Talk:Patrick McHenry

message: I personally know at least one intern he had sex with.  Where are the references to this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.0.251 (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infidelity 

message: It seems a lot of the issues mentioned below are by IP 65.40.234.49. Should this be pursued by the admins? I'm not going to try to hold a one-person whinefest here, but it certainly seems that that IP (and the Jason Deans IP) are clearly editing to hide or otherwise maliciously damage information (I'm under the impression it's McHenry staffers). Thoughts? --Ziegfest (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP issues? 

message: Upon a semi-revert war with User:Kallahan, I slightly changed the post I made to be more NPOV by not mentioning the blogs, however, I simultaneously added another link to prove that the term "liberal blogs" is legitimate. This should end this dispute, and no further editing is necessary, as it is clear that this should agree with both of our positions, as the facts are preserved. Also, apologies on the "Preceded" typo. --152.17.138.92 (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on the fence about this one. On the one hand... the entry says that it's speculation from a blog and I've always been more of the mind set that if an entry says what it is and it's a notbale blog (which Dalykos is)... then it should be allowed. Indeed... this could be a great example of the lengths DailyKos and other websites are going to in order to hurt McHenry's political career so it may have value from that perspective on top of value from a left wing perspective. On the other hand... ti's a pretty severe peice of speculation. It's largely circumstantial. I'm on the fence... I could go either way.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. My main reason for reverting it was because it was new information that had been removed by an experienced editor. If it had been established information that was removed or if the confrontation was between two experienced editors I wouldn't have done so.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  McHenry Daily KOS dispute 

message: As it says at the top of this discussion page: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." The more controversial a claim, the more reputable the source required, generally speaking. Speculation in a blog, unless reported on by notable mainstream media (and then cited to those sources), is unlikely to be a suitable source for such accusations and claims. Vassyana (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: I accept the current incarnation of the page, but I suggest the community assess whether the speculation contained in the second-half of the Controversy section (previously entitled "OPSEC Violation Video in Iraq's Green Zone possibly resulting in three deaths") should be here at all. I worry that the edits made by 152.17.138.92 are meant to make this article decidedly non-NPOV and, rather than encyclopedic, a partisan outgrowth of political blogs. --Kallahan (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Y'know... I actually meant to side with you and remove it completely. I didn;t realize what edit I was reverting... oh well, can;t do nothing now until the protection expires... if you change your mind you may want to appeal to User:Gonzo_fan2007.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding edits and edit protection

message: "Baby of the House" is not a term used in the United States. McHenry is simply referred to as the youngest member of Congress. This should be removed when the edit protection expires. JTRH (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, Baby of the House it is an unnoffial term. Superdelegate is also an unofficial term yet there's an entire page about it (whose page title I disagree with) and that term is used on many other pages in wikipedia. Just because something's unnaoficial doesn't mean it can't be mentioned on wikipedia. Would you also remove all mention of superdelegates?--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying it should be removed because it's unofficial. I'm saying it should be removed because it is not used in the United States. It is not accurate to say that the youngest member of Congress is referred to as the Baby of the House. JTRH (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Baby of the House

message: I have semi-protected this article for a period of one week, largely out of concern for adherence to our biographies of living people policy. Please refrain from adding material concerning the photographs that are being circulated in the blogosphere, and perhaps even linking to a site that carries them. If these allegations are investigated by a reliable news sources (other than blogs, even respected political ones) then it might be appropriate to mention. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, VanTucky 19:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected 

message: There are plenty of rumors that Patrick McHenry is gay. This is important to his biography, so I believe that it should be mentioned in his biography.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm Very Good (talk • contribs) 16:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality 

message: The recent edit by 96.231.117.108 smacks far too much of political advertising, which is far beyond any standard of neutrality. Lines like "Congressman McHenry has fought for adequate veterans' health care for his district." are clearly stuff from his own campaign- any Congressman in the world would say the same thing, and it's not necessary to list out his individual votes like merit badges for an overgrown boy scout. If someone doesn't edit this, I may, but we need to somehow retain the important information and get rid of the blatant self-promotion going on here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.189.11 (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take it up right now, and I invite other (legitimate, non-McHenry) guys to work with the material as it stands. I'm making the decision to remove much of the Hickory Clinic, as many current Congressmen work on similar projects and Wikipedia has yet to chronicle those- it seems needless, lest we all want to begin documenting in excruciating detail every vote made by each Congressman. In addition, a lot of it references back to his website- reads like an ad, go figure. Anyway, thoughts on my edit (coming up in about 10 mins)? --Ziegfest (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Quick note- McHenry is not involved in H.R. 1616, according to info- which isn't even the bill mentioned. I attached the only one that appears connected to the whole meth topic, but correct me if I'm wrong. --Ziegfest (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

text: You are incorrect.  I have updated the page with the cite to his legislation, H.R. 1616, which was incorporated into larger legislation.  The text (including bill number) can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1616:
Potus128 (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added them back. The blog is well sourced and referenced in a few newspapers (both the Hickory Daily Record and News@Norman). To remove the link would be to unfairly balance the article pro-McHenry, and honestly, it's only a link anyway. McHenry's site is full of pro-McHenry information and clearly at the top, it's not as if readers will be unfairly biased- and in defense of the site, it is properly sourced even to Wikipedia standards. Far from "attack sites" such as Pat Go Bye Bye, which was on here for some time. To remove it would be meaningless- and considering it's been in newspapers, it's certainly wikipedia-worthy. --Ziegfest (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The blog is ONLY referenced in two newspapers in a letter to the editor (both letters written by the same person whose POV is clearly not neutral). The article without the link to the blog is not pro-McHenry, it is neutral. The purpose of the article is encyclopedic--NOT POV pushing as you keep doing. Ystava (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding links to help with help requests. First letter to the editor is here. The same letter to the editor was published in the Hickory Daily Record but does not appear to be available online anymore. After some searching, I found it on the writer's personal website here. I tried to resolve this with Ziegfest on my talk page with no success.
This blog is not in keeping with Wikipedia's standards on biographies of living persons (BLPs).  Specifically: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2]"
Potus128 (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Incorrect. Looking at the site, it contains sources to MANY reputable news and info organizations (The Charlotte Observer, OpenSecrets, etc). Just because it is negative does not make it poorly sourced- scanning the articles, it has more links than a Wikipedia article. From your history, you continue to try to add a blog laughably named "McHenry Rocks"- are we supposed to believe you? Nice try. --71.76.189.11 (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the blog you are referencing that Ziegfest repeatedly attempts to insert would not itself meet Wikipedia standards for WP:BLP. A sheer number of links does not indicate that the links are all reliable either WP:CITE. Neither you or Ziegfest appear to be assuming good faith WP:CIVIL. Seeking mediation. --Ystava (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On August 7, the blog Ziegfest keeps using for POV pushing seems to indicate that the editor is working with Ziegfest on this issue. This appears to be a huge violation of WP:COI.
Ziegfest (talk has been warned for breaking the three revert rule WP:3RR.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.234.49 (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I've previously commented on similar issues on this article. This is more or less the same issue. There is a serious concern with even using such sources as external links. Caution must be used with all sources, including external links, in biographical articles. Vassyana (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: see here. Skomorokh 14:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: and here.  The owner/editor of this blog is obviously trying to get some attention for his website, not bettering the biography. Potus128 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest issues 

message: The fact that he has been served a subpoena isn't newsworthy and shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. It just means that someone wants him to testify about some unspecified matter in a court case. The only mention of it in anything else online is on a DailyKos post stating simply that he has been subpoenaed followed by posters speculating as to why. If some details about the nature of the testimony sought come out it could become newsworthy, but as of now it simply isn't so I'm removing the mention. GatorOne (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subpoena 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Patrick McHenry. 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/20101028214308/http://www.mchenryforcongress.com/ to http://www.mchenryforcongress.com/
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) 16:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Patrick McHenry. 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/20090704230015/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0510.wallace-wells.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0510.wallace-wells.html
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20080807160335/http%3A//www.nrcc.org/news/view_article.asp?id%3D55 to http://www.nrcc.org/news/view_article.asp?id=55
*Added  tag to http://www.carolinapoliticsonline.com/2008/04/03/mchenry-refers-to-soldier-as-two-bit-security-guard/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141212211246/http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=947 to http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=947
*Added  tag to http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20080410%2FNRSTAFF%2F472848578
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080626212140/http://www.charlotte.com/politics/story/587606.html to http://www.charlotte.com/politics/story/587606.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120104601/http://www.shelbystar.com/news/mchenry_21725___article.html/lay_news.html to http://www.shelbystar.com/news/mchenry_21725___article.html/lay_news.html
*Added  tag to http://www.charlotte.com/217/story/122192.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081118200651/http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/06/countrywides-campaign-contribu.html to http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/06/countrywides-campaign-contribu.html
*Added  tag to http://www2.hickoryrecord.com/news/2011/may/28/8/editorial-mchenry-should-apologize-voters-ar-1074309/
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) 19:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The sections on how he fared in each reelection attempt seem to stop with 2012. An update for 2014 and 2016 would seem to be in order, along with a section about his 2018 opponent. I would do it myself, but I've got a lot on my plate.  was simply looking up the information while reading a piece about different districts that might be the subject of a polling site's tweet about a district race that may be closer than it appears. Lawikitejana (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2014, 2016 election info?