Talk:Steve Rothman

Early Endorsement of Obama
NYT article mentions possible dividends from endorsement: http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/new-jersey-betting-on-barack-obama/ Jayavarman1 (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

National Taxpayers' Union
This appears to be repeatedly described as a "taxpayer's advocacy group" -- that implies a level of neutrality that is not consistent with its positions, which are generally anti-tax (regardless of whether the proceeds of those taxes benefit the taxpayers). I haven't touched the institution page, since there's more context there for a reader to evaluate the claim, but I edited this page to describe the group more clearly as one that is opposed to taxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.83.3 (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand the goal of the change, but the change itself is POV. "taxpayer advocacy" is how the group is described in its own article and should be used as a description, if any is used. Alansohn (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comments
''These have been moved here from a subpage as part of a cleanup process. See Discontinuation of comments subpages.''

I have assessed this article as C-class and identified the following areas for improvement:  shirulashem     (talk)   17:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is not comprehensive and needs expansion
 * The article needs references

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Steve Rothman. 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/20070725184700/http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Posting Substantial Edits to Steven Rothman Wikipedia Page
Steven Rothman was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for seven terms ending in 2013. He has asked me to help him rewrite his Wikipedia pages. I have a Ph.D. in literature, have done editing, and had a long teaching career, but I am new to Wikipedia editing. I have completed the article. It seems best to edit in changes to the article, although it has substantial additions, even to the index and many more sources. I appreciate any advice for a quick and smooth installation. JewellAltman (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please spend some time looking at other Wikipedia articles to see how they're formatted and written, and read through the Manual of Style for information about issues like formatting section headers (these are done in Sentence case, not Title Case, per MOS:SECTIONCAPS), and so forth. Numbered subsections are not used in Wikipedia.  WP:TEAHOUSE editors are very helpful with questions regarding such issues. I will leave further information on your userpage regarding conflict-of-interest issues. -  Julietdeltalima    (talk)  16:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

COI and advert/neutrality concerns
This article is a hagiography that has largely been written by the article subject himself and one of his relations. See and. It should have, at a minimum, a COI article tag, in addition to the connected contributor tags already present on this talk page. A few examples of problematic content in the article: the "Mentors" section, which is definitely not a standard feature of an encyclopedic biography. The sources are obituaries and eulogies. We literally have a sentence describing Rothman's father thusly: "His moral code was incorruptible." Just like that, in wiki-voice. It's bonkers. Then we have a sub-section titled "Englewood's renaissance." A bit flowery, eh? And content like "Rothman effected a renaissance of the city..." The whole section suffers from major cite-bombing, but unfortunately nothing is verifiable because no URLs are provided. More issues: "As Mayor, Rothman evidenced a strong commitment to education." Peacock language, much? Also "In his tenure as Mayor, Rothman was a strong supporter of civil rights." Now, mind, these are sentences that were literally added to the article by the subject of the article. See here. Just the sub-heading "Highlights of congressional career" is problematic. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic biography, not a highlight reel. The first sub-section under "Highlights" ("Co-Sponsor of Constitutional Amendment to limit campaign contributions & expenditures") lists only a primary source (congressional record) to brag that "just months after being sworn in" he became "one of only 15 co-sponsors" of a bill. "Limiting use of Teterboro Airport" contains an incredible 37 citations (!), none of which are actually accessible. Then a sub-section called "Honoring the fallen." Really? How about "Veterans affairs" instead, like every other member of Congress. Then a whole section called "Providing constituent services" (dear me) in which the only source is evidently written by the article subject himself. Then a totally unsourced "Prizes, awards and honors" section. This is stuff that it took me all of two minutes to find...there is much more where that came from. There is a lot of work that needs to happen to make this article OK. I'll post at a noticeboard and see if anyone is brave enough to wade into the depths. Marquardtika (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wish me luck, Marquardtika! I agree with you on pretty much everything you described above. Feel free to help with what I am sure will be a mass removal. -- Dolotta (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is most likely off to other things on my end, for not at least. Any further thoughts on things? -- Dolotta (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You made a lot of improvements, thanks so much. I'll check to see if I think the tags should be removed at this point. Marquardtika (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The tags are still there, and I've trimmed a few sections. If the tags still belong, then they should be restored; the default, over

a year later, is to remove them. Pi314m (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)