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 Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I added back text that was removed by Chummers, without explanation, and posted a warning to his talk page that his/her edits should be constructive. I just received the following email from him/her:
What you call vandalism is a removal of outright distortions.
I have asked him/her to discuss such matters on this talk page (preferably), not via email. I want to note here (a) that edit summaries should be used to explain deletions (this was not done by Chummers) (see Help:Edit summary), and (b) that the best way to convince others that something should be removed is to be specific. So, in what way is the removed text "outright distortions"? John Broughton22:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Broughton, while I don't agree that all of the information about the ID cards should be removed, I don't think the particular phrase has a NPOV. To break this whole thing down, it says, "While mayor, Laffey was intrumental in getting his city to accept Mexico's Matricula Consular education card for identification, even though Congress had tried to ban the use of the card on multiple occasions. Laffey said that the cards offered all immigrants "the fair chance to live the American Dream"."
I would remove "even though Congress had tried to ban the use of the card on multiple occasions," because I don't see the information as relevant unless you are trying to "spin" the issue, as Mr. Laffey's challenger is. Congress has tried to do many things, and I don't see how it is worth mentioning with regards to this particular issue unless Congress actually banned them. If you still feel that is worth mentioning, I would think it is also worth mentioning that neighboring towns in Rhode Island accept the cards in question, which can be sourced to the same article already linked.
I would also mention that Mayor Laffey has said repeatedly that he chose to accept the card because his police chief advised him to, and that he viewed it as an issue of security for his officers. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that Lincoln Chafee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee have chosen this issue to attack Mayor Laffey.
I don't know who added this particular segment to the article, but it seems like it was written by an opposition researcher, and not someone who wanted to bring unbiased information to the public. It is definately worth mentioning, but I disagree with the language. However, in the interest of avoiding an editing war, I want to discuss this first. Dadip617:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no investment in the actual language used; I just object on principle to people deleting text that has substance without any explanation whatsoever (and doing it twice).
Please go ahead and make any changes that you want; I'm sure they will improve the information. And thank you for posting here first; it wasn't really necessary but I do appreciate your erring on the side of caution. John Broughton17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
