Talk:Shelley Sekula-Gibbs

Untitled

This article is really, really, really biased. Did the Sekula-Gibbs campaign write it??? Good god...PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS ARTICLE OR DELETE IT!!! And it needs to be sourced...Ptown336 00:22, 23 August 2006 Ptown336 (Talk | contribs)

Ptown336: If you believe that the article has problems you are welcome to fix them. Also, there are sources listed out the wazoo. If you would notice that there are several sources listed at the bottom of the article. What information do you believe needs to be added??? It would be helpful if you could provide some specific, concrete examples instead of merely complaining. I look forward to hearing those proposed changes. Thank you. --Getaway 00:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is endemic to candidate articles in general. The only people who really contribute to such articles are usually the supporters (or even campaign staff) except for the rare candidate who inspires serious hatred. IMO the vast majority of candidate articles are badly POV, and frankly nobody outside the district cares enough to devote the energy necessary to fix them. Fan-1967 01:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that essay Fan-1967. However, I did not hear any concrete specific complaints about the article in your essay either. --Getaway 02:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this sound NPOV to you? "Sekula-Gibbs is most notable for her championing of healthcare causes." Or this? "Sekula-Gibbs' role in health care issues is important to constituents in Houston and Harris County." Since you wrote them, and seem genuinely mystified by the criticism, I guess those seem like objective comments to you. And let's face it, since I live 1000 miles away, and have never heard of this person, there's no way I'm going to clean it up. Which is what typically happens with these candidate articles, and why they should all be deleted. Fan-1967 02:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, well, well. We sure like to jump to conclusions don't we?? You are dead wrong, in so many ways and the funny part is you don't even know how you are wrong. I did not write these lines that you have incorrectly stated that I wrote. All of edits are right there in the edit history and it clearly shows that I did not write these sentences!) Also, you took the time to respond to me, with a way off the mark statement I might add, but you couldn't find the time to clean up those lines. That is rich. Also, since you clearly state that you don't care because "I live 1000 miles away" why do you feel the need to comment at all on the article. You say that you don't care. The amount of effort that you have put into this commentary area--about an article you claim not to care about--and the amount of effort that Ptown has put into this commentary area could have probably fixed the lines that you find so offensive. (So offensive, but you yet you just don't care! HA! That hilarious! You slay me with your inconsistent and incorrect statements.) This morass of confusion is quite entertaining.--Getaway 02:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Do I care about this particular article? No, actually I don't, except as a symptom of the general problem with all these candidate articles. This one needs to be cleaned up by someone who actually lives in that district and knows something about her, and that clearly is not going to happen. It never does, and Wikipedia ends up being free adspace for this campaign, and dozens or hundreds like it. Fan-1967 02:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already fixed the sentences that you complained about. It wasn't hard. Also, you are still spending a large amount of time responding to me about an article that you claim that you don't care about. That is funny. You just want to complain. That has nothing to do with the article.--Getaway 02:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Updates required

The City Council section needs a cleanup. It has broken links, is written largely in the present tense (which isn't the case), and she is no longer listed as a director on Bay Area Houston Transportation website. Ryoutou 16:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I separated the Healthcare section out, as it was erroneously listed as a subsection of the City Council section. The information listed within it were board memberships and a policy position - which inferred that she was both currently serving (she isn't), and that the two things were related. I've made some link fixes, some grammar updates, and moved the Healthcare section down lower - which puts her Council service in a historical, NPOV perspective. I welcome input and further updates, especially regarding her current board positions (some of which she may or may not no longer serve in). In fact those lines could probably be moved into the "Medical career" section and the policy position removed - it comes off as a campaign copy/paste. Regards, Ryoutou 16:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Major Revisions Needed

The tone and subject matter lack the objective style of an encyclopedia article. For example, the lines "Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who had represented Sekula-Gibbs' area of residence since it was redistricted into DeLay's district (see 2003 Texas redistricting), decided to retire from Congress instead of face a tough re-election campaign in the following November" portray an uncommon perspective on the issue of DeLay's resignation that is unnecessarily supportive of the candidate in question.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.151.58 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 18 October 2006

Funny, 71.248.151.58 did sign the comment and anon Wikipedian just created an account just today and the anon Wikipedian's only edit is put on a POV tag. No explanation and no other changes to the article. Looks like a drive by POV tagging. I reverted it today.--Getaway 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Getaway: It would be inappropriate for the author of a wikipedia article to adjudicate a dispute about an alleged bias in an article. The criticism of the overall tone of the article, in addition to its lack of any counterbalancing perspectives, remains unanswered. Please review the policy on writing biographies:

"Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted. The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view."

This is not, in fact my first and only edit. I have been involved in the Wikipedia project for three years, and I feel that makes me at least able to recognize an article that is in need of revision. I do not have enough direct information on the campeign in question to make edits, so inserting the POV tag was necessary so that others who did have this information could make the necessary changes. I hope I am not coming off as combative, but I will be reinserting the POV tag. As outlined in wikipedia policy, you as the original author should wait until a third and unrelated party reviews the article and decides if revisions are necessary. The problem of non-objective campeign articles is a major problem in our community, so I have spent several months identifying articles that are not written in a proper encyclopedia style. The dangers of bias in a supposedly objective source are somewhat obvious.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.151.58 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 20 October 2006

Wrong. Your edit history is part of Wikipedia and it is clearly just focsued on this article. You can review your edit history that clearly points out your lack of experience and your focus on just one article here: [1] Articles about living persons should not be edited by brand new Wikipedians. If you really have been involved in Wikipedia for three years then your edit history would show this, but it does not so your comments are completely undermined. You would also know to sign your comments, which you have not done the last two times. Once again, your edit history points out your lack of experience and your focus on merely one article.--Getaway 02:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The edit history only reveals the history of an IP address, which as you may know changes regularly. Because I have a dynamic IP address, all my entries that are more than a couple days old do not show up in my history. Moreover, I choose not to register as a user because I feel that such measures undermine the "wiki" roots of the project. It is obvious that you feel quite strongly about this so I feel it is best to leave it at this: I encourage you to rewrite the article, and in the future I think you should make a much bigger effort to write articles in a formal encyclopedia style.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.151.58 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 20 October 2006

Dear 71.248.151.58: I have looked up your IP Address and it is located in League City, Texas. You are either in the Congressional district that Sekula-Gibbs is running for or you are located very, very close to it. In either case, it is next to impossible to believe that you are the completely disinterested by-stander that you claim to be. Also, I am going to completely ignore your lectures to me because you have chosen, and you admit as such above, to edit Wikipedia without a logged in username and you claim--by your own admission--to edit under different IP addresses each and every time that you log on. That is against Wikipedia policy. It is very similar to being a sock puppet. There are NO problems with the article and if find any then you need to get a username and work to fix the article as you see fit. But your lectures to me are going to fall on deaf ears and I will just continue the way that I have always have. And finally, I have noticed that the article has been edited in the past by various related IP addresses that are located in Houston (216.119.136.131, 216.119.136.100). I hope that this isn't you because if so then once again it is my position that folks that can't come out into the open have something to hide--especially when they slap on a POV sticker in the last two weeks before an important election. It is highly POV and suspect.--Getaway 19:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Why was the bit about her staff walking out on her removed? It really is the only notable thing that happened in her time on the Hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.142.90 (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

better pic?

Anybody who get's Houston news here? Well if you have you've probably seen her commercials on how the other guy voted for a tax on an abortion pill and something else. Well that pic she had on that commericial where she's wearing glasses and looks like a texas soccer mom is a much better pic than the other ones where she's got that politician lady thing goin' on, so can someone maybe replace it? The Texas Drama King 05:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a separate campaign article

I've added a link to the campaign article for the 22nd district. That's where most of the details about the campaign and election should go - not in this article. Please move the details to the campaign article if they are not already there. I also don't think there should be seperate sections in this article for the special election and the election for an entirely new term - the two elections were held on the same day, and they were definitely interconnected because of the write-in aspects. The campaign article covers both elections, and since there should be no more than a couple of paragraphs (and, arguably, less) in this biography about the election, one section should suffice. John Broughton | Talk 21:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to make those changes. They may or may not be accepted by the other editors. I did not know that you were in charge of telling others to do things. Have a good day!--Getaway 22:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. These seem like logical solutions, and I for one had not seen the article on the election itself. Lawikitejana 04:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

'Biography' section?

This new "Biography" section suffers from some major problems. To paraphrase the very first entry in the Talk to this article: "This section is really, really, really biased. Did the Sekula-Gibbs campaign write it??? " She "left her mark" on Congress? Doubtful. It needs to be way toned down, or just deleted. -- Sholom 16:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No Sockpuppets!

Hey Getaway, great job on ferreting out and reverting the edit from that sockpuppet! [2] Nobody likes it when somebody on Wikipedia pretends to be something they’re not, especially when they're just trying to push their own POV, right? [3] Anyway, have a good day! 138.162.5.7 15:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Year of birth

The official congressional bio has SSG as one year younger (born in '53) than the article currently does (born in '52). I'm not going to resolve the apparent discrepancy any time soon. Someone with more time should have a wack at it. Studerby 21:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal Section

When I moved to League City in 1988 she practiced medicine as Dr. Shelley Sekula-Greenberg. A few years later it was just "Sekula" and I don't know if her husband died or they were divorced. The original version of this article left out her first husband. I noticed it and edited it, and it was changed back by someone. I now live outside her district so I can't imagine why she would not want to recognize her first marriage to the father of her children (She married Sylvan after her kids were older). Even though I don't live around there any more, I still follow politics in that district. Zoocat (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shelley Sekula-Gibbs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071127113815/http://www.med.ufl.edu/chfm/annrpt/annrpt0506.pdf to http://www.med.ufl.edu/chfm/annrpt/annrpt0506.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shelley Sekula-Gibbs. 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://web.archive.org/web/20070929111550/http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA103006.01B.22ndDistrictRace.35296db.html to http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA103006.01B.22ndDistrictRace.35296db.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030112528/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002699618 to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000002699618

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Section title

The section "Congressional term" is linked to by multiple external sources, for instance [4]. This message is to encourage future editors to leave the section title unchanged, although I don't think anyone has tried to change it so far. Cheers - 123.201.225.34 (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)