Talk:Pat McCrory

The text of this article seems largely to come verbatim from Patrick McCrory's current re-election campaign website, the address of which is http://www.patmccrory.com.

• As a disinterested party who stumbled across this page via 'random article', I didn't detect any POV issues on my first read. In fact, it seemed like your typical dry bio to me. Perhaps you can clarify which specific statements you believe to lack NPOV? Removing the POV tag until then --71.111.209.194 20:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

As the text is taken verbatim from Mr. McCrory's own website, this "article" is essentially an advertisement rather than biography. Restoring the POV tag for now.

• It may be true that the primary source is his website, but the question remains: which statements in this article do you believe lack NPOV? Which ones, in particular, do you believe show bias? I picked through this article again and can find two statements that might suggest a personal opinion:

• ..."has distinguished himself as a leader"...
• ..."recognizing his innovative work"...

Is this what you are referring to? If so, they can easily be cleaned up. I'm removing the POV tag and am hoping you'll be willing to discuss this, or better yet, just correct the statements you have a problem with. --71.111.209.194 21:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Has anybody noticed that the same person with the same URL has been vandalizing this page over and over again? Sounds like a far right element has tried to ruin this page. "Republican in name only?" Give me a break. Sounds like somebody needs to get a life.

_____________________________

It seems to me someone from McCrory's camp is simply using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. I didn't realize that was acceptable, or that it's acceptable to post things verbatim from other sources, as the ONLY content of an article, on Wikipedia. I don't think I understand the purpose of an online encyclopedia where people can promote themselves or just copy and paste from another source. I'm not sure I understand why you object to someone pointing this out to visitors and keep removing the tag either.

• I think somebody has a personal problem with the man. It seems everytime that something is added that my be preceived as positive,the same person with differn't names countinues to delete positive information and add negative information in it's place. Now i'm all for both sides. My edit's include both positive and negative information. But the same editor is so into negativity that he/she has put the same exact information in two differn't places of the article. This person doesn't even read his/her own work. Example: the light rail article is already 2/3 negative(for some reason that helps McCrory?), why would you add another point about that at the start of the article about it? It's fine when you do not agree, it's a whole differn't thing when the same person deletes factual information so they can add negative information. This person claims that this is used as a promotional tool for McCrory. But the editor sees any positive information as promotional. This is not a far right blog. I hope everybody notices that this person's revisions have all been edited with that mindset. Just because somebody is not ultraconservative like you does not mean they are liberal. Last, do only evil liberals live downtown? Word of advice: 1. Open your mind