Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:23, 21 May 2017

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. Biography 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 Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? 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. U.S. Congress High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-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: Texas / Texas A&M Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Texas - Texas A&M (assessed as Low-importance).

Climate Change

Please provide factual and neutral point of view in entries, per Misplaced Pages guidelines. The facts on Rep. Barton's record speak loudly and clearly enough about his positions that commentary is not needed. References to criticisms should be included where appropriate. Jason Coleman 23:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does the Environmental Record section take up more than half the article? Surely that is not the only thing that is important about this congressman. And if so, then there is clear bias in this article. Gregweitzner (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to enlarge the article on any topics you think are important. richrak````

2006

page need to be updated for 2006 election 64.132.172.213 19:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote section

Quote sections should be avoided in Misplaced Pages articles. Please try to work the quotes into the existing text or remove them altogether.--Gloriamarie 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The quotes section seems to mostly consist of inflammatory remarks made by the senator; and many are given without much context. This section should certainly be removed. 209.242.154.132 (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Long quote sections are often a problem. I've moved this one to Wikiquote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does it ramble on about oil?

The Criticism section rambles on about oil prices and oil companies as if someone is trying to paint a picture of the oil industry and it is very opinionated in stating that prices were 'too low for the likes of oil companies'. Also, nothing in that section has references. It's more like a kid's blog than an encyclopedia entry.

House Resolutions

Is the list of resolutions Rep. Barton has introduced worth having? It's basically just http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@BANDNOT(@FIELD(FLD003+@1(00062))+@FIELD(FLD008+(m))). Reb42 (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Followup

I'm going to remove this listing, and add a link to thomas.loc.gov. Reb42 (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

College Football Playoffs

Someone should add someting about his call for BCS playoffs to determine #1. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

I am deleting the criticism section and the subsections for it:

• Oil: The section does not have a sufficient amount of reliable sources. The first paragraph is not sourced, and the only source in the second paragraph is a liberal blog. The third paragraph is predominately not sourced. The only source in the fourth paragraph is a dead link.
• Hurricane Katrina: The only source here leads to nothing. Besides the section is written like a BLP violation. Point seems to be to try and prove that he lied about it. Material purely used to denigrate an individual is a violation of WP:BLP.
• Autism: So just because Don Imus doesn't like it, means it is a controversy? Besides the act eventually passed anyways. The Red Peacock (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Barton's comments about Alaskan oil with regard to Dr. Chu's testimony are noteworthy and indicative of both his scientific and political views. Removing them claiming NPOV:UNDUE is specious at best, since these can be sourced from a variety of places besides Think Progress. Regardless, you do not claim that this specific source or the others are incorrect nor explain why they are not a "sufficient" number of sources. What do you mean by this? Insufficient to prove that he made these comments? Additionally, I would challenge you to show the cited sources do not meet the burden for verifiability. I'm curious as to why you later remove a second time but then claim NPOV:RECENT instead, changing your removal rationale; to quote NPOV:RECENT "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion". The fact that you change your justification for deletion seems, at least to me, to be evidence that you are removing material simply because it is critical and attempting to justify such removal after the fact. I would ask that other editors please comment on what I have written here before I restore these edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.249.178.66 (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC) He is a true tool of big oil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.117.142 (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Random votes

We have entire sections devoted to short paragraphs on the subject's votes on:

• Congressional Vote on Financial Bailout
• Healthcare Reform

There's no indication that these are especially important votes for him - he isn't listing as the author or sponsor of either one, nor even a notable supporter. Like all of his colleagues he's voted on numerous bills while in Congress. Though the material is verifiable, it seems like undue weight to pick these two bills for special treatment. Any objection to removing them? Or what about just condensing it to a sentence like "he opposed X, and voted for Y and Z"?   Will Beback  talk  07:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest you use OnTheIssues and similar sources to make the whole Political Views section more comprehensive and balanced. Flatterworld (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

JOE BARTON ARTICLE BLATANTLY BIASED

This entire article which was writeen immediately following Barton's comment regarding a "shakedown" and BP has a clear and obvious bias throughout. It assumes that the reader should agree with the author about healthcare legislation, "global warming," and a variety of favorite lefty causes, despite a growing discontent with the hard left agenda currently being forced on the public by the current administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.225.112.57 (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This "entire article" has been written over the last 6 years, starting 01:13, 29 August 2004 (UTC). I would not call the agenda of the Bush administration then in charge "hard left", although it certainly was unpalatable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Barton's comments and history make it appropriate. The comment citing "the hard left agenda currently being forced on the public by the current administration" reveals a bias that should dicount any contribution form that user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhfjbaker (talk • contribs) 16:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What is missing is the "shakedown" back story which would reveal that the so called "shakedown" was a suggestion of BP's, in order to use the good offices of the United States government to get them out of a sticky situation. Hcobb (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Environmental Record

Clearly this section was written with a strong bias regarding Congressman Joe Barton's views on the environment. It appears to have been written with an agenda to demean the Congressman. It is very poorly cited and the references given at times do not correlate with the text written. For example, the second paragraph says "Barton has consistently acted over the years to prevent congressional action on global warming." This sentence is backed up with a reference regarding a Washington Post article that only mentions Barton once, saying, "the panel's top Republican, Joe Barton (Tex.), does not believe human activities contribute to global warming." Obviously, this says nothing about his record of preventing "congressional action on global warming." Because Congressman Barton is a living person, this article is subject to Misplaced Pages's standards on biographies of living persons and all information on this page must be verified or deleted immediately. Eaglecap Backpack (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the user has created the paragraph headline "Environmental Record", this does validate what has become a clearly biased sounding board of deliberations on the congressman's record. "Neutral point of view" is one of Misplaced Pages's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." This lengthy section plainly has not been written in the spirit of Misplaced Pages's fundamental policies and should be deleted or heavily revised. Misplaced Pages is a free-content encyclopedia created to be a reference of factual and non-biased information. This is not the Huffington Post. Kristoffer Lance (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There are certainly issue with the Environmental Record section, but the section does not strike me as "clearly written with a strong bias" as Eaglecap states and Kristoffer Lance implies. Indeed, some of the tags and complaints seem poorly considered, such as the citation needed notes at the top. The points raised there that are marked as "citation needed" are extensively discussed below. The contention that all content must be verified or deleted immediately strikes me as bizarre given the extensive citations, though citations could certainly be improved. The contention that Barton has a record of preventing action on global warming is well documented in the congressman's own words, though more effective citation would certainly help. Barton has repeatedly and consistently disparaged attempts to address global warming because he does not believe it is happening and/or is caused by humans. His trip to Copenhagen is strong testimony to his opinions on the matter. Statements that he holds such opinions are not POV. Even his supporters agree that he is seeking to block action on global warming, and they think that such prevention of action is a good thing. The assumption (on the part of the reader) that it is "bad" may be POV, but the reporting of the position is not. If some believe that "demeans" the congressman, that is an interpretation created by the reader.

That said, I agree that the section needs significant cleanup. This includes citations - I noticed that several links have multiple dead link tags and assume one or the other should be removed. On the dead link front, while dead links are problematic they are not necessarily "wrong" - most of them appear to point to government publications, so finding appropriate offline citations for them may be possible and would be sufficient (if they support the text, of course). However, as the content seems to be largely correct and the tone does not come across as terribly biased, I am curious what the POV contention is with the section. It seems that editors are reading value assessments into the facts presented. While cleanup is called for, perhaps reducing or removing some of the more editorializing commentary (even if well cited), deletion is unwarranted given the significant focus of Barton's tenure in Congress on energy issues and his high profile opposition to global warming action. --Moretz (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the story with the "original research" tag. I see no justification for that one, and none is provided here in talk. It may be an honest mistake, but it makes it look like like someone is trying to disrcedit this section by throwing trouble tags around. I am removing that tag, but if there is solid grounding for it, please add it back and provide some more detail.

a small correction

Please change: Vice President Joe Biden called Biden's remarks "outrageous" and "incredibly out of touch to Vice President Joe Biden called Barton's remarks "outrageous" and "incredibly out of touch Thanks Danreo1952 (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Misleading/unrelated reference regarding BP "shakedown" under Life and Career:

The reference does not seem to pertain to the sentence that it supposedly cites.

Here is the section in the article:

"The Congressman is the Ranking Minority Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee and during the June 17, 2010 hearings on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, apologized to BP for what he termed the $20 billion "shakedown" of BP by the White House."

If you click on the hyperlink for , you will be directed to a pbs.org page that was created back in 2007, long before the whole BP shakedown ordeal occurred. Furthermore, the whole page is the text for a fatwa (declaration of war) by Osama bin Laden and is not germane to the actual quote that Barton gave regarding the BP shakedown. Here is the link for :

4. ^ a b ("Citizens for Ethics full and final report". Citizens for Ethics. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html. Retrieved 2007-06-20. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedee9000 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

its beenremoved as well as many other uncited and deadlinked sections. We must remember to write in a nuetral POV when it comes to BLP.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

organization of sections

I 'regrouped' the information the way most US Senator and Rep articles are organized (see John Cornyn for example). Each section still needs work (re: weight, bias, other political views, etc.) but it's a start. Flatterworld (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} They left out a refrence on Campaign Finance which I used many times with Joe Barton.

 Not done No specifics, please add what specifically needs to be added or changed, then request an edit again. CTJF83 pride 16:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

BULB legislation paragraph.

I removed the following from the article for discuission:

Barton also brought the bill of stopping efficiency standards and the selling of incandescent bulbs in the BULB Act (H.R. 2417), brought before the House in July 2011. Senator bartons largest campaign contributors are utility companies<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005656</ref>

While he certainly did do this, this is a problematic passage--the fact that Barton is not a Senator being the least of the issues present in this paragraph. Can we have some input from the community? 99.113.204.35 (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested citation for 'Position on Wind Energy' section

I wonder if a better citation for this section would be the transcript from the Committee Hearing where Barton made the "Wind is God’s way of balancing heat..." statement (page 102): KLOLvonJoulupukki (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the existing Newsweek article is a better secondary source, so we stick with the one we have.--Otus scops (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response @Otus scops. I'm a new contributor and I didn't yet know that secondary sources are preferred, so thanks for the heads up. KLOLvonJoulupukki (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joe Barton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070725184700/http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140109062336/http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe to http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Barton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38700.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Lede section should summarize Barton's positions

According to the manual of style, the lede section should summarize key points in the article, which is what was done -- removing this summary -- which is well referenced in neutral and reliable sources, strikes me as highly POV-ish. If one can offer a better summary of the key positions -- again with references -- please do so.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I went over things a bit. I agree the wind meme is a bit overcooked, shall we say, and I rewrote one of the positions for clarity, but basically what we have here is Barton, a climate-change skeptic, fossil fuels supporter, hard-liner when it comes to how to handle spies, and such, and there are verifiable neutral references for all of these points.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

1. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg67094/pdf/CHRG-111hhrg67094.pdf

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class Texas articles
• Mid-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• Start-Class Texas A&M articles
• Low-importance Texas A&M articles
• WikiProject Texas A&M articles
• WikiProject United States articles