Talk:Mike Martin (politician)

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

Links moved to talk for discussion[edit]

I don't believe these meet WP:RS. If the authorship were verifiable, then WP:SELFPUB could apply. Additionally, these links (and much of the article) was added against WP:COI and were spammed. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • [1] Short story by Mike Martin
  • [2] Editorial by Martin on Creation Science

WayneMart Wrote: The links you took out were verified in the sites you deleted. Mr. Martin even identifies himself on those sites more so than any of authors in the references you left. I created this folder years back and included references from all sides, including Martin's rebuttals and his version of what this article is about. It is not fair to include only references of biased news articles without including references to Martin's account. I didn't realize that Wikipedia is into on-sided propaganda. If leaving the news media references and taking out other references is fair in your mind, then I say take them all out. This article was fine the way it has been for the past year.

I don't know if the publishers of Wiki are aware if it or not, but school teachers throughout the country will not allow students to reference any article in Wikipedia. But they do allow them to use some of the info they find in the reference sites they find in articles. For some reason, there seems to be a stupid push to eleminate the only resource looked upon as legit on this site.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.76.78 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 March 2009

See WP:NPOV for details on how to properly balance articles. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and potential sources[edit]

User Waynemart has concerns about the sources used in this article, so I'm starting this section to discuss specific sources as well as potential ones. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current sources[edit]

I'm unable to find this article in the New Your Times archives, nor any references to it from reliable sources. Is it a fake? --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine, though a direct link would be preferrable. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [3] Article written by Mike Martin
I removed this. I don't think it verifies anything in the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [4] from TIME Sept 81
Looks fine. Verifies information in the article. Full ref is "Texas Tale" Sep. 07, 1981. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [5] Paul Burka, 1982 Texas Monthly Bum Steer Awards, Cover Page
Cannot find the article online, though I did verify that it lists Mike Martin. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources[edit]

I cannot see why there is an issue here. The Wikipedia piece is about the politician, Mike Martin. Why is any web reference about him or by him not admissible? I read his short rendition in FanStory and I personally believe it is relevant to the Wikipedia piece. I also looked at the piece before all this stupid tampering. There was nothing wrong like it was. Please put it back. - Marie

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.198.250 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:V, WP:OR, WP:BLP, and WP:SOAP for why some references and material may not be allowed. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I could figure what it looked like before. I go into the history and find nothing. Some idiott got rid of the history. In any case, I see no reason why the deleted references shouldn't be put back in. They are good for this entry in Wikipedia and make it even more interesting. Isn't that what the site was created for? Pat Morris, Texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.185.167 (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: Sorry, just found the history. I like the August 19, 08 by 24,93.32.58 better than what it is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.185.167 (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that comments from which the article was written about should be left alone until wholly proven to not be made by that person. We all know that newspapers don't report half of the truth. They operate on Mark Twain's principal of "get the facts and then distort the **** out of them". otherwise, half of the articles in any news paper wouldn't be printed because they would be considered boring or trivial. All I am getting at is if you can not go by what the actual person says how can you go by the media? 98.134.134.2 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:V and WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An entry had been removed by SOAP and I re-inserted it. The reasons for removal given were: WP:COI - Conflict of intrest WP:POV - Cognitive perspectives WP:SOAP - Excessive Detail

Due to the the lack of accurate media reporting at this time and in some cases, none at all, there is a limited amount of on line reference data. Thus, requiring a statement from parties involved to have some level of accuracy, hence the perspective. This is a prime example of no holds bared Texas political history and would in fact be a conflict of interest if removed again. In effect, doing the same as the liberal media did then. The detail is necessary to provide the perspective of the situation. During this time in Martin's life, politics was a nasty business. We fully expected an “accident” to happen to Mike while he was in jail from a bogus charge that was served out of jurisdiction. His family had to mortgaged their farm to cover the ridiculously high bail to get him out. We all doubted he would make it the night if left there. Democrats did what ever they could to stay in power as voters gave control to the Republicans. It was really disgusting, no wonder he gave up politics.


66.76.75.103 (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Tommy Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.75.103 (talk)

See WP:V, WP:COI, WP:SOAP, and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget WP:PRIMARY. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 19:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

________________________

The article is about me, Michael W. Martin and I at least have the right to see that this work is accurate, fair, and balanced. I have notified the legal department of Wikipedia to either restore the article to the August 14, 08 version by 24.93.32.58 or completely remove it because its present form is not accurate, there are no references of my rebuttals to the accusations, and it destroys my good name. I hold Wikipedia, Mr. Ronz, and all editors hacking it completely liable for this distortion. I am restoring it to the my accepted version and will document who changes it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynemart (talk • contribs) 16:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Dispute[edit]

I've added a blpdispute tag to the article. Per WP:BLP, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." We can also use WP:BLPN to get help with any other concerns that editors may have with the content of this article. However, at this point, it's unclear what, if anything, is under dispute other than some editors/ips wanting to add unsourced information as well as links to articles that fail both WP:RS and WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

INACCURATE CONTENT:

After researching more reliable sources than those who put this article together, I found several inaccurate items. But, it is impossible to make these corrections because someone will kick out the truth and put it back like it was. These inaccurate statements are:

  • Born in CA in 1951 - He was born in Longview, Texas in 1952. This is listed in his bio info with the Texas House of Representatives.
  • Voted as one of the Ten Worst Legislators by Texas Monthly - Texas Monthly does not vote for this title. The editor, Paul Burka, personally selects the best and worst legislators for every legislative session since the magazine was established. This fact is listed in the footnotes of every ten best and worst article ever published by Texas Monthly.
  • Four shotgun blasts were fired at Martin and he was hit by three - All news articles appearing after the shooting claim there were eight blasts and that Martin received three wounds from double-aught buckshot.
  • Martin attributed shooting to Satanic cult - No news articles have ever listed quotes of Martin saying such a thing. In fact, he rebucked reporters for starting the rumor. He was on record saying he was receiving prank calls from someone claiming to belong to a cult and told investigators about the calls. He never claimed he was shot by a Satanic cult in any statement published by reporters. He always claimed from the start and up to his resignation that he had no idea who shot him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.15.64 (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your latest changes, but that can be corrected if you follow the proper procedures.
Make these changes one at a time.
Substantiate the changes with properly-cited sources (and don't use abbreviations like TX).
Use reliable sources, not links to articles on Martin's own website.
Burka is the editor of Texas Monthly; your distinction is trivial, and belongs in an article about Texas Monthly, not here. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree with OM except on the last point. Our article currently says 'He was voted among the "Ten Worst Legislators" by Texas Monthly magazine'. To me this implies there was some sort of 'voting' even if only among a small number of the magazines staff or alternatively readership. If he was selected by one person, voting does seem a fairly inaccurate description. I would suggest 'listed' or 'selected' instead. (We shouldn't go in to the details in this article, but that doesn't mean we should use inaccurate descriptions even if the distinction is not a big deal.) I haven't changed it myself since the source used doesn't mention the method of selection. Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Martin (politician). 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) 12:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Martin (politician). 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) 19:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Martin_(politician)&oldid=1203902938"