Talk:Tom Brinkman

blp=yes

Brinkman files suit against Miami University for domestic partner policy

When I saw that Tom Brinkman was the featured article, I thought "how timely." It was Mr. Brinkman who had just filed suit against Miami University in Oxford Ohio for providing benefits to employees who now don't qualify as a family under Ohio's recently passed "Marriage Amendment". He filed just days before the article was featured. It's now apparent that the timing of the featured article with his lawsuit was purely coincidental - although now it seems a significant development in his career.

I'll try to add this to the article in a few days. PedanticallySpeaking 21:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What the Hell

So Wikipedia is now merely a blog for cranks to spin their hatred in? HELLO ... Is there no one awake at the controls?

This was the best article that wikipedia could drum up for the main page, some mid level Ohio politician? Dewine or Hackett would have made for much better subjects. How the hell did this happen? This isn't very informative or exceptionally well written.

I have to agree with you, what was the point of this article!?!

You're missing the point. Featured articles are meant to represent the pinnacle of wikipedias writing, the subject is irrelevant. Featured article criteria include many things, but any subject that is worthy of an article on wikipedia is potentially a featured article candidate. exolon 04:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps subject notability criteria should be introduced for featured articles? I agree that this is a poor subject choice for featured article. Bwithh 05:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't this sound just a little bias? "However, Brinkman's reputation is of a principled but iconoclastic man who is ineffective because he is unwilling to compromise and is unpopular among party officials—the state chairman once told the press "Brinkman, in my opinion, is not a very intelligent human being"—because he has frequently challenged the Republican leadership and even endorsed the Democratic candidate for governor in 2002. "

I agree. The article might be extensive and well-written, but it isn't NPOV. 134.173.94.191 04:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You do realize that that criticism is coming from a member of his own party, right? Raul654 05:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

besides the POV issue and the subject issue, the article seems to require significant reformatting and editing down of excessive detail, compared to the usual standard of featured articles. Bwithh 05:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, Bwithh. Not just that, but don't featured articles usually have more (and better quality) photos? 69.156.204.131 07:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

YOU SHOULD FEEL SORRY FOR WHOEVER WROTE THIS...If this article, representing a couple whole days of work, was not featured then no one would have ever read it. Lotsofissues 08:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, what the hell? Are the next featured articles going to be "Andy, my really awesome dentist" and "Nate, who totally could have played for the Yankees"? Mareino 15:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I wrote this article. I'm really surprised to read the criticism here. When it was a FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tom Brinkman) several comments along the lines of "great work" were posted. Some users have the mistaken idea that to be featured means the person must be "important", a criticism that I first encountered when my article on Julia Stiles was featured on the main page. The trouble is, many indisputably important people are such large topics it is hard to get people to do them justice or they are mired in disputes, e.g. various American presidents. Tom Brinkman is a member of the Ohio legislature. That in itself is not worthy of an article? I put a good deal of work into this article and I am hurt by the criticism I constantly encounter here in Wikipedia. Nobody seems to do anything but complain.
As for the substance, there seems to be misunderstandings about NPOV. Yes, there are some sharply negative comments. But they are all sourced and attributed. Is there a fifty-fifty balance between positive and negative quotations? No, because Brinkman has many opponents and in reviewing the literature, I simply didn't see much praise for him. Even when there is, e.g. the Enquirer endorsement, it is usually coupled with negative comments. If I removed all these comments it might satisfy someone's ideas of NPOV but it would be another "grey goo" article devoid of all life and color. As for "excessive detail" can someone point to an example? It's a thorough article about a lesser known gentleman. It's not even a long article.
Finally, someone commented on Paul Hackett and Mike DeWine (or perhaps Pat DeWine) being more worthy to be featured. I wrote a long article on Hackett as well. Someone want to nominate it as a FAC? I would note Brinkman has accomplished far more in politics than Hackett, who before his congressional bid, was a city councilman for two or three years. But that in no way debars him from featured status. PedanticallySpeaking 16:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The original poster, as well as two others, are not getting the point. Their argument is that the topic at hand is not of an interesting person, in their opinion. The article is very well written, kudos on that. My problem is mainly with photos (some VERY extensive articles have been written, only to be snubbed because they lacked proper photos, why should this article be an exception?). 69.156.205.231 19:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Who is represented - or should be represented - by politicians?

1. The voters in a specific geographic area.
2. The party that claims a politician as its member and pays (part of?) the politician's campaign/etc. expenses.
3. Only the politician representing his or her own views and opinions.

• WHICH? Is Tom Brinkman ahead of his time? Can his statements be proven to be proper and substantially correct? Are the voters happy, or at least happier?
• I welcome articles in a 'pedia that are mainly objective, based, if possible, on provable FACTS, substantially impartial, and that are not colored/tainted by partisan politics, even if they are about politicians.

QUITTNER 142.150.49.166 19:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Date of birth

Shouldn't a biographical article, particularly one worthy of being a Featured Article, tell when and where the subject was born?

TJSwoboda 01:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Blaim user:Neutrality [1] Raul654 03:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Mea culpa. A careless copy-and-paste job. Apologies --Neutrality^talk 03:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a terrible featured article. Definitely not NPOV.

How is it terrible or not NPOV? See my comments under "What the Hell?" above. PedanticallySpeaking 16:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the NPOV

This article seems to be nothing more than a hatefest for this man simply because of his conservative views.

That's probably the hostile media effect you are feeling there. Raul654 05:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

See my comment above under "What the Hell?" about the number of negative quotations. PedanticallySpeaking 16:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Dr no title

I believe Ron Paul, rather, is called "Dr No" because he votes against anything that the constitution doesn't allow. Compare the following:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ron+paul+%22dr+no%22 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=tom+brinkman+%22dr+no%22

142,000 hits vs. 198

Agreed. Ron Paul's possession of the title is further established by virtue of his actually being a doctor. This article's references seem to only have one reference of him being called "Dr. No." The Google comparison is grounds enough, though. Removing the title from the main article. -Simoes 15:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ron Paul may also be called this, but does that give him sole possession of the nickname? I cited an article which uses it in the headline and a quick search find another article also using this title. PedanticallySpeaking 16:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

publication

i like this article. this article deserves to be published. -- Zondor 09:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured articles

I think that some "minor subjects" should occasionally feature on the Wikipedia front page - one of the pleasures of Wikipedia is serendipity.

Can I make a Brinkmanship pun?

Jackiespeel 18:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article is drawing constant vandalism today as it is featured on the main page. Should we protect it, just for a day or two? PedanticallySpeaking 20:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

TFAs should not be protected. See user:Raul654/protection. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

First, thank you to Pedantically Speaking for a well-researched and generally well-written article. It's a shame that people feel the ned to attack and tear down rather than offering praise and constructive criticsm. That said, let me offer what I hope is constructive feedback:

• As noted in the featured article discussion, the article needs more information about his background. Where was he born? Where did he grow up? What did his parents do? Did he attend public schools or catholic schools? Did he have brothers and sisters?

• The information about his election to the general assembly is confusing. The article states that he defeated the "endorsed" candidate but it doesn't say whom that candidate was endorsed by. A reader unfamiliar with SW Ohio politics needs more background.

• The overall "flow" of the three sections about his career in the Legislature need work. His issue positions are scattered through the article and I found the timeline a bit confusing. There's a lot of good information there, but I think it needs to be organized differently.

• Did he really cite the Council of Trent's Roman Catechism from the 1500's rather than the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church to justify his positions on homosexuality?

TMS63112 22:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Another pointless feature article

Once again Wikipedia presents an article on some obsure American Republican politician and deems it worthy of being a featured article of the day. I have to ask, of all the subjects covered by Wikipedia and of all the knowledge available on Earth, why is this subject a featured article??? As an encyclopedia, the Wikipedia project is in danger of being little more than a collection of trivia if this trend keeps up.

Great article

I really liked this article. It was very well-written, etc. Anyone who objects to it as a featured article (because, say, there's not much about HIM as opposed to his career)... well, that's what we have WP:FAC for. I think it deserves the featured-ness, and my congratulations to the authors. Matt Yeager 23:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Resume, not Article nor Bio

I've read enough resumes, articles and bios to notice the difference. This is NOT an article, it's whistle-stop hoopla for another barnyard politico. Much more politically significant is the "article" on Gwen Steffani. 86 the Brinkman blurb, just like the pResident would an unembedded war reporter. --Steve meiers 02:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Develop it into a better piece then - and who is Gwen Steffani? (From a quick Google I think you mean Stefani.)

How else are those of us who do not live in a given country to learn about political figures below the Cabinet level?

Occasionally there should be "minor entry articles" on the front page (until Wikipedia decides to have a major and a minor article there - which would probably involve more work than could be justified).

Jackiespeel 19:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tom Brinkman/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations --plange 20:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 08:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tom Brinkman. 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/20051018131719/http://www.gobrinkman.com/promiseskept.htm to http://www.gobrinkman.com/promiseskept.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051109203214/http://www.house.state.oh.us/jsps/MemberDetails.jsp?DISTRICT=34 to http://www.house.state.oh.us/jsps/MemberDetails.jsp?DISTRICT=34

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) 21:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)