Talk:Bob Etheridge

message: Why is this being removed? It's all over national news and factually happened as it's on tape.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrill Stubing (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Assault" video

message: In June 2010, a blogger posted a video to YouTubehttp://www.youtube.com/user/DCCameraGuy which shows the full confrontationhttp://blog.eyeblast.tv/2010/06/congressman-bob-etheridge-d-nc-attacks-college-student/from two camerashttp://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=XdaGaGaGkUhttp://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=XdaGaGaG8z between Etheridge and two photographers who identify themselves only as students and whose faces are blurred in the video. Etheridge initially responds to the question about "do you support Obama's agenda" by asking the men to identify themselves. It is normal media procedure, including documentary film makers to introduce themselves and their organization before asking a question. The young man pictured in the video just keeps saying "we're students" and mentions a "project." In some versions posted online, text has been introduced into the video, but filmed portions show the entire incident from the initial encounter to showing the Congressman walking away. Some versions, e.g. on utube have been edited with both apparent cuts and repeat(s). The video shows Etheridge grabbing one photographer by the wrist after taking his camera, then pulling him close around his neck and putting his arm around his shoulder, turning him towards the camera and repeating "who are you?" Etheridge caught in on-camera confrontation, WTVD, June 14, 2010.
Etheridge's office has now released an apology.
Glenn Greenwald, a former civil rights litigator and columnist for Salon, has called for Etheridge's arrest on assault charges.http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/14/lawf> 
Etheridge was ambushed by opponents of health care reform last year and has repeatedly endured protestors outside his local office in NC.
:You mention that he can be seen in the video taking (stealing?) one of the "students'" cameras but the article does not mention that the congress man did this.  Weather he did or he didn't take the camera has been debated several other places including the comments section for the original video.  If he did it should be mentioned since that is technically yet another crime he committed. 98.247.192.99 (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not Etheridge "took" the young man's camera is speculative at this point and does not belong in the article.  None of the above references mention this at all in the article.  This accusation is mentioned in the article discussion, but that is not a reliable source.--RadioFan (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Incident with student

message: The previous out of date, unreferenced information has started showing up quoted in the press.  Not just bloggers but supposed professional journalists are lazy and will copy and paste a Wikipedia article including any inaccuracies. This section has been completely rewritten to better comply with WP:BLP.  It was either out of date or just plain wrong and lacked any references.  Claims of membership and leadership in the Freemasons have been removed.  Please provide reliable sources before adding these back.  --RadioFan (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, a quick and easy Google finds clear confirmation of his status as Freemason - something that also appears quite politically valuable as a service organization doing charitable community work: As both the organization ("Grand Orator Bob Etheridge, representative to the United States Congress, will make the keynote address")  and the subject (in the form of his official bio) claim it, revert yourself.99.141.250.125 (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Still more Freemason ref's: Here he gets nearly the whole front page, More:....99.141.250.125 (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add information on his membership in this organization (with appropriate references).  Please do not simply restore the previous section however because it was clearly out of date (number of grandchildren was wrong for instance) and had zero references.--RadioFan (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need to revert yourself. The article is locked.99.141.250.125 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's semi protected, not locked.--RadioFan (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, its members only "Semi". I still can't undo your removal of longstanding, non-controversial and easily sourced info. 99.141.250.125 (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also please re-add the quite notable "Bob Etheridge is a member of the New Democrat Coalition." that you removed. Also, it should more correctly read, "Bob Etheridge is a charter member of the New Democrat Coalition." It's quite notable and should never have been deleted.99.141.250.125 (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an easily found source for that info you removed.  .... 99.141.250.125 (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

text: It was unsourced, it's a BLP, so it goes  Let's keep this about the article and the process and not get personal.  "Easily sourced" doesn't cut it either.  It's the responsibility of the editor adding the material to properly source it, dont leave work for others, especially with a BLP article.  If any of you want to read this material with proper sourcing, feel free. If the current protection level prevents you from doing it, post your proposed addition here and one of the reviewers like myself will review it and post it.  I'm not going to restore unsourced material and neither are any of the reviewers. --RadioFan (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced? It's in his official bio and widely available. You've been here long enough to know proper etiquette: "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." That you now find any reason, no matter how specious, to resist returning non-controversial and incontrovertible long-standing edits to the article is striking. Your petty use of the power of an account on a locked page and resistance to restoring the long standing info is neither neutral nor in the article's, or even Wikipedia's best interests. I really do object to your effort to evade, ignore and resist a simple request to correct your heavyhanded and mistaken removal of the longstanding, non-controversial and easily sourced material. 99.141.250.125 (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[New Democrat Coalition]] & Freemason membership

message: Please include the date. The exact date is 14th June 2010.
source: http://etheridge.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=190412
Confusedkid (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Include the date of what?  June 14 is th exact date Etheridge released the statement you reference above.  It is not clear from that statement when the incident actually occurred.  A dateline on a press release is of little interest, the date that the incident occurred would be a good addition however.  Are there any sources that identify when the incident occurred?--RadioFan (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Not done: That was just the date the article was published, not neccesarilly the day the video was posted, or what you wanted the date to be added too. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 14:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request from Confusedkid, 16 June 2010

message: As Etheridge has not been charged, let alone convicted, of any crime, using terms like "assault" violate WP:BLP. Referring to what hapened as "The 14 June incident" whilst decribing what the video appears to show, is sufficient. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The language needs to be as neutral as possible.  Should charges be filed, things might change but that doesn't appear to be the case now or anytime in the future.--RadioFan (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Relatedly, 'neck and back of shirt' seems to very, very odd phrasing. I just watched the video. Doesn't sit right. Lots42 (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Any other suggestions for wording here?--RadioFan (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Like suggestions to write a neutral and encyclopedic article on the subject? Should we include coverage of notable affiliations? 99.141.250.125 (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, notable affiliations would make a good addition to the article as a whole, provided they are adequately sourced, but I dont think they belong in description of the accident.  That is what we are discussing in this section, look 2 sections up for discussion of that information. --RadioFan (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Two sections up is where you're having a laugh toying with the article, and its well sourced and long standing listing of notable affiliations. You removed them without basis only to have multiple refs produced within minutes - and now you refuse to do the right thing and correct yourself - and most importantly, the encyclopedic record. 99.141.250.125 (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The "encyclopedic record" should be a dispassionate, non-POV account of what happened, with no WP:BLP issues. It should not include speculation about the effect this might have on his career, loaded words or POV that either seeks to excuse his actions or the opposite. The section as it is now I think is pretty good. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The particular tangent of the discussion you responded to was regarding the well sourced, long-standing and non-controversial edits referring to his membership in the New Democrat Coalition and as a local Freemason.  The article, (starting with only the 30th contribution and going back 4+ years ), stated, "Bob Etheridge is a member of the New Democrat Coalition. He is active in Freemasonry and is currently the Grand Orator for North Carolina Freemasonry." RadioFan removed that sentence because a different sentence said he had two grandchildren when he apparently now has six. I can't square the logic of why an error in counting grandchildren somehow gives license to wholesale revisionism and excising of long standing edits - but that was his, RadioFan's, "reasoning". His error was pointed out within minutes - he's now ignored, evaded and resisted all efforts to correct his error.   .99.141.250.125 (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that the "encyclopedic record" should be a dispassionate, non-POV account. It's quite glaringly obvious that at this point, and on this point, it is anything but dispassionate, neutral or encyclopedic.  .99.141.250.125 (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

text: You misunderstand, I removed the section for two reasons, there were inaccuracies (the number of children) and the section was unreferenced (the bigger problem).  A few posts above you claim that this section was "well sourced" but this was not the case. Take a look at what was removed, the only source there contradicts other information in that section and mentions nothing about Etheridge's membership or positions in either Freemasonry or the New Democrat Coalition.   policy states, Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.  Sources have been found, thats great.  Again, you are free to readd this information with these sources. If you are unable to do so because you edit with from anonymous IP address, thats fine, post your changes here with a request that they be added to the article and someone will take care of that for you.  Remember the responsibility for sourcing information added to Wikipedia, especially with BLP articles, lies with the editor who added the information.--RadioFan (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Description of incident

message: Does this
:Political analysts have commented on the potential effect of this confrontation on Etheridge's chances of reelection against Republican candidate Renee Ellmers.
fall foul of what Wikipedia is not? I am looking at sections like: "By comparison, the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." What may or may not happen in November's election is pure speculation, as is whether this incident will affect his chance of re-election. The sources cited are either blogs or merely pose the question of whether or not there will be an effect. Until we know there has been an effect, or until it becomes an issue on the campaign trail. I don't think such speculation should be in the article. Indeed, other sources can be found to say this is just a flash in the pan and it will all have blown over by November. I don't think either kind of speculation should be included. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree. The controversy has been linked to a significant increase in fund raising for Etherridge's opponent. While Civitas institute, a conservative organization hired the pollster, Survey USA is a non partisan pollster that found Etherridge in a dead heat. Perhaps this info would better be situated in a new section for the 2010 election campaign? I agree that going into too much detail and speculation would be overboard but a sentence might be appropriate.Boromir123 (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The first reference used in this section mentions nothing about the incident impacting Etheridge's reelection chances.  It specifically mentions voter turnout as a factor for Etheridge at the new election.  Both the ABC news story and N&O article address the impact of the incident on his re-electability.  As written in the article, its neutral ("analysts have commented") is suitably neutral , meets verifiable requirements and is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the biography.  I would argue that the first reference can be removed as it doesn't appear to be supporting anything in the article.--RadioFan (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-election chances

message: RadioFan just removedthe details about the prior incident allegation. Although there are conflicting reports about what happened in that incident, it seems like it should be mentioned. Thoughts? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the incident is sourced and relevant to this article. Providing both sides of the conflicting reports is important.Boromir123 (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree it has no place in a discussion of the June 2010 incident. If it was such a meaningful incident it would have been added to the article before now. It would have been notable without this further incident. We need to be very careful that this article is not used for a partisan agenda, on either side. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course the event isn't notable by itself. But it is relevant as an aspect of the ongoing controversy. That's the clear context where it arose. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An unfounded allegation made by partisan interests is rarely, if ever, relevant, and should not be inlcuded in a BLP. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what evidence you have that this is a "partisan" allegation, and even if such allegations were rarely relevant the relevancy of this particular claim is pretty obvious given that the behavior is the same sort that Etheridge engaged in on video camera. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Prior incident

message: Come on, a Member of Congress ought to be able to answer a simple question on the street without erupting into anger and certainly without grabbing the kid's arm.  Using the label "ambush" makes it seem as if somehow it is inappropriate to see a Member of Congress and pose a question to him/her regarding a vote.  But that isn't at all inappropriate in America, nor is it an "ambush."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not referred to as an ambush in the article. Also, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ after them. — GorillaWarfare talk 00:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon 70.44, new sections go at the bottom of this page, not the top. And this matter is under discussion, immediately above. Feel free to comment, but don't remove the information from the article without consensus. Cresix (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Is a Student Asking a Simple Question Really an "Ambush"?

message: WP:EQ. I have found Cresix's etiquette on this page to be very uncomfortable, condescending, rude and unprofessional. In our discussion of this article, primarily dealing with the alleged Republican Operative involvement , Cresix has used tactics to prevent discussion and mischaracterize arguments. He simply states that anything that goes against his opinion on what should be in the article is either simply a POV push or an attempt to discuss politics which is not the case. By mischaracterizing discussion he is preventing discussion.
As for some of his rude and unprofessional behavior I have posted the following incidents:
1. "Oh geez Ronnotel, not again!! How many times are you going to try to POV-push this. Get over it."
Im not sure how this qualifies as a legitimate discussion or counter argument to a disagreed upon point. It comes off rude and can intimidate an attempt at true discussion. I don't see "get over it" as an intellectual way to state your disagreement or provide a counter argument to some one's point in a healthy discussion. 
2. "And "lean" all you want. Lean until you fall flat."
Once again Cresix in a rude way is dismissing an argument, threating the poster with marginalizing his discussion points along with a superficial dismissal of any evidence he may present. 
3. "I don't intended to sit back idly so you can shove your version of policies down others' throats."
Once again a very rude comment that grossly mischaracterizes a point by  a poster. This over exaggeratory mischaracterization of points that conflict with his own is uncalled for and very dangerous. Just because poster has an opinion on what should be or not be in the article that you dont agree with doesn't mean he is "shoving ideas down peoples throats" and that its you moral mission to stop it. This comment took me aback, quite honestly. This could intimidate discussion and could serve as a censoring tool to discussion. By just labeling certain valid points simply as malevolent action (shoving ideas down peoples throats for example) cresix is promoting censorship as well as possible intimidation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.188.95 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for riding to my rescue, 76, but I assure you I'm not bothered by any of these comments. :) In the future, there's a board dedicated to discussion of etiquette issues. Probably best to post these sort of comments there. Ronnotel (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

text: WP:NPA. And I have found Ronnotel's false accusations about edit warring to be very disturbing, especially since in an earlier incarnation of this discussion he made multiple reverts of the information in question. And even more especially his glib dismissal of a request to provide evidence for edit warring with the comment "pot, kettle". I consider this false accusation to be a personal attack unbecoming of any editor, especially an administrator. Yes, it's true anon 76, there are boards to discuss such etiquette problems, including personal attacks. But I hold no animosity toward him or anyone. That being said, I apologize to anyone who has been offended by my comments, as I never intended them directed personally toward anyone (although handled clumsily), but instead toward what I consider to be a gross misinterpretaion of policy. Now I hope we can put the personal differences behind us and see if a consensus develops on the content dispute. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cresix's and Ronnotel's etiquette 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bob Etheridge. 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/20100619082501/http://www.newsobserver.com:80/2010/06/16/535042/etheridge-slip-puts-foe-on-map.html? to http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/06/16/535042/etheridge-slip-puts-foe-on-map.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615004302/http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/pittsboro_mayor_named_new_democratic_party_chairman to http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/pittsboro_mayor_named_new_democratic_party_chairman
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425234901/http://www.bobetheridgeforgovernor.com:80/ to http://www.bobetheridgeforgovernor.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708112036/http://www.house.gov/tauscher/ndc/index.shtml to http://www.house.gov/tauscher/ndc/index.shtml
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) 21:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bob Etheridge. 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/20100608223034/http://etheridge.house.gov/Biography/ to http://etheridge.house.gov/Biography/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/06/16/535042/etheridge-slip-puts-foe-on-map.html
*Added  tag to http://www.thepilot.com/news/2010/jun/18/former-resident-recalls-run-in-with-etheridge/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101023224835/http://grandlodge-nc.org/nc-mason/archives/2006/NCM%20131-2.pdf to http://www.grandlodge-nc.org/nc-mason/archives/2006/NCM%20131-2.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bobetheridgeforgovernor.com//
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) 12:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified