Talk:Carol Shea-Porter

message: Searching google for "New Hampshire Miracle" yields one page of results. A cursory glance indicates none of these results refer to the New Hampshire Miracle to which this page refers. In fact, the first hit IS this wikipedia page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Infernallek (talk • contribs) 14:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Hampshire Miracle 

message: This article ready more like a campaign promo rather than an unbiased encyclopedia article.  Very poor article.
(Manchguy85 (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And now it seems the opposite. The article seems to be going out of its way to portray her as a far-left liberal. But the well-respected National Journal ranks her as the 149th most liberal member of the House in 2008 who is particularly moderate on social issues, and www.voteview.com/hou110.htm ranks her as the 134th most liberal member of the 110th House. Both numbers place her firmly into the more conservative half of House Democrats, of which there were between 231 and 236 over the course of the 110th Congress. 68.194.217.223 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the most absurdly biased articles I have ever read on Wikipedia, and man is that saying a lot.  The Townhall section is filled with so much innuendo and bias it almost reads like a parody.  Firstly, using Media Matters as a source is beyond ludicrous. David Brock is an admitted serial liar and the far-left slant of the site should preclude it from being used as a reliable source.   It is no more reliable than David Horowitz's FrontPageMag, a source that is routinely rejected by those who "edit" this pathetic joke of an "encyclopedia".   Secondly, the implication that those challenging Shea-Porter at her Townhalls(when she wasn't hiding from her constituents) were just a bunch of hired guns or "conservative activists" is supported by absolutely no evidence, at all.  The Townhall portion of the entry mentions Freedomworks in the first paragraph in order to set up a guilt-by-association smear job that is supported by zero evidence. The use of the term "these disruptions also extended to NH..."  is so biased I can't believe someone would have the gall to write it in an entry that is supposedly encyclopedic.  Exactly where is the evidence that what went on in NH was a disruption organized by FreedomWorks?  It is obvious that we are meant to infer from such a statement that any and ALL townhalls, across the entire country, featured no legitimate complaints from aggrieved locals, rather all opposition was organized and bused-in by outside nefarious forces.  Sorry but reports on the little-watched "Rachel Maddow Show" and "exposes" by Media Matters, just don't freakin cut it.    I am on the brink of deleting the entire Townhall section of this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, how much bias has to be present in an entry before those writing it look at it and say to themselves "you know, this article is a wee bit over the top"?  This article puts forth Shea-Porter's statements about the response time to Katrina with no qualification at all, as if they were fact.  Mutliple publications, most famously Popular Science, analyzed the response time to Katrina and found it was not "slow" and have stated that it was in fact the most rapid response time to a hurricane in over a decade.  Also, how is an opinion poll on health care at all relevant to the goings-on at Shea-Porter's townhalls?  It is irrelevant.  Not surprisingly, the entry is cherrypicked to find the one poll out of dozens that shed a more favorable light on Shea-porter and a less favorable light on her detractors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no. The article states clearly that this is Shea-Porter's statement of her perception at the time; and your deletions weren't constructive in the least. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 20:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I commented when I last updated that section, I have to agree with the IP editor that the statement about the healthcare poll does not really belong in the "town hall disruptions" section, or really in the article I don't think.  Once you add in the detail of the overall poll results - that most respondents felt that the healthcare bill went too far - it becomes somewhat of a self-contradictory non-sequitur.  But I do agree with Orangemike that the Katrina statement in "Early life, education and career" ought to remain as it is.  --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The following is a quote from OrangeMike: "Actually, no. The article states clearly that this is 'Shea-Porter's statement' of 'her perception at the time'; and your deletions weren't constructive in the least".   Uh, actually yes.  It was not "my deletions" as you claim.  I was actually the one who kept adding in "what Shea-Porter perceived to be the slow response" BUT IT WAS REVERTED BACK EVERY SINGLE TIME.  Even now the article still continues to discuss "the federal government's slow response" as if it were fact.  I am going to change it, AGAIN, and I can guarantee you it gets reverted back to its currently laughable and biased state.  Of course common sense should have dictated that I would not complain about the blatant anti-Bush bias concerning Katrina while at the same time continually deleting changes that would have removed the factually incorrect bias about which I complained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  VERY politically biased 

message: This section is wildly POV.  It could only have been written by someone whose intent was to actively campaign against Shea-Porter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.32.75 (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "2010 Re-election" 

message: why doesn't Wikipedia lock down the pages on sitting politicians and then vet them all for accuracy and impartiality.  just as I don't want to see the opposition's spin, I wouldn't want to see a page biased towards my views either!!
that said, this page does appear to be one big campaign ad!  who wrote it, Mr. Shea-Porter?!?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.212.32 (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not gone through much of the history of this article but at this point it's mostly composed of statements that she is a liberal, mention of liberal positions she holds, and numbers and statistics about her cited from published sources.  If anyone is displeased that the presented numbers and statistics make her look good, you could always dig up some negative numbers and statistics about her and add those to the article with citations.  I mean, we're on the internet here.  --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  imcumbent politicians 

message: Since her husband's last name is Porter, it's likely that she was born Carol Shea, but your article didn't make this clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.182.233 (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphenated Name 

message: If this is to remain in the article, we need something closer to a reliable source. The only link given so far is to what looks more like a gossip column than a newspaper article. If this is actually notable, there should be some more solid sources for it. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 14:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Carol Shea-Porter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100918185702/http://boonepickens.com/media_summary/072109.pdf to http://www.boonepickens.com/media_summary/072109.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100209172800/http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Tempers+hot+at+Shea-Porter+health+meetings&articleId=bbfc20cf-7050-40f0-a894-d72828de6399 to http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Tempers+hot+at+Shea-Porter+health+meetings&articleId=bbfc20cf-7050-40f0-a894-d72828de6399
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Carol Shea-Porter. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130308094031/http://dccc.org/newsroom/entry/dccc_chairman_steve_israel_announces_2013-2014_frontline_members/ to http://dccc.org/newsroom/entry/dccc_chairman_steve_israel_announces_2013-2014_frontline_members/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified