Talk:Phil Hare

Vandalism
This page is repeatedly being vandalized to contain unsourced and politically charged language. It should be protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiFi22 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Political "Scandal"
The section labeled "Political Scandal" contains libelous statements. Hare did not manage Lane Evans' campaigns, and was never implicated in the scandal. Claims suggesting Hare's wrongdoing are without citation. This section should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.111.142 (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits
The following changes need to be made for accuracy's sake:

First paragraph: The special election nominating Phil Hare to the Democratic ticket was held on "May 29 Memorial Day 2006." It was held on June 6, 2006 (http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=291499&query=). Also, if his current opponents are going to be listed in the lede, which is not the case for the majority of Illinois delegation members' pages, the Green Party nominee Roger Davis should be mentioned as well.

Political Scandal section, first paragraph: Hare did not serve as Evans' campaign manager. Provide citation for this information or remove it.

Political Scandal section, second paragraph: There is an out of place quotation mark at the beginning of this paragraph. A citation for the information related this paragraph is also necessary.

Political Scandal section, third paragraph: What is "FECA?" Also, citation please.

Political Scandal section, third paragraph: Citation? Relevance? This article isn't about the Rock Island County Central Committee.

Political Scandal section, final paragraph: The claims made need to be cited or removed. If Hare's involvement is in question why is it even included? "Some critics have claimed that Hare had to have known about the scandal due," who would these critics be and where did they claim it? "Others have claimed that Hare would never have allowed such a thing to happen." Once again, a source for this claim is necessary.

Issues Section, Jobs: First sentence "Congressman Hare is a follower of Keynesian economics" has no citation. Second sentence, "While Hare has campaigned heavily on bringing jobs back to his congressional district, he has not been successful," the claims that Hare campaigned on bringing jobs back to his district, and that he has not been successful are lacking any citation. Third sentence, remove "as stated previously." Three of the four citations listed at the end of this paragraph relate to closing that took place before Hare took office, but the final sentence ("Hare has overseen the losses of more than 4,000 jobs") would seem to indicate that these losses occurred during his terms. Correct or remove entirely.

Issues Section, Health care: Once again, Hare did not become a congressman on "Memorial Day, May 29, 2006." He was nominated on June 6, 2006, elected on November 7, 2006 and officially became a Congressman January 20, 2009. The sentence "After many local health care town halls and public polling, Hare has since backed off of his support of the public option" implies a cause and effect relationship between town halls/polling and Hare's decision to "back off of his support." This relationship needs a citation, or clarification.

Issues Section, Labor: First sentence, "unapologetic supporter of organized labor" needs a citation. "Unapologetic supporter" also begs the question of why he should apologize for that support; an odd choice of words for an ostensibly non-biased article, perhaps, but acceptable if a citation of Hare refusing to apologize for his support of organized labor. The second sentence, "Hare has been criticized by local union workers for his support of this bill because it gives a way around the 'secret ballot' election" contains no citation. The link directs readers to an article that contains no mention of Hare, or local union works.

The second and third sentences provide an entirely one-sided view of this issue. They make no attempt to explain why Hare supports the Employee Free Choice Act. Furthermore, the implication is that union workers as a whole oppose the EFCA, which is certianly misleading. These sentences should be removed.

Issues Section, Abortion: First sentence, it is the National Abortion Rights Action League, not Advocacy League. Second sentence small a in abortion.

The article contains signs of bias throughout. The link to Hare on the "Political Scandal" section is tenuous at best, and gives the impression of wrongdoing where none can be shown. The Issues section contains blatantly politicized statements, the Jobs section and Labor section, specifically, read like they have been lifted directly from an opponent's talking points. This page is not a campaign site, it is not a blog, and it needs to be free of this partisan bias.

Please spare me the claim that I must work for the guy; I don't even live in the district. I simply want an accurate, impartial article as is the goal of Wikipedia. Those people who would use this site to mislead others in promotion of their own ideology are not here in good faith, and are bringing shame to their own cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiFi22 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to HiFi22
It seems to me that many references have been removed. The bottom of the article contains almost no citations. I suggest that this article be reverted to a former article that contained the sources and then we start from there. There are more ways to vandalize than just adding in political commentary. Removing citations is also a form of vandalism. It seems apparent that both sides-philharefan- and -HiFi22- are both in opposite camps and have been warring for some time. This entire article should be reverted or completely revamped.

Also Philharefan should take note that sourcewatch is NOT a reliable or credible source for wikipedia. I recommend going to other wikipedia articles and looking through the citations for certain subjects to get the most credible information.--Celticsbruins (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup and references tags
This article needs to be cleaned up and references added. Much vandalism (1 2 3 4 is coming from non-registered IPs, so I suggest semi-protection for the article.BS24 (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsupported material
I removed the following passage:

Hare has been criticized by local union workers for his support of this bill because it gives a way around the 'secret ballot' election. According to many experts and union members, the secret ballot is a key provision that has protected union members and workers from intimidation and scare tactics, for years and years.

I don't know whether that is right or wrong, but the citation doesn't name any unionists who oppose or criticize the bill. Plus it was obviously added by somehow with an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.23.150 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Partisanship
This appears to be yet another article which is being 'refocused' onto Abortion, the Health Care Reform Act, and Unions. People, there are indeed many other issues the U.S. Representatives need to address as well. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some freebie platform to be hijacked for the benefit of some partisan campaign. There are other places for that ('Conservapedia' springs to mind). Either make the Issues section more balanced, or delete the whole thing. We will NOT be made a laughingstock, our reputation shredded. Flatterworld (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Phil Hare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100707200043/http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/pro-choice-winners.html to http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/pro-choice-winners.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)