Talk:Carol Shea-Porter

New Hampshire Miracle

Searching google for "New Hampshire Miracle" yields one page of results. A cursory glance indicates none of these results refer to the New Hampshire Miracle to which this page refers. In fact, the first hit IS this wikipedia page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Infernallek (talk • contribs) 14:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC). Infernallek 14:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)infernallek

VERY politically biased

This article ready more like a campaign promo rather than an unbiased encyclopedia article. Very poor article. (Manchguy85 (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)).

And now it seems the opposite. The article seems to be going out of its way to portray her as a far-left liberal. But the well-respected National Journal ranks her as the 149th most liberal member of the House in 2008 who is particularly moderate on social issues, and www.voteview.com/hou110.htm ranks her as the 134th most liberal member of the 110th House. Both numbers place her firmly into the more conservative half of House Democrats, of which there were between 231 and 236 over the course of the 110th Congress. 68.194.217.223 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the most absurdly biased articles I have ever read on Wikipedia, and man is that saying a lot. The Townhall section is filled with so much innuendo and bias it almost reads like a parody. Firstly, using Media Matters as a source is beyond ludicrous. David Brock is an admitted serial liar and the far-left slant of the site should preclude it from being used as a reliable source. It is no more reliable than David Horowitz's FrontPageMag, a source that is routinely rejected by those who "edit" this pathetic joke of an "encyclopedia". Secondly, the implication that those challenging Shea-Porter at her Townhalls(when she wasn't hiding from her constituents) were just a bunch of hired guns or "conservative activists" is supported by absolutely no evidence, at all. The Townhall portion of the entry mentions Freedomworks in the first paragraph in order to set up a guilt-by-association smear job that is supported by zero evidence. The use of the term "these disruptions also extended to NH..." is so biased I can't believe someone would have the gall to write it in an entry that is supposedly encyclopedic. Exactly where is the evidence that what went on in NH was a disruption organized by FreedomWorks? It is obvious that we are meant to infer from such a statement that any and ALL townhalls, across the entire country, featured no legitimate complaints from aggrieved locals, rather all opposition was organized and bused-in by outside nefarious forces. Sorry but reports on the little-watched "Rachel Maddow Show" and "exposes" by Media Matters, just don't freakin cut it. I am on the brink of deleting the entire Townhall section of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Did Shea-Porter write this entry, or did she just get someone on her campaign staff to write it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, how much bias has to be present in an entry before those writing it look at it and say to themselves "you know, this article is a wee bit over the top"? This article puts forth Shea-Porter's statements about the response time to Katrina with no qualification at all, as if they were fact. Mutliple publications, most famously Popular Science, analyzed the response time to Katrina and found it was not "slow" and have stated that it was in fact the most rapid response time to a hurricane in over a decade. Also, how is an opinion poll on health care at all relevant to the goings-on at Shea-Porter's townhalls? It is irrelevant. Not surprisingly, the entry is cherrypicked to find the one poll out of dozens that shed a more favorable light on Shea-porter and a less favorable light on her detractors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. The article states clearly that this is Shea-Porter's statement of her perception at the time; and your deletions weren't constructive in the least. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As I commented when I last updated that section, I have to agree with the IP editor that the statement about the healthcare poll does not really belong in the "town hall disruptions" section, or really in the article I don't think. Once you add in the detail of the overall poll results - that most respondents felt that the healthcare bill went too far - it becomes somewhat of a self-contradictory non-sequitur. But I do agree with Orangemike that the Katrina statement in "Early life, education and career" ought to remain as it is. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The following is a quote from OrangeMike: "Actually, no. The article states clearly that this is 'Shea-Porter's statement' of 'her perception at the time'; and your deletions weren't constructive in the least". Uh, actually yes. It was not "my deletions" as you claim. I was actually the one who kept adding in "what Shea-Porter perceived to be the slow response" BUT IT WAS REVERTED BACK EVERY SINGLE TIME. Even now the article still continues to discuss "the federal government's slow response" as if it were fact. I am going to change it, AGAIN, and I can guarantee you it gets reverted back to its currently laughable and biased state. Of course common sense should have dictated that I would not complain about the blatant anti-Bush bias concerning Katrina while at the same time continually deleting changes that would have removed the factually incorrect bias about which I complained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"2010 Re-election"

This section is wildly POV. It could only have been written by someone whose intent was to actively campaign against Shea-Porter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.32.75 (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

imcumbent politicians

why doesn't Wikipedia lock down the pages on sitting politicians and then vet them all for accuracy and impartiality. just as I don't want to see the opposition's spin, I wouldn't want to see a page biased towards my views either!!

that said, this page does appear to be one big campaign ad! who wrote it, Mr. Shea-Porter?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.212.32 (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not gone through much of the history of this article but at this point it's mostly composed of statements that she is a liberal, mention of liberal positions she holds, and numbers and statistics about her cited from published sources. If anyone is displeased that the presented numbers and statistics make her look good, you could always dig up some negative numbers and statistics about her and add those to the article with citations. I mean, we're on the internet here. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hyphenated Name

Since her husband's last name is Porter, it's likely that she was born Carol Shea, but your article didn't make this clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.182.233 (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy" section

If this is to remain in the article, we need something closer to a reliable source. The only link given so far is to what looks more like a gossip column than a newspaper article. If this is actually notable, there should be some more solid sources for it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight to Republican talking points about a 2005 incident involving Shea Porter

According to Shea Porter, these claims are false: "U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H., dismissed state Republican Party claims Friday that she had been untruthful about an event that took place in 2005 when she was a private citizen." Secoast Online, Sept. 26, 2009) The WP:RS just cited also disputes many of the claims made by the GOP about what Shea Porter allegedly said in 2005 as well as what she said in 2009. betsythedevine (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Shea-Porter has been in office since 2006 and has an extensive voting record. She has been active in reaching out to veterans both in NH and by supporting their interests in Washington. Surely such matters merit more space in her biography than what Republicans claim about some incident in 2005. I am working to increase the amount and clarity of relevant material, and I hope others will help. betsythedevine (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no quarrel with most of the changes you made but CSP did contradict herself in 2009 and the article you just cited there confirms it: "Shea-Porter, the Rochester Democrat who was elected in 2006, told the Herald she had not been disruptive or removed from the forum about Bush's proposal to privatize Social Security." It's confirmed in the Politico citation which you removed from this article. The GOP and Semprini were being slimy and basically outright lying in their initial attack on her but her retconning statements, though much less deceptive, are not something that the Democrats should be let off the hook for. I asked NHDP chair Raymond Buckley about this, directly and repeatedly, and he was forcefully evasive about it; both he and CSP have refrained from saying anything even close to "she did not say that to The Herald" - because it's a matter of record at this point that she did. I have restored the Politico citation and added the above quote to the material referenced from the article you linked to. (Also, I'm an independent and not even close to being a Republican, I voted for Obama.)

I am amenable to rewriting this section further and making the Semprini smear stuff clearer but I do not think we can just leave out the confirmed fact that she contradicted her 2005 and other earlier statements.

(One last thing: I realize that the Politico article has a somewhat pejorative-sounding title but it was the only third-party source I found where this was examined. If you know of another third-party source we can bring that in too.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 20:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this story belongs in the article, and indeed as you point out I have cited both the newspaper articles on which the claim that she "lied" has been based by Republicans. Readers can judge for themselves without needing assistance from Republican-shill Politico's extensive smear piece. In a very late paragraph of that article is the only possible excuse for its inclusion: "In an interview with POLITICO, Shea-Porter said that she had merely meant to distinguish between her relatively peaceful form of protest in her pre-Congress years and the more disruptive actions taken by the conservative town hall rabble-rousers during the August recess." For a sample of the kind of un-peaceful protests aimed at Shea-Porter, consider these accounts: [1]

The policy I was citing above is WP:WEIGHT, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." This article contains no information about Shea-Porter's voting record and condenses her main political viewpoints to a sentence or two. The space previously devoted to a partisan account of this kerfluffle was excessive in comparison to the space given to more important matters. betsythedevine (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Right now the article says that Republicans accused her of rewriting history but it does not explain why they made the accusation. That seems like a POV exclusion to me, especially since it's a truthful accusation. (I actually don't get why you're putting scare quotes around "lied". Unless the Herald is itself being untruthful, she lied by saying that she did not get thrown out of the event. It was perhaps simply dissembling while talking about an unrelated topic, and it's entirely forgivable in my view, but it shouldn't be covered up.)

I must have forgotten to hit "submit" on my previous changes as I see no evidence of them in the article's history; sorry about that, I've made them now.

I would agree that this could be a better article in many ways but that has nothing to do with including or excluding this information. I certainly agree that CSP has been attacked and accused of a number of completely unfair and untruthful things, but that also has nothing to do with including the information here.

If you think that it would be more balanced we could move this item out of the "Early life" section and into a "Controversy" section. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 11:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Meeting "disruption" and "ejection" in context

During the August recess, Shea Porter held a bunch of town-hall meetings in NH to discuss her support for healthcare reform. One Union Leader blogger, who does not like Shea Porter and did not like her position, has nevertheless given some context to the ejection from one such meeting of a NH citizen named Carl Tomanelli. His disruption began before the meeting started:

... probably a quarter of the crowd consisted of vocal opponents. One, a big guy named Carl Tomanelli of Londonderry, stood up and started shouting at a woman in a purple “I’m a health care voter” T-shirt when, about 20 minutes before the meeting started, she began handing out “I’m a health care voter” stickers. Tomanelli complained that the stickers would let Shea-Porter know the friendlies in the audience so she could call only on them. A police officer came over and quieted everyone down and said he’d take anyone outside who did that again.

In fact, Shea Porter used a lottery system to randomize the choice of people asking questions, so Tomanelli's accusations were groundless. Two people invited to speak about their own healthcare problems were loudly heckled as they attempted to speak, as was Shea Porter during her opening remarks. Quoting the same account again,

Near the end, things got lively as opponents vented their frustrations. They called Shea-Porter a liar and challenged anyone who asked a friendly question or talked back to them. Carl Tomanelli stood and confronted a young man in an “I’m a health care voter” T-shirt and asked him if he was even from New Hampshire. At this, the police grabbed Tomanelli, told him he’d been warned, and escorted him out.

This is the context in which Shea Porter described her behavior at a Bush event (sitting with her back to the stage wearing a protest tshirt) as not disruptive. At the end of the Bush event, Shea Porter was asked to leave; she was not "ejected" as one can see Tomanelli being in multiple videos put online by her detractors. Interestingly, none of these videos seem to include his pre-meeting disruptive shouting or the warning he received then from police about standing up and shouting at other members of the audience.

The pre-planned and frightening mob disruptions of Shea Porter's town-hall meetings are missing from this article. These disruptions are the context behind Semprini's accusation that she is a hypocrite for objecting to being screamed at and called a liar; these disruptions are the context for her statement that she was not disruptive in 2005. This material should be in the article if the other stuff is in here. betsythedevine (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The way the article is written now, the 2005 incident appears to be the most important event in her entire life--- which is not true. The 2009 controversy was in any case totally phony. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the story was given way too much WP:WEIGHT here. i think it would make sense to include information about the staged confrontation and disruptions at her healthcare forums, where small groups of Tea Party attempted to give the (false) impression that they represented thinking in NH. These Tea Party strategies were orchestrated nationally as per leaked memo that urges such tactics as "Be disruptive early and often" and "Try to rattle him, not have an intelligent debate." Semprini's claim of Shea Porter that "She gained notoriety by doing exactly what she and her supporters now criticize others for doing" is an out-and-out lie. Sitting with your back to Bush is not "exactly the same" as shouting at event speakers and screaming those who disagree with you. If there is going to be a section about this incident in the article, it should focus on the disruptions by tea-partiers and the lie by Semprini to which Shea-Porter's response was not carefully enough worded to deny Republican efforts to make her "truthfulness" the main talking point. betsythedevine (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I took the whole thing out, along with some other random uncited information. If it goes back in, it belongs in the section about her second term. The 2005 incident was relatively trivial (although just getting in the event at all was a non-trivial achievement), and it attracted little or no attention at the time. If she had behaved the same way at the 2005 Bush event which the "Teabbaggers" did at her 2009 town halls, she would have been in the national news. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried to put the healthcare town halls in context in the article. Although it probably gives too much weight to the controversy, it does have the merit that somebody who comes to Wikipedia after reading the Republican talking points will get a balanced account of the story rather than zero information. betsythedevine (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I made modifications to what's there; it's good that it's longer and discussing the entire Semprini incident (not to mention moved off into its own section, as suggested above) but I don't think that it's necessarily moving towards being more balanced. For the reasons discussed above, the article needs to not equivocate about, elide, or otherwise conceal the fact that CSP made untruthful statements about the 2005 event, nor dismiss that as simply some partisan criticism; it's The Portsmouth Herald who is saying that she claimed she wasn't removed from the event. (Unless you want to criticize the Herald as a biased or Republican source, which we could do if it's true, but let's not nebulously attribute this to "Republicans".)

I also removed the scare quotes because the sources do not use anything like that and frankly I think it's pretty POV, especially when added together with attributing the claim about CSP's words to Republican criticism rather than a journalistic source. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that CSP made untruthful statements about the 2005 event, and neither Portsmouth Herald story says that she did -- although it is clear that Semprini made recklessly unverified and (it turns out) false statements about her, based on hazy recollections and "might have been hearsay." The waffle incident did not involve Shea Porter or her "supporters" and his vague recollection that "I tried to limit her discussion" is a far cry from his colorfully detailed claim in the letter that he personally observed her with supporters disrupting a Bradley event. The second article quotes a Republican press release and gives Shea Porter's refutation, making it clear that the Republican press release is also distorting the news stories on which it claims to be based. There is no reason for this article to parrot a palpably false and politically motivated claim by Republicans.

Speaking of false claims, I hope her opponent read the John DiStaso story falsifying his repeated claim that Shea-Porter had Tomanelli thrown out of the event: "Lt. William Barry of the of the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, who escorted Tomanelli out of the Manchester meeting at the Norris Cotton federal building .. said that Shea-Porter had no role in having Tomanelli taken out of the meeting.

... According to Barry's statement, "Towards the end of the meeting, Mr. Carl Tomanelli was escorted out of the meeting. Mr. Tomanelli was very disruptive throughout the meeting and was told repeatedly to quiet down. He continuously interrupted people who were asking questions or making statements that he didn’t agree with. "At no time did Representative Shea-Porter advise an officer to escort Mr. Tomanelli from the building." Granite Status, September 9, 2010) betsythedevine (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Carol Shea-Porter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100918185702/http://boonepickens.com/media_summary/072109.pdf to http://www.boonepickens.com/media_summary/072109.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100209172800/http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Tempers+hot+at+Shea-Porter+health+meetings&articleId=bbfc20cf-7050-40f0-a894-d72828de6399 to http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Tempers+hot+at+Shea-Porter+health+meetings&articleId=bbfc20cf-7050-40f0-a894-d72828de6399

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carol Shea-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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130308094031/http://dccc.org/newsroom/entry/dccc_chairman_steve_israel_announces_2013-2014_frontline_members/ to http://dccc.org/newsroom/entry/dccc_chairman_steve_israel_announces_2013-2014_frontline_members/

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) 09:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)