Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:36, 17 October 2009

Biography Start‑class

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

U.S. Congress Start‑class Low‑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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) Person(s).

This page has been mentioned by a media organization. The mention is in: Rush Limbaugh (01 October 2009). "Rush Limbaugh Show". {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

the lead

It seems to me that just because there is a news article in a national paper about the topic at hand, that that does not warrant inclusion in the lead. That's WP:OR. Right? Although WP:LEAD does say it should note any controversial topics. Obviously the reason people will be coming to this article is because he is in the news, so it belongs in the lead, but I think it should be discussed before using words like "derogatory" (which was not even in the source).

Reliefappearance (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to put this in the lead, inclusion later in the article is more than enough. Misplaced Pages isn't a news paper.--Sloane (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible lead change:

Reliefappearance (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed "attorney" to "attorney and businessman" since the guy founded IDT. Embe111 (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Since both Rep. Grayson and Rep. Wilson are still in the news , I've added "die quickly" to the opening per WP:LEAD. Reliefappearance (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Congressional career

It seems to me that the second paragraph and the near instantaneous addition of a link to today's October 1st Rush Limbaugh Show, literally minutes after the comments made by Rush Limbaugh; suggests that this thread show be move to a different topic under a different topic heading. This has little to do with his congressional career but is more to do with general fame and/or persona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.66.97 (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is the paragraph that was removed:

In early 2009, Grayson responded to comments by talk radio personality Rush Limbaugh, in which Limbaugh stated that he wanted the policies of President Barack Obama "to fail" when Rush said "Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."..."] by saying, "Rush Limbaugh is a has-been hypocrite loser, who craves attention. His right-wing lunacy sounds like Mikhail Gorbachev, extolling the virtues of communism. Limbaugh actually was more lucid when he was a drug addict. If America ever did 1% of what he wanted us to do, then we'd all need pain killers." On March 3 of that year, satirizing incidents in which prominent Republican officials (including Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele) were forced to apologize to Limbaugh for criticizing him, Grayson released a second statement, in which he said, "I’m sorry Limbaugh called for harsh sentences for drug addicts while he was a drug addict. I'm also sorry that he’s bent on seeing America fail. And I’m sorry that Limbaugh is one sorry excuse for a human being."

--Sloane (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the original paragraph just shows the really unprofessional left-wing slant on Misplaced Pages. Rush read this article on the air, and it was embarrassing. 173.2.46.1 (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Rush Limpdick knows how to read? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.147.23 (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Unprofessional compared to right-wingers such as Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity etc. who grace us with their "professionality?"
• Actally those quotes speak for themselves. Seems that Limbaugh doesn't need any left-wing slant to present himself as an imbecile.

--Dvd-junkie (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors are not radio personalities. There's no comparison. Follow WP:5P and stop worrying about Rush Limbaugh. Reliefappearance (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Synth problem

• Longtime Republican Congressman Jimmy Duncan called the outburst, "the most mean-spirited partisan statement that I've ever heard made on this floor." Grayson responded the next day from the House floor saying, "I would like to apologize, I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”

This makes it seem like Grayson was responding to Duncan. Reliefappearance (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

article looks like wikiquote

we need to summarize the events regarding Grayson's comments. right now it is just a list of quotes and there are major WP:SYNTH problems

Reliefappearance (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

to start, I removed Ed Show comment. he was on a lot of shows. I also don't think the full synopsis of the CNN interview is appropriate. Reliefappearance (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant references to Joe Wilson

Alan Grayson has nothing to do with Joe Wilson's outburst. The fact that some blogger made a connection doesn't mean it should be on this page. It was most likely included on this page to either make Grayson look bad, or Wilson better. It is a waste of space in this article, and inappropriate. Ninahexan (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

From the context of the reference, I think, though I'm not sure, that the blogger is someone who has some sort of level of recognition from Yahoo! News. If so, it's not considered a self-published source; it can be cited. The real problem is that the citation doesn't support the assertion in the article. The source says "reminding some political observers of Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst...." The passage in our article says: "His comments have been compared by Republicans to those of South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson...." That sentence comes in a paragraph with attacks on Grayson by a named Republican Congressman and by the NRCC, giving the reader an impression that some Republican party leaders or officeholders have drawn the link. The source doesn't support that. What we have is one quasi-news story alleging that some unnamed political "observers" have drawn this connection. If Michael Steele or John Boehner says it, it might be worth including. As it is, it's not significant enough. We can't report every reaction, pro and con, to Grayson's speech. Also, imputing such a link to "Republicans" is unfair to Republicans, where there's no named Republican who actually makes such a statement. I'm deleting the reference to Wilson. JamesMLane t c 06:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe this article allows us to at least say that Rep. Grayson and Rep. Wilson got a significant bump in campaign contributions as a result of the national media coverage of their strong rhetoric. I see no problem having it in there. Reliefappearance (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ninahexan. I created a page for this sort of hardly notable, obnoxious, punditry. (see Mass media coverage Alan Grayson's annoucement of the Republican's health care plan)Scientus (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Spouse (s)

Realizing this is not the ideal place to ask, but in consideration of the fact that I don't know what IS the right place to ask, I want to ask why it always says "Spouse(s)" as supposed to "Spouse". I mean, do any members of the house of representatives have more than one (known) spouse? 209.6.208.21 (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems with this page

To avoid a longer term edit war, I'll lay out my objections to the current edit and seek additional voices. The problems include: 1) The inclusion of the WSJ quote in the lead. One editorial and some coverage on liberal blogs does not mean that it warrants inclusion at the top of the article. The only thing the vast majority of Americans know him for is his "die" comments. 2) The creation of an article covering media reaction to Grayson's comments. I do not understand the point of this. 3) The continued removal of a poll showing that his comments were condemned by his constituents. This is from an RS.

Additional voices are welcome. Trilemma (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"liberal blogs". This is irrelevant, and is WP:OR. Show that what these sources are reporting is inaccurate and then you might have a point. Also, being reported is a House of Representatives hearing, (this certainly makes it notable) which is publicly available. see vanity fair editorial:

You don't speak for "the vast majority of Americans", nor have a study to that regard

Please look at WP:SUMMARY, I think this is also a notable way of looking at it.

The other article was created to put punditry that does not add substance on the effect of Grayson's comments. It is designed to create controversy, but does not help the reader, and is not notable. In the context of a media study it might be notable, and that is why it was moved to another article.

The poll was not scientific and therefore liable to be highly inaccurate and biased, and the way it was reported in the secondary source was unrepresentative. see http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edpbacktalk-alan-grayson-die-10100909oct09,0,7391744.story . It was just a radio box on on random web site. You need to check your sources for WP:V and notability _before_ adding them.Scientus (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It is up to you to establish that Grayson has gained wide notability for those actions. One editorial and some pro-Grayson blogs fails to do so. Please read some other congress people's articles, namely Joe Wilson and Michelle Bachmann, which will probably give you a suitable frame of reference of how controversies are handled in congress members' pages. Trilemma (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No, two high-profile editorials, one in the WSJ and another in Vanity Fair.Scientus (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Two editorials do not cut it. The vast majority of Americans know nothing of Grayson's interrogations. What they know him for, if anything, is his "die" comment. If you can demonstrate that a significant portion of the public knows Grayson for his interrogations, then it's fair game for the opening section. Otherwise it deserves to be confined to the congressional career section. Trilemma (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of NPOV

Looking at this edit I don't think User:Trilemma understands WP:NPOV.Scientus (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you state what the article says, not your interpretation of it. Please stop persisting in these blatantly NPOV edits. Trilemma (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you are quoting WP:RS, what you removed did not violate WP:NPOV, which you still do not understand.Scientus (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

POV

Grayson's congressional career is notable for more than his "want you to die" comment, and his co-sponsorship of a bill that will give the treasury secretary "extraordinary power". There is also more to his health care policy debate than the "die" comment, his one time the use of the word "Holocaust", and his opponents' reactions.

Reliably sourced information about Grayson's other accomplishments and activities has been massively, and sometimes repeatedly deleted. What is left is essentially, a Republican response to just a couple of Grayson's actions.

The article is not balanced, and is not compliant with BLP or NPOV. 64.38.198.61 (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, now we need a RS. A8UDI talk 22:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at the friggen article. He has had two high-profile editorials, one in WSJ and another in Vanity Fair.Scientus (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No reason to get hostile. So he has the references and incorporated them into the article, where's the POV? A8UDI talk 23:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, user:Trilemma has been abrasive, I shouldn't mirror it. user:Trilemma is the user that keeps removing that section, it is discussed here. As only user:Trilemma opposes those sentences as summary of the later content, I feel we have consensus. Do we?Scientus (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's absolutely worth including, just in the right section. That section is not the lead. What Grayson is known for, with the broader public, is his "die quickly remarks," not his hearings on federal spending. If you can provide some sort of evidence to the contrary, such as a media analysis chart showing very high coverage of his hearings, roughly matching that of his "die quickly" remarks, then by all means do so. But I think any analysis of web traffic, article coverage etc. will notice a major spike following the "die quickly" remarks, because this is what he is known for and thus this is what belongs in the opening section. The editorial cites are in the congressional career section and that is where they belong. Trilemma (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm honestly unsure of what the debate is. I keep everything very, very simple when in problems like this. Trilemma, what exactly would you like to add and where? Scientus, what is the counterpoint? Based on this, then I will state my opinion and reach a consensus after deliberating. Sound good? Also, on a side note, let's keep it civil guys. A8UDI talk 15:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Trilemma, is this edit what you two are debating? If those statements are in that reference, it may be added, but that paragraph has a strong POV.. It needs to be reedited. A8UDI talk 15:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A8Udi, while I understand your concerns about POV, I disagree. I think that it is very much worth mentioning that Grayson's comments are credited with turning around one of the weakest fundraising operations into one of the strongest. This is notable on several levels, not just for Grayson but for the style of communication and for modern fundraising operations. But I wanted to use the quote from the politico (an RS) article itself, due to concerns that it could be misinterpreted as NPOV and because in basically any hot-topic manner, it is better to use direct quotes. Trilemma (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh and thank you very much for offering to weigh in. There are quite a bit of issues, to the extent that we may want to address them one at a time. If you're feeling more adventurous, I will gladly lay out several more specific disagreements. Your voice is very welcomed. Trilemma (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to go, but please discuss the content issues I raised hereScientus (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The facts may be put in that article; yes Politico is a RS but the context of that edit is inappropriate. Actually, let me read that politico article and I'll be right back, but I'm going to tell you right now that that paragraph most likely needs to be edited. A8UDI talk 15:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

break 1

Okay, problem #1 That article is not solely about Grayson. If it were, I'd say that paragraph is good to go, but it's not. So, that's one thing that should be added in your edit. In fact, they barely even mention Grayson until the last 3 paragraphs and then they say

"In Florida, Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson suddenly turned one of the weakest fundraising operations among vulnerable Democrats into a cash cow. How? His floor speech proclaiming that the GOP health care plan amounted to wanting seniors to “die quickly!” followed by unapologetic national cable TV appearances referring to Republicans as “foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.”

Grayson raised $347,000, one of the top totals for Democratic House incumbents—and that’s not even counting the thousands of dollars that poured in after the Oct.15 fundraising deadline. Now that he’s become a regular on cable television news, expect him to mint even more money.

The irony is that his newfound fundraising prowess is unnecessary since he’s already one of the richest members of Congress, with an estimated net worth over $31 million."

Now, let's compare that to your edit:

Grayson raised a total of $347,000 for his reelection campaign during the third quarter, much of it attributed to his health care remarks and subsequent high profile appearances, which drastically altered fundraising figures for what had previously been "one of the weakest fundraising operations among vulnerable Democrats."

A8UDI talk 15:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why the article's scope would affect the decision to mention it, but I see nothing wrong with placing the frame of the article in the reference to it. Trilemma (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am, however, unsure of the specific way in which you feel mentioning the scope of the article in the section. Trilemma (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(I had an edit conflict so I couldn't post this before you; speedy devil! lol) I propose something similar to:

"A Politico article named "Cash Tops and Cash Flops" determined that Grayson raised $347k one of the top totals for the D.H. incumbents. . . (the deadline stuff isn't entirely needed; it's extra). . . Since the incident and numerous cable TV shows, he's expected to make even more money. A8UDI talk 15:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with that proposal, but I do think that it is very pertinent to note that prior to this, Grayson was considered to have a fairly weak fundraising operation--if he were raising money at a high clip already, this would be only barely worth notable. The fact that this took a weak fundraising operation and transformed it into a powerhouse is really what drives home its significance. Trilemma (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with my edit? I don't think it needs much more mention than that.

There are far more issues here. For example, Trilemma's censorship of the lead, and removal of 2 paragraphs from the Heath care section that had more substance.Scientus (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there's no doubt about that, Trilemma. But we need to make that sound neutral. I mean, we don't have "Sarah Palin was an inexperienced governor from small town Alaska who was thrown onto the World's stage due to her nomination as VP" in the Sarah Palin article now, do we? And while that sounds partisan, I don't think many people would necessarily disagree with that statement. I digress, but anyways, you see where I'm coming from? A8UDI talk 15:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

one topic at a time, please. It's easier this way A8UDI talk 15:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

break 2

I do understand what you're saying, A8UDI. Have any suggestions for how to introduce the info in a more encyclopedic way? Come on, I'm counting on you here ;) Trilemma (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if the fundraising figures are switched to a subsection on his reelection campaign, starting with info on his district and how the GOP considers it to be a vulnerable seat, and then noting Grayson's initial more marginal fundraising figures and how the "die quickly" comments led to a significant spike in donations...Trilemma (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That's too detailed for this article's significance. A8UDI talk 16:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe we don't even have to mention he was a horrible campaign raiser. We could just say "His donations have spiked since his outcry of the Republican health care plan" or something similar. You then imply 1. he raised much more than he had previously and 2. the outcry was significant one way or another. A8UDI talk 15:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I sure don't want to call him a horrible campaigner, haha :p But I do think it's worth noting when incumbents post what are widely considered to be poor fundraising figures; the same goes for challengers. That's why I think it'd be worth adding information from that politico article to several other congress people/aspiring challengers. I understand that this is challenging to pull off in a way that will clearly not fall under NPOV, especially in a highly contested article like this one, but I still would say it's worth noting. I do think at the very least we should mention the exact figure since it's rather large and rather notable, but if we add that in, I can at least live with your proposal for the time being as we work through some other issues. We can always come back to the fundraising issue again when his fourth quarter numbers come in. Trilemma (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, it's notable, but I think this article, for Misplaced Pages's sake would be best served by using a passive voice: "since his controversial GOP comparison of their health care bill, his donations have significantly increased ." That makes sense to me. A8UDI talk 16:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think my edit gave it as much WP:WEIGHT as it deserves.Scientus (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Since we are not here to push a point of view, I agree with that statement. I guess you could emphasize his donations 'skyrocketed' but it doesn't make a difference to me. Trilemma? A8UDI talk 16:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd very much prefer yours, A8UDI, for this reason: it still references that Grayson's fundraising figures were boosted from their previous numbers. Scientus' doesn't clarify this to the same degree--they say that he raised that much money, yes, but not that these figures were necessarily different than his previous fundraising quarters. Trilemma (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I see A8UDI's as giving unnecessary weight.Scientus (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

. Like I said though, to mention or not to mention that his contribs skyrocketed don't matter to me. All you really need to do is say he experienced a drastic increase in donations, like Joe Wilson's did. A8UDI talk 17:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Mention of accomplishments in lead

I believe that version of the lead is appropriate. Grayson has had two high profile editorials about him, one in the WSJ and naohte r in Vanity fair, which were there before Trilemma began edit warring that out of the lead. He may be the only representative that has prosecuted fraud case of this scale, and few congressmen have high profile editorials written about them. The lead is suppose to WP:SUMMARIZE. see above, and BLP page.Scientus (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My counter-argument is that this simply is not a major enough item to warrant inclusion in the opening. I have no problem with it being mentioned where I have moved it. But this is not what most Americans know Grayson for. This is not what he gained national attention for. This is not what drove his fundraising numbers. Trilemma (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't like that picture! He's a congressman, not John Travolta... And "progressive" isn't needed. He's a Democrat. That's implied. Otherwise, I have no objections. A8UDI talk 17:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC) .. And it says "previously" Trilemma. A8UDI talk 17:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with that official picture.Scientus (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Okie doke. Then I just object to the word "progressive." It's irrelevent, seeing how it already says he's a democrat. We don't need to name every politicians political views, thats why they join a certain political party. A8UDI talk 17:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is relevant. Grayson is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, an important political force in the house.Scientus (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, didn't know that. Well then we're on the same page! A8UDI talk 17:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Trilemma, what do you object to again? That his "die quickly" comments be in the lead? A8UDI talk 18:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't this issue. THat has always been in the lead. What Trilemma has removed was put there here, and is the mention the large investigations and lawsuits he headed against war contractors that defrauded the government, and also about his pointed objection to the lack of transparency on TARP and support of auditing the Fed.Scientus (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I maintain that this is not worthy of the opening section. Trilemma (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, The TARP stuff doesn't need to be in the opening. It can go in the article but I see no reason why it should be in the lead. I'm a complete news junkie and I have not heard of him until his "die quickly" comment received nat'l attention. A8UDI talk 20:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Have we reached a consensus here? A8UDI talk 21:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Orlando poll

This was sourced from a off-hand remark, and was inaccurate to the underlying information, which was based on a internet poll. Trilemma's multiple reinclusions were unwarrented. This information should not be in the article. , Scientus (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Orlando Sentinel, which is an RS and the primary paper of the area which Grayson represents, felt that the survey warranted mention in an article. I believe that this validates it. Trilemma (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. I'm undecided. Aren't they his constituents? If this poll is unscientific, it doesn't belong in here; if it is a real, legit scientific poll then we can include it in a neutral point of view. For example "His comments were met with severe criticism, with 62% of his constituents disapproving of his arguments against the Republicans." or something like that. A8UDI talk 17:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a radio box on the side or a news site, anyone on the internet could submit, and those that choose to submit are biased for.Scientus (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you back up that allegation of bias? The Orlando Sentinel is not a national newspaper. Trilemma (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a national newspaper is irrelevent. A8UDI talk 17:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you know it was an internet poll? I looked at it and it doesn't say... it just says "We asked you" A8UDI talk 18:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

On the side you see other "polls": "Poll: Health-care-reform bill by year's end?", "Poll: Children be tried as adults?", "Poll: Can Casey Anthony get a fair trial?".Scientus (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see. Yeah, any unscientific/internet poll is never worthy enough to be in any encyclopedia article. Remove. A8UDI talk 20:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Have we reached a consensus here? A8UDI talk 21:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

While the poll is unscientific, I see no reason to suspect that those responding weren't anyone besides the members of his district and surrounding areas, because no one else reads that paper. This isn't the biggest deal for me, and I'm willing to let it go as I care much more about the holocaust remark and the inclusion of reaction to the remark, but I still feel that it is worth mentioning. If you want to put resolved though I won't contest it. Trilemma (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

We cant assume even and i dont doubt any of that but we just cant assume; any un-random, un-controlled, poll is never scientifically accurate, it should be removed. A8UDI talk 22:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is resolved, but I must add, just because a poll is not scientific doesn't mean it's utterly invalid. And just because it's scientific doesn't mean it's entirely valid--a poorly phrased scientific poll can return a bizarre result. I have a bit of a background in methodology, so I couldn't resist the mini-rant. Trilemma (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

First apology

I think how this is currently described is appropriate. Grayson was using the word "halocaust" not as a proper noun, but as a generic word, a use that has been defined by Oxford English Dictionary since the 19th century. An inanimate organization like the ADL doesn't have feelings, and the article currently reflects that. This is not an "interpretation" , and that edit creates redundant redundancy.Scientus (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

We do not know Grayson's intent in using the term. Scientus wishes to read that definition into Grayson's comment, I argue that this is NPOV. Also, the vast majority of Americans, particularly Jews, think of the Holocuast when the word is used. Attempting to argue that Grayson had no intent of bringing that imagery to mind in using the term is tenuous at best and pretty clearly NPOV. This is also why when you search Holocaust, you find automatically The Holocaust. Trilemma (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No, he admitted on Countdown with Keith Olbermann that he regretted using the word Holocaust. Even Keith said that the language was a bit excessive. Yes, even Keith said that was excessive. He was referring to the nazi's extermination of jews but in terms of the insurance companies choosing who gets to live and die. A8UDI talk 17:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

“He was referring to the nazi's extermination of jews but in terms of the insurance companies choosing who gets to live and die.″ No, I watched that segment. While The Halocaust certainly effects the meaning, he said "this halocaust", which is specifically not a proper noun.Scientus (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I may have missed that then. I'll try and find the clip on youtube. A8UDI talk 17:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason why the Holocaust comes up when you enter the term 'holocaust' is because this is the inevitable reference in people's minds. The Holocaust has become singularly identifiable with the extermination of Jews by Nazi Germany. Trilemma (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the clip: . So, what sense did he refer 'holocaust' to? A8UDI talk 17:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In the original “I apologize to the dead and their families that we havn't ended sooner to end this halocaust is America”, note this is not a proper noun. It is being used in the oxford definition that has been around since the 18th century. (complete destruction, esp. of a large number of persons; a great slaughter or massacre) Grayson was not on MSNBC in that clip you posted.Scientus (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhhhhh! Now I remember! Yes, you are right. Thank you! A8UDI talk 18:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done The word "holocaust" may be added, (lower case H) as we see he was not talking about The Holocaust, but a generic holocaust. A8UDI talk 18:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to object to this. When you search for 'holocaust', you are directed to the page on THE Holocaust. There is no more 'generic' usage of holocaust in American society. When someone brings it up, they mean to allude to THE Holocaust. It's inevitable. Attempting to say that Grayson absolutely did not mean to allude to THE Holocaust is choosing to interpret his words, as opposed to reporting them. Trilemma (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

break 1A

Nope, "holocaust" is a generic word too. Search dictionary.com. My dictionary says: Holocaust, (n) "destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, esp. caused by fire or nuclear war : a nuclear holocaust." But "The Holocaust" is the WWII tragedy. The word "holocaust" is not dead just because The Holocaust was so horrible and known today. A8UDI talk 20:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not that it's "dead". "Negro" used to have a different definition too, and you can probably still find that in some dictionaries. But that changed. Now, if a white politician referred to an African American as a "negro", he would create quite a lot of controversy (see: Limbaugh and the "Barack the Magic Negro" controversy). Negro gained a different value in American society. So did Holocaust. We again do not know that Grayson meant to use the 'generic' definition. That is his claim. To say that he didn't mean to cause people to bring to mind the Holocaust is NPOV. Trilemma (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The words cant really be compared because "negro" was never, and has never been, commonly used as a proper noun. Its just like someone saying "The Earthquake", the definition is only clear because of the relative importance and magnitude of the individual event on the current conscience.

Re: generic, I use that word to say that he did not mean it as a proper noun. he said "this halocaust". This is not opinion, it is fact.Scientus (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You can not conclusively demonstrate that Grayson did not intend to allude to the Holocaust. You are claiming that he didn't. Trilemma (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice analogy; I remember that controversy.. no comment on that one either :D haha. Ok, here's my problem, he claimed to not use the Hitler version of the holocaust, so by default, we have to just take his word. We can't just assume the negative. "Nuclear holocaust" is a common term today, so no, all usage of the word holocaust is not synonymous with WW2's holocaust. And again, when you watch that clip or (I remembered it) he said this holocaust meaning right NOW; not 60, 70 years ago. A8UDI talk 21:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My position is not that we should assume the negative, only that we should not take a position on it. Saying "generic usage of the term holocaust" takes a position. 21:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore: Google Earthquake. It validates Scientus' representation of Earthquake. There is no singular referencing point. Now google Holocaust. There is a singular referencing point. It is The Holocaust. And it validates my argument. Trilemma (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Tsunami google trends. If you look up Tsuname right after the 2005 one, that is all you would get, that was the meaning.Scientus (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Google has nothing to do with a word's meaning, just popular hits. But nice try. A8UDI talk 21:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

But I'm not arguing about dictionary meaning. I am arguing on cultural meaning. And yes, cultural meaning can be discerned through google hits, because that's a reflection of society. When society thinks of holocaust, they think of Holocaust. And Scientus, the Holocaust was 60 years ago. So your point about "right after" the Indonesian tsunami is rather out of place. This is not nebulous. This is not ephemeral. You say Holocaust and 95% of Americans think the attempted extermination of the Jews. Trilemma (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bring that up, I believe its already pretty clear. Grayson did not use it as a proper noun, that is a fact. It is also not an analogy. Another fact.Scientus (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference? A word is a word, and a definition is a definition. Yes, they may change over time, but a holocaust simply means mass extermination. That is the definition of the holocaust. We can do the whole "marriage parallel" too. What do you think of when you think of 'marriage'? A man and a woman I assume. But does this mean that, knowing what we know about homosexuality today (that it is innate and most likely not able to be easily changed) that marriage should always be between a man and a woman? What about a husband owning his wife? A hundred years ago, women were property... so yes definitions change but for our sake, holocaust in this meaning is okay. A8UDI talk 21:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The exact grammatical classification does not change that when you say holocaust, the overwhelming majority of Americans bring to mind the Holocaust. You can make up a fake verb, and say, "holocausting", and people will still think of THE Holocaust. Trilemma (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your statements, but we're discussing this on two different planes. One is the dictionary definition, the other is cultural--a politician using the word 'fag' in America would cause controversy, in Britain probably not. In America a bureaucrat had to resign because of his use of the term 'niggardly'. But if you go to Britain, say the word holocaust, and ask a Brit what comes to mind, it will be the Holocaust. Same thing in America. And Canada. And Germany. And France. If anything, the cultural significance of terminology is more important than the dictionary definition, because a dictionary definition doesn't make news; a cultural one does.Trilemma (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

break 2A

Tom, I don't quite follow the marriage analogy, because there is basically no singular event surrounding marriage. Eg people don't think of the marriage between Princess Diana and Prince Charles. Can you give a different analogy? There is a singular event, The Holocaust, that has subsumed the other definitions of holocaust in our cultural memory. This is not changing. Trilemma (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you've heard many times that if Iran gets enough enriched uranium to make a nuke that we may have a "nuclear Holocaust" (because that moron president has claimed that Israel should be 'wiped off the map'). Now while I realize this only proves your point, holocaust doesn't have to mean anything related to Judaism. Words may have different meanings, for example "fag" is a derogatory word for a homosexual in the US, but it simply means cigarette in Britain. A8UDI talk 21:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd posted a reply to this, but anyway, I don't really accept the comparison of 'nuclear holocaust' and 'holocaust' in terms of cultural impression. To me that would be like comparing "BLT" with "bacon". Yes, one contains a word of the other, but they are in fact very different. You say nuclear holocaust and you get something very different, the same as if you say "Mohammad" you will think of the prophet, and if you say "Mohammad Ali", you will think of the boxer. "Mohammad" has many different possible references, but if Michael Savage says "I hate Mohammad", no one is going to wonder if he meant Ali. Similarly, you say holocaust and everyone thinks of the Holocaust. Trilemma (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Allegations that things are written by PR firms

Saying that something is written by a PR firm is not a reason to delete it, as Trilemma has done multiple times to sourced content. <--edit did two differn't things. Scientus (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and the WSJ is known to be a conservative leaning newspaper; violates NPOV (In that edit). A8UDI talk 17:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the phrasing of the paragraphs. I felt that they were too bloated, for one. We need more concise paragraphs. Trilemma (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

So you change your story now that people disagree with you attacks?Scientus (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientus, you are continuing in your hostile demeanor and I wish that you would stop. The point of discussing this is to reach a productive conclusion, which your response does not facilitate. Trilemma (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientus, that comment wasn't appropriate, whether or not it may or may not be true, what happened in the past is in the past, we're working on the present. :) A8UDI talk 18:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Trilemma can have a new opinion, but pretending that it was him/her opinion all along, as a means to avoid debate, is incredulous. You have to face what is and has been factually, and then move forward. You cannot hope to come to a productive conclusion if you obscure what it is that is being debated. Scientus (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Or he can, as he apparently has, bury the hatchet and work on what's happening now so let's do that okay? I really don't wanna hear any more arguing over past arguments. It's in the past, yes? We can work on what's on this page as it is standing right now regardless who added what or when. That is easily feasible, yes? A8UDI talk 18:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, then lets make this consensus: Claiming that something is written by a PR firm is not a reason to delete it Scientus (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm stupid, what is a PR (public relations?) firm and of course any type of plagiarism is forbidden. It doesn't matter who wrote it as long as it is reliable and we write in a NPOV, otherwise who cares who wrote it. A8UDI talk 18:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, public relations, commonly, (and the way Trilemma used it) a euphemism for propaganda: "purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels."Scientus (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes and I stand by that characterization of the tone and format of the article as it stood. Trilemma (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, and to discuss a more pertinent topic to the actual article, we should be aiming for conciseness. What we had were lines that could easily have been taken from a Grayson campaign site, with remarks such as (a paraphrase) "Grayson asked him where the trillions of dollars in taxpayer spending disappeared to." We do not need extended back and forths of interaction in hearings, nor do we need extended summaries of every hearing that gets thousands of youtube hits. The article as it stood was dominated by these paragraphs, and I think it was pretty clearly undue weight. That's what I was aiming to correct. Trilemma (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And didn't all this punditry, that was largely originally added to the Grayson by you, make the article less concise, and harder to read and understand?

“nor do we need extended summaries of every hearing that gets thousands of youtube hits” actually we do, because those hits are a sign of notabilityScientus (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's reliable and not overly biased I don't see why we can't incorporate it in here with a NPOV. A8UDI talk

I'm not objecting to the inclusion of factual data (though some data, such as a "documentary" film put out by a fairly small liberal film group that only does political PR work and that the vast majority of Americans will never see does not, imo, warrant inclusion any more than every anti-Michael Moore "documentary" would warrant inclusion on his page). What I am objecting to is a) undue weight being given, and b) the phraseology. Basically, the same thing Scientus objected to with the reporting of the politico article. Trilemma (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

So anything you disagree with is propaganda, while if you include it, like this totally inaccurate offhand statement by a Fox news pundit, then its OK?Scientus (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not continue edit warring mentality on the talkpage, look for agreement and compromise to move forward in a colaborative manner. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Punditry

Punditry is generally not notable. See WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. <--this was is also inaccurate, it was not an analogy. <--meant to pull in controversy by comparing with Joe Wilson, an addition of Trilemma's that was removed, (see above.) Scientus (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

All one needs to do is check a variety of other congress people's page, such as Michelle Bachmann's, which contain the reaction by significant figures in significant media sources. Scientus is attempting to argue an interpretation that simply not backed up by trends in various other congress people's pages. Trilemma (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF Scientus (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't need pundit's opinions in this article. As far as Michelle Bachmann... ha no comment.. but I'm scrolling through her article and I dont see any punditry there. The MSNBC chris matthews interview is significant however. A8UDI talk 20:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's an except from the Bachmann article: "Some political commentators, including Don Frederick, , condemned the statements, and Minnesota senators Amy Klobuchar and Norm Coleman also condemned the statements. The five Democratic members of Minnesota's congressional delegation — Tim Walz, Betty McCollum, Keith Ellison, Collin Peterson and Jim Oberstar — issued a joint statement in which they called Bachmann's comments "embarrassing" and questioned her ability to "work in a bipartisan way to put the interests of our country first in this time of crisis." Former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Minnesota Governor Republican Arne Carlson said that the comments led to their endorsing Obama for president.". I can find other examples from other congress members too...but please be nice and don't make have to do more research ;) Trilemma (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Bachmann is insane though. I mean she is the definition of ignorant; so all those congressional members from MN above, I think is appropriate. By the way, Norm Coleman is a Republican and he even condemned her per above, so I think she's an exception. A8UDI talk

I don't see that as an exception, and 'insane' no matter how much I may personally agree with it, is still NPOV. We can't have different policies for different people. Keith Olbermann even condemned Grayson's comments. You'll note that the Bachmann article contains not just politicians but a pundit (it used to have extended quotes from several liberal commentators, but I condensed the article). Again, this is not uncommon. This is why I hold that Scientus is misinterpreting and misapplying the policies he is referencing. Trilemma (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

So, if for the purposes of condensing we remove the quotes, we can still say, "Many commentators, including Roger Simon and Juan Williams, condemned the remark." They were also providing analysis of the political impact of Grayson's statements. Trilemma (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know Keith condemned his comments, I remember watching it. Now, your edits per above, are too biased for this article. They're just a bit over the top. And while some commentators can state that, it doesn't seem appropriate to have it here. He said "die quickly," how many republican congressmen have called "Obamacare" as "death panels"? or the whole "end of life counseling" as another term for 'killing grandma'? (by the way that was added to the bill by a Republican but they never tell you that little detail. I digress, but we don't need the pundit stuff here. It's not needed and UNDUE. Also, thats not a different policy, Bachmann is like notorious for controversy.. Grayson just had this one incident. A8UDI talk 20:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we're drawing some artificial distinction here. Commentators are acceptable if we deem it controversial enough. I find Grayson's comments no less over the top than Bachmann's. You disagree. This is why we can't differentiate one congress person to the next. If you want to word it some other way then that's fine, but I think given the Bachmann article, the notion that the guidelines Scientus provided preclude references to commentators is incorrect. Trilemma (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You have a point, but after her notorious chris matthew's interview claiming that many Democrats arent patriotic just because they don't agree with her political opinions almost nearly costed her, her congressional seat (but thats a very conservative district so of course she still kept it... but her favorability still crashed). Her teenage abortion comments have also recently come under fire too. I mean those are way over the top, compared to Grayson's "don't get sick" Republican analogy. A8UDI talk 21:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Tom, Bachmann's district leans right but it's not exactly overwhelmingly conservative. It went for McCain by roughly a 7 point margin. As a point of comparison, Joe Wilson's district went to McCain by 9. I'm not arguing that Bachmann's comments aren't over the top, but what are we going to do? Discuss every single representative who says something controversial and each time reach a different conclusion based on some nebulous standard? We need a firm rule here. Bachmann has made more controversial comments, but the commentator response came from the one single response, about democrats being un-American. And honestly, I find "republicans want you to die" more offensive than "democrats are unAmerican", which is actually no different than the rhetoric coming out of some DNC voices. Of course, this is all opinion, and that's why I'm pushing against letting our opinions and interpretations dictate inclusion/exclusion ;)Trilemma (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. Well I mean, if a rep has LOTS of criticism and a lot of people are outraged I guess the magnitude of that would determine how much criticism we put in an article. Bachmann = numerous criticisms; Grayson = one incident = less magnitude, less coverage. A8UDI talk 21:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It is more than one incident, though. It's the initial comment, the followup, and the third comment. And I mean it's not like there won't be more to come, as Mr. Grayson appears to quite enjoy being a lightning rod. Trilemma (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Harvard Study

The Harvard study that shows 44,000 people die in the US each year due to not having health insurance, which Grayson referred to in the speech is highly relevant and should not be removed. Scientus (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A8UDI talk 17:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have qualms about articles providing documentation to back up the claims of congresspeople, but I did not subsequently edit this out, so this is not currently an issue. Trilemma (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

But you have no qualms adding unsubstantiated attacks on congresspeople?, restoring it and then putting it in two places in the article?Scientus (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you are misrepresenting me with your second claim because that was an error on my part that I caught and corrected. Please do not misrepresent my edits. Second, you are attacking factcheck, which is considered an RS.

I said “putting it in two places in the article″, you did add it twice. The reading of proprietary is your own. unsubstantiated allegations are not verifyable. Scientus (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Your persistence in hostility, distorting our discussions of specific editing disputes into broader attacks on me, demonstrates just why we are at this point. Trilemma (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This sort of WP:ATTACK does not deserve a response.Scientus (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientus, I'm not on either side here, but you kinda are instigating an attack by saying "But you have no qualms adding unsubstantiated attacks on congresspeople?, restoring it and then putting it in two places in the article?Scientus (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)". Just keep it on the current content and let's get over past disagreements, okay? A8UDI talk 18:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Trilemma said “I have qualms about articles providing documentation to back up the claims of congresspeople”. Because Trilemma has added information critical to Grayson, I wished to get clarification of Trilemma's position. Unless Trilemma dislikes all congresspeople, and wishes them farewell and lone journeys, Trilemma position, tied with edits attacking Grayson, is hypocritical.Scientus (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

“Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. ”, from WP:ATTACKScientus (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The comments from User Trillema are in no way a personal attack, please take the time to read WP:ATTACK , Trillema's comment is not even uncivil. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am so over this, bury the hatchet already! A8UDI talk 18:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done the study mentioned in Grayson's speech is relevant will remain. Trilemma: “not currently an issue” Scientus (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/30/us/politics/AP-US-Congressman-Harsh-Rhetoric.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=grayson&st=cse
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/28/phil-gingrey-gop-congress_n_161964.html
3. http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2009/03/breaking-news-alan-grayson-apologizes.html
4. Smith, Ben (March 04, 2009). "Dem Congressman: Limbaugh is a 'sorry excuse for a human being'". Politico.com. Retrieved 2009-09-30. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
5. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28395.html

• Start-Class biography articles
• Automatically assessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class U.S. Congress articles
• Low-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons