Talk:Tom DeLay/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, there's a bit about his biography, then some criticism of him, then a number of quotations, all of which appear to portray him negatively, then some links - one to his site, then a couple of columns from The Nation, and others critical of his support for the war.

So it's not exactly NPOV, and I think I'll try to make it a bit less anti-Delay.

Kaisershatner 20:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I think saying he is "fervently" anti-environment is a liberal POV. Maybe he's "pro-business"? That's why I listed the ratings of the interest groups rather than trying to stamp him with POV labels like "anti-enviroment." It's objective that he dislikes the EPA, so I didn't change that, but being against the EPA and "against the environment" aren't synonymous, unless your POV is that the EPA = the environment. Kaisershatner 17:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

can someone explain how including 'controversial' and 'being a fiercely partisan politician' makes this article more NPOV than excluding them? they seem like pov statements and i feel like they deserve to be kept out, especially in the beginning paragraph which is supposed to be a brief overview. Thepedestrian 19:01, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that including or excluding those comments affects POV all that much, but their inclusion goes a long way towards pointing out the most notable points of the subjects public life. I wouldn't consider either statement to be terribly subjective, either. As such, I would say the brief overview is well served by leaving them in. Fox1 19:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Counting votes?

What is this supposed to mean? AlistairMcMillan 19:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DeLay had a knack for counting votes...

It means that DeLay was good at calling Congressmen, asking what their vote would be, and keeping track of it. That is what a good whip does.

Delay

Is Delay the Majority speaker for the 109th session or the 108th session???

he's the majority leader (dennis hastert is the speaker of the house) and he should remain so as he was reelected and the republicans held on to the majority. Thepedestrian 04:07, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Special?

What makes this guy so special that most of the energy put into this article goes to reverting vandalism?--Lucky13pjn 07:54, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

House Majority Leader, badass reputation. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 09:57, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
He's a Repubeslickin? 06:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a right portrayal of him. Southern conservatives like him who violated rules and blatantly disregard anything deserves such criticism, NPOV for me.

NPOV Problems throughout ethics section

Several sentences in this section are poorly written and convey a POV against DeLay. I added a POV tag until these are resolved. Examples:

  • "DeLay saw Texas as a great opportunity for the Republicans to pick up as many as seven Congressional seats if they could redraw Congressional district lines in their favor. The only problem the Texas GOP had was Democratic control of the legislature." (Non-neutral connotation, portrays delay as scheming to correct the Democratic "problem." Also factually incorrect - Democrats only controlled the state House, not the state Senate)
  • "To break the Democratic hold on the state legislature and take advantage of the newly drawn districts" (non-neutral, assigns motives to Delay. Also factually incorrect. Again, the Dems only controlled the House before redistricting. Repubs controlled the Senate)
  • "DeLay decided to raise large amounts of money and outspend the Democrats in the 2002 elections." (non-neutral, poorly written, and assigns motives. Delay did not arbitrarily "decide" to "outspend" the Democrats as if it were some sort of a nefarious plot. He did what all politicians do and raised money for his party along with many others who did the same things. He was able to outraise the Democrats in many, but not all, districts.)
  • " In the process of raising that money, corporate money made its way into DeLay's PAC, Americans for a Republican Majority. As part of Texas' progressive legacy, corporate donations are illegal in Texas." (too much POV e.g. Texas' supposed "progressive legacy." Also, this is the allegation against DeLay, NOT the factual recounting of events. Also - another factual error - the PAC was Texans for a Republican Majority or TRMPAC, not ARMPAC)
  • "Despite the possible illegality of the fundraising, which at the time did not come to light, the Republicans were able to beat the Democrats in Texas in 2002" (very non-neutral, factually inaccurate, and implies that Republicans won a majority only because of DeLay's money. In reality the redistricting plan favored Republicans and many long-time Democrats retired and did not seek reelection - the main reasons the Republicans won the House)
  • "Thus, the Republicans opened up an unprecendented mid-decade district redraw, or gerrymander." (Non-neutral and factually inaccurate. There have been many mid-decade redraws by the legislature including in Texas in 1996 after court rulings on racial gerrymanders)
  • "The Democrat legislators of Texas explained to the press that they had maxed out their credit cards in their effort not to be abducted without a warrant by the state of Texas. The Democrat legislators are still paying the principal and interest on their credit cards. " (poorly written, unprofessional folksy prose - not appropriate for an encyclopedia)

Please fix these and rewrite this section. Then we can remove the POV tag. Rangerdude 23:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many of your points are valid, but how is assigning a motive expressing a POV? People have motives. DeLay started a PAC called Texans for a Republican Majority; thus I think it's safe to assume that DeLay, a Republican, wanted Republicans to control the house.
And the redistricting plan was obviously intended to favor Republicans. Historically, the party in power always uses the opportunity to create new district boundaries to it's advantage. A high school civics textbook will even admit that. Just do a good news search for "Texas" and "gerrymandering" and you'll see that most every news source states that Texas was intentionally redistricted to favor Republicans, including right-leaning papers like the Washington Times. I do agree that the factual and grammatical errors should be changed. --Osbojos 01:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Please fix these and rewrite this section. Then we can remove the POV tag." Sorry if this sounds rude, but why don't you fix them? You seem to be knowledgable about Delay... seems like you could just fix it and remove the tag yourself.--Quasipalm 22:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hope to fix my post

Tom Delay page I hopefuly fixed my post "The Democrat legislators of Texas explained to the press that they had maxed out their credit cards in their effort not to be abducted without a warrant by the state of Texas. The Democrat legislators are still paying the principal and interest on their credit cards."

but my old post, was put back up.The new post that was removed said; (fixed up the new post)
The Democrats legislators missed their families they were not allowed to see their children or sick babies that were in an incubator. They would be arrested without a warrant for seeing their family in Texas. The court with all do speed ruled the Attorney General signed letter was not a warrant. Senator John Whitmire returned without fear of being arrested. The rest of the Democrats fallowed complaining they maxed out their credit cards and are still paying the principal and interest on their credit cards.
From user Political hack

My removal

I removed:

Barney Frank, a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, commented that the House Republicans "have the same kind of discipline as the British Conservative or Labour Party, that's why anybody who votes for a Republican in November is voting for Tom DeLay." In the opinion of Jan Reid and Lou Dubose, "it was a partisan observation but nonetheless valid and insightful. Tom DeLay will someday be elected Speaker. When he does, he will in effect be the first Prime Minister of the United States."

It didn't really seem to add anything to the discussion before about DeLay's use of parliamentary tactics. I might readd something, but this was article bloat and unnecessary. Meelar (talk) 02:44, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I readded a sentence about critics and supporters reaction to his command of party discipline. I also removed this paragraph:

"DeLay even defied George W. Bush on the badly wanted energy bill. DeLay refused to pass an energy bill that did not retroactively protect the makers of MTBE, a gasoline additive that is a poison, from lawsuits. (Ibid)"

This is not NPOV; MTBE indicates more controversy than I'm equipped to deal with right now, and the paragraph was not vital to the article. If someone can rephrase it neutrally, be my guest. Meelar (talk) 02:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider the energy bill story to be POV. DeLay _did_ refuse to make a concession that the White House was willing to make. The energy bill was priority legislation, so I think DeLay's spiking of its passage is worth noting. Perhaps you could say "MTBE may be toxic."
I think the Barney Frank quotation is great. It's an analysis of the degree of party discipline thatthe Republicans to have.Dinopup 03:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree it's an interesting story, but the description of it as trying to protect makers of a poison glosses over a horrendously complex issue (for example, the makers were making MTBE because several states required it). In any case, something like "makers of the gasoline additive MTBE" would be more neutral, and let the reader read MTBE for the fuller explanation of what the story on it is. --Delirium 04:27, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
PS And could someone explain who Jan Reid and Lou Dubose so that funny quote about DeLay being Prime Minister of the United States could possibly make sense. Lagavulin 23:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Edited it out again. Again it was not necessary and I have no idea who Jan Reid and Lou Dubose are?--Seanor 10:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Totally Disputed and why

There's probably no one more loathed by Dems at the moment than this guy with the bad haircut formerly a pest controller. But give me a break, the article should not be a catalog of his alleged wrongdoing. Can a non-Republican, non-Democrat fanatic please consider re-drafting this. It's not the worst article I've seen, but as I review many of the political articles I see a pattern where partisans from both sides hijack articles of interest to them. Wikipedia is such a fine resource, which I find myself using almost every day, it deserves better. Lagavulin 23:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, more than half the article deals with his congressional career. It lists a number of his achievements, including strong enforcement of party discipline and support for Israel. But he does come with a large baggage. So it is fair to mention that also. I believe the various ethics violations and controversies discussed here are factually correct and have been properly sourced. If you could point to specific places of factual errors we could correct them. --DuKot 01:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems rather obvious that tagging this as NPOV and as Total Disputed is a way to whitewash the truths about DeLay and I object to the misuse of NPOV tag to "help" DeLay. Calicocat 16:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article is very close to being POV. What possible informational purpose could the cuban cigar section have? "In September 2005, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named DeLay one of the thirteen most corrupt members of Congress." Sounds like a POV statement to me. I may vote for the dems, but even I have to be impartial sometimes. 64.12.117.5 21:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The External Links

The vast majority of the external links portray Tom Delay negatively which merely gives credence to the argument that the overall tone of the article is decidedly partisan. While there are many questions and issues still surrounding Tom Delay and certain dealings he has had linking to obviously partisan pages, masquerading as news sites, should, I think, be removed. However am I off track here, am I seeing partisan stuff where none exists, or do some others think that many of those pages in the external links should be cut? --Seanor 12:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External links have been cut. Any partisan sites or partisan links should not be accepted.--Seanor 13:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I totally disagree and so added back the so called "partisan sites" you removed in violation of many wikipedia policies regarding external links. Such removals are tantamount to near vandalism and have been restored. Please refrain from injecting your POV into this with such attempts at censorship. Calicocat 17:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Calicocat you even linked to this, jeez!
===What should be linked to===
  1. Official sites should be added to the page of any organization, person, or other entity that has an official site.
  2. Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of a text. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. To fail to do so is plagiarism.
  3. If a book or other text that is the subject of an article exists somewhere on the Internet it should be linked to.
  4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is.
  5. High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article at which point the link would remain as a reference.

[1]

Please read the rules Calicocat before you accuse others of vandalism. Almost two thirds of those links either reflect negatively on Delay, or contain biased partisan material. This is an encyclopaedia not a place to air whatever partisan views people have. I have been working on fixing the Tom Delay article. My original post still stands. For those interested in keeping this place an encyclopaedia please respond with any comments or suggestions; otherwise if you don’t like Tom DeLay go join a political forum, or start a political blog.
With the external links there are far too many, it’s utterly ridiculous to have so many external links. Even the article on George W. Bush has one external link and the rest are transcripts. I suggest that we do the same here.

eg.

The issue is that you just cut them out, that itself it obvious "partisanship." Let the links stand and let readers' be informed as widely as possible. I've looked at the links you say are "partisan" and don't agree, pointing out Delay's ehtical issues is not "partisan," it's in fact "non-partisan." I like having a rich selection of External Links in any article and having this selection of links it not "utterly rediculous." If you don't "like" the links becuase they are "partisan" (meaning, it seems, against your point of view), don't read them, but don't act as a censor and cut them out, see what Wikipedia is not. Calicocat 01:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please read this because you obviously haven’t.

What should be linked to

  1. Official sites should be added to the page of any organization, person, or other entity that has an official site.
  2. Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of a text. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. To fail to do so is plagiarism.
  3. If a book or other text that is the subject of an article exists somewhere on the Internet it should be linked to.
  4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is.
  5. High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article at which point the link would remain as a reference.

[2]

Also I waited 2 days before making any changes.--Seanor 10:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


And leave everything else out.--Seanor 12:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You must be kidding me. 2 pro-DeLay links, a link to testimony, and quotes? No mention of ethics issues? Come back with a serious proposal. Meelar (talk) 01:40, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Are his ethic issues not mentioned in the article? Did you not read that section? People are going to have to come to a compromise on this. The vast majority of the links are anti-delay (again read the rules concerning links). If there are two pro-links then provide two articles, from reputable news sources, which are critical of him and at least that would be a start.--Seanor 10:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I will be changing the external links section to this:

External links

Wikiquote has quotations related to Tom DeLay/Archive 1.

Official

House of Representatives Ethics Committee Reports

I have yet to find an external links section for any US political figure that has anything even remotely similar to Tom Delays article. If there is too many articles siding one way or another either liberals or conservatives are going to be giving out. The solution that I have found is these articles are simply not used. It saves allot of hassle. If people have a problem with this then I think mediation is advised and a neutral party can assess if the links section is badly done or not. Whatever major changes I have made I have waited over 24 hours to change them, as I realise that in the US this guy is a controversial figure and people have strong opinions about him.--Seanor 14:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
if this is refering to "pov"s of articles and their difference in quantity per pov, the way to not bias the sample of articles is to reference them in the article in the same proportions that they exist empirically. Kevin Baastalk

Edited External Links. The division between pro and con media reports was not equal, entire section dedicated to actions groups that don’t like DeLay of which other controversial political figures do not have, and a Democrat Press release was put under Government Links. US political figures should at least have similar pages. Having entire sections dedicated to pointing out sites which obviously are not going to be sending DeLay any Christmas cards simply causes problems. Also posting 20 sites which love him to bits is going to cause problems. If there are facts in these external links which are not in the article then put them in. Has to remain neutral, people know this.--Seanor 11:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rather than remove them, add to them, organize them into pro/con, but don't whine becuase DeLay is getting bad press and it's showing up. There are plenty of crtical links about others in other articles. Also, removal of the Citizen groups is inappropriate and unacceptable as is removal of government reports on DeLay. You're obviously involved with an attempted whitewash of DeLay and trying to use wikipedia policy as justification. Maybe you should take a break from editing this page. (Also, you need to create a talk page for yourself) Calicocat 13:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If DeLay is getting bad press, then what you should do is put those facts in the article (or copy and paste them from yahoo!). Again if people put in 20 external links to pro delay sites there are problems. 20 external links to anti delay sites there are problems, because it is not NEUTRAL. You can’t take sides. Either reference the facts about the man or this is simply going to end up as a stupid cycle. I am merely trying to keep the parts of the article neutral, which is something you should be trying to do as well....
Kevin Bass gave the best advice here, if this is refering to "pov"s of articles and their difference in quantity per pov, the way to not bias the sample of articles is to reference them in the article in the same proportions that they exist empirically.--Seanor 15:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Seanor. :). Let me clarify a little: by this comment I was not taking a side on whether links (a form of reference) to the articles should be in the article in the manner of Calicocat, facts cited from these articles, or both. In any case, if one looks up WP:NPOV, they'll see that none of these is against policy. This is a matter where there wil be a higher ratio of opinion to fact than usual, and it is npov to present those opinions as opinions, attributed, sourced, and it is also factual, as those opinions do, in fact, exist as such. This is explained more thoroughly on the WP:NPOV page. Also, there, (or on Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial?) you will find that one is discouraged from subtracting, and encouraged to add to achieve "balance" (balance, to me, is proportional representation, as corroborated by Wikipedia:Informative & Wikipedia:Important, and by Seanor.). Again, insofar as the topic in question is ethic violations allegations, it is largely a topic regarding pov (allegations, corroborations, evasions, denials), and information that is relevant to this is, in proportion to the size of the role that that information has in the subject area, appropriate. Kevin Baastalk 16:13, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
Absolutely, thanks for a great response. In so far as the predominant focus of the article are his ethics violations and allegations against him that must take centre stage and does. By the mere fact that the man has generated so much controversy has resulted in numerous sections concerning that. It must be mentioned. Although I must say that DeLay isn’t the noblest of political figures, that's not the issue, because the article shouldn't be a soapbox for those of us who hold that opinion. The central point being accusations made must be proportion to the size of the role that that information has in the subject area essentially denounce someone giving the ratio of allegations there is against someone. Not only are there the obviously logical flaws with assigning a proportional level to opinions and allegations there is also the issue of having a group of people define what that proportional level is. Are we to allow opinion, not necessarily based on any specific allegation, but say on a more general level, ideological level. How many anti-bush sites would be posted on his external links section? Thousands, hundreds of thousands? Or for Hillary, Clinton and so on with the reverse holding true. Considering that this be based on a proportional level. The policy should not be of seizing every opportunity to denounce someone; the policy should be to provide fair information to the reader, not for any political end. And by using every single opportunity to hammer (hehe) Delay, in every section of the article right down to the external links, not only does it look politicised and biased, it sadly _is_ politicised and biased.--Seanor 17:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
One can look at the George W. Bush article to see the degree of links to critical websites. I do not see anly logical flaws in asigning a proportional level to opinions and allegations, it is, to the contrary, a way to avoid bias, specificlly selection bias, confirmation bias, and from an information theory perspective, statistical bias. From a postmodern perspective, the point of information, such as this encyclopedia, is to be a simulation of something else. That is, to be an information channel that sends information from that other thing, as reliably and and thouroghly as possible. It can be shown that to do this, one minimizes Kullback-Leibler divergence, that is, represents information in the source with a proportional quantity of information in the copy (simulation) - a proportion that is the same for all pieces of information.
Regarding "the flaw having a group of people define what that is" - this is argued by way of a logical fallacy. The problem is that it is impossible to objectively define. But to say that is a problem in the sense that you employ, is to assume that it is possible to be perfectively objective. This is not true, so that logic is not sound. The goal is to be objective as possible, and one way to do this is through consensus, that is "having a group of people define what that proportional level is." In any case there will be a proportional level, whether consciously decided or incidental. In any case, something ultimately determines that level. What would one have determine that level? If not people, then what - plant? What you state as a "problem" cannot be meaningfully avioded. The best way to deal with such things is by addressing them wittingly. Kevin Baastalk
regarding ideological level - as i interpret to be an implication that some referenced articles are ideological in nature or at least influenced by ideology. to the extent that a) to a certain extent this is unaviodable, b) a proportional representation of these ideological influences essentially cancels them out, and c) the subject matter is, to a significant degree, of an ideological nature (the difference between "right" and "wrong"), it is not altogether inappropriate to include this information. Kevin Baastalk 17:49, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
I agree that the policy should be informing the reader, irrespective of any political end or criteria. That is why I say that the political nature of the information should not even be considered - to consider would be to asseses with respect to a criteria, and this is a form of selection bias of a political nature. Rather, the criteria should be how informative it is to the reader. That is, we should minimize kullback-leibler divergence. Kevin Baastalk 17:54, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
Oh, and a quote, regarding the appropriateness of criticism as such:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else." - Theodore Roosevelt

Kevin Baastalk 17:59, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
Apologies you have misunderstood, and probably rightly due to any erroneous explanations on my part, so any implication that appeared to be made that critical links be avoided in articles, was not my intention. You have gone a bit overboard in quoting Theodore Roosevelt. This merely and remains merely a topic concerning the external links section, and if you look at that section on George W. Bush it resembles nothing like the section on Tom Delay. But again this is not suggestive on any relevant information, the question is not any socio-relational level in defining the proportionality of criticism in a group environment, it is more to do with, and in the end what this is about, what should be put in the external links? What I believe is the next logical step is merely to look in depth and rules concerning External Links. Again these are guidelines not strict rules, but in stating the issue at hand it is useful none the less.
The most obvious point being Wikipedia is not a web directory, but aside from that, it is preference, not a rule that links be internal, but for obvious reasons this cannot always be done. And again external links a regarded as a small section, but this is obviously not a hard and fast rule and probably shouldn’t be, again for obvious reasons. In looking at what should be linked to section, in reference to this article’s External Links section my reasoning should become clear. External Link Guidelines
Firstly the official sites are linked to and secondly all of sites used as a reference in the articles are included in the article, again commonly done. Thirdly there is a single book linked. Now we come to some difficulties. There are multiple points of view concerning Tom Delay and his ethic accusations. And there are multiple references in the article citing external stories and quotes where information was taken from and rightly so. Now consider the overwhelming number of articles in the external links section which again repeat what has been said. You have stated that subject matter be proportional to empirical evidence but how many times should we or anyone denounce him over allegations before it becomes unfair? 2, 3, 4... 100 times? Yet the overwhelming tone of the links in the media articles and again in an entire section dedicated to citizen action groups against Delay most defiantly go beyond the scope or reasonable proportion, and into politicisation. Lastly these articles should be of “high content” of which some are not, one is even posted on a bulletin board of some kind. Again the issue of proportionality and how it is misused? High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Items in the article that mention Delays allegations are simply repeated again in the external links section, and most of these pages are defiantly not neutral (e.g. dropthehammer.org. This again goes against the spirit and implication of these guidelines.
Also taking into account comments in m:When should I link externally, one of which provides a useful insight,
There's nothing wrong with a POVed link, as long as the link description makes a clear statement which POV is represented (which is not immediately obvious).....JFW T@lk
Again there are many opinions and concerning Tom Delay and many of them are negative. I am not at all trying to state otherwise, of course there are going to be negiavte articles about him that will be used. But do this test. Read the article yourself, as you have probably done. Then after you have read the allegations and controversies in the article you are confronted with them again and again in the far too numerous external links. But on a more fundamental level there is an absolute repetition of allegations and even a total emphasis on sites which are Critical of Delay. Does this not go against the spirit of the rules, does this not even go against proportionally condemning someone? Token positive articles are thrown in of course, but this is not a battle of how many positive and negative links can be posted, but what this is about is being fair. The vast majority of the Tom Delay article is already dedicated to allegations against him, why focus again, why bring continued negativity against him, and centrally why repeat what has been written about in the article? Why should the external links section be overwhelmed with anti delay links? You mention high ideals like patriotism, all I am writing about is simply being fair nothing more.--Seanor 19:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Alright, the logic of your response is granted. Now I've looked at the link sections independantly. And i'll addresss in principle, independantly:
  • U.S. Government Links on DeLay Ethics Issues - atypical, but given that it is an issue of accountability, and that it is a large issue, as we have agreed, appropriate in this particular case. significant things which fall under this category should then, ofcourse, be listed.
  • Press/Media Reports on DeLay (Pro and Con) -It is said that the press is the fourth branch of the government. And with good reason, according to Lockean principles of government, which the U.S. governemnt (the government in question) is founded on: a goverment is established by the people in order to provide for their general welfare, and remains the property of the people that it governs. insofar as the press/media represents the people, this section is appropriate. In fact, we should probably have such a section for all people holding public office in america.
  • Citizen Groups Critical of DeLay - by the same logic of the above, the voice of citizen groups are appropriate, though the restriction to "critical of" is not by that logic justified. "statements/positions of citizen groups regarding delay" might be more fitting, but is much less eloquent. Again, we should probably have such a section on articles about other political figures, insofar as we recognize the u.s. government to be founded on the lockean principle mentioned. Kevin Baastalk 21:11, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
Posted this at 14:55, 24 Apr 2005, very similar to what is posted concerning Tom Delay
Citizen Groups Critical of Bush
Edited out at 19:57, 24 Apr 2005.... LOL, oh the hilarity.... This again is simply about fairness, and something tells me you are not going to be defending my fundamental human rights in posting up sites like these in connection with Bush or probably any political figure, but you will quote Roosevelt to keep them up for Delay???????... Everyone one has their own point of view but when we start providing sections in these articles which only show one side, which only gives critical information the totality of the information provided becomes useless. This is not going to turn in a race to provide as many positive or negative links, and wikipedia in the end is not a web directory.
Someone said Let's make the political articles about politics. And apologies for having to revert to vandalism to make this point, but in the end I am not preaching about the principals of government, I am just trying to make the political article remain about politics, and nothing more. Hoping that further articles post links to sites like these is moronic. It may happen on certain articles where people have very strong partisan views such as with Tom Delay here, but this is meant to be an _encyclopaedia_ although it seems more like the National Enquirer at times.--Seanor 10:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Those articles seem to be about bashing bush, not about policies. I made the statemetn, and perhaps i should ahve been more clear. politics is supposed to be about policies. and the context that i made that statement in is that pov's should not be separated. for instance, one should not have a section for "support" and one for "criticism". Regarding the point you were trying to make. i don't see how posting a pov jaugernaut on an article to see it get reverted makes any point, except that one shouldn't turn articles into pov jaugernauts, which is pretty obvious. Kevin Baastalk 16:36, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)


one shouldn't turn articles into pov jaugernauts, praise be the lord!--Seanor 17:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to clarify something i said earlier, before it gets brought up. re: citizen groups, i was thinking of something like vote-smart.org. and in any case this would be an issue that would require much discussion before a consensus could be reached. Kevin Baastalk 17:59, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Expelled?

These is a problem with this line, DeLay received a biology degree from the University of Houston in 1970, though he had previously been expelled from Baylor University for drinking. He was not expelled, he was only asked not to re-register due to his behaviour (i.e. his drinking). If someone can find the expulsion records then it will be left in otherwise it will be edited out, to something like, DeLay attended Baylor from 1965 to 1967. However he was asked not to reregister not to register at the University due to unacceptable behaviour. In 1970 Delay received a biology degree from the University of Houston. Or something else...

Here are some sources that show he was expelled. It is clear that he was kicked out, and not just asked not to re-register.
Boston Globe [3]
Baptist Standard [4]
Washington Post [5] 66.36.129.236 21:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but from the Baptist Standard it says, "He was asked not to reregister" at Baylor, Grella acknowledged. "When the congressman was younger, his extra-curricular activities got him in trouble. He had a vigorous social life and accepts the consequences of his actions." However other articles simply use the term expelled. He was most definitely kicked out that is for use, but this may be an English language issue because to me expelled has a very formal meaning; that there are expulsion records somewhere that there is a definite process a school must take to expel a student, which is not the same as saying, “don’t come back here again”.?????--Seanor 11:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Baptist Standard also uses the word "expelled" in the same article. Note that Grella is DeLay's spokesman. She also said that he was thrown out for having "a vigorous social life." DeLay does not dispute the word "expelled" being used in all these major publications, I don't see why we should have to spin this transgression in his favor. 66.36.147.168 14:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Somehow, in all this quibbling over exactly how to word this information, it's been totally censored out of the article -- not "expelled", not "asked not to reregister", not "academically terminated with extreme prejudice", nothing. If there are multiple ways that the event's been described, maybe we can just report all of them:
He enrolled at Baylor University, but, as a result of his drinking, he was expelled (or, as the university officially described it, "asked not to reregister").
I think that conveys the common understanding of what happened, while also giving the precise terms used by the school for those who consider it to be something technically different from expulsion. JamesMLane 06:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
But it's DeLay's spokesman and not the university that is using the "reregister" line. 66.36.133.133 01:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, I misunderstood. I thought the university was tiptoeing around the facts so as not to offend DeLay. Meanwhile, NatusRoma has restored the information. JamesMLane 03:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

DeLay and Jack Abramoff

Here is the section that I have removed twice from wikipedia.

DeLay's political action committee did not reimburse lobbyist Jack Abramoff for the May 2000 use of the skybox, instead treating it as a type of donation that didn't have to be disclosed to election regulators at the time.

The Associated Press, reported on Wed, April 07, 2005 "The skybox donation, valued at thousands of dollars, came just three weeks before DeLay accepted a trip to Europe including golf with Abramoff at the world famous St. Andrews course for himself, his wife and aides that was underwritten by some of the lobbyist's clients." [6]

Two months after the concert and trip, DeLay voted against gambling legislation opposed by some of Abramoff's Indian tribe clients.

Here is article on yahoo news.

DeLay's political action committee did not reimburse lobbyist Jack Abramoff for the May 2000 use of the skybox, instead treating it as a type of donation that didn't have to be disclosed to election regulators at the time.

The skybox donation, valued at thousands of dollars, came three weeks before DeLay also accepted a trip to Europe — including golf with Abramoff at the world-famous St. Andrews course — for himself, his wife and aides that was underwritten by some of the lobbyist's clients.

Two months after the concert and trip, DeLay voted against gambling legislation opposed by some of Abramoff's Indian tribe clients.

It’s word for word. If its public domain or GNU licensed there is no problem otherwise it cannot be used without permission. And without any notice that there was permission it will not stay up. Not even sure it is ok to have this on the discussion page.??!?!?--Seanor 16:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At least rewrite the first and last sentence in your own words.--Seanor 16:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hateful Morons Comment

Removed:

DeLay is widely considered to be among the more partisan members of Congress. For example, in discussing the candidates for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, DeLay referred to their "hateful, moronic comments" and added that they had "nothing to offer the public debate but rage, resentment and quackery." [7]

This was portrayed as being said against all democrats, in fact he was responding to Rep. Jim McDermott comments that Presdient Bush had timed Saddam’s capture for his own political ends, "It's funny, when they're having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something" McDermott said. [8]--Seanor 16:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think a correction would have been more appropriate than a removal. DeLay is certainly well known for his partisianship and vitriol. Kevin Baastalk

Even "George W. Bush" article is more neutral than this

I thought that George W. Bush was a controversial political figure, but even his Wikipedia article is more neutral than Tom DeLay's. If anyone wants to rewrite this article, maybe it could be based on the George W. Bush article or the Newt Gingrich article.

The difference in the articles reflects the differences in interesting and important information regarding the people. The criteria for inclusion of information, as elucidated by the npov tutorial space and balance section, is interesting and important. Kevin Baastalk: new 07:48, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Just compare the attacks on this page to the fawning on Nancy Pelosi's page, where there's no mention of her membership in the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA).

If there's some reputable source for that claim, feel free to insert it in the Nancy Pelosi page, along with counterarguments, rebuttals, etc. (This is the first I heard of this particular charge against Pelosi, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be pure fiction from some right-wing blogger.) If you think there are counterarguments, rebuttals, etc. about DeLay's various escapades that should be added here -- like, the House Ethics Committee really gave him a clean bill of health, and all these nasty stories to the contrary are just proof of liberal media bias -- then by all means add the facts, with citations, that support your POV. JamesMLane 07:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_DeLay/Archive_1&oldid=96119165"