This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belfast, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the City of Belfast, Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.BelfastWikipedia:WikiProject BelfastTemplate:WikiProject BelfastBelfast-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a POV tag, words like gerrymandering, controversy and embroiled are being used in the most recent additions, by a user who's name may suggest a bias. There are references but they don't seem to use weighted words like above. I don't know the subject well enough to rectify this. Bevo74 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Bevo 74's view and I'm removing the offending bits for blatant POV; these are all legitimate points for discussion, but wikipedia is supposed to reflect WP:NPOV, not be a forum for blatantly partisan talking points. Using words like "Gerrymandering" and "Fraud" is sub headers is blatantly WP:POV, and this section is shot with rather breathless use of POV language.
The referencing is terrible here too - the reference which allegedly supports continuing failings on the part of the Executive is to an opinion piece on the Slugger O'Toole blog; the reference to u-turn is to a BBC news article which makes no claims of a U-turn; the reference allegedly supporting Ford nominating himself for the Ministry actually links to an article (dated 8 February 2010) which says the reverse.
There are certainly legitimate grounds for discussing all the topics here, but this is very poor and bits of it verge on actionable. I've removed the section added by Song.for.the.Republican.Convention; I'm sure someone can do better. 194.32.31.1 (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User Song.for.the.Republican.Convention has only ever made 3 edits, all on this account. You can read what you want from that. 194.32.31.1 (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
