Talk:Mike Turzai

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please see

Pennsylvania House Speaker Mike Turzai’s Wikipedia edited by account tied to House Republicans. We won't be accepting any more biased edits from the Republican House IP account, or from Camp Hill for that matter. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions

This is a encyclopaedic biography, not a recounting of state politics. The "issues" section should contain brief summaries of the positions he holds, not a detailed recounting of current political manoeuvring and decisions. I have attempted to trim it down (I still think it is too long) - please discuss here before re-adding this kind of content. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Melcous. My Achilles' heel is certainly writing too much text sometimes. I'll try to keep the issues shorter and more central to his positions, both on this page and the other pages I'm contributing to. I do appreciate the advice. I was wondering if you could describe why the Neutrality flag is on the article. I can only speak for my edits, and coming from PA I will put it out there that I do like Mike Turzai as a politician, but have attempted to stay neutral and only report the facts I find in the source materials; hopefully I'll get better as I do more editing. I’ve looked at the articles of other Speakers of the House (of state legislatures) as a guide. I’ve tried to only write precisely what the sources say, as I've learned from Wikipedia's new user guides. I hope my comment here positively contributes to this discussion. I’m all ears and open/willing to learn from more experienced editors. Thanks! --Sherwoodspeaks (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sherwoodspeaks, it takes time to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia editing. Your attitude is good and you seem sincere. The history of the article shows a bit of turmoil with the subject’s staff editing the article with their official state House IP address. In light of that and the Neutrality maintenance template at the top of the article, today I carefully read the article with WP:NPOV in mind.
The article certainly needs some work, especially additional content about political issues representing a wide variety of sources/sides. A wider variety of editors could/should be editing the article, in my view. Here are my observations and suggestions:
- Because it is well cited, the article adheres to the Verifiability and the No Original Research core content policies.
- The article is well-sourced to reputable sources such as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette national newspaper, Philly.com local news site, Legalnewsline.com legal news site, Project Vote Smart, Wilkes University election project, PennLive.com local news site, WPMT Fox 43 local TV channel, Ballotpedia and others.
- With regards to the third core content policy, Neutrality, the article does seem to be written pretty matter-of-fact without much spin. The quotes could use some trimming to make the article more neutral, however. See State budget and taxes bullet point below.
- The opening section is neutral, to the point, and doesn’t appear to contain bias.
- Issues section: One idea is that this section could be condensed into a table, with columns such as Background, Position, Quotes, and Source. Agree with Melcous that the background of the issues should be shorter - just enough to give the reader enough context to know what’s going on before giving the subject’s position on the issue.
- State budget and taxes: The quotes should be trimmed so as not to seem to be pushing the subject’s political agenda; rather, merely mention his positions, with a short quote or two, and summarized background/context.
- The issues sub-headers should be listed in alphabetical order as to avoid any favor/bias based on placement location.
- Regarding the maintenance template about neutrality, the editor didn’t leave any explanation or comments on the Talk page when affixing the maintenance template (Template:POV), and it is unclear what the issues are because the page appears to be written in an unbiased way. I reviewed the WP:NPOV policy and don’t see any blatant violations. I don’t see any opinions stated as facts, and the information appears to be presented fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias (the quotes could use some trimming, as I mentioned).
- According to Template:POV: "You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true: . . . 2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.”
- Because it’s unclear what the neutrality issue is and no explanation was given, I’m removing the template for now but will watch this page for future edits. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quote box in "State budget and taxes" section

Hello. I'm adding a quote box with a quote from Turzai in the State budget and taxes section because I think the statement sums up his take on the size and scope of the state budget. Open to suggestions/discussion. Thanks! --Sherwoodspeaks (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deletion of Economic Development section

Argument used to delete it: "This is not really a position on a key issue, but more recounting/advertising of his 'achievements' which is not what wikipedia is for"

Let’s break that down.

"This is not really a position on a key issue…”

The sponsoring of the legislation stakes out a politician’s position. And in this case, the subject sponsored a bill on what is a very key issue in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Legislators’ Wikipedia articles discuss the bills they’ve sponsored and where they stand on issues, among other biographical content.

“…but more recounting/advertising of his 'achievements’…”

Nowhere did I read advertisement-like language, nor did it frame the bill as an achievement (it didn't say anything about the bill passing - introducing a bill is not really an achievement). It simply explained what the bill would do, which in effect describes the subject’s position on taxing natural gas, manufacturing, and petrochemical companies. *IF* the language was touting an achievement, the language would have been along the lines of, “He introduced this awesome bill, it passed and he’s great for doing it.” The text does none of that. The text is as dry, matter-of-fact and neutral as they come (with all due respect to whomever wrote it).
This is what the deleted text read:

"Around the end of 2016, Turzai introduced the Keystone Energy Enhancement Act, which he had sponsored in previous legislative sessions. The bill would set up 20 “Keystone Energy Enhancement Zones” across the state. Within these zones, natural gas, manufacturing, and petrochemical companies who operate within the zones would receive numerous tax deductions, exemptions, and credits for 10 years, as well as a $1,250 tax credit for each full-time job created within a zone."

“…which is not what wikipedia is for"

This content is totally fair game and its deletion is improper.
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must represent all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.(Source:WP:NPOV)
And this information was a significant view that was published by a reliable source on this topic.
The text should be put back up under the sub-heading "Keystone Energy Enhancement Act", not "Economic development."

--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I actually wrote it. No offense taken by the "dry" comment. That's what I was striving for. It seems that another editor doesn't like it for some reason. Cut and dry, and neutral is what I was going for there. I agree it should be put back up. --Sherwoodspeaks (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a flag, if that's what you call it, under the Issues section that says "This section contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view." I clicked on the hyperlink from "an advertisement" and it brought me here, to a set of rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

I've written many of the sub sections within Issues section. The issues section isn't advocating for or against a political position; it simply discusses Turzai's positions and makes factual statements about legislation sponsored. I took great pains to write everything in a neutral point of view. I don't think this flag is properly placed. I strongly disagree that "This section contains content that is written like an advertisement" and would like to know which sentences exactly seem to another person (whoever put the flag up) to be written like an advertisement.

Also, there are no inappropriate external links. To sum up, for the text that I wrote, I paid special attention to every word I used when writing it. Nowhere do advertisement-like adjectives appear, such as "great", "helpful", "responsible", "best", etc. That's the kind of language that is promotional and advertisement-like, and none of it lives in this section that I can find. If it did, I would support it being edited out.

Does anybody else have anything to contribute to this "talk page article"? I'm all ears. --Sherwoodspeaks (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maintenance template ("Advertisement"). I agree. The maintenance template is inappropriate and its charges are false. The template should be removed. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that's been a reasonable amount of time for discussion (two weeks since the Advertising maintenance template was put up on Nov. 8th), and there are no dissenting arguments here on the Talk page for keeping it up, I am taking it down. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about addition then deletion of content

@Fishlandia: would you mind describing why you added, then deleted this sentence:

"He is a lector at Saints John and Paul Catholic Church in Sewickley."

Diff page from when you added it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Turzai&diff=813284409&oldid=813265081

Diff page from when you deleted it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Turzai&diff=813626222&oldid=813614399

It seems like a harmless sentence to have in the article and was just curious. Thanks for helping on this article! --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I loved it and it fits so well! But I hadn't carefully read the page where I'd found it - it's under "Past Community Involvement." So. Fishlandia (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be better organized

The "Political career" section - where to put the little Fair Share Act paragraph for example? It's not an "Issue" as defined here. Make another subhead, like "Tort reform", to contain it and whatever similar others? (And if he didn't have anything, or very much, to do with it other than be HMJ when it was passed, should it even be included? ) "Issues" section - maybe the apparent goal of a heading for every single thing Turzai ever co-sponsored or voted on (and that reflects well on him...) isn't practical or encyclopedic. Is this calendar-style arrangement left over from the House employee editing days? There are lots of important "issues" that aren't even mentioned yet, but to add more in this format would make dozens of subsections, some one sentence long like the currently existing "Hate crimes" entry, some pretty big like balancing the budget. Fishlandia (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start.

  • "the content on the page should stick to the subject (Mike Turzai)" - The subject in this section is Mike Turzai's role in the PA voter ID controversy. Not every sentence in the article mentions Turzai or centers around him, but they're necessary to include because they put Turzai's words or actions into context ("As of October 2017, Pennsylvania has been in a "budget stalemate" since June between Pennsylvania state Senate and House Republicans and Democrats and Governor Tom Wolf.[40] As of the end of September 2017, legislators and Governor Wolf were putting together a new proposal to solve the budget stalemate.[41]"). In the same way, "In the first court proceeding in July, officials testifying for the state acknowledged that acquiring the mandated identification was the underlying problem" is a necessary sentence because it puts Turzai's argument in the previous sentence into relief; his Sudafed statement is a non sequitur otherwise. I didn't put it back in, but if you re-read the paragraph without it I hope you'll see that it's necessary, for balance, you know.
  • "student, elderly, minority and low-income individuals" - I added a quote and a new ref.
  • "large block of text" - on the article page it was four important, distilled, well-cited sentences. Maybe it looks large in the editing window because it's full of citations? Not sure why an article would leave out that a law its subject defended was found unconstitutional, but okay *shrug*
  • Admonishment - "The editor extrapolated" - I beg your pardon, what would you call it? However, I changed it to include only the source material and not say "admonish".
  • Are you suuuure you want to leave in "The elections in the Commonwealth will be on a more level playing field thanks to voter ID and other recent election reforms", to "balance out the section's neutrality" or for any other reason? It doesn't balance anything; its purpose is to support the specious claim that came right before it. It just makes his statement look even worse. Same with "According to CBS Philadelphia, 'Turzai’s spokesman defends his boss’s comment, saying Turzai meant'...". Just makes it look worse.
  • "straight quote from LA Times" - I don't understand this change, unless it was to start a new sentence to justify ending the previous sentence, and to try to imply that my edit somehow wasn't "straight". The LA Times citation for 750K is right there; I think your rewrite made the conveying of the information unnecessarily complicated so I changed it back (but kept in that the state acknowledged it).Fishlandia (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: there was an edit conflict and I think I got my changes all in but have to leave now; "I'll be back." Fishlandia (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Turzai photos

Hello Wikipedia,

This is the Mike Turzai for Governor campaign organization, officially known as Friends of Mike Turzai. I uploaded four photos of Rep. Turzai to the "Wikimedia Commons."

As I understand it, it is not appropriate to edit an article to which you are connected. So instead of posting some of the pictures to his Wikipedia page, I would like to ask if another editor could do that for me.

Here are the links to the photos:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mike_Turzai_headshot.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mike_Turzai_campaign_rally.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mike_Turzai_speech.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mike_Turzai_family_photo.jpg

Thank you! --Turzaicampaign (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will help.--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Turzai"