Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 28, 2005

IMO, it's not that good an idea to feature pages on active politicians such as Tom Brinkman as TFAs on the MainPage. This may give the wrong impression of Wikipedia endorsing them and/or their policies. -- PFHLai 18:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. We've had several active politicians as featured articles on the main page before and no one objected that it could have been construed as an endorsement. Raul654 19:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mark Latham was not put on the main page because he was running in the Australian federal election... - Ta bu shi da yu 04:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but then again that was like 3 days before the Australian election (which, not being Australian, I was unaware of). Raul654 04:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never understood why you think this would have affected the vote. Surely a neutral article would not have swayed anyone's opinion? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but it had the appearance of inpropriety. Raul654 06:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There is also the issue of being too "current". But, never mind, Raul, you seem quite comfortable with this TFA selection. I hope I am wrong. I hope there won't be too much unnecessary complaining on Talk: Main Page. Don't get me wrong. I am not telling you what to do. It's just a friendly caution. Cheers. -- PFHLai 19:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe the word politiician should link to Politics of the United States and the word conservative to American conservatism. One other minor thing: there are two links to the word Republican. Narco 22:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Should we be saying that he is a "a fiercely right-wing Republican member of the Ohio House of Representatives"? Such descriptive terminology seems like we are holding an opinion on him. Interested in responses! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

^^ Agreed - the TFA summary is definitely NPOV. --memodude 22:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)