Talk:Kerry Bentivolio
| 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 sourced must 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 B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Controversies edit
Tweaked to move controversies into one place. I'd like someone else with no particular politics to review and edit, then maybe lock it down until after the election, since there appears to be a NPOV problem. 15:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadnibal (talk • contribs)
Controversies should not be the second section of the article since its not a defining feature of his biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cp4three2 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
NPOV edit
I would not be surprised if this article was written by Mr. Bentivolio himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.102.40 (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, bits about, "did not deride President Bush" seems to be written first person (and very bad writing style). I tried to fix, make the movie part a little bit more neutral, put a link to the movie itself, put some into quotes.
- Is there something about the school resignation? Don't see it in main article, should be there.Chadnibal (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oakland (MI) Press "According to the records, which were obtained by the Detroit Free Press under the Freedom of Information Act, the 11th District Republican nominee was issued a written reprimand dated June 7 and signed by Fowlerville High School’s assistant principal. Bentivolio soon after reached a settlement with the district and resigned".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.205.133.44 (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Positions on issues edit
User: Glaucus continues to remove sourced material which he finds personally objectionable creating POV issues on this pages. --50.4.162.0 (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with my personal opinion: I actually consider "pro-life" to be rather clever propaganda when used to mean anti-abortion but pro-death penalty. But, the fact remains that changing "describes himself as pro-life" to "opposes reproductive freedom" is utterly blatant POV on your part. I strongly suggest that you cut it out or you will likely find yourself on the wrong side of a block. Glaucus (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Unless you can find sourced material that shows Kerry Bentivolio supporting reproductive freedom, the wording stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.16.0.174 (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- The primary source citation you're using says "pro-life," not "opposes reproductive freedom", 35.16.0.174. I'm going to correct it back to say "pro-life" and recommend you read up on the applicable Wikipiedia policies of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:3RR. Kind regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for re-phrasing the positions instead of removing sourced content in violation of Wikipedia policies as User:Glaucus attempted.--35.16.81.92 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Happy to be of assistance. If I may add, I don't think Glaucus was trying to prevent sourced content, he or she was simply trying to avoid NPOV/BLP problems. Sometimes editors get off on the wrong foot in the confusion that takes place over what their intentions are. One more guideline to take a look at in that regard is WP:AGF, assume good faith. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I took issue with his aggressive tone. Oftentimes established editors think they are above policy and consensus, and when I get that vibe, it is difficult to WP:AGF. This is something I will need to reflect on in the future.--35.16.81.92 (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I can appreciate the difficulties we experience as we all try to interact and work together to better the articles. It is true that IP editors often get treated as second class citizens here on Wikipedia but I've had interactions with Glaucus before and I've never seen him or her be abusive. I also think it likely that he or she would have preferred the text to say "opposes reproductive freedom", but Glaucus rightly put NPOV concerns ahead of personal opinion here as we all should. :) I myself am pro-choice and supportive of LGBT rights as well, but I strive for NPOV at all times. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- His comments such as "Don't paper the regulars. And keep your POV to yourself." and "You know very well your wording is POV and amounts to a BLP violation on this article." don't exactly assume good faith and carry an air of arrogance, especially because my edits were with the intention of adding more information and clarity (his positions on net neutrality, LGBT rights, I also added information on his religion and education) and not for POV purposes. I don't want this back-and-forth to continue indefinitely but felt I had to explain why I felt he was being abusive.--35.16.81.92 (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- The IP editor is right, I did fail to WP:AGF, and for that I apologize. For me the change from "pro-life" to "opposes reproductive freedom" is so clearly POV that it is hard to believe someone would think otherwise. Combined with the time of year and it being an active candidate, I jumped to seeing a Duck. However, besides my admittedly rude edit comments, my actions were far from abusive and more or less required by wiki policy, particularly BLP and NPOV as Azure points out. The best way to avoid this kind of dispute in the future (in addition to myself adhering to AGF) is to follow the Bold Revert Discuss cycle in which you come to the talk page and explain your edits and why they aren't POV. That would amount to a showing of good faith, making it clear you weren't just editing and running. Instead, you simply repeated the problematic editing and then complained and accused me of my own POV. Glaucus (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Removing sourced material on Bentivolio's positions on net neutrality and LGBT rights and start an edit war was POV and it was contrary to Wikipedia policy. You were wrong to remove it, I was right to revert your POV edits, and you were wrong to use an aggressive and sarcastic tone with me. I may be IP, but I'm not going to tolerate such a blatant disregard for Wikipedia policy and basic netiquette just because you are an established editor. In the future, it would be great if you refrained POV edits and aggressive behavior. I'm glad you acknowledge your failure to assume good faith. --35.16.81.92 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I should have been more selective in my revert, but reverting a POV and BLP edit is not in fact POV, even if the revert was overly broad. BLP demands immediate action without waiting for discussion. Furthermore, removing BLP violations is not subject to edit warring policy. You were right to restore the uncontroversial net neutrality and LGBT content, but repeating the "reproductive freedom" edit was not acceptable. If you really don't understand or agree that your original edit was POV, I suggest bringing it up on an oversight board for third-party guidance. Glaucus (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Removing sourced material on Bentivolio's positions on net neutrality and LGBT rights and start an edit war was POV and it was contrary to Wikipedia policy. You were wrong to remove it, I was right to revert your POV edits, and you were wrong to use an aggressive and sarcastic tone with me. I may be IP, but I'm not going to tolerate such a blatant disregard for Wikipedia policy and basic netiquette just because you are an established editor. In the future, it would be great if you refrained POV edits and aggressive behavior. I'm glad you acknowledge your failure to assume good faith. --35.16.81.92 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- The IP editor is right, I did fail to WP:AGF, and for that I apologize. For me the change from "pro-life" to "opposes reproductive freedom" is so clearly POV that it is hard to believe someone would think otherwise. Combined with the time of year and it being an active candidate, I jumped to seeing a Duck. However, besides my admittedly rude edit comments, my actions were far from abusive and more or less required by wiki policy, particularly BLP and NPOV as Azure points out. The best way to avoid this kind of dispute in the future (in addition to myself adhering to AGF) is to follow the Bold Revert Discuss cycle in which you come to the talk page and explain your edits and why they aren't POV. That would amount to a showing of good faith, making it clear you weren't just editing and running. Instead, you simply repeated the problematic editing and then complained and accused me of my own POV. Glaucus (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- His comments such as "Don't paper the regulars. And keep your POV to yourself." and "You know very well your wording is POV and amounts to a BLP violation on this article." don't exactly assume good faith and carry an air of arrogance, especially because my edits were with the intention of adding more information and clarity (his positions on net neutrality, LGBT rights, I also added information on his religion and education) and not for POV purposes. I don't want this back-and-forth to continue indefinitely but felt I had to explain why I felt he was being abusive.--35.16.81.92 (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I can appreciate the difficulties we experience as we all try to interact and work together to better the articles. It is true that IP editors often get treated as second class citizens here on Wikipedia but I've had interactions with Glaucus before and I've never seen him or her be abusive. I also think it likely that he or she would have preferred the text to say "opposes reproductive freedom", but Glaucus rightly put NPOV concerns ahead of personal opinion here as we all should. :) I myself am pro-choice and supportive of LGBT rights as well, but I strive for NPOV at all times. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I took issue with his aggressive tone. Oftentimes established editors think they are above policy and consensus, and when I get that vibe, it is difficult to WP:AGF. This is something I will need to reflect on in the future.--35.16.81.92 (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Happy to be of assistance. If I may add, I don't think Glaucus was trying to prevent sourced content, he or she was simply trying to avoid NPOV/BLP problems. Sometimes editors get off on the wrong foot in the confusion that takes place over what their intentions are. One more guideline to take a look at in that regard is WP:AGF, assume good faith. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for re-phrasing the positions instead of removing sourced content in violation of Wikipedia policies as User:Glaucus attempted.--35.16.81.92 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- The primary source citation you're using says "pro-life," not "opposes reproductive freedom", 35.16.0.174. I'm going to correct it back to say "pro-life" and recommend you read up on the applicable Wikipiedia policies of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:3RR. Kind regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Unless you can find sourced material that shows Kerry Bentivolio supporting reproductive freedom, the wording stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.16.0.174 (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I've completed a major reorganization of the article to bring it in line with NPOV and BLP. How does it look now? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have time to fully evaluate right now, but it looks like a nice improvement. Good job! Glaucus (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the removal of information about the film Bentivolio acted in as it was a major campaign issue when he was running against write-in candidate Nancy Cassis (as documented by reports from major newspapers, which can be easily cited, and TV ads that ran, which may not be cited as easily). Other than that, it's much more focused. --35.16.81.92 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I must admit I found that part really weird and clipped it out of concerns that it might be WP:OR, but I do see one source in the prior article that clearly shows this really was an issue in the Bentivolio-Cassis primary contest. It's a blog by Detroit News writer Henry Payne, so it might be borderline on WP:RS but I think it's justifiable to include it. I will see if I can find a way to work it back into the text in a little bit... AzureCitizen (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can find more reliable sources.--35.16.81.92 (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEPNzb6c0Ys&feature=plcp - primary source documenting this as a legitimate campaign issue at the time
- There are many less reliable sources which cite a Free Press article (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012207160368) that no longer exists, and is now http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/freep/access/2711326021.html?FMT=ABS&date=Jul+16%2C+2012 behind a paywall. I do have access through this article through my library, but I'm not sure if using it somehow constitutes original research because it is not publicly available. The article is essentially just a synopsis of the film.--35.16.81.92 (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- That link did not work. The name of the article is "GOP hopeful makes fun of Bush-like character in movie" by Gray, Kathleen published in the Detroit Free Press July 16, 2012. The abstract is "The movie's first lady is more concerned with getting the secret codes for a $100-billion Swiss bank account set up for the president by big oil companies and the defense industry." which does a poor job of summarizing the article.--35.16.81.92 (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sometimes it's really hard trying to find good sourcing, especially ones that will withstand WP:RS challenges. For example, the video link above is clearly a TV political attack ad that someone uploaded to YouTube. In it, the narrator says "Kerry Bentivolio starred in a movie accusing President Bush and Vice President Cheney of ordering the 911 terrorist attack on America. It's sickening. Bentivolio's movie accuses America of plotting the murder of thousands..." That's a pretty obvious distortion of the facts, isn't it? Even if it were true, it would never be viable as a source in a political BLP. Maybe secondary sources commenting on an attack ad, but not the attack ad itself. On the DFP article, perhaps there is a copy of it somewhere else. Is there something additional you think we should be adding in? Have you had a chance to read what I added back into the article? AzureCitizen (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- There isn't anything that needs to be added (in my opinion), you just mentioned that the source used in the article may not be a reliable source, so I looked for sources that might be more reliable. I was able to find a Google Archive of another Gannett newspaper carrying the oft-cited Free Press article: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aIKLBYGsiMEJ:www.centralohio.com/article/C4/20120716/NEWS15/207160368/GOP-hopeful-Kerry-Bentivolio-makes-fun-of-Bush-like-character-in-movie+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us --35.16.81.92 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I think that Google-cached DFP article is fine too, so I've inserted it. Looks like we've constructively put this article on an NPOV path and cleared up our differences. :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- There isn't anything that needs to be added (in my opinion), you just mentioned that the source used in the article may not be a reliable source, so I looked for sources that might be more reliable. I was able to find a Google Archive of another Gannett newspaper carrying the oft-cited Free Press article: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aIKLBYGsiMEJ:www.centralohio.com/article/C4/20120716/NEWS15/207160368/GOP-hopeful-Kerry-Bentivolio-makes-fun-of-Bush-like-character-in-movie+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us --35.16.81.92 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sometimes it's really hard trying to find good sourcing, especially ones that will withstand WP:RS challenges. For example, the video link above is clearly a TV political attack ad that someone uploaded to YouTube. In it, the narrator says "Kerry Bentivolio starred in a movie accusing President Bush and Vice President Cheney of ordering the 911 terrorist attack on America. It's sickening. Bentivolio's movie accuses America of plotting the murder of thousands..." That's a pretty obvious distortion of the facts, isn't it? Even if it were true, it would never be viable as a source in a political BLP. Maybe secondary sources commenting on an attack ad, but not the attack ad itself. On the DFP article, perhaps there is a copy of it somewhere else. Is there something additional you think we should be adding in? Have you had a chance to read what I added back into the article? AzureCitizen (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- That link did not work. The name of the article is "GOP hopeful makes fun of Bush-like character in movie" by Gray, Kathleen published in the Detroit Free Press July 16, 2012. The abstract is "The movie's first lady is more concerned with getting the secret codes for a $100-billion Swiss bank account set up for the president by big oil companies and the defense industry." which does a poor job of summarizing the article.--35.16.81.92 (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I must admit I found that part really weird and clipped it out of concerns that it might be WP:OR, but I do see one source in the prior article that clearly shows this really was an issue in the Bentivolio-Cassis primary contest. It's a blog by Detroit News writer Henry Payne, so it might be borderline on WP:RS but I think it's justifiable to include it. I will see if I can find a way to work it back into the text in a little bit... AzureCitizen (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the removal of information about the film Bentivolio acted in as it was a major campaign issue when he was running against write-in candidate Nancy Cassis (as documented by reports from major newspapers, which can be easily cited, and TV ads that ran, which may not be cited as easily). Other than that, it's much more focused. --35.16.81.92 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Original Research edit
User: Glaucus once again has removed material which he finds personally objectionable despite being verifiable from the public record, and un-did a correction to a mis-dated article reference when the link itself showed the publication date was November 1 and not November 11 (significant due to the timing of before versus after the election.) [November 24 2012] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.186.19 (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- You should read wikipedia's policy on original research. Using primary sources such as police reports to construct a story and timeline is the very definition of OR. I misread your edit to the politico cite and have restored it to the correct date. BTW, I find it extremely amusing that you chose to put this accusation on top of a previous post accusing me of defending Bentivolio. I can't be both personally opposed and personally supportive, so I suggest you two get together and make up your mind. And read WP:AGF while you're at it. Glaucus (talk)
Years of military service? edit
Corrected to add 2007. He served in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2007 until being medically evacuated for a neck injury, upon which he retired from service. November 24, 2012 12:45 am Central Standard Time
The infobox doesn't match with the text. The infobox says he served from 1970 to 1991. The text says he was in Iraq in 2007. Is there a better source we can use to hash this out? -LtNOWIS (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Subject's brother edit
I noticed this edit put the incident that happened on the eve of the election with his brother demanding money into a separate stand-alone section titled "Brother's accusation", with the edit summary saying it was a better place for this "due to personal nature of claims". If you look at the three source citations, however, it's clear that this happened in the context of the election. Why split this out and create in effect a miniature "controversy section" style item? As a WP:BLP and in keeping with the sources, the best place for this material continues to be the election section where it has been for some time, unless the brother resurfaces in the news with a new and greater controversy. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Kerry Bentivolio. 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://archive.is/20130121171257/http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php?blogid=5243 to http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php?blogid=5243
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150709031249/http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/14PRI/06011000.html to http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/14PRI/06011000.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120627150821/http://www.bentivolioforcongress.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=97&Itemid=69 to http://www.bentivolioforcongress.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=97&Itemid=69
- Added archive https://archive.is/20120728144950/http://www.bentivolioforcongress.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=95&Itemid=93 to http://www.bentivolioforcongress.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=95&Itemid=93
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120811234141/http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/12PRI/06011000.html to http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/12PRI/06011000.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120811234141/http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/12PRI/06011000.html to http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/12PRI/06011000.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130108205123/http://bentivolio.house.gov/ to http://bentivolio.house.gov/
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) 04:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)