Talk:Bob McEwen

Spamming
I added notes about Bob McEwen's spamming. I haven't seen it in the news, but I have received it. Wirehead 20:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Photos
Do we need all those photos of people who are only marginally related to McEwen's political history? Dobson has endorsed many candidates. Quayle campaigned with a number of candidates. The photo for Portman/Bush is already in Portman's entry. I think that many photos, and so few of McEwen, seriously distract from the very well-written text, because people will expect to see a photo of McEwen and then it's a totally different person. --JamesB3 14:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I added the photos of Quayle, Dobson, and Portman to break up the text. There is a McEwen photo alone at the top.  Thank you for the praise of my prose.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I saw the photos of McEwen, which were very fitting for the article - it was only the others that seemed extraneous to me. The page is also over the limit for appropriate size, apparently; I wonder if taking off one or two of the photos would help that (or do the photos not make a difference in KB size?). --JamesB3 06:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The reference to the photos are only instructions to summon the photo file from elsewhere, i.e. the photos themsevles are not stored in the article and don't add much to the size. Yes, it is a long article, but I have been informed that the file sizes aren't as serious an issue as they once were.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:20, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Senate run
An anonymous user, 72.49.119.180, who has never made another edit, on October 12 inserted the information about McEwen's senate run. He noted the creation of a McEwen for Senate page that very day, which suggests to me the editor is involved in the campaign--how else would he know about it that quickly? PedanticallySpeaking 17:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Good Article
I added the tag "Good article" to this because the writing is clear, concise, informative, and npov. The problems still remain from its failed FAC of having better inline citation and at least one good photo... the old fair-use one just does not look good. -Dozenist talk  23:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, I'll state that inline cites are not necessary and I've had several articles become featured articles without them. And I challenge anyone to find photos for McEwen that won't be objected to at FAC.  PedanticallySpeaking 19:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate
McIntyre/McCloskey facts inaccurate. First, McIntyre was never seated - the House refused to seat either men. Second, the certification was done only after a partial recount showed McIntyre in the lead, not after a full recount. While McEwen's remarks are accurate, the facts underlying the statement as described here are biased.


 * Nothing was said about recounts.  I will consult the Congressional Quarterly Almanac to confirm the facts, but I don't belive the anonymous post above is correct and have removed the "disputed" tag.  PedanticallySpeaking 18:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The inaccuracy was that neither man was seated - the House did not unseat McIntyre, they just refused to seat either on until they "investigated" the election - neither man was sworn in. So, the term "unseated" is inaccurate. Jimi777 It is correct, so I added the disputed tag back. As someone who lived in the 8th District at the time, I remember exactly how it unfolded, complete with attempts at power grabs on either side (Indiana Sec. of State and the US House). The commentary on the Democrats' hold on power may or may not be true, based on your POV, but the underlying facts that McIntyre was seated is not true.Jimi777 --Jimi777 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I changed it from "unseat" to "reject the credentials of". Better?  PedanticallySpeaking 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also note that the page for the "disputed" tag refers to "significantly inaccurate" information. I don't believe it was appropriate to use it here.  And I am once more removing the label.  PedanticallySpeaking 19:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering the election was still in dispute, "refused to seat either candidate" (to use Charlie Cook's words - a non-partisan source) is better language. See http://www.cookpolitical.com/column/2004/061105.php--Jimi777 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Lobbying
Why is there no mention of his lobbying for Eritrea, a country that openly abuses Christians (among other human rights issues)? http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060416/NEWS01/604160338/1077 http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/eritrea/index.do

Updating
I do realize this article, which is largely my work, needs to be updated to cover the campaign with Schmidt. I have been working on other areas in recent weeks and hope after the primary tomorrow to be able to bring it up to date. PedanticallySpeaking 16:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

United States article on featured candidate nominations list
Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 t 00:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think an article on McEwan's Export - Scotland's favourite beer - would better serve as an FA. As Arnstein Tranøy points out: This beer kept me alive during four hard years of studying at Stirling University in Scotland. If it did not cost almost £2 in Norway, I would still be drinking it every day.

See http://tuoppi.oulu.fi/kbs-bin/directbeer?Nr=423 son of Davkal 02:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

minor vandalism
please REVERT the previous edit

nevermind, that was FAST!

Protection
This page has been semi-protected during its stay as a featured article. It will go back to normal status when its stay as a featured article ends or another admin returns it to normal. Capitalistroadster 09:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * erm....what? any chance of reading this. the vandalism seems to be no more intolerable than normal. 172.213.85.4 17:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
The article ends in McEwen also considered a campaign for Lieutenant Governor as the running mate of Hamilton, and Warren.

==hfuergueugsrugt78gew465erw5hy2356459465hytjr7rt65fr65tfmjmr5t6njf6m5rt65rtmfnj6m65murermnjft

This is not right. Please correct. --80.63.213.182 09:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article? Oh c'mon...
I recognize this is a well written article but, really, some politician from the USA? I would understand if George Bush (senior, junior or whatever) or Condolezza Rice were featured, but this guy?

Before someone starts explaining me how this article follows all the requirements to become a featured article (yawn), I would like to point out the obvious...that since featured articles appear on the main page, they are the first thing people encounter when entering this website, and reading featured articles is what generally arises interest into the notion of Wikipedia. For example, yesterday's featured article about transhumanism, now that is something that arises world concern. This article about an ex-member of the US House of Representatives? hmmm... maybe it's time to raise the standard on importance/significance for an article to be featured on the Wikipedia main page...Rosa 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As you read this, quantum mechanics was defeatured. It all has to do with the community support of the article. In this case, a few dedicated editors brought it up to standard. For QM's case, it was featured in 2004 and was steadily added-to until it lost support as an FA. --Ancheta Wis 10:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It is really weired. I started reading this article, looking for what is so interestign about this person, and couldn't find out the answer. And I am really interested in American politics. It is important that such an article will exist, but a featured article in the main page of the biggest Wikipedia?! eman 11:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion, as an anonymous user, is that this is the worst feature article I have ever seen Wikipedia use, smacking of astroturfing and turning Wikipedia into a propaganda machine. There is not a single critical word about the congressman here, and I find this amazing. Almost a comically bad choice of featured article.


 * Featured articles are not chosen by topic. HenryFlower 11:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has featured minor US politicians on the front page before. In each case, its been a ridiculous, absurd (ab)use of the main page Bwithh 05:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am moving the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Featured articles -- Petri Krohn 01:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the beef?
I could not find a single piece of interesting information in the article. It would be difficult to list this article even on the newest articles: section of the Main Page

Did you know...
 * ...that Bob McEwen unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for Congress in 2005.
 * ...that Bob McEwen was stuck in a massive traffic jam on the I-495 beltway around Washington, D.C..
 * ...that ???

There is very little on Bob McEwen in this article, even less about his contributions and policies. Most of the contents is about minor details of elections campaigns. Much of this material might have better served in articles about the individual races.

The article has plenty of references and footnotes, but it does not seem to link to anything of significance in Wikipedia. For comparison, see the article on Jennings Randolph. (Maybe that should have been worked into a Featured Article instead :-) -- Petri Krohn 15:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * He's a good man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.36 (talk • contribs)
 * So what? My dad is a good man too, does he deserve a featured article on Wikipedia for that? I don't think so...Rosa 02:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre choice for Featured Article
Whether or not he's a good man is beside the point. This is a really odd selection for featured article. Supposedly, it was picked because it "met the standard" for a good article, but isn't there more to a good Wikipedia entry than meeting some list of standards? Shouldn't a really good article actually have some kind of a point? This is a bland retelling of the bland career of an apparently bland public official, who isn't even currently serving in any kind of public office. Very strange. --67.160.74.124 16:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And, not meaning to pile on, I don't even think this is a very good article by Wikipedia's own standards. It's larded with unattributed, NPOV comments like "McEwen was not a man to mince words." What the heck? What kind of a statement is that? And name a politician to whom that doesn't occasionally apply. Yikes. --67.160.74.124 16:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This strikes me very much as a Republican POV article - there is no discussion of criticisms of his voting record, e.g.; does everyone love this fellow? Since McEwen is running in an election, featuring it could be seen as a partisan political endorsement.

Comical choice for "Featured Article"... an undistinguished and unimportant American politician. Huzzah! --Anon Y. Mouse 18:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I thought it was an odd choice because it had utterly zero international appeal, but now it seems even the Americans reading this feel the same way. It's all very well saying that there are certain criteria and all that, as has been pointed out, but shouldn't the featured article also be something that there's a chance someone might give two hoots about? Lordrosemount 19:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with the above sentiments expressed by Rosa and Lordrosemount and others. Though there's not much we can do now about this one, we should all consider this a calling to get more involved with the featured article process. — GT 21:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like it, write a great article on someone you think deserves the front page more than him. The topic of FAs are irrelevant, so long as the content is NPOV and properly referenced. From your user pages, it appears none of the last three of you have put significant effort into any article yet. Once you do, nominate it. -- Zanimum 21:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? I am well able to sit here and criticize the process that allowed this boring, poorly-written article to make it to the front page, regardless of any contributions I may or may not have made to other articles. What's next, I can't vote on RfA's until I'm an admin? The topic is completely relevant. Part of the purpose of putting a featured article on the front page is to show unregistered users what great work can come of the collaborative process. Is there ANY possibility that anyone is going to snooze through this piece and then be so moved that they can't wait to register and start editing? — GT 00:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Zanimum's response misses the point and is rather rude - even if we work on more appropriate, more notable political figures and bring them up to FA status, this would absolutely nothing for our position here that minor figures brought up to FA qualityt\ should be barred from the main page and perhaps from FA quality altogether. Every minor US political candidate has a following of volunteers including many web-savvy college students. Imagine if every US political candidate for minor political office tasks his volunteers to create an FA-quality article about the candidate Bwithh 05:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What's more important for a politician's biography: contributions to policy & legislative/voting records, or their election details? Apparently, the latter. --Roedelius 23:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a better article, by internal WP standards, than many FA's, which strongly appear to be energized by a POV; there is no obvious POV here. In fact, my question would be: did McEwen do anything in office other than local pork and junkets? Most multi-term congressmen do. Septentrionalis 17:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Write FA About Your Own Local Politicians
I think I will write an article on some obscure politician from my own country. An article on Commisioner Omar Wahlid of the municipal water works will surely make FA.
 * LOL...seems as if someone in my city stole your idea...see Teresita Román de Zurek, not only is she an obscure politician but also wrote not one but two cook books ;P Rosa 05:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can write a proper article that is NPOV, referenced, etc. we'd love to put it on the front page. --  Zanimum 21:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If he's notable enough to have an article at all, then he's notable enough to have an FA. HenryFlower 21:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Any topic that fits our notability guidelines can, and should become an FA. --  Zanimum 21:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently all you need to get an FA is two arrogant admins. It's been entertaining seeing your snide remarks to those who dissented. Can you please post a new Wikipedia policy supporting your belief that only a selected group should have their opinions heard? For example, specific guidelines on how many articles one needs to write before being allowed to express an opinion contrary to your own would be helpful. --Anon Y. Mouse 00:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. That's a secret. HenryFlower 07:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, but sad that it's actually true. - Anon Y. Mouse 21:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection
Why was the article protected for 10 hours?! See User:Raul654/protection for why it shouldn't be protected for more than 15 minutes at a time. This goes against the semi-protection policy. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-03 19:33
 * Because it is a sensitive article as noted above and increased in profile because of its status as a featured article. Capitalistroadster 21:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All main page featured articles are like that. It's well known that an article's editors have to watch it for vandalism on the day it reaches the main page. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-04 15:07

This talk page is funny: the article is so sensitive it needs to be protected despite policy, but it's also so boring no-one would want to read it. :) HenryFlower 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In all of the talk page I can only see one mention of vandalism, and that was reverted so quickly that it was not a substantial issue. I cannot see why it needs to be protected. The above users talk about the 'so sensitive' nature of the article, but the only thing that I can see people reacting to is regarding how this article got to be put on the front page at all. --FearedInLasVegas 23:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Running for office?
The talk page has a 'running for office' tag. As I read the article, he isn't anymore, so can we remove the tag? HenryFlower 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. HenryFlower 07:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nominate for defeaturing?
OK. So I've come here to read about this article and what people think about it. I have read the article and I don't think it meets the criteria for featured articles. I don't want to be disruptive, so I'll ask here first: what is the process for nominating an article to be de-featured? Do you have to be able to demonstrate significant changes since it passed FAC? Should I just go ahead and edit the article to improve it? If I think I have improved it, can I submit it to be retrospectively de-featured and then promoted back to featured status based on the changes? (This would involve linking to the version immediately after passing FAC, and comparing to the version being re-submitted to FAC).

In fact, in general, does an article reaching featured status decrease the amount of editing that is done on an article? I have seen plenty of featured articles that could be improved a fair bit, but is there not a process at the end of that to recognise any improvements made to a featured article? In other words, can you get the featured status renewed? Carcharoth 21:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry this is a bit late, but the process for nominating an article for review and possible delisting as a Featured Article is located here. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 17:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Some concerns about this FA
It seems to me that the state-of-the-art in FA's is to use the &lt;ref&gt; tags on dated material and then to have a bibliography of more traditional volumes that usually only identify a year and maybe a month of publication and often bear an ISBN. The latter is often not available on the web for free. The latter is also given a pass on how much input it really had to the article.

But this article's lengthy bibliography is almost all dated to the day. It seems to me that much of that "bibliography" could be folded back into the brilliant prose as inline refs or discarded. Any objections?--SallyForth123 00:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that I look a little deeper, I see that this was already done for Jean Schmidt. I am going to do the same for this article. Really: A bunch of titles of news articles from the 1990's do not constitute references that will help the average Wikipedia reader understand McEwen because the text of those newsarticles is not readily available. To be reasonable, I will only dump the pre-2000 articles that have no URL's.--SallyForth123 22:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So here they are. The only one with a URL (Wilkinson) is no longer online for free. Again, compare for Talk:Jean Schmidt. And again, please note that I put Schmidt's article up for a FAR because, even though she won the election, nobody ever bothered to inline her new articles. But I still think that the SPIRIT of Wikipedia is that most of our refs should point to either an ISBN-bearing publication or a working web page from a reliable source (or a working pointer to archive.org). Sure, the news articles are "available" at a cost, but the overwhelming majority of our readers are never going to pay that cost to read those news articles. When I pulled the article below with a URL (again the Wilkinson article), I did look for other articles about McEwan at the Inquirer. Sadly, the only stuff they continue to make available for free are trivial squabbles from the campaign, once again showing how there is a difference between notable and newsworthy here in America.--SallyForth123 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Associated Press. "Two Quit Race to Replace Congressman-turned-lobbyist." The Plain Dealer. February 13 1993. 5B. (Candidates in 1993 special election)
 * Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa. The Almanac of American Politics, 1994. Washington, D.C.: National Journal, 1993. ISBN 0-89234-058-4 (Information on 1992 primary and general election)
 * "Bob McEwen Is the Obvious Choice". (Editorial). Dayton Daily News. October 14 1990. 6B. (Daily News endorses him reluctantly)
 * Adam Condo. "McEwen Helps Dismantle Symbol of Communism". The Cincinnati Post. September 12 1991. 13A. (McEwen visits the Republic of Georgia)
 * Adam Condo. "McEwen Joining Powerful House Committee". The Cincinnati Post. December 20 1990. 19A. (McEwen joins Rules Committee, leaves Public Works and Veterans).
 * Congressional Quarterly. Politics in America, 1992: The 102nd Congress. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1991. ISBN 0-87187-599-3 (General information on McEwen)
 * Jon Craig. "Local names added to list of hopefuls." The Cincinnati Enquirer. December 4 2005. B2. (Considering running with Blackwell)
 * Tom Diemer. "Incumbents duke it out in new district". The Plain Dealer. May 25 1992. 3A. (Primary between McEwen and Miller)
 * "Ex-lawmaker Says He Offers Experience". The Plain Dealer. January 22 1993. 3B. (McEwen announces 1993 run in Second District)
 * "Ex-Rep. Joins Law Firm." The Cincinnati Post. January 11 2006. C11. (Joins Washington law firm)
 * "Files Left Behind in McEwen Computer". The Plain Dealer. February 21 1993. 3B. (Strickland's staff finds election files on House computers)
 * "Election 80: New Faces in the House". The Washington Post. November 23 1980. A15. ("Failsafe" district)
 * Adrienne Flynn. "GOP Primary Fight Bitter to the End." Dayton Daily News. March 16 1993. 3B. (The 1993 primary, Oliver North visits)
 * "Former Congressman To Seek Portman's Seat". CongressDaily. April 15 2005. 6. (2005 run in Second District)
 * Martin Gottlieb. "McEwen Raises Soul-Searching Issue". Dayton Daily News. March 5 1993. 10A. (McEwen regrets his stance on the House bank scandal)
 * Martin Gottlieb. "McEwen Steps Into the TV Limelight". Dayton Daily News. May 1 1991. 10A. (McEwen's television appearances)
 * Martin Gottlieb. "Strickland has come a long way; This part of the state first saw him as an apparently hopeless cause". Dayton Daily News. May 11 2005. A12. (McEwen was "collateral damage")
 * Richard Halloran. "Budget Cuts? 'Not in My District!'". The New York Times. May 3 1988. A26. (McEwen protests proposed military spending cuts in Ohio)
 * David Hammer. "McEwen's Power Base Vulnerable to Schmidt." The Cincinnati Post. January 19 2006. A8. (Burress's comments on race, Blackwell's running mate?)
 * D. Kaplan. "McEwen, Oakar face the music of the House bank scandal". Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. v. 50, n. 21. May 23 1992. 1488–1491. (McEwen and others deal with fallout from bounced checks)
 * "McEwen's Absentee-voter Effort Shouldn't Be Copied by Candidates". (Editorial). Dayton Daily News. March 19 1993. 14A. (McEwen's campaign collected absentee ballot applications)
 * "McEwen Had Geography Problem, But He Can't Blame Lack of Money." (Editorial). Dayton Daily News. March 18 1993. 10A. (McEwen's 1993 primary campaign)
 * "McEwen Seeks Committee to Investigate MIA Claims". The Plain Dealer. August 3 1991. 1C.
 * "McEwen Will Change Address to Run for Seat". Dayton Daily News. February 3 1993. 2B. (McEwen moves from Hillsboro to Bethel)
 * Sharon Maloney. "House Race Wide Open After Blackwell Departure". Cincinnati Post. January 27 1993. 3A. (Ken Blackwell won't run to replace Gradison)
 * Sharon Maloney. "McEwen's Record Helps, Hurts in Race". Cincinnati Post. February 16 1993. 5A. (McEwen's bounced checks, Spaeth's reaction, Clermont County water intervention)
 * Sharon Maloney. "Mud's Flying in TV Ads for Three-way 2nd District Race." Cincinnati Post. March 13 1993. 8A.
 * "Many deserve recognition for U.S. 35 success". (Editorial). The Chillicothe Gazette. December 4 2004. A4. (McEwen and others commended for highway money)
 * "Miller contests vote in Ohio 6th District." Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. v. 50, n. 30. July 25 1992. 2200. (Miller files complaint with Ohio Supreme Court)
 * "Money Woes Force Miller to Drop McEwen Challenge." The Plain Dealer. August 27 1992. 1C. (Miller drops his complaint)
 * Thomas H. Moore. "Contest to replace Gradison a suburban vs. rural fight". Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. v. 51, n. 8. February 20 1993. 396–397.
 * John Nolan. "Two lawyers to face off in May". The Plain Dealer. March 17 1993. 3B.
 * "Ohio". Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. v. 50, n. 42. October 24 1992. 3400–3403. (Profile of Ohio's Congressional races in 1992)
 * Ohio. Secretary of State. Official Roster of Federal, State, and County Officers and Departmental Information for 1991–1992. Columbus, Ohio: The Secretary, 1991.
 * Len Penix. "Clermont Water Plant Reopens". Cincinnati Post. April 5 2001. East Section, 1. (Water plant named for McEwen)
 * Len Penix. "Clermont Wins Control of Lake Water". Cincinnati Post. October 1 1991. 5A.
 * Leslie Phillips. "Few Join Call for End to Assassination Ban". USA Today. January 19 1991. A8. (McEwen proposes lifting assassination ban)
 * Katherine Rizzo. "Builder Finances His Race, McEwen Trails in War-chest Funds." The Plain Dealer. March 8 1993. 3B. (1993 primary campaign finance reports)
 * Katherine Rizzo. "Congressional Candidate Goes on the Attack With Ad". The Plain Dealer. February 20 1993. 5B. (Buchert attacks his rivals in 1993 primary)
 * Michelle Ruess. "Congress' travel bugs interest group." The Plain Dealer November 30 1991. (McEwen's overseas travel cited)
 * Malia Rulon. "McEwen might challenge Schmidt." The Cincinnati Enquirer. December 16 2005. B2.
 * Maralee Schwartz, Lloyd Grove, and Charles R. Babcock. "McEwen Quits Ohio Senate Race". The Washington Post. December 8 1987. A8. (McEwen won't run against Sen. Metzenbaum)
 * Margaret Shapiro. "House Rejects GOP Effort to Rule Indiana Seat Open." The Washington Post. May 1 1985. A4. (McEwen: "You steal them")
 * Molly Sinclair. "District Reconsiders Mace Ban". The Washington Post. July 10 1992. D1. (McEwen's proposal to allow mace)
 * Bob Sloat. "Overdrafts bounce McEwen out". The Plain Dealer. November 5 1992. 5B. (McEwen loses in 1992, Tuchfarber cites arrogance, Strickland on what he ran against)
 * "Supporter jumps gun." Dayton Daily News. October 24 2005. B3. (McEwen for Senate site)
 * Jim Underwood. "Republicans have few takers to face Glenn". The Plain Dealer. March 17 1991. (McEwen rumored to be running against Glenn)
 * United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Printing. 1987–1988 Official Congressional Directory, 100th Congress. Duncan Nystrom, editor. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1987. (Official biography)
 * United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Printing. 1991–1992 Official Congressional Directory, 102d Congress. Duncan Nystrom, editor. S. Pub. 102-4. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1991. (Official biography)
 * United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Printing. 1993–1994 Official Congressional Directory, 103rd Congress. Duncan Nystrom and Lesley Mason, editors. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1993. ISBN 0-16-041175-0. (1992 vote)
 * "Washington Dateline". Richmond Times-Dispatch. (Richmond, Virginia). February 25 1990. B4. (McEwen denounces District of Columbia's government)
 * Howard Wilkinson. "Boehner endorses McEwen in 2nd". The Cincinnati Enquirer. June 8 2005. C2. (Info on McEwen, Hackett's endorsements)
 * Howard Wilkinson. "Candidates' ad blitz goes from radio to TV". The Cincinnati Enquirer. May 19 2005. C2. (McEwen's 2005 endorsements)
 * Howard Wilkinson. "Kemp's for McEwen, but 2nd choice is DeWine". The Cincinnati Enquirer. May 21 2005. B4. (Jack Kemp campaigns for McEwen in 2005)
 * Howard Wilkinson. "McEwen displays his Reagan 'cred'". The Cincinnati Enquirer. June 1 2005. C2. (Meese campaigns for him; DeWine on his lobbying)
 * Howard Wilkinson. "McEwen will challenge Schmidt." The Cincinnati Enquirer. January 18 2006. B1. (McEwen to run against Jean Schmidt in May 2006 primary)
 * Howard Wilkinson. "McEwen vs. Schmidt in rematch." The Cincinnati Enquirer. January 19 2006. 1C. (Schmidt's reaction to McEwen's announcement)

Sorry about the contractions
I was using a tool to get the wikisource conformant with MoS issues. I have since had it adjusted so that it leaves contractions alone. Sorry about the confusion.--SallyForth123 22:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

His Official Title?
So if someone was to quote him today, would he be referred to as 'Congressman McEwen'? Invmog (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He has no official title, because he does not hold any office.
 * It depends on the style guide that applies to what you're writing. If there's no style guide, you can refer to him as "Robert D. McEwen," "Robert McEwen," "Bob McEwen," "McEwen," "Mr. McEwen," "former/ex- (U.S.) Representative McEwen," "former/ex- Congressman McEwen," "(U.S.) Representative McEwen," or "Congressman McEwen."
 * Most U.S. news media will just refer to him as "McEwen" on second reference. 'The New York Times' will refer to him as "Mr. McEwen." That's true even for someone who is currently in office. New sources generally give the title on first reference to establish identity.
 * Generally speaking, though, it depends on what you're writing, whom you're writing for and why. For the purposes of Wikipedia, I think "McEwen" by itself is appropriate once his identity is established.Acsenray (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Council for National Policy
Hello. This person has recently been in the news over the fallout from Wes Goodman's resignation of his seat from the Ohio House of Representatives. I read the Washington Post article mentioning that McEwen is an executive director for the Council for National Policy (CNP). I have not found information on when he joined the CNP. It would be before 2015 when the accusations came to light within the CNP. I am asking if anyone knows when McEwen joined. Thanks. FunksBrother (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

FA criteria
The article includes paragraphs of unsourced content and hasn't been looked at by reviewers since 2006. Are there any updates on subject's life? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Ton Diemer
Reporter's bame is spelled wrong: it's Tom Diemer 2601:194:837F:4270:A11E:E462:EDAA:EB1B (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Reporter's name is spelled wrong: it's Tom Diemer. 2601:194:837F:4270:A11E:E462:EDAA:EB1B (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)