Talk:Steve Buyer

message: A controversy section that is 2/3 to 3/4 of the text of the article.  And only a single citation in the entire controversy section.  This is definitely not good for a living person biography, and especially not for a US congress person, and especially not good when we have congressional IP addresses trying to remove the entire section.  I don't know this congressman, and have no idea about the status of the controversies, but the current state is in total violation of WP:BIO.  Pretty much every allegation in the controversy section needs references that pass WP:RS.  Given the back and forth over the deletions from the congressional IP, I'm not sure what the proper path forward is, but the article cannot remain as it is. - TexasAndroid 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: begin discussion moved from my talk page —Cryptic 09:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this does show that they have a funding connection.  This in itself isn't particularly noteworthy.  The point of the paragraph I removed was that "there have been increasing calls for Rep. Buyer to return the 2500 dollars"; it's this statement that needs a source, and I was unable to find one except for a few mentions on blogs, which aren't reliable sources. —Cryptic 23:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've since reverted this material out of the article twice.  The second time additionally cited http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/9/30/112258/884 and http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/oct/02/gop_candidates_pressured_on_foleys_dirty_money to ref the first statement, but both of these are user-created blogs (which fall well short of the sort of reliable source we need to include this kind of statement in the article), and neither of them mention any pressure to return the money (despite the url of the second).  The second does link to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061002/ap_on_go_co/foley_money, which might possibly be an acceptable source if the link wasn't dead; however, it doesn't include enough information to easily track down the article now that it's no longer hosted on Yahoo. —Cryptic 09:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've reverted to before the whitewash began.  IMHO the current version is a bit POV on the anti side, but not nearly as far POV as the whitewashed version was. - TexasAndroid 19:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Florida Republican Leadership PAC

message: I removed the following from this article because it was sourced to the Buyer House website and lacked anything like neutrality or objectivity:
"Since coming to Congress, his priorities have been to ensure that veterans with service-connected disabilities, those with special needs, and those who are indigent receive the best care. In 2005, after discovering significant shortcomings in the VA budget and its budget process, Congressman Buyer was able to quickly help provide $1.2 billion in supplemental funding. He is also committed to providing a seamless transition to soldiers as they become veterans, working on information technology services that streamline Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system. Congressman Buyer has been a tireless advocate of giving the VA's CIO more authority which would save the Department $1.6 billion in wasteful and duplicative spending. In response to this legislation,
He was one of the five architects of the Medicare Prescription Drug Card which was used as a bridge from enactment of the law until the full benefit became available. He also was one of the leading proponents and creators of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and was instrumental in ensuring HSA's be included in the final measure which was ultimately signed into law by President Bush. Millions of seniors have saved thousands of dollars in prescription drug costs due to his work and countless families have benefited from businesses that now use HSA's to provide affordable health coverage."
Mhojo 19:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted to before the whitewash began.  IMHO the current version is a bit POV on the anti side, but not nearly as far POV as the whitewashed version was. - TexasAndroid 19:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Campaign Literature

message: What about his fairly crazy comments (on the house floor) about smoking lettuce?  Should be included, as it's become a major internet meme (e.g. youtube.com/watch?v=1dqTrUpmwPg ), and people come here to see the context of what he was talking about, to see if he was actually making a fair point, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.22.180 (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone killed that prose awhile back. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

text: In June 2009, he became the subject of some prime-time TV news attention when he likened the physical effects of smoking tobacco to those of smoking dried, rolled lettuce when taking the floor against the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
All of this is true and verifiable, and I believe it is stated in a more neutral manner than before. In all frankness, this man is an elected public official, and the prose here refers to comments made in an official and literally on-the-record capacity. Keep that in mind if you think it reflects so poorly on him as to constitute a BLP issue—that this man is a grown-up, a public official, and that he made his comments with specific rhetorical intent in his capacity as an elected figure in the US government. There's no "gaffe" here, no embarrassing private situations made public—this is not a "Star Wars Kid" situation. Accordingly, my personal policy in watching this article will be to ensure that mention of this event is not stricken entirely from the article unless, through discussion, a consensus is established to the contrary. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

text: It was definitely BLP vio beforehand. I think him calling nicotine the harmless part can be included, but it's good otherwise. Reywas92Talk 21:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  has again deleted the content, and I have again restored it. I invited the editor to discuss the disagreement on the talk page. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tobacco=lettuce comments and S Buyer internet meme 

message: Here's the text as I have refactored it:
:In June 2009, he became the subject of some prime-time TV news attention when he likened the physical effects of smoking tobacco to those of smoking dried, rolled lettuce when taking the floor against the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.
All of this is true and verifiable, and I believe it is stated in a more neutral manner than before. In all frankness, this man is an elected public official, and the prose here refers to comments made in an official and literally on-the-record capacity. Keep that in mind if you think it reflects so poorly on him as to constitute a BLP issue—that this man is a grown-up, a public official, and that he made his comments with specific rhetorical intent in his capacity as an elected figure in the US government. There's no "gaffe" here, no embarrassing private situations made public—this is not a "Star Wars Kid" situation. Accordingly, my personal policy in watching this article will be to ensure that mention of this event is not stricken entirely from the article unless, through discussion, a consensus is established to the contrary. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was definitely BLP vio beforehand. I think him calling nicotine the harmless part can be included, but it's good otherwise. Reywas92Talk 21:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  has again deleted the content, and I have again restored it. I invited the editor to discuss the disagreement on the talk page. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP issue

message: Wiki doesn't appear to handle redistricting correctly. Mark Souder was never this guy's predecessor for the 4th. The 4th simply changed. I assume this sort of stuff is auto-generated. That code needs to be rewritten to take renaming offices into account properly. 82.139.118.219 (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Real problem with (presumably) auto-generated office succession information