Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:29, 6 April 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barney Frank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 45 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Speech impediment?

Shouldn't his speech impediment be noted somewhere in the article? That is a distinction of his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.145.39 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to add it. It's almost like mentioning how ugly Tori Spelling is in her Wiki article. Then again I'm willing to listen to other opinions. If Barney Frank has ever commented on it then you could certainly add his own quote to the article but otherwise I'm not sure it'd be prudent. Plus at what point does a speech issue truly become an impediment? Fatrb38 (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

The first paragraph cites http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all.

The article is quoted, in a way that suggests they are Barney Frank's words or arguments against the Bush administration proposal: "The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part ... by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies ... does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out ... Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws."

The quote doesn't seem to serve much purpose. The intent and impact of the proposal is succinctly described in the first sentence. The quote seems more to describe the proposal by identifying what it is *not,* rather than what it is, or is some compendium of reasons why the proposal may have been ill-conceived in some way, which is not relavent here unless they were Frank's words.

At the end of the paragraph, Frank is quoted "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." The article also quotes him with a prior statement that is just as relavent and applicable, "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," and I think that quote should be added here.

Finally, at the end of the paragraph, the quote " the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing" is incorrectly attributed to Frank; it was the words of Representative Melvin L. Watt, and aren't relavent here, so should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raolyn13 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Gerry Studds' scandle in personal life section

What does mentioning how a former gay guy came out had anything to do with Barney Frank's sexual orientation? If you felt that you must include that information, you can leave out the part where the guy was found out with a page. The fact that the page was added goes back to the homophobic belief that gays are child molestors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.204.75 (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I read this and thought it was weird. It's certainly not relevant to Frank. I've left Studds and the fact he was also from Massachusetts, but removed the reference to the scandle. Shax (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It actually is but I've restored the footnote that we used before. They are from the same state and each came out due to public pressure involving political scandals. Once the article is better developed this can be revisited. -- Banjeboi 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources for LGBT content

• Regarding coming out choices and being an LGBT politician, etc. OUT IN POLITICS: Brother Outsider.
• House Approves Broad Protections for Gay Workers
• EMBATTLED PBS February 18, 2005 (Frank on Postcards_From_Buster#Controversial_episodes)
• 'Being gay shouldn't be shameful': A top American gay magazine has caused uproar by outing film star Jodie Foster and CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. The British editor responsible for this taboo-breaking decision gives his reasons to Andrew Clark

If I find more I'll either post or add them. -- Banjeboi 13:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Effect of Frank's coming out on his electoral results

In the recent flurry over how to deal with Studds, the following passage was deleted without explanation:

Frank's announcement had little impact on his electoral prospects.

(Temporary reflist for convenience:)

1. Pierce, Charles P. (Oct. 2, 2005), "To Be Frank", Globe Magazine {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

The information that Frank's revelation was largely shrugged off in Massachusetts seems worthwhile, but I'm not sure that "Personal life" is the right section for it. JamesMLane t c 04:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a worthwhile sentence to include to me. LotLE×talk 05:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a mistake, everything I've read thus far certainly supports its inclusion. I'm re-adding. -- Banjeboi 09:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph

I removed the paragraph in the intro section

The New York Times has called Frank "one of the most powerful members of Congress" and "a key deal-maker, an unlikely bridge between his party’s left-wing base and free-market conservatives". President Bill Clinton's former speechwriter Josh Gottheimer stated Frank is one of the nation's "brightest and most energetic defenders of civil rights issues"..

This clearly violates Misplaced Pages:Wikipuffery clearly. This article is not to praise the guy, and that was just taking 2 opinions of people and making it too apparent. Nicholas.tan (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken and I'd like you to re-read WP:Wikipuffery which starts out - seeking to exaggerate the notability of article subjects to avoid deletion of the article and explains how content should not be used to inflate the importance of a subject and should stick to direct quotes and reliable sources. Let's look at these sources and the quotes.

• Support re-adding them intact, as they were trimmed for brevity but accurately reflect the sources. We could possibly expand but I'm not sure that would help much. This, combined with the persistent effort to paint Frank as somehow responsible for the US housing meltdown and by extension the worldwide economic crisis smells like I don't like it which is a terrible editing guide. -- Banjeboi 20:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support re-adding per Benjiboi. These look like a bad faith, agenda-driven removals, and it doesn't relate to WP:PUFF at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Restore material. per Benjiboi and Scjessey. Characterizing Frank's influence and perception with quotation is good for lead. LotLE×talk 22:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose Saying he's been an advocate for gay rights is appropriate and I've tried to add that but been reverted several times. Saying what Bill Clinton's speechwriter thinks of him is a joke. A case could be made for the New YOrk Times opinion, but not if we're not going to include something about his role overseeing Fannie and Freddie which is covered at length in the article and in reliable sources. Let's come up with a compromise that's balanced and reasonable and fairly represents Frank's politics and his role. He is not a bridge builder just because one liberal source says so and that's not discussed anywhere in the article and is a bit of a joke really. He's hyper partisan as his recent comment about justice Scalia shows. Let's not pick and choose a couple accolades and stick them in the intro, that's against all sorts of guidelines. We've been over this before, this is an encyclopedia, not a campaign brochure. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• The two highly representative sentences in question are well-sourced, and they do not violate any guidelines I am aware of. Please don't let your personal opinion about a subject guide your editing approach. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• ChildofMidnight, your contributions on this articles have been extremely disruptive and unhelpful. Almost everything has had to be NPOV cleaned up and resourced as you were using opinion pieces to add negative information ... in the lede. You are now accusing me and others of doing exactly what you have been trying to do and your accusations have fallen flat. The compromise is already in the article - we belabor WP:Undue weight on the Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac material. We've had to do this, for the immediate future at least, because of your insistence of adding negative material there. It's also been neutralized and countered with ... wait for it ... reliably sourced and neutral statements plus responses from Frank himself directly answering the sweeping negative and inaccurate statements. As the above quotes show we have generally avoided puffing up anything and have tried to keep it brief and to the point. Frank is hardly just invested in gay rights, nor as your past edits would suggest, extremely interested in marijuana issues. All sources suggest his interest is focussed on civil liberties and human rights of which marijuana legislation and LGBT issues are but examples of his work. We are nowhere near even a good article status on this subject as Frank has been a decent politician longer than many of us have even been alive. You are welcome to make constructive edits here and I ask that you check over WP:NPOV and WP:RS policies especially in regards to our policies on biographies on living people. Negative material that is accurate and well source is already in the article and more is welcome ... but unless you really have an interest in Frank himself, I suggest your energies would benefit everyone on subjects you do like and likely would enjoy writing about. You'll more likely enjoy reading, researching and writing on them and Misplaced Pages will benefit from your work making articles better. -- Banjeboi 06:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Benji, you've added a bunch of content (spin) from Frank's press releases. Press releases are not reliable sources, especially not for a prominent Representative when there is lots of coverage in independent media sources. Now you want to add back in a bunch of fluff. Several editors have pointed out how inappropriate that is and it's against policy. If you're going to include it, it needs to be balanced with other notable perspectives. Comments from Clinton's speech writer don't belong in the article at all and definitely not in the intro. Frank's advocacy for gay right and his role overseeing banking and finance and his role taking positions on Fannie and Freddie are very notable and should be included, along with other notable policy and political positions. This is the core of what belongs in an encyclopedia article about a politician, not fluff accolades saying how great he is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Per BLP - Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. They are extensive press releases directly addressing the inflated accusations you've been angling in repeatedly. Your interest in reducing this career politician's decades of work to two issues, one in an effort to again jab at Fannie and Freddie content is again showing what seems to be an inability to edit here objectively. -- Banjeboi 00:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You left out a key part that says: "it is not unduly self-serving;". Clearly the press release conetent used in the article is self serving and is improperly being used to disptue reliablly sourced content from the New York Times and other independent publications (including those favorable to Democrats). There's no need for them since the events have been widely covered in reliable sources. Your use of the phrase " inflated accusations " shows a clear bias. I suggest you step back from thsi article and work on subjects that you can edit objectively. Frank is most notable for his involvement in overseeing the financial industry, as a gay rights advocate, as a proponent of legalized marijuana, and as a partisan democrat. This is clear from teh reliable sources. Whether you agree or disagree with these positions is irrelevant and the guidelines are clear that we use the best reliable sources wherever possible. Your POV is hurting the encyclopedia, please stop attempting to insert it into articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stick to the content as you are now veering into personal attacks. You were inserting negative POV material into the lede of a BLP that (i) didn't match what the sources stated and (ii) were from the New York Times but from the opinion page. I hope you can see why that is problematic. No one has suggested that we can't have negative content, simply that controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced violates policies and is supposed to be removed. And Franks own words are actually not unduly self-serving but likely his statements were reprinted by others so we could look to what they printed. -- Banjeboi 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep removed It seems puffy for the lead. However, I agree with Benji that the dubious right-wing proposition that Frank had anything to do with the housing crisis needs to stay out of the lead and stay restricted, and that CoM's efforts to legitimize the attacks are misplaced. It's delusional on the level of the connection between the Community Reinvestment Act and the housing crisis. Which is unsurprising when one considers that the Republican party is full of delusions. Press releases from the committee which reviews the laws on Fannie/Freddie are plenty reliable, and much more reliable than WSJ editorials, "Foxnews.com" and "Businessandmedia.com". II | (t - c) 22:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It would seem puffy if it weren't true, see wp:Wikipuffery. -- Banjeboi 00:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• The New York Times quotes are not really a WP:PUFF issue, given that they are a sign of actual notability rather than an inflated one. The Gottheimer quote doesn't belong in the lead, though Frank's role in civil rights issue does: better to mention that role, fn to Gottheimer and others. NB that WP:LEAD does require notable controversies to be included, and Frank's role in the housing crisis is such a controversy. That II doesn't think the critique is accurate is irrelevant -- the point is that some reliable sources do, and that POV is a legitimate one to be included (as is the POV that the critique is inaccurate). (Very remote COI disclosure: Barney Frank yelled at me in a House Subcommittee hearing in 2006.) THF (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The "controversy" seems rather to expand exponentially to include most every politician and banking enterprise. If there are reliable sources that this indeed is a controversy and Frank is central to it then let's look at them to see what is useable. The editor wishing to remove this information has attempted to remove the verifiable positive material which is sourced reliably and replace it with negative material that isn't. This was never an issue of only presenting glowing information. -- Banjeboi 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • At this point we're talking about optimizing the lead to conform to WP:LEAD. Whether intermediate edits were subpar is irrelevant to that discussion. As for reliable sources on Frank's role in the housing crisis, there are several. THF (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
      • As stated, I believe this content was targeted directly in retaliation for removing and fixing the overtly negative and non-policy compliant material that editor wished to add, this is a part of their ongoing effort to inject that material although it looks to have been handed off to others to a degree. Per wp:Lede we do summarize what others summarize and this content is not only accurate but trimmed down already. And of those three sources you post? The first is an editorial, the second would likely not hold up to RS standards and the third seems to be a dead link. If you do have some NPOV reliable sources we certainly could look to what they have to say. -- Banjeboi 22:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • These are all notable points of view from mainstream sources, these are all reliable sources (Thomas Sowell is most certainly a reliable source for the point of view of Thomas Sowell) and it violates NPOV and WEIGHT to omit them. And it violates WP:LEAD to fail to mention notable controversies in the lead. Include the opposite point of view, too, to be sure, but there is no reason to sanitize this article to ignore Frank's role in the housing crisis, as the lead currently does. THF (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The "reliable sources" which THF points to include an IBD editorial, National Review editorial, and WSJ article. These are publications known for their strong conservative bias and spinning of the facts. The relationship between Frank and Fannie/Freddie is complicated, and more complicated by biased editorials. I'm not confident that this controversy is really significant or that it can be accurately portrayed. As a 2003 WashPost article notes , the administration was opposed to the bills to regulate Fannie/Freddie. A Financial Services Committee press release, which is fairly reliable on these issues, said that one bill died because in the words of Oxley, the President gave it the "one-finger salute". GW Bush was a huge proponent of affordable housing. See a 2003 speech where he said:

We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented...

Misplaced Pages should not be spreading misinformation. II | (t - c) 23:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A lede of a BLP likely should avoid negative op-ed pieces, in fact we are avoiding all op-ed pieces. Again, if there is an actual scandal as noted by reliable sources (no opinion pieces please), and the scandal is quite notable, again by NPOV reliable sources, then I see no problem with reporting them here. If that same scandal is one of the biggest things is the subject's life then, sure, it should go in the lede. But it seems we're dealing with wp:recentism and wp:undue instead with the current banking crisis. And that is all rather a red herring to the actual discussion of removing well sourced and non-negative information. -- Banjeboi 00:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Very Strong removed It reads like an advert. It's cherry-picking basically. It's just as bad as me putting what Bill O'Reilly said of him on the intro paragraph. Nathanschmidt5 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

• Very Strongly opposed to adding material for the record. And no, I am not a homophobe nor do I hate Jews. So stop accusing everyone who has something bad to say about Frank as such. Nicholas.tan (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Huh? Where has anyone accused anyone of antisemitism or being homophobic? -- Banjeboi 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • "These look like a bad faith, agenda-driven removals." Ok puff maybe was wrong, but they were Misplaced Pages:NPOV or Misplaced Pages:CHERRY reverts on INTRO paragraphs. If we put that in we should also add how Bill O'Reilly called him a coward for presiding over the biggest collapse in federal history and not admitting fault. I can source it just as well as your NYT article. Keep opinions about the guy in the main article. fair? Nicholas.tan (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
      • So for the record no one accused anyone of antisemitism or being homophobic? And accusing editors of WP:cherry-picking facts is a bit ironic since that's what we've been preventing. I guess we'll also have to agree to disagree that the New York Times is a wp:reliable source. I'm not sure what Bill O'Reilly thinks of them but Misplaced Pages generally holds them to be pretty reliable. -- Banjeboi 22:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
        • But why in the lead paragraphs? these are opinions on him and should be dealt with not in the beginning but the articleNicholas.tan (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Because they speak to his notability and overall impact. The same as we note someone: was awarded the medal of freedom, was the highest paid celebrity in the world of soccer, is the best-selling author of children's books, etc. This is in part what the wp:lede does. The lede is to entice the reader to actually read more than just the lede itself. A great article would be written so compellingly that you would want to read everything about them. Most articles, however, are written organically and by a dissociative committee so slowly build up. No one disputes we could cover negative info in the article, and we do. The issue started with inserting poorly sourced negative material while removing well-sourced positive material. If the negative material is presented NPOV, sourced reliably and meets the standards for a BLP lede then it likely should be included. Otherwise it's fine in the body of the article where it currently sits. -- Banjeboi 00:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support re-adding It's true I've heard more about Barney Frank than I want to he has been by Nancy Pelosi's side at almost every press conferesnce he's extremely influensial you can't deny that especially now that the Dem's have such huge majorities Gang14 (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV violation

No credible policy analyst or economist thinks Gramm-Leach-Bliley has any role in the banking crisis (if anything, the bill prevented a far worse catastrophe), yet the article takes the opposite fringe point of view without even mentioning the mainstream position. THF (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Proponents of the view that the GLB had a role in contributing to the banking crisis include the highest-ranked economist on IDEAS, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz . Certainly Gramm's other bill, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, had a bigger influence, but the view is not "fringe". And if you think there's a NPOV violation, fix it. II | (t - c) 23:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

We can simplify this a bit to differing to Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act#Controversy and those editors who are writing that content. What this article states is Franks' referral to the bill and the following explanation:

The statute, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, has been criticized for having contributed to the proliferation of the complex and opaque financial instruments which are at the heart of the crisis.

Has, in fact, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act been "criticized for having contributed to the proliferation of the complex and opaque financial instruments which are at the heart of the crisis"? If so, this seems pretty NPOV. If there hasn't been any criticism or this is otherwise false could you explain how it should change so that we are representing that criticism accurately? -- Banjeboi 00:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable content replaced with cheerleading

Some of Misplaced Pages's most notorious POV pushers have been removing Frank's most notable work from the introduction and replacing it with non-notable quotes. Frank is one of the most prominent advocates for gay rights (see and . He is also prominent for his role in overseeing Fannie and Freddie. He is also very active as an advocate for medical marijuana. These are all covered in the article and should be included in the introduction. The misleading statements about him being bipartisan should be removed as they are contradicted by numerous reliable sources such as here "partisan legislator... (note this source also calls Frank a "vocal spokesperson for national lesbian/gay constituency" and here "decidedly liberal" . Please respect Misplaced Pages guidelines and work with me to improve this article. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think anyone is going to fall for that, CoM. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

1. A Way With Words
2. A Liberal Wit Builds Bridges to the G.O.P.
3. Ripples of Hope: Great American Civil Rights Speeches

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class U.S. Congress articles
• Mid-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• B-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles