Talk:Ralph Reed

message: I would disagree that the article should be scrapped, but I definitely think that this article is heavily, heavily slanted against Reed to the extent that the article violates WP:POV.  I'm a Democrat, and actually edited this page a few months back to remove some whitewashing of Reed that had been added, but the article as it stands now is about 15% biography and about 85% a listing of negative information about Reed.  A lot of the negative info is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in the article - the section on the high school plagiarism immediately comes to mind.  I realize that Reed has been a very important conservative political figure, but a lot of the information here goes far beyond what Reed is actually notable for.  The quotations are particularly skewed, and several of them are not properly cited.
In fact, this article needs citations to be added and properly formatted throughout the entire article.  Far too many statements are unsourced, and most of the statements that are sourced are not in the proper format.
For these reasons, I am adding tags for POV and citations.  I also considered adding a general cleanup tag because I noticed several spelling errors and obvious typos, but I'll leave that tag off for now. Niremetal 06:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV, Citations, and General Cleanup

message: Why are there almost no sources/footnotes/references? That is sorely missing from this article. -- Sholom 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources???

message: This article is crap.  It should be trashed and done over from scratch w/o the bias.
--69.37.124.25 02:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, because Reed is such a swell freaking guy. KyuzoGator (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are so biased that you don't even realize you just confirmed what he was saying:  That the article is in reality a Liberal hatchet job.131.247.83.135 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You should edit it yourself instead of ordering others to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.141.129 (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal Bias 

message: Some interesting discussion of this guy's work. 
I separated off the bit about the Abramoff scandal because much of it is duplicated on the page on Abramoff. The idea here is to have one central article on the scandal and pointers to it. --Gorgonzilla 23:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separated 

message: "Reed is widely believed to be planning to run for Governor of Georgia in 2010 and President in 2012 or 2016."  
I read this often in the Georgia press so I understand it's inclusion.  However, I suggest as an enclyclopedia entry it needs to have actual foundation.  When I read that in a press/pol column it can be seen to be written with a possible tilt to be "believable" when it may actually come from editorial thin air. And, widely believed: what is the circumferance of this wide belief?  A case could be made that in Georgia or in Republican political circles it is widely believed, but probably hardly anyone in Wisconsin, for example, even knows there is a race for Lt Gov in Georgia.  So I suggest the content behind this statement be maintained, but recomposed.
    
"Implying the support of President."  Again, I read this often in the Georgia press but the sentence here is vague and does not have foundational facts.
Perhaps, in both instances it is enough to say, "In the Spring of 2005 it was widely reported in the Georgia press that Reed is believed to..." and ..."Georgia press reported that President Bush..."
However, in August 2005 Georgia press reports indicated that the President was publicly distancing himself from Reed after the casino stories.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gov. Perdue will not be able to run again in 2010 due to a term limit, so whoever becomes Lt. Gov. this year will be in a strong position to run for governor in 2010 with a semi-incumbency advantage.  It's likely enough that all of the Lt. Gov. candidates this year have that in mind.  Should we mention this? --Jim Henry 18:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support and Plans 

message: * Emails from the Committee, in the main article I think I put a direct link to them, it should also be here.  The name of Committee should be stated.
* "white collar criminal defense attorney".  Yes he is, but I think especially since no prosecutions are underway that using that entire phrasing is prejudicial. Using the phrase "he has retained legal counsel" is non-judgemental and also is more accurate to use at this point in the investigation because he is retained counsel to be provide legal advice more than to provide specific legal advice for any criminal proceedings.
* A fundamental difficulty Reed has in Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia is that there is the appearance that he used his anti-casino lobbying business to (1) perhaps generate cash out of Abramoff  to flow through his own business and (2) to have it appear Alabama was against casinos when in reality there may have been a hidden agenda within Reed's lobby business to keep the competitive threat of Alabama casinos from Mississippi casinos.  It's my understanding Reed may not have told his Alabama clients this was why he was lobbying on their behalf.  
* This political/business/lobbying practice is the basis of an unethical practice allegation separate from the financial funding unethical allegation.  While they may appear or will appear in the linked scandal article I believe they are essential in this summary paragraph. I would like to see clarity on this.  
Kyle Andrew Brown 01:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casinos 

message: This is an entire section that needs to be written.  The point being that Reed not only worked in concert with gambling moneys in Abramoff's Indian Tribe scandal, but also was getting money from eLottery for lobbying for the defeat of the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.  See http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/0304metreed.html for some info. -- Sholom 02:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  eLottery 

message: I made a few modest edits, which were reverted by another with an ES suggesting I was pushing POV. I disagree. What I did was tone down a well-poisoning intro and add a few "fact" tags. Those are fully reasonable edits and I have restored them. Any questions, please dialog here. Merecat 19:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please justify anjd get concensus on the edits first. The net effect is to remove all the evidence connecting Reed to Ambamoff. These are facts here, two concicted criminals are caught discussing Reed's involvement in their scheme. The fact that they refer to him as a willing partner is significant. I have reverted them -- Gorgonzilla 19:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Your repeated  tagging could be considered vexatious. For example, you ed "At the CRNC, Abramoff, Norquist and Reed formed what was known as the "Abramoff-Norquist-Reed triumvirate." See this. Now the cite at the end of the paragraph does say page 143, but I think that's forgivable since it could have been from another edition. I'm not saying that all the tagged items are defensibly verifiable, but that one was easy to find.KWH 22:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't consider it good faith to fact tag information so basic to Reed's career as his activities as part of the Abramoff-Norquist-Reed triumvirate during his college career. When you fact tag an article it should not be a method of suppressing information you would rather not see. There should be a good faith dispute as to its accuracy. A few minutes with Google would quickly establish that these points are not seriously contended. --Gorgonzilla 03:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  my edits 

message: I removed the numerous links to the individual cartoons on this site, for reference and verifiability purposes we should only need one - more tends to belabor the point and might even be seen as advertising. KWH 05:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-Files 

message: This one sentence section talks about the trip to Scotland.  While Abramoff clearly did something wrong with trip, and so did the govt officials on this trip (Safavian, et al), Reed was just another lobbyist at the time, and so it's not apparent to me that there was anything wrong with Reed's going there.  If that's the case, is this one-sentence-section relevant at all?  (I mean, it's kinda cool that he was on the trip -- it's like an all-star team of current and possible future convicted felons -- but, as written, it implies Reed did something wrong by being part of the trip).  Thoughts? -- Sholom 02:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Use of Nonprofit Funds 

message: Thank GOD the Republican voters of Georgia had a sane moment and sent Ralph Reed packing out of public life..    The Republicans in this state have enough problems, having Reed in a high public office would have made us one of the embarassments of the nation....
:How does this, exactly, help the article? Aaрон Кинни (t) 05:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defeat In Georgia Primary 

message: An anon removed "but was fired for plagarism".  If someone can find a citation for this statement, please post it. Thanks. Wjhonson 03:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagarism

message: We have a couple of new editors who have decided that because they don’t like the tone of the article, they can re-write it completely without any discussion or consent of other editors. Here’s why this is unacceptable.
The re-write violates Wikipedia policy on consensus. Much of what is being deleted is made up of long-standing text regarding the facts of Reed’s life and career. Regarding consensus: everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. and When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus.
The editors further declare supposed violations of the article on wiki’s rule regarding neutral point of view, but cite no examples.
They delete much important material with no discussion or reason given. Joegoodfriend 18:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the recent re-write is unacceptable 

message: Alright, I'm new to this, so forgive my ignorance on some of the ground rules. Perhaps there is a better resolution than a mass revert. I feel this article is negatively biased. What do you think? Smaller scale revisions, with time allowed for others to decide yay or nay? RJWitherby
:The short answer when dealing with a Wikipedia article which you feel is overweighted with negative information is to include more of what you consider "positive", rather than to try to eliminate or pare down the negative information. That way your edits are unlikely to be criticized. Unfortunately, the tendency with Wikipedia articles these days is to get larger and larger -- people resist creating smaller more specialized entries, although that too can help the bias/weighting issue. One thing to keep in mind is organization and flow. In other words, if one edits an article to be, let's say, more evenhanded, but also to be more confusing because organization and references have been eliminated, that will often be reverted. 
: A less salubrious method is to add referenced critical material to people on the "other" side; the pox-on-all-your-houses method. It's a more confrontational method of editing, but the end result is an encyclopedia which details the faults of all parties. --User At Work 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Learn the basics of wikipedia's policies on consensus,  NPOV, citing sources and talk pages and soon other editors will be defending your changes. Joegoodfriend 03:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reed Article 

message: Reading that section, as a total outsider to this case, I must ask two questions.
(i) Has Reed had recourse to defamation laws in cases where accusations against him have proven erroneous in this context? If so, shouldn't these be included in the article for NPOV reasons?
(ii) To be complete, should there be references to any current books about the Abramoff scandal that are pertinent to discussions of this case, either apologists for Reed, or from his political opponents? It'd be great if both sides of the debate could be cited to demonstrate neutrality.
Calibanu (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Abramoff Scandal

message: Ralph Reed published a novel that was released on 8/2010 called THE CONFIRMATION. Someone needs to include that info.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.126.7 (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to add 

message: Revived link to Garrison Keillor op-ed on Reed casino scandal.  It was labeled as a dead link. Mnoe817 (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit in external links 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: He has a son called "12 Gauge?" Iamvered (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  12 Gauge? 

message: I am parking some links to individual news articles here that I am removing from the article; These links may be worthwhile as citations for various facts, but they are mostly 8-10 years old, and don't all need to be in the external links section. If anyone has any interesting facts to glean from these sources, then please add them into the body of the article and cite as appropriate. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Parking links here

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ralph E. Reed, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140912165656/http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0603/gates-abramoff.php to http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0603/gates-abramoff.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ralph E. Reed, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061019031006/http://www.decaturdaily.com:80/decaturdaily/news/050619/run.shtml to http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/050619/run.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060214143915/http://www.ajc.com:80/metro/content/metro/stories/0204metreed.html to http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/0204metreed.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928005101/http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4686774 to http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4686774
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080723200909/http://www.obligation.org/channelone/index.html to http://www.obligation.org/channelone/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ralph E. Reed Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140912165421/http://toccoafirstumc.org/troop77/eagle.shtml to http://toccoafirstumc.org/troop77/eagle.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911011538/http://www.localsearch.com/detail/Evangel-Assembly-of-God-0064871004.html to http://www.localsearch.com/detail/Evangel-Assembly-of-God-0064871004.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100918194014/http://www.campaignmoney.org:80/reed/quotes to http://www.campaignmoney.org/reed/quotes
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121065344/http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990817/961781.htm to http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990817/961781.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051025164756/http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org:80/site2/news/crawford-ralph-reed-republicans.phtml to http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/news/crawford-ralph-reed-republicans.phtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.obligation.org/channelone/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ralph Reed. 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  tag to http://demo.openlogicsys.com/cc/blog/we%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%84%A2ve_come_long_way_baby_race_relations
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.campaignmoney.org/reed/quotes
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/news/crawford-ralph-reed-republicans.phtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060628021530/http://www.indian.senate.gov/public/_files/Report.pdf to http://www.indian.senate.gov/public/_files/Report.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ralph Reed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101102053947/http://leadershipinstitute.org/aboutus/difference.cfm to http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/aboutus/Difference.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607230707/http://ffcoalition.com/our-team/ to http://ffcoalition.com/our-team/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified