User:Cullen328/Sandbox/McGinn

Disclosure: Like Michael McGinn, I am a member of the Sierra Club. However, I had never heard of him until reading his Wikipedia biography a few months ago, and know nothing about Seattle municipal politics other than what I have learned while studying this article. My concerns about this article have nothing to do with the Sierra Club.

Our Policy on biographies of living people states, in part:

Tone
 * BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself. ..

Criticism and praise
 * Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.

The quotes from WP:BLP end here, and my opinion of the article begins. This biography of a living person, the current mayor of Seattle, does not comply with our core policies on fairness and neutrality. Here are a few representative quotes from the article: "deal breaker", "political conflict", "stiff resistance", "discomfort", "stoking populist anger", "BS", "voter's ignorance", "wild accusations", "mismanaged", "alarmed", "disorganized", "makes things up", "dishonest", "impractical", "slashed", "controversial", "tone deaf", "a horror show", "scary", "mandatory doubling" "despite campaign promises", and "failure". Taken together, this group of quotes is incompatible with the neutral point of view. I am well aware that many (though not all) of these quotes are properly referenced, but the image conveyed by the selection of dozens of quotes critical of McGinn is that pretty much everyone with brains in Seattle opposes him and his policies, and almost no one has anything positive to say about him. Particularly striking is the lack of quotes from McGinn himself. Though the article contains many quotes, it has only a one-sentence quote from McGinn on marijuana legalization and a one word quote on his attitude toward bicycles. It is as if the subject of the article isn't allowed to defend himself against the wide range of accusations leveled against him in this article. And quotes from McGinn's supporters are strikingly rare in comparison to quotes from his political opponents and critics.

For some strange reason, the article devotes much more attention to McGinn's primary election victory than to his general election victory. It describes his win as an "upset" without attributing that to a reliable source. The article describes McGinn's "political conflict" with "moderate environmentalists" without a reference to a reliable source, implying that McGinn must therefore be an immoderate environmentalist. summarizeMcGinn's political positions are consistently described with labels bearing negative connotations, such as "anti-tunnel stance".

The article uses the word "controversial" four times to describe McGinn aids David Hiller and Beth Hester, although the sources used as references don't use the word "controversial" to describe either of them.

The article contains misrepresentations of what the referenced source actually says. For example, the article says, "McGinn campaigned on removing control of Seattle schools from local, elected school boards and placing it under the purview of appointed officials from City Hall". The source, on the other hand, says, "In his first two years in office, he would 'work with parents, teachers, administrators...if after two years, we can't make demonstrable progress, I think it's time to take a look at city control of schools'", a much more nuanced and conditional position.

The article says McGinn has been described as "conducting a 'war on cars'". The Fox News source says, "It’s being called by some, Seattle’s war on cars". Who is the source of the "war on cars" catch phrase? "Some" people. And who is waging that war, according to some people? "Seattle", not Mike McGinn.

Another tactic used in writing this article is to take a reliable source, extract a negative nugget, and then ignore anything positive in the source. One example is State of the mayor: McGinn touts goals as he jabs at tunnel, which contains the following lines:


 * "He did a solid job touting his upcoming Families and Education Levy, making a compelling case for programs serving low-income and minority families. It remains a difficult sell because the price tag doubled. The mayor, who lost 45 pounds, was well dressed and well coifed and delivered his 50-minute address in his calm, lawyerly tone. To his credit, he did not duck challenges facing the police department. Violent crime is down in Seattle but so is trust between police and the community."

None of that positive tone made it into the article.

In conclusion, this article needs a dramatic rewrite with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP at the forefront of all editorial decisions. Otherwise, the article should be renamed Criticisms of Michael McGinn. At least that would be an honest title.