Group 6 Dispute Results

The Dispute at Issue

RFC is seeking suggestions of alternative, non biased ways to describe Representative Jonathan Christopher "Jon" Porter's voting record, or even if it should even be discussed at all on his Wikipedia page.

Group Discussion

While I can see that the issues of the voting records are chosen to portray Porter in a particular light, as long as they are accurate I don't see harm in the posts. Other Representatives have their voting histories listed on their respective Wikipedia pages (links coming soon). If someone wants to add additional, accurate listings of votes or political positions, then they should feel free to do so. Members from both parties, as well as independents, should feel free to contribute to the page (as long as it is accurate), thus creating a page that reflects both sides. But the page does not need to be bifurcated into a "Democratic" view or "Republican" view with corresponding titles because this may attract a reader with a particular political preference to focus too heavily on one side's view or the other's. Cseif 17:55, 7 January 2008 (EST) Cseif

• Having examined a variety of other Senator and Congressperson's pages (Steve King, Tom Latham, John Thune, Tom Harkin, etc.), I think it is clear that simply deleting the entire section is not the best solution. Other than a person's biographical/educational information, the political positions of a person who is notable enough to be in Wikipedia because they are a member of Congress are probably some of the most important pieces of information a person looking up their bio will be curious about. Additionally, I agree with the above idea that separating it into Positions: according to Democrats and Positions: The Republican Rebuttle is the solution because I don't think that two biased accounts somehow become a neutral, encyclopedia account.
• First, I think that what the section is called is largely semantic--pages of other members of Congress call the section positions, political positions, ideology, voting record, etc. Keeping beliefs or the like out of it is smart; it could be chaned to Political Positions and Voting Record to conform to other pages.
• Second, I think one thing that would go a long way toward making this section more neutral is where it says things like "Porter has been given a 13% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record" to remove phrases like "indicating an anti-union voting record." What should be done instead is to link to the AFL-CIO and people can make their own judgments about what such a decision by the AFL-CIO means.--Mvogel 18:40, 7 January 2008 (EST)

I agree with Meika that deleting the entire section would not be ideal. The information provided in “Stance on Issues and Voting Record” section give readers a glimpse into Porter’s ideology and his current position on key issues. However, I also agree with the post that mentions using negative terminology to describe Porter’s position creates a bias. Separating the title into “Democratic View” and the “Republican Rebuttal” may be a possible solution. However, I feel that it is unnecessary as long as the section neutrally presents Porter's stance on the listed issues. Furthermore, the inclusion of voting records should be used as long as it is not expressed as proof of Porter's opinions. Once we draw a conclusion from the voting records, we err by making assumptions that the voting record indicates a certain stance. In the absence of solid references that draw such conclusions, the assumptions should be omitted. Finally, I do not see a problem with labeling this section as "Stance on Issues and Voting Record." KStanfield 19:24, 7 January 2008 (EST)