Jump to content

Talk:Steve Austria

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

Possible Bias: The Reason There is an Article Is?

[edit]

Wikipedia is a great source for information, but while I was looking for information about the incumbents for Ohio's 7th district, I found that only Austin (as seen in this article) is mentioned. The link for Neuhardt is just to her political site. Wikipedia has no information on her at all.

So I have a question, had Austria not had his article printed in the Xenia Gazette, would there even be an article? Maybe it's just me, but with the lack of any information on political platforms, Austin's article seems a bit biased. This is further compounded by the lack of any information on Neuhardt. More information needs to be put up here on this candidate, and Neuhardt needs her own page inside Wikipedia, proper. 99.174.169.17 (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem should be seen as there is not a page on Neuhardt, not that there is a page on Austria. Since Austria is now the elected candidate this page makes even more sense. As a community we should continue to develop Wikipedia articles for candidates like this.Jj04 (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.125.229 (talk) [reply]

Conflict re Steve Austria

[edit]

The Steve Austria article and the Ohio's 10th congressional district article appear to contradict one another regarding representation of that district by Steve Austria. I've placed {{Contradict other}} templates on both pages. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

[edit]

I recently removed a large block of text because it was copied verbatim from another website. (see here and here). I'd have no objection to using those sites as references to an expanded section on "Political Career" or "Personal Life" - assuming the material was rewritten and properly referenced. --Koppas (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

[edit]

The material in this section has been blanked multiple times. While I'm (obviously) against blanking the entire section without discussion, I'd like to make the following suggestions for changes.Koppas (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The section on plagiarism - if it belongs in the article at all - should be incorporated into a section about the 2008 campaign. The incident is a documented fact, but I'm not sure that it's important enough to warrant its own entry.Koppas (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The sections for "Comments on the Great Depression" and The "Worst Person" should be merged into a single entry. I've already made this edit, but if anyone has a good reason to change it back, that's fine by me.Koppas (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing investigation regarding the origin of these edits. In the meantime, if this section is blanked, revert the edits and report the vandal to WP:AIV. 70.153.122.245 (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be in this article at all? It maybe POV pushing. Although it is fact that people have said this about the subject of the article, does that encompass a large part of that individual as it appears to have undue weight within the total of the article itself. If anything this section should be shortenned.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also add that events for Living Persons need two references from reliable sources per WP:BLP to be added. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of observations:
  • It seems to me that the BLP criteria for two references would logically apply to cases where the facts behind an event are debatable. That's not the case here.
  • As I've said before, the "allegations of plagiarism" section strikes me as weak and probably doesn't belong here.
  • I would include the Great Depression quotation (by Austria) in the article, although not the rejoinder & retraction. Since the controversy is about the actual quote, its inclusion does illuminate the topic.
  • If your average American has ever heard of Steve Austria, it's probably because of his comments on the depression. He's a new (federal) congressman from an obscure and largely rural district in Ohio and has had little chance to distinguish himself in the few months that he's been in office. It's unfortunate that he made the statement, but I think it should remain in the article.--Koppas (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the quote is needed, just the fact that something was said, and the responses to that something. In the case of Larry Craig Scandel, there was not the need, before that section was split into its own article, to have a detailed description of the events fmr. Senator Craig had done.
So then that is two editors who believe the allegation of plagerism should be removed. Unless I see a good reason otherwise, I believe it would be fair to say that we have reached consensus on removal. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the editors was anonymous and from his user profile I gather that RightCowLeftCoast has a right leaning POV. I don't think that is consensus. Matthew Steven Kelly (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations

[edit]

I'm a huge fan of controversy sections, but from what I can tell, these allegations are both old, unfounded, and not in reliable sources. Keith Olbermann as a source is rather fishy, I suspect. I removed all of them. It's on the people who add them to explain why they should be on the page to begin with. --Starbucksian (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable guideline or essay is WP:BURDEN. Although Keith Olbermann may not be reliable source on his own, MSNBC, although a bias source, is a reliable source. However, given that this is a BLP article, controversal additions or content require a greater level of verifiation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Steve Austria/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.

== Sounds Like Possible Bias==

Wikipedia is a great source for information, but while I was looking for information about the incumbents for Ohio's 7th district, I found that only Austin (as seen in this article) is mentioned. The link for Neuhardt is just to her political site. Wikipedia has no information on her at all.

So I have a question, had Austria not had his article printed in the Xenia Gazette, would there even be an article? Maybe it's just me, but with the lack of any information on political platforms, Austin's article seems a bit biased. This is further compounded by the lack of any information on Neuhardt. More information needs to be put up here on this candidate, and Neuhardt needs her own page inside Wikipedia, proper. 99.174.169.17 (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 00:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Steve Austria. 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).

  • 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) 21:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Steve Austria. 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).

  • 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) 16:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Austria&oldid=1205514792"