Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.

POV tag

There has been a lot of extremely POV material put in this article for the last few weeks. I'm not sure why so many editors (mostly anonymous) are focused on filling this with alternately left- or right-wing cant. But until everyone calms down and makes this a respectable page, I think that innocent Wikipedia users should be warned to be skeptical of the material here. Lucky Adrastus 08:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes by 86.144.246.24 look to have fixed POV problems. I'll take down the tag in a few days if things stay even-keeled. Lucky Adrastus 05:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's been some recent repeat vandalism on this page by a user who also vandalized George Allen (politician). I think it's time to stop feeding the troll for a while until they get bored and go away. Lucky Adrastus 01:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MoveOn Ads

I'm not convinced it's noteworthy that MoveOn has run ads against Congresswoman Drake. She's a Republican, and MoveOn is a liberal advocacy group that generally runs ads against Republicans. If the ads were unusually vitriolic, effective, controversial or something like that, they would be relevant. As it is, the page just says there were some ads, and Drake responded, without getting into the content of the ads. The reader doesn't really learn anything, apparently because there isn't really anything notable to learn. Lucky Adrastus 07:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


NOTE TO LUCKY ADRASTUS: I was not the one who originally posted the information about the MoveOn ads. However, the MoveOn ads are the most relevant activity to date in the current campaign, and the posted information is objectively accurate and verifiable. Accordingly, I will continue to make that information available to Wikipedia users no matter how many times you vandalize this article by removing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.188.191.4 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for finally coming to discuss this on the talk page. Secondly, you should sign your future posts using four tildes. (I.E. "~" four times). If you want to include information about the MoveOn ads, you should type it in a fashion that is NPOV and explains the relevancy. As I discussed earlier, the previous wording only says there were some ads, that Kellam won't renounce them (or something to that effect), and that MoveOn ran Hitler ads. The Hitler stuff and the discussion of how Kellam "refuses to condemn" is POV. Furthermore, the Hitler stuff is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moveon#Criticism) incorrect about the ads, according to the Wikipedia entry. Why don't you give a try at re-writing the material so that it (1) quickly describes the content of the moveon ads (2) presents the material NPOV (i.e. not taking swipes at either party, or implying what actions they should take.
A sample of NPOV wording would be: (1) Moveon ran ads claiming Drake is XYZ [votes often with President Bush?]. Drake responded that MoveOn XYZ [compared President Bush to Hitler?] and called upon Kellam to denounce the ads. (3) Kellam has declined to distance himself from Moveon. By putting words (accurately one would hope) into the mouths of Drake and MoveOn, the article can be kept NPOV. Lucky Adrastus 19:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO LUCKY ADRASTUS: I have made some changes based on your suggestions. I have been told that the point about MoveOn's Hitler ads was not entirely accurate, so I have removed that reference. The rest of my current text is objectively accurate, verifiable, current, and relevant, and I will continue to make this information available to Wikipedia readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.180.8 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 16 June 2006

Thanks for working on this issue. I'll do a re-write that cites some sources and eliminates some of the langauge that appears POV to me. I did a quick google search and found a press release from Drake's campaign, [1] and two articles in a local newspaper, the Newport Daily Press. [2] and [3]. I also think I found the Virginian-Pilot article you were referring to. [4]. I still think it is important to keep this part short, as this is an encyclopedia article about Drake, not an article about MoveOn or about the campaign to the extent that isn't generally relevant to Drake. I.E. it's not terribly newsworthy that a liberal advocacy group ran ads against a Republican candidate, but it is relevant that the local newspapers reported some charges against Drake were inaccurate. Lucky Adrastus 07:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just made some extensive edits to this material. I hope they'll satisfy everyone, or at least be a good ground for moving forward. I put them in their own section, although it's probably be just fine for them to be in the main part of the article. I didn't mention the stuff about Cox Communications in the article because (1) it's mentioned in a cited sources, (2) I already quoted two sources on the accuracy of the ads, which I think is sufficient, (3) the quoted sources are preferable because they are newspapers, not a television company responding to a threatened lawsuit, (4) there is an arguable "he-said, she-said" problem with the Cox Communications stuff because, as the Daily Press reported, several Cox executives donated to Drake's campaign. The material is all there for any reader who clicks on a source, I just think it requires too many modifiers and explanations to put in the actual article in a useful, short, NPOV fashion. Lucky Adrastus 07:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70.160.180.8, if you think the Cox Communications stuff should be in the article, could you please respond to my comments above about why I think it's isn't necessary to the article? At the least, it has to be accurate and NPOV, which means including that (1) Cox wasn't making a news judgment, but responding to a threatened lawsuit (2) several Cox executives (including the executive who labeled the ads inacccurate in the Daily Press article I've linked to) made donations to Drake's campaign. This doesn't mean Cox is right or wrong, it just needs to be included for completeness. Also, it is POV phrasing to say Cox "determined [the ads] were factually inaccurate" since that point it in dispute. The Virginan-Pilot says the ads were misleading in implication but not "outright false" and that quote is already in the article, and is quite negative on the MoveOn ads. Lucky Adrastus 15:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: MoveOn ads

Seconded, Lucky Adrastus. You're right.. 13:51, 9 June 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Disillusioned-Disillusioned- (User talk:Disillusioned-talk • Special:Contributions/Disillusioned-contribs)

Deleting text

I'm posting the following text here because User:70.160.180.8 seems to feel strongly that it shouldn't be in the article. I invite him/her to explain why. (Note: I've changed some words to improve NPOVishness; maybe that will help?) John Broughton 12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MoveOn then said that this decision was politically motivated, noting that several Cox executives had given campaign donations to Drake. The three local network affiliates in Hampton Roads, however, said they believe the ad meets the legal standards for broadcast and they had no immediate plan to drop it.[5] Drake followed this with an ad saying that "Kellam's team" had labeled Northrop Grumman - which employs 19,000 people at its Newport News shipyard - a war profiteer in the ad. Kellam's campaign replied that it had never said anything of the sort, and that it had nothing to do with MoveOn.org's ad, which in any case never mentioned Northrop Grumman. [6]

This is not the entirety of the anti-Drake spin that you have been vandalizing this site with. I will continue to protect the integrity of this site by deleting unfair and biased postings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.255.3 (talk • contribs)
Can you explain how a quote from CQPolitics.com (namely: that the race: "is more competitive than initially expected in the Republican-leaning 2nd. This, in turn, has spurred CQPolitics.com to change its rating to Leans Republican from Republican Favored.") could possibloy be "unfair and biased" ?? (And then after that, you can explain how you can accuse John Broughton, who removed some POV on his very first edit here, of "vandalizing this site") -- Sholom 18:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article for the campaign information

As per suggestion, I moved the stuff to Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006, where it better belongs anyway. We can have the debate there. -- Sholom 19:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one was previously posting links to articles and polls showing Drake the strong frontrunner, and selective links that now contrive this race to be competetive are clearly not NPOV. I will continue to protect the integrity of this article from the anti-Drake Democrats who continue to attempt to promote their agenda by posting biased POV materials and links here. Let me make myself clear: I will be checking this site several times a day every day through the election to protect the integrity of this site from anti-Drake vandalism. If you insist on continuing your biased work here, it is going to be a long summer. 11 July 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.180.8 (talk • contribs)
Actually, it could be quite a nice summer if you don't violate the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Also, you really should read the Wikipedia:Candidates and elections policy, which discusses why detailed campaign information belongs in campaign articles, not in articles about individual candidates. And one question: are you actually thinking about what has changed here (a new article), or are you stuck in a rut, trying to keep the Thelma Drake article the way you think it should be?
You said selective links that now contrive this race to be competetive are clearly not NPOV. If there are other articles out there from neutral sources that say that Drake is overwhelming favored, the PLEASE ADD THEM TO THE ARTICLE. If you CAN'T find any such sources, then you are ABSOLUTELY wrong that the CQPress link is "selective". Please either put up (add to the article) or shut up (leave the CQPress link alone.)
Finally, it is considered a common courtesy to add your "signature" to your comments on talk pages. [You do that with four tildes (~'s); wikipedia software converts that to a date/time and your IP address or logon name.] John Broughton 12:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70.160.180.8, I was involved in editing this about a month ago. I don't want to get too involved again, but I think a few quick comments can be made about this re-flame-up of a revert war. (1) The majority of the information you want to keep in is relevant. (2) But, Sholom has created a Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006 page in which it would best fit. (3) Neutral information about the shape of the congressional race is relevant. If it has become a closer race recently, that is relevant. (4) You should assume good faith from other editors, rather than accusing them of bias. (5) You and I were able to come to a detente on the page by my re-writing your information in an NPOV fashion, and this can probably be done again.
You could probably come to the same solution with Sholom and John Broughton, by (a) including the information you think should be included, (b) editing your information, and their information, in an NPOV fashion, (c) not deleting relevant information because you think it's POV, but rather including context information, or re-writing it in a NPOV fashion, (d) moving your edits to the relevant congressional election page.
It would also be polite of you to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes. It would probably also be a good idea to create a consistent Wikipedia identity (it only takes about a minute) so your posts don't appear to come from multiple IP addresses, which is confusing and invites accusations of sockpuppetry. Thank you. Lucky Adrastus 18:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting everything related to 2006 campaign except link to campaign article

I have eliminated ALL text relating to the 2006 campaign, providing only a link to the separate article. This is obviously more fair and neutral than the selective polls posted on this site by anti-Drake forces who then get upset when I replace it with the balanced and fair article that preceded it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.247.5 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 20 July 2006

Thank you for posting something about your intentions here on the talk/discussion page. You mention "selective polls". "Selective" apparently means that you think there are some polls that were omitted from the article. If you know of such omitted polls, why don't you ADD them to the article? And if you don't know about any omitted polls, please stop using the word "selective".
Speaking only for myself, I don't find your edit to be acceptable. I've edited at least 100 articles about a politician who is running for election or reelection in November, and in EVERY single case where a separate campaign article exists, there is MORE than just a wikilink to that campaign article. The reason is that a bit of context helps the reader decide whether or not to follow the wikilink: who is the person running against? is the race competitive? and (sometimes) what are the main issues? In other words, the link is described as being to a main article. John Broughton 23:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous Drake supporter, it has really come to the point where your edits can no longer be taken as good faith. Your edit summaries make it clear that your goal is to help re-elect Drake, and that your interest will dissapear after the election. You've continually refused to converse politely with me or any of the other editors here, or respond to our arguments and requests. I, for example, have bent over backwards to satisfy you, at one point re-writing much of the article to include your voluminous, POV-style material in a neutral, non-POV format. Did you ever honestly believe that "Cox Communications determined the ads to be inaccurate" was an honest, NPOV statement? You also constantly repeat that neutral third party polls are "POV and Selective" even though John Broughton has clearly refuted that claim. Note that Wikipedia is not currently including the polls released by Kellam that show him winning the race if it were held today, but instead reporting the result of neutral polls. The fact is that, based upon current polling, Drake is in a tough fight. If neutral polls are released showing another result, or if Drake wins, Wikipedia will report that. Why don't you campaign for Drake in real life, so if she wins, Wikipedia can report that?
You have recently resorted to a simple-minded argument that poll result shouldn't be on this page if you aren't allowed to include your voluminous ruminations about MoveOn ads, since both are kept on the campaign page. This is a simplistic "tit-for-tat" kind of argument that fails because poll results can quickly be summarized in a manner that is relevant and useful to the casual Wikipedia reader. "Thelma Drake is running in one of the thirty or so competetive congressional races this year" is clearly important to the average reader who wants to now something about who this congresswoman is. "MoveOn ran ads against Thelma Drake, a Republican" is not. Lucky Adrastus 19:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous user, your last edit summary said you want a fairly applied standard. How about trying to work together to define one? The answer is not a simple duality of "all campaign info" or "no campaign info". I propose that the answer is "short summary of relevant info to someone who wants to know about Thelma Drake, with more complicated information on the campaign page." As I discussed above, a short summary of how the race is shaping up is relevant to someone who wants an encyclopedia entry for Congresswoman Drake. Right now there are two sentences, each sourced to appropriate new media. The first says the race tightened from Republican-safe to Republican leaning. The second says that since then it has further tightened into a "toss up". This isn't "selective" -- if a new poll, from a neutral source (i.e. not Kellam or Drake internal polling) shows Drake or Kellam ahead, the proper edit would be to get rid of the first, CQ poll (keeping it on the campaign page) and include the new poll. I.E. "In July the Washington Post rated the race as a toss-up, but a U. VA. poll in August showed [Drake/Kellam] leading by ten points." Kellam and Drake internal polling (which tends to favor the candidate) could be included, properly sourced, on the campaign page.
The problem is that the information about MoveOn ads that you want to include has specific, not general importance. You've never explained what is more relevant about it than "MoveOn, a liberal group, ran ads against Drake, a Republican politician." That is specifically relevant to someone who want to read about the 2006 campaign, but not generally relevant to someone who wants to read about Drake, since its likely that many liberal groups would run ads against her, and conservative groups run ads for her, so long as she continues to compete in political elections. Why don't you try to write a single-sentence explanation of your material, in a format that is NPOV and explains it's general relevance and POST IT HERE ON THE TALK PAGE FIRST. I promise you that I will happily edit and include it if it can be (1) relevant, (2) NPOV, and (3) SHORT. I already did that with this same info in longer form, which Sholom correctly placed on the new campaign page. And please, please, be polite and sign your posts by ending them with four tildes. It would be polite and show good faith. -- Lucky Adrastus 18:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving differences - alternatives

This is a note to 155.188.183.5 (and all the other 155.x IP addresses similarly used) and to 70.160.180.8, who may or may not be the same person, but are saying the same thing:

At this point, you appear to have two choices:

  • Continue to insist that you are right -- and have your edits quickly reverted, which means that most people will see this article (and the campaign article) the way you DON'T like it. You have neither time nor numbers on your side, compared to those who disagree with you. And if you do this, you risk getting blocked from editing, as has already happened several times.
  • Agree to one of variety of processes to resolve conflicts within Wikipedia. These proceses are listed here: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Pick whichever you want.

Your choice: keep fighting a losing battle, or use the system for resolving disputes (and abide by it). John Broughton 22:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tried to be fair. I posted detailed factual information on the campiagn site to replace simplistic and factually inaccurate information that was obviously posted there to benefit the Kellam campaign. I worked a long time to develop and post that information, and you leftist wingnuts removed it within hours. Furthermore, you even agreed with me that campaign material belongs on the campaign page and not the bio page, but apparently the Kellamites got to you and convinced you to change your mind back to using this bio page for propaganda purposes. It is obvious that you people have no interest in providing fair, balanced, and neutral information on these pages. So, if you want to play that way, I will engage. 23:26, 17 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.180.8 (talk • contribs)
A while ago, I think I posted a comment to your talk page titled "ARE YOU STUPID?" Let me try again. There are a bunch of us reverting your changes. If we didn't want to be reasonable, WHY would we offer to bring in other - neutral, uninvolved people - through a wikipedia resolution process?
I really hope your "I will engage" means that you want to do dispute resolution. If so, you need to clearly state you want to do so, so that the process can start. In fact, we'd [I keep saying "we"; by that, I mean that I'm presuming that others are agreeable - if not, they need to speak up) PREFER that you follow the link I provided, look at your choices, and say which one you want to use. Or you can say that you will leave that choice up to us -- but if you don't trust us, of course, then you'll want to make your own choice. John Broughton 13:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be quite happy to participate in mediation. However I don't believe the anonymous user is capable of a good faith attempt at such. If you read it closely, he statement that he "will engage" is that he will "have no interest in providing fair, balanced, and neutral information on his pages". That's what he accuses the many Wikipidia editors and admins of, and what he says he "will engage" in in response because we "want to play that way". He's already called us "evil" and himself they only "good man" here (he was miquoting Burke: "All that is necessary for the Triumph of Evil is for good men to do nothing"). Lucky Adrastus 14:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, here's an idea - why not just request protection for this page? - Tronno ( t | c ) 21:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thelma Drake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thelma Drake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She's not dead

Someone added that she is dead, but there are no news articles that this prominent individual died four days ago. I don't routinely edit wikipedia articles, but this seems like something someone should fix. 143.231.249.141 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thelma_Drake