Jump to content

Talk:Jeb Bradley

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

Bcarlson33 text deletions

[edit]

Bcarlson33 - I thought my edit summary made clear my objections to the "cleaned up text" editing that you did. Apparently not, since you again did massive deletions to the article. So let me make it clear why here why I object, and why I've again reverted what you did.

Before I do, one question: your last reversion overwrote the constructive edits by 205.174.22.27, which some might read as a disregard for actually improving this article. Why?

First, I reverted the edit because it appeared to lack good faith. You took an article that was already short - a STUB - and shortened it, while simply saying in the edit summary that you had "cleaned up text". Massive deletion is NOT, objectively, a "clean up", and your misleading edit summary could be seen by some as an attempt to avoid detection.

Second, what you removed was objective information:

He is a member of Christine Todd Whitman's Its My Party Too, The Republican Main Street Partnership, The Republican Majority For Choice, Republicans for Choice and Republicans For Environmental Protection.

That information you removed included the names of Democratic candidates, one of whom is going to be in the November election:

* Jim Craig, the State House Democratic Leader, from Manchester

  • Gary Dodds of Rye, who has been openly running since late 2005 [1]
  • Peter Sullivan, a State Representative from Manchester [2]
  • Carol Shea-Porter, the Rochester city Democratic chair [3]

In addition, Dan Belforti [4] is a declared candidate of the Libertarian party. [5]

You removed the link to an article describing the race: [6]

Finally, when you reverted back to your shortened version, you didn't explain why you thought you were right to do so. Rather, you asked that I justify my putting the (above, objective) information back into the article. It seems to me that when someone does something (as you did) that is controversial, that someone should explain it. You didn't explain, again something that some could see as evididence of bad faith.

John Broughton 23:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Let me try to respond to your comments.
Regarding 205.174.22.27's edits: my intention was not to overwrite those edits, one of which was in my original cleanup. They are easily added back into the article.
Regarding your revert: you did not mention until now that the rationale was that my edits appeared to "lack good faith." Can you point to any part of my edits that would disparage or even introduce POV to the article? Is it not WP guidelines to assume good faith?
The information you claim I "deleted" was summarized. Jeb Bradley represents my district in Congress, and not once have I ever heard him make reference to any of these memberships. As such, including them as the heart of the article creates a misleading, inaccurate picture of the subject. My wording better reflects Bradley's actions and priorities in Congress than a list of organizations to which he may be tangentially related.
As to the candidates running against Jeb Bradley: that information is easily available elsewhere. Also, the information consists of links to four campaign sites and an article which has already expired. The fact that several candidates are running against an incumbent in an election is not notable information.
Finally, I agree that "when someone does something (as you did) that is controversial, that someone should explain it" - which is why I explained my actions in the edit summary. If those changes were unclear to you, why not ask first instead of revert? That would have shown an assumption of good faith, and would therefore have been a more constructive choice.
Thanks for your comments. Bcarlson33 00:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As John has chosen to again revert my edits without discussion, I have gone ahead and restored my changes, as well as adding several new sections of new info to fill out the article. Bcarlson33 02:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding information to the article. I've rethought my position on how much information about opponents should be listed in an article about an incumbent politician. At minimum, I now think, a link is needed so that the reader can find out who they are; you've incorporated such a link into this article, so I'm satisfied. John Broughton 20:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Bcarlson33 20:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Is A Neo-conservative

[edit]

Jeb Bradley is no moderate. He may like to bill himself a moderate Republican, but his voting record tells an entirely different story. Take a look at his record. I put the information into excel and did the calculations myself. I encourage you to do the same (www.house.gov).

If his voting record isn't "moderate", in what way is he moderate? Because he says he's pro-choice? If you look at his voting record, he is a mixed bag on choice.

I live in New Hampshire. I am a citizen of the first district. I've attended 20+ townhall meetings around the state and have a folder full of research that says Bradley is anything but moderate. Just because he says it's so, doesn't make it true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.238.252 (talk • contribs)

The sentence in question is as to what he is considered, not what he may or may not be. Can you cite any non-partisan sources that consider Bradley a "neo-conservative Republican and party loyalist"? Or point to any ratings from conservative or neocon interest groups that rank Bradley at or near 100%?
Second, Wikipedia guidelines preclude the use of original research, so I'm afraid these calculations can't be included in the article. Cheers, Bcarlson33 01:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your attempt to remove a paragraph from this article. Sources for the "moderate" claim include:

The information on Bradley's positions is culled from New Hampshire news sources, including New Hampshire Public Radio, the Union Leader, Concord Monitor, and others. All easy to find.

There are many other issues that you have left out. You're sighting a portsmouth herald editorial as a non-partisan source? Is that right?

The Portsmouth Herald is not a particularly pro-Republican newspaper. As to the other issues I have "left out," you're welcome to cite references, as I've done, to support your claims. Bcarlson33 05:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are not non-partisan sources of information, no matter the degree of lean to the right or left. All the sources you have cited are partisan.

Wikipedia guidelines asks that users assume good faith about each other's edits. Saying that I "cherry-picked" positions on the issues does not assume good faith. I haven't cast aspersions on you, and I ask that you don't cast them toward me. Bcarlson33 22:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No aspersions intended, but you do have to admit you have ignored a large body of issues from the article. How did you come to settle on the issues you chose to include? Can we include his flip flopped positions on social security in the article? its just as arbitrary as the issues you have picked here. I personally find it rather curious that the issues you have sighted are being played up by his campaign, a means to divorce himself from the president and the neo-conservative leadership. Question: Are you a campaign contributor?
Questions like "are you a campaign contributor" suggest that my contributions to the article are in bad faith. That's still questioning my motives, and that's still against Wikipedia guidelines.
To answer your question, the issues in the article are those in which a) Bradley played a somewhat visible role and b) I could find sources to verify his positions. Don't assume that by putting issues in, that I deliberately left others out. Assume good faith. Bcarlson33 05:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith, you are flatly wrong when you say "Bradley played somewhat of a visible role" in Social Security privatization. In fact, when Mr. Bush made his trip to the Pease Tradeport to push the plan, Bradley was the only one of the New Hampshire delegation that didn't show up. I would challenge you to produce any quotes at all that explain his position on Social Security. He certainly wasn't saying what his position was at his townhall meetings. He only explained the options to people. He never publicly took a position on the issue, breaking his 2004 campaign promises to protect the system.
I'm willing to work with you on this article, but we should try to come to some understanding on what issues to include. I am going to continue opposing the "moderate" label. He is no moderate. It is an opinion. It doesn't belong in the record.

Passive Voice

[edit]

I hate to sound like a pedant, but there are a number of instances of passive voice in this article. For example, the sentence "Bradley is considered a moderate Republican" begs the question "by whom?" I'm not disputing the accuracy of the statements, I just wonder if some of these sentences can be recast with active verbs? --Lloegr-Cymru£ ¥ 03:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Explain Reverts

[edit]

I don't understand the reverts that have been made, though I follow some of the discussions here. Take, for example, the new sentence "Bradley is considered a Republican." Is he in fact an Independent, but people think he's a Republican? If we must have the revert, can we have an instance where the sentence ... is better worded? What is wrong with "Bradley is a Republican" or "Bradley is a Republican member of Congress representing the 1st District of New Hampshire in the 10Xth Congress"?

But I must, frankly, question why reverts are the answer here. It seems to me that a much better way would be to use the {{citation needed}} template, and/or recast sentences. For example ...

"Members of the media, colleagues and opponents have described Bradley as a Moderate in the Republican Party. However, others point to areas and positions which might serve to complicate this label."

Even those sentences can be improved upon, of course. But I think revert is the wrong way to go to improve this article. Recast, rewrite, and cite, but don't revert. --Lloegr-Cymru£ ¥ 15:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that wording. Let's go with it. Bcarlson33 17:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll try to do up something later to encompass these ideas. --Lloegr-Cymru£ ¥ 17:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise that also expands

[edit]

I hope this will put to rest any of the reverting back and forth we saw recently. I even added a criticisms section, so that any negative side could also be represented, although it must still be NPOV. I also tried to tighten up the language and add somewhat to the information here. There's plenty more to do on this article, obviously. At some point, perhaps tomorrow, I will tighten up the citations so that they all conform to a more professional standard. Until then, happy editing. --Lloegr-Cymru£ ¥ 02:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have a couple of objections to the write up. First, how did we decide which issues to include in the article? There are a number of other issues that Mr. Bradley has taken a position on, why not include some of those as well? Can we add to the list?
Also, the statement about supporting private accounts is factually inaccurate. In 2002 & 2004, he campaigned on protecting social security. He has not done that, but hasn't taken a public position on private accounts either. He explained the problems and options to solving those problem at townhall meetings across the state, but he never publicly endorsed the privatization plan.
Take this quote from MSNBC for example - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6976350/
“Will Bradley clearly state his opposition to the Republican plan to privatize Social Security?” the DCCC asked in a statement that quoted him as having said during the 2002 campaign that it was “crystal clear” that he would not support such a proposal. A call to Bradley’s office was not immediately returned.
I see what you mean about the Social Security issue. I simply took the issues bcarlson33 used in his edit. But the more I think of it, the best thing to do would not be topical, but rather we should highlight significant legislative accomplishments. By which I mean well-known pieces of legislation that he has directly sponsored or primarily co-sponsored and that have passed. This way there's no bias in terms of which issues are chosen; it is what has actually occurred only.
Permit me to make a little niggle, though ... It was not really a sentence fragment that you removed since it possessed all the elements of complete sentence: subject, predicate etc. Now it seems, from your evidence and my own research via Google, to be an inaccurate statement. That is what you should have said in your edit summary. Nit-picky? Maybe, but I am a grammarian and do try my hardest to edit with that always in mind. Also, please, please, please sign your posts with --~~~~. Also, since you seem so enthusiastic to edit, please consider signing up as a Wikipedian. It's free and it will actually hide your IP address from view. Thanks. --Lloegr-Cymru£ ¥ 18:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Children

[edit]

The article seems to contradict himself on his children. At one point it says he has a child named Noel who worked in his campaign, but then it says he has four kids, none of whom are named Noel. Which is it? Papercrab (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeb Bradley. 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) 16:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jeb Bradley. 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) 13:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeb_Bradley&oldid=1255798087"