Talk:Tom Perriello

Wikification

Added internal links. Let me know if that wasn't enough to satisfy the call for wikification Bhaggerty 02:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Very Biased

This article is clearly slanted in favor of Tom Perriello. I have removed some of the language in the intro, but phrases such as "stunning upset" are present. Additionally, there is no source whatsoever about him wanting to "return America to the common good" or whatever it was he said. This was probably written by some liberal elitist in Charlottesville who has been waiting to see Virgil Goode be unseated because he is "too extreme" or a "hate monger" or something like that. I have placed a tag on the page as a result of that. HUZZAH HANUKKAH (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the tag after neutralizing the language ("surprise victory" in place of "stunning upset") and removing the unsourced statement you referred to. I hope these changes have adequately addressed your concerns.--JayJasper (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

New sources

• Block, Melissa (2010-06-07). "GOP Gunning For Virginia's Perriello In Midterms". National Public Radio. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

VERY VERY biased

this is absurd. every edit i make somebody comes in and deletes it and rewords it to put the congressman in a better light. gonobo i think his name his keeps doing this. i am using objective language and checked facts...yet someone keeps doing this.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlelacroix (talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 August 2010

There has been a concerted effort in the past few weeks to insert claims relating to Perriello's stance on the war that do not constitute a neutral point of view. I've reverted a number of dubious edits by Charlelacroix and 71.53.208.121, who appear to be the same editor. Many of the reverted edits were vandalism, such as changing his religion to Pagan and saying that Perriello believes success in Afghanistan is critical to winning the war on terror regardless of how many innocent women and children are killed. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. Let's have a neutral section discussing Perriello's foreign policy and not use this article as a soapbox. Gobonobo ^{T C} 05:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless the section discussing Perriello's foreign policy can be fleshed out to be helpful, it should be deleted entirely. At the time it just appears to list a number of statements that while perhaps based on a citation seem out of context and insufficient to describe the full breadth of his views. Unless there is anything particularly notable about his views or a major controversy involving his views that is noted in the media I don't see why he deserves a special section while other members of Congress don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.200.32 (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)