Talk:Tom DeLay/Archive 1

message: Well, there's a bit about his biography, then some criticism of him, then a number of quotations, all of which appear to portray him negatively, then some links - one to his site, then a couple of columns from The Nation, and others critical of his support for the war.
So it's not exactly NPOV, and I think I'll try to make it a bit less anti-Delay.
Kaisershatner 20:44, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that including or excluding those comments affects POV all that much, but their inclusion goes a long way towards pointing out the most notable points of the subjects public life. I wouldn't consider either statement to be terribly subjective, either. As such, I would say the brief overview is well served by leaving them in. Fox1 19:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

message: What is this supposed to mean? AlistairMcMillan 19:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counting votes? 

message: What makes this guy so special that most of the energy put into this article goes to reverting vandalism?--Lucky13pjn 07:54, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
:House Majority Leader, badass reputation. Meelar (talk) 09:57, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
::He's a Repubeslickin? 06:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special? 

message: There's probably no one more loathed by Dems at the moment than this guy with the bad haircut formerly a pest controller. But give me a break, the article should not be a catalog of his alleged wrongdoing. Can a non-Republican, non-Democrat fanatic please consider re-drafting this. It's not the worst article I've seen, but as I review many of the political articles I see a pattern where partisans from both sides hijack articles of interest to them. Wikipedia is such a fine resource, which I find myself using almost every day, it deserves better. Lagavulin 23:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, more than half the article deals with his congressional career. It lists a number of his achievements, including strong enforcement of party discipline and support for Israel. But he does come with a large baggage. So it is fair to mention that also. I believe the various ethics violations and controversies discussed here are factually correct and have been properly sourced. If you could point to specific places of factual errors we could correct them. --DuKot 01:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally Disputed and why

message: Here is the section that I have removed twice from wikipedia.
DeLay's political action committee did not reimburse lobbyist Jack Abramoff for the May 2000 use of the skybox, instead treating it as a type of donation that didn't have to be disclosed to election regulators at the time. 
The Associated Press, reported on Wed, April 07, 2005 "The skybox donation, valued at thousands of dollars, came just three weeks before DeLay accepted a trip to Europe including golf with Abramoff at the world famous St. Andrews course for himself, his wife and aides that was underwritten by some of the lobbyist's clients." 
Two months after the concert and trip, DeLay voted against gambling legislation opposed by some of Abramoff's Indian tribe clients.
Here is article on yahoo news.
DeLay's political action committee did not reimburse lobbyist Jack Abramoff for the May 2000 use of the skybox, instead treating it as a type of donation that didn't have to be disclosed to election regulators at the time. 
The skybox donation, valued at thousands of dollars, came three weeks before DeLay also accepted a trip to Europe — including golf with Abramoff at the world-famous St. Andrews course — for himself, his wife and aides that was underwritten by some of the lobbyist's clients. 
Two months after the concert and trip, DeLay voted against gambling legislation opposed by some of Abramoff's Indian tribe clients.
It’s word for word. If its public domain or GNU licensed there is no problem otherwise it cannot be used without permission. And without any notice that there was permission it will not stay up. Not even sure it is ok to have this on the discussion page.??!?!?--Seanor 16:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At least rewrite the first and last sentence in your own words.--Seanor 16:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DeLay and Jack Abramoff

message: I thought that George W. Bush was a controversial political figure, but even his Wikipedia article is more neutral than Tom DeLay's. If anyone wants to rewrite this article, maybe it could be based on the George W. Bush article or the Newt Gingrich article.
:The difference in the articles reflects the differences in interesting and important information regarding the people.  The criteria for inclusion of information, as elucidated by the npov tutorial space and balance section, is interesting and important. Kevin Baastalk: new 07:48, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
Just compare the attacks on this page to the fawning on Nancy Pelosi's page, where there's no mention of her membership in the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA).
:If there's some reputable source for that claim, feel free to insert it in the Nancy Pelosi page, along with counterarguments, rebuttals, etc.  (This is the first I heard of this particular charge against Pelosi, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be pure fiction from some right-wing blogger.)  If you think there are counterarguments, rebuttals, etc. about DeLay's various escapades that should be added here -- like, the House Ethics Committee really gave him a clean bill of health, and all these nasty stories to the contrary are just proof of liberal media bias -- then by all means add the facts, with citations, that support your POV. JamesMLane 07:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Even "George W. Bush" article is more neutral than this