Talk:Tom Wheeler

NPOV
I get that Wikipedians tend to favor net neutrality, but the way the subject's political positions are presented so prominently and so negatively ("violate" net neutrality?) seem well over the line. Even the disambiguation, referring to him as a lobbyist, seems biased. Biographical information should be arranged chronologically, not ideologically. HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I think the title of the article itself is a part of that bias - he's not a lobbyist anymore, and only was from 1979 to 1984. 50.93.223.144 (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed and I think there are arguments to be made for moving this to Tom Wheeler and disambiguating the current article there. Sam Walton (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done per this discussion and the message now located at Tom Wheeler (writer). Sam Walton (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Something else that bothers me about this article, and I'm sure it happens frequently, is that one of the sources cited ([12]) is on the Wall Street Journal, whose article can only be read if you have an account. RobertLM78 (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate but sometimes sources are paywalled. Sam Walton (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Poorly written article
Check out the following for an example: "In late April 2014 the contours of a document leaked that indicated that Wheeler's FCC would consider promulgating rules allowing Internet service providers (ISPs) to violate net neutrality principles by making it easier for Internet users to access certain content — whose owners paid fees to the ISPs (including cable companies and wireless ISPs) — and harder to access other content"

It's barely even readable. Awful, really. I would fix it to make it more readable, but for some reason the article is locked for editing. 66.220.250.160 (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've gone over the sentence a few times. I've one minor quibble, easily fixable:  While new organizations like the flowery language, it is not encyclopedic (eg., true) to say "Wheeler's FCC".  He does not own or possess it.  NYT's not letting me at the article referenced.  Did you have any other complaints about the sentence?  —Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Outdated
The article states we are now in a public discussion period that ends July 2014. This period has clearly ended. Someone should update the article with the advancements done in the past few months — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.230.248 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

A structural consideration concerning subsections, and their naming
Technically, the way the article is now, the "Net neutrality" section is a sub-section of the "Career" section. We are chronicling a person's life. However, that would leave the article with just one main body section. Personally, I don't think that is a crime. Also, the section title is accurately called "Net neutrality controversy" because the subject of this BLP has wound up at the very center of that controversy. Just some changes to consider. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)