Talk:Charlie Dent

message: Just noting that User:143.231.249.141 (the United States House of Representatives proxy IP address) recently removed the following paragraph:
:Dent is a pro-choice and pro-gay rights Republican. He is a member of The Republican Main Street Partnership (a group that strongly supports stem cell research.) He is also a member of Republicans For Environmental Protection, The Republican Majority For Choice and Republicans For Choice. He also is co-sponsor of legislation to provide the District of Columbia with voting representation.(HR 2043).
If possible, someone should examine this paragraph's accuracy, and whether it should have been removed. — TheKMantalk 05:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph removed by [[User:143.231.249.141]]

message: I notice my section on the 2008 elections has once again been removed from this article.
I'd like to know why this has been removed again.  Although I do feel it's a valid point that Dent won re-election by ten points in a year that was bad for Republicans, I also feel that it's equally valid to note that his challenger was under funded and relatively unknown.  Furthermore, it is also just as valid to note that the Democratic Party seems to feel that Dent's seat is vulnerable, and that it is likely he'll be a target in 2008.
My section was actually based on a newspaper article from The Morning Call that discussed Dent's perceived vulnerability among the Democrats.  If someone feels that this perception is incorrect, I feel that the proper thing to do would be to make note of why that's the case in the Wikipedia article.  Simply removing all mention of Dent's alleged vulnerability from the article will NOT make it go away, especially as it's something that the local press in his district has reported on.
Any thoughts on this? --WayneNight 20:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't take any offense, but I think you tended to belabor your point on the 2008 race.  The section for that was nearly bigger than for 2004 and 2006 combined.  If I had to make a suggestion, I would say that its probably sufficient to say that the "narrower than expected margin of victory has encouraged Democrats to target the seat in 2008.  One candidate, William Roth, has already emerged and Lisa Boscola, a popular senator, is considering a run."  That's all you need.  Who cares about Roth's positions in a Charlie Dent article?  Nor would most even care about his press spokesman's response.  If they want direct quote, they can open the link and read the article.  For all that stuff, go ahead and build a 15th District 2008 article.    Montco 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Your suggestion is appreciated.  I've added a much smaller segment on the 2008 race.  I'm hoping this one won't be deleted. --WayneNight 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it does.  I'll revert it.  What you have out there looks fine.  Thanks for your willingness to change it a bit.  Montco 03:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on 2008 elections

message: Requesting return of language to "In April of 2011, Dent voted in favor of a 2010 budget proposal authored by Paul Ryan entitled "The Path to Prosperity". The legislation converts Medicare to a "premium-support payment system" through which beneficiaries would receive vouchers to pay for coverage from approved private insurers. The Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, found that privatizing Medicare under this plan would increase the out-of-pocket costs to seniors, though supporters of the legislation maintain that the program is similar to the coverage for federal employees, and a necessary step in reducing the deficit. By 2030, the CBO found, the out-of-pocket share for standard medical expenses paid by a typical 65-year-old would rise to 68% under the Republican plan, as opposed to 25% under the existing Medicare system. The CBO also found that the legislation would actually increase the deficit for at least a decade because it also includes personal and corporate tax cuts.[8][9][10] However, supporters of the legislation have noted that it proposes to keep tax revenues at current levels, and pays for tax cuts by, "...cleaning up the tax code [by] getting rid of loopholes and deductions..."[11]"
--Only a summary is needed. Unlike the IP user, I see no need for an extended back-and-forth in this article. The vote was controversial, and I think that this gets that point across. EATC (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Budget Vote

message: I have pursued third-party mediation. Per a suggestion on the editor assistance page, I would like to submit to an admin that the text be changed to read: "Dent voted in favor of the 2012 budget plan entitled "The Path to Prosperity"." I would suggest that the bill title be wikilinked so that users are directed to the bill's article for more info. As the third-party mediator said, the text the way it is now seems to have Coatracking and Undue Weight issues. I find this compromise acceptable. EATC (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Could you leave this request for a couple of days so that other interested editors can comment. Also, it might help if you could link to the discussions you have had in other places about this issue. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Editor Review thread is at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Charlie Dent Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

text: As an uninvolved editor who wandered in from the ANI thread I observe that there is a very in depth recounting about the bill.  I endorse the recommendation that the section be reduced to a short blurb about him voting for the bill and any direct commentary that he made on the issue. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Martin. Happy to do so. Here is one third-party suggestion, and another supporting it. Both opinions jive with what Hasteur suggested above. EATC (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I would that this is a fair point. However, I would say that by providing the wiki-link to the article about the bill would provide a way for interested users to read a very thorough presentation of the bill's perceived ups and downs. Indeed, the bill's article provides very thorough coverage, with an entire section just about changes to Medicare. My original thinking was to simply try an provide a rough overview of the bill in the article, and provide the wiki-link to the rest. However, feelings being what they are, I sought third-party mediation, and those individuals suggested that the vote be mentioned, with a link to the actual article. That way, the bill would not take up an inordinate amount of space in a biographical article (and avoid WP:COATRACKing, and giving undue WP:WEIGHT). This seems reasonable to me, which is why thinking has evolved somewhat. EATC (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the idea of a basic description of his vote for the bill, with a link to the article on the bill itself, which can elaborate on the assessments, popular opinion, etc. of the bill. The pages of representatives aren't the place to elaborate on commentaries of individual bills. Trilemma (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Again, the personal stuff is counter-productive, so all of this holier-than-thou stuff about the edit war is silly; it takes two people to engage in it. Unlike you, apperantly, I am willing to unequivocally own-up to my half of it as unproductive. Again, even your above statement does not indicate neutrality. The phrase "abolish Meidcare" could be debated endlessly. And again, I've already explained the evolution in my thinking; because the debate could indeed go on and on, I would agree with the other editors that simply providing a wiki-link to the vote that could, I would agree, be called "controversial", is best. Otherwise, it devolves into Coatracking, and Undue weight issues. If you look at the article for the bill, it enumerates the controversy thoroughly. But that is why I have opened this discourse, so others besides you and I can weigh-in. EATC (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Anonymous IP editor, thank you for your oppinions, as it was said before your vitriolic viewpoint is on the razor edge of "no personal attacks" and civility violations. Please provide sources demonstrating that Charlie Dent had an active role (besides voting for the bill) in stripping medicare benefits.  If you can't then all that needs to be said is that he voted for the bill and the link to the bill will contain the information that is appropriate.  Expanding the description beyond that becomes a overrepresentation of his career.  To use a hypothetical, would you express the same desire to see the gorey details of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" if he had voted for it? Hasteur (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Request from EATC

message: Why are the 2012 election results not listed here?  I'm sure the numbers are out there somewhere.  It's been over a year and everything. Somebody get on that. PokeHomsar (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2012 Election Results? 

message: Under the Tenure section: reference to voting record.
In May of 2014 voted against Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2015 (http://mentally-physically-spiritually-strong.com/tag/charlie-dent/). This motion would strike a provision that prohibits the use of funds regarding certain poultry regulations.  
According to John Oliver (Last Week Tonight) Congressman’s Dent failure to vote in favor of this Bill should label Mr. Dent a [redacted]. 
Kal drogo pa (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Declined as a violation of Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policies.  Dwpaul Talk    15:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Charlie Dent. 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/20160408124737/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.04411 to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.04411
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140421032846/http://riponadvance.com:80/news/dent-bill-aims-protect-state-run-chips/6373 to http://riponadvance.com/news/dent-bill-aims-protect-state-run-chips/6373
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211195608/http://www.cqpolitics.com:80/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-PA-15 to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-PA-15
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) 12:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Charlie Dent. 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/20131021205547/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/12/breaking-house-passes-dadt-rep.html to http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/12/breaking-house-passes-dadt-rep.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160118070035/http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/638 to http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/638
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) 10:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified