewers, removing the rating of various issues-related groups, and make him more palatable. As such, no more such edits should be undertaken until after the election. At this point, I think this is more about hoping readers unfamiliar with the candidate will see your cleaner version and vote for him over Titus instead of actually improve the article for the sake of improvement. ThuranX (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere apologies for the gender confusion. It was a mistake. To be clear, I do not work for Titus, his campaign, or the Republicans. I don't live in Nevada. So why do I care? Because this section is plagiarized, editorialized, and generally, POV. First of all, I would like you to point out 1 example--just 1--Of when I removed "the rating of various issues-related groups." I did not. Please be more careful before making those accusations. Second of all, I would like to be civil about this. Here are my problems with your edits.
1. Why did you take [citation needed] out from behind an assertation that was uncited?
2. The reason why Republicans do not like funding Planned Parenthood at all is that they believe that when the government gives them money for non-abortion birth control, they re-allocate private donations from non-abortion birth control to abortion birth control. That is the context.
3. I did not remove citations in the Labor paragraph. All the citations pointed to the same page. If you want 3 citations in 3 consecutive sentences, whatever, I'm not going to stop you.
4. I should be more clear on the bio-fuels part. Investing is a peacock term. I meant to say, tax subsides for biofuels. But you seem to have missed the context of that. I will change.
Thanks so much!--thequackdaddy (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NO, I'm male, I'm just not your 'dude'. I'm not your friend, pal, or buddy, either. 1)A sitting elected official's voting record is not a contentious fact, and doesn't require citation, esp. for soemthing ONLY tagged to further your POV push. 2)Republicans don't like PP because blah blah blah. Abortion is a hotbutton republican issue; using the word here only serves to POV push for the base. Those who want to know more about PP and don't know can read it on the wiki-linked article. 3) You did remove citations there. I restored them, and the information attributed to them. 4) NO, you meant to say Bio fuels, otherwise you wouldn't have removed the context. Further, the bill would've invested federal funds in the research, not given tax breaks for it, which republicans like. thansk for nothing. I will ask for page protection if you pursue your POV pushing pro-Porter agenda. ThuranX (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look ThuranX, I apologize for the gender confusion again. I do not mean to insult you. To restate, I do not work for the man. I do not know the man. I am not the man. I do not work for the RNC. I have no dog in the fight, other than the fact that you have started an edit war. Please assume good faith with my edits. Here are my last 2 points. This is the sentence. "On July 19, 2007, Porter voted for an amendment that would have cut off funding for Planned Parenthood and other groups which provide family planning services." Question. Does PP provide abortion services? Answer: Yes. Question: Does the fact that they provide abortion services drive opposition to them? Answer: Yes. Question: Is PP inextricably linked to abortion? Answer: Yes. How about using the "birth control" instead of "family planning services" then? Is that NPOV enough? Next, I all the citations in the Labor paragraph point to the exact same page. I removed them because you don't need to cite the same page three times in a row for the same facts. Lastly, Investing is a weasel word. Notice I did not change the sentence to read "Jon Porter voted against tax incentives for renewable energy, investing in bio fuels, and for investing in oil & gas exploration." I changed it to "Jon Porter voted against tax incentives for renewable energy, tax incentives in bio fuels, and removing oil & gas exploration subsidies."
Can we still be friends.  ;-) --thequackdaddy (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your fatuous attiude is an insults. Tying PP to abortion like it's a one trick pony is POV. That you insist on it shows your POV. If I wanted to push in the opposite direction, I would focus on PP's rape and sexual abuse counseling services. They offer a variety of family planning services, from contraception to abortion to neo-natal care and information, as well as the counseling services mentioned. Instead, I opted for the more general, NPOV summary, 'family planning services'. that you insist on adding 'abortion' shows that you are, in fact, interested in coloring the article to look good to last minute undecided voters who might come here for more information. No, we can not be friends. ThuranX (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ThuranX, first off, please note that I never once insulted you. In the first sentence here, you have clearly--and intentionally--insulted me. If you ever wanted to know how fights break out on Wikipedia, I would advise that you re-read this thread. First, I pointed out plagiarism and and bias in the article. You partially agreed. I then pointed out more to demonstrate that this was systematic plagiarism. You accused me (with no evidence other than wild conjecture) of working for Porter. I responded by saying, essentially, it doesn't matter when the election is, what matters is that this article is terrible. You then asked me, not so politely ("are your fingers broken") to fix the problem. I did. You then decided that my edits were POV and reverted some of them. In the meantime, someone said, "Hey, I think Thequackdaddy's is more NPOV" and you attacked them. Clearly, you have a bias on this man. You don't like him. Your quote "Porter doesn't even have a bachelor's degree? That is flat-out embarrassing if so." is quite indicative of this. My parent's don't have bachelor's degrees. Am I embarrassed of them? No. I'm not going to accuse you of bad faith (though I think I have every right to by now) but at a minimum I would ask that you not threaten to take your ball and go home (i.e., ask to block edits on this page) if you don't get your way. That's no way to run a collaborative exercise like Wikipeida. Thanks! --thequackdaddy (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never posted that material about his education, I kept reverting it off the talk page, because it was abuse of the Talk Page as a Forum, see WP:FORUM. That you don't bother to even check this, nor realize that I'm committed to NPOV and not to whitewashing him up just before the election, means there's no point in continuing this. It's frustrating, and you ahve no interest in establishign NPOV, but in agenda working. it's not 'taking my ball and going home', it's preventing you from shitting on the kitchen table and calling it london broil. ThuranX (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Presenting a Statistic with no context is absurd. I rate Lima beans 11%! 11% out of 100% where 100 is yummy, or 11% out of 100% where 100% is 100 is completely artificial and unhealthy? Context is needed, otherwise the statistics get dumped entirely, leaving us with no coverage of his views and positions, which is undesirable. ThuranX (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The context is the group that provided the rating. It's obvious that 0% disagrees with the group's agenda, while 100% agrees with that agenda. Qqqqqq (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the nature of this article, and the myriad of postings here both complaining and exalting this article (including the 2 posted yesterday by Qqqqqq) I believe that there is a good-faith disagreement on whether or not this article constitutes NPOV. Because this is unresolved, I have therefore re-added the NPOV heading to the top. If you desire to have this page locked, please lock the page with the NPOV on. I would also like to point out from the WP:NPOVD discussion page the following quote; "Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed." I appreciate your understanding and working with you to resolve this. Thanks! --thequackdaddy (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, what we have here are two republican activists, organized, grassroots, or astroturfing, who insist on making their candidate as palatable as possible just before the election, in hopes of defeating the democratic candidate who recent polls as reported on electoral-vote.com report as having a slight lead. I'm not going to remove the tag, but I also find the timing incredibly suspicious, given the previous attacks on this page by Porter's employees and supporters, and I can't AGF about this. ThuranX (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who are the Republican activists here? Qqqqqq (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

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)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jon_Porter&oldid=1207266871"