Talk:Richard Pombo

message: Did Richard Plombo direct congressional staffers to remove information from his biography in Wikipedia, such as his connections with Abramoff, as some have charged?  Where could I learn more about this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.70.32 (talk • contribs) 
:We know for sure that someone inside the House of Representatives edited this article, removing references to possible ties to Abramoff and other politically damaging items. You can see the edit history for yourself, the IP of the House is 143.231.249.141. For more up-to-date information, see Wikipedia:Congressional Staffer Edits and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress. Mushroom (Talk) 11:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note recent edits.  Any connection to this? ---J.Smith 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia vandalism? 

message: How can the below "Beyond (Tom) Delay" be considered non-partisan?
"In 2005, Richard Pombo's activities on behalf of various clients of lobbyist Jack Abramoff came under scrutiny. In December 2005, the non-partisan web sites www.beyonddelay.org and www.jackinthebox.org list Pombo as one of the 13 most corrupt politicians in Congress."
This is not in keeping with a NPOV and was posted by an anon user.
(Note: previous poster neglected to sign at this point.)
The site in question focuses on a report that does label both Republicans (eleven) and Democrats (two) on their list of "most corrupt polticians".   This lends at least some support to the idea that the site is not strictly partisan, although it may or may not include some level of partisan bias.  The choice of De Lay in particular for the title of the site does not, in my opinion, necessarily evidence bias so much as his increased visibility as the former House Majority Leader.  Anyway, I'm not deeply familiar enough with the site to give a strong point of view on the question of any level of partisan bias it may have, but a quick review of the site does not, to me, make it clear that the site is partisan in nature. --Joe Decker 23:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Partisan? 

message: Pombo's anti-environmentalism, or "environmental conservatism" as I think some would rather call it, is surely one of his most interesting, if controversial, features.  Shouldn't the article have more than one sentence on the subject?  I added a link to a Wall Street Journal article relating some of his more wacky ideas (like getting rid of 15 national parks to save money) and his rise in prominence with industry, perhaps the information contained in the article would be a good starting point for an addition to this article? - Jersyko talk 18:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-environmentalism 

message: I moved a sentence out from the McCloskey paragraph that was unrelated to
McCloskey, that text stated that Pombo was under investigation in the
Abramoff scandal.  I didn't see a source for this information, however,
and I'm open to the idea that there's no evidence for the claim of an
investigation.  The sentence also feels redundant-in-part with what are
now the preceeding sentences, and should perhaps be edited on that grounds.  --Joe Decker 23:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abramoff-investigation 

message: I removed the sentence "Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released a report in January 2006 naming Pombo as one of the ten most corrupt members of the House of Representatives." from the leading paragraph of this article, for a couple reasons. (1) This is only an opinion from a group (CREW) with a self-described "progressive" ideology - see wikipedia entry on CREW. (2) It's blatantly partisan and editorial. (3) The exact same sentence already appears quite appropriately in the section "Controversy and Criticism." And no, before anyone asks, I have no connection to Richard Pombo, or any politician, for that matter. 04:33, 29 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.118.150 (talk • contribs) 
:Agreed, it belongs in a lower section, where it already is.  John Broughton 13:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CREW 

message: Guys, this whole article is biased.  I'm new to wikipedia and don't know how to tag it in some way, but please, try to keep the blatant partisanship out of the website. 16:52, 20 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.59.237 (talk • contribs) .
:Welcome to wikipedia.  A couple of suggestions: read Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (new sections/comments go at the bottom of pages).
:As for your comment about bias, one of the better ways to address that is for you to mention specific paragraphs, sentences, or wording that seems to you biased or partisan, and get comments from others, here.  John Broughton 17:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 128.36.59.237. It would be too tedious to point out "specific paragraphs, sentences, or wording" that contribute to bias; that would require going through just about all of the article. The structure of the entire article is biased, designed to maximize attention around allegations made against the congressman to portray him in a negative light. 172 | Talk 23:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, don't list ALL examples.  Why don't you start with (say) the first three to five that you come upon?  (And as far as "structure" being a problem, that's a rather general statement - again, being specific really is helpful in getting other editors to understand your concerns.)   John Broughton  |  Talk 23:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in the process of going through and keeping a list of the biases. I will post the first few once I find them. I agree with 128.36.59.237, the whole tone of the article seems biased. P3net 01:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Anyone think it is time to fork the controversy section to its own article? Arbusto 23:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else might; I don't.  The norm is to spin off a controversy when it's big enough for its own article; that's not the same thing as spinning off a set of (largely) unrelated controversies into a single article.  I don't know of any case where such was done, for what that's worth; I know of a lot of articles with large sections about varied controversies.   John Broughton  |  Talk 00:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not. At least, not yet. Argyrios 21:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate article for controversies? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Richard Pombo. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20061210174637/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/kcra/20061108/lo_kcra/10274159 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/kcra/20061108/lo_kcra/10274159
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Richard Pombo. 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/web/20061101211219/http://www.lcv.org/images/client/pdfs/LCV_2006_Scorecard_final.pdf to http://www.lcv.org/images/client/pdfs/LCV_2006_Scorecard_final.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Richard Pombo. 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.portuguesefoundation.org/famous.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/15052922.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080730201058/http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/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) 19:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm posting here after seeing a dialogue at User talk:Bishonen #Richard Pombo. This is primarily for , but hopefully it will encourage him and any others interested in this subject to use this talk page for discussion.
Rencoyote, I see from Bishonen's talk page that you know Richard Pombo - worked for him some ten years ago - and are concerned that this biography is outdated and dwells too much on negative aspects. What you need to know is that Wikipedia is mainly written based upon independent sources published in a medium that has some reputation for accuracy - what we call "reliable sources". What can be found in such sources overrides anything else: blogs, personal websites, what acquaintances can recall, and even what the subject may say about themselves. That may come as a bit of a surprise, but it's sensible if you think about it. A dispassionate account of an event from a knowledgeable third party is free of the inherent bias that we have in favour of ourselves and our friends, and the nias we carry against our "enemies".
So I want to encourage you first of all to find all of the reliable sources that you would want someone to read if you were trying to convince them that this article is outdated and too negative. Then make a list of those sources on this talk page, and ask experienced editors like , for whom I have a great deal of respect, if they find themselves convinced by what those sources say. If they do, you can work with them to add more text to update the article and give balance to it. That will always be easier to do than to convince other editors to remove text which is supported by reliable sources. Does that give you an idea of a path forward? Let me know if I can be of help going forward. --RexxS (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: RexxS, a dispassionate account is my intent. Will use this page to lay out sources. Rencoyote (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of sourcing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Richard Pombo. 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/20060921085235/http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H0275103&type=category&category=Conservative to http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H0275103&type=category&category=Conservative
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061108213216/http://www.lcv.org/newsroom/press-releases/LCV-Names-Next-7-Dirty-Dozen-Members.html to http://www.lcv.org/newsroom/press-releases/LCV-Names-Next-7-Dirty-Dozen-Members.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061101201527/http://www.lcv.org/newsroom/press-releases/page.jsp?itemID=30668390 to http://www.lcv.org/newsroom/press-releases/page.jsp?itemID=30668390
*Added  tag to http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/welcome_to_pombo_country/Content?oid=289706
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060728030244/http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/Press/editorials/ntlparkspf.htm to http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/Press/editorials/ntlparkspf.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061026120841/http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/10/competitive_race_lies_beneath.html to http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/10/competitive_race_lies_beneath.html
*Added  tag to http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20061112%2FBUSINESS03%2F611120329%2F1001%2FNEWS
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060314204629/http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000419/ to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000419/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927213015/http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=2548&name=Richard-Pombo to http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=2548&name=Richard-Pombo
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) 07:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard Pombo. 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/20060815102004/http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?CID=N00007516&cycle=2006 to http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?cycle=2006&cid=N00007516
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) 01:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified