Talk:Tom DeLay/Archive 2

message: A person is not a current event. If they were, articles on all living people would need current event tag. 2005 Tom DeLay indictment is a current event. Anyone object to me taking it down?
*Although you're correct that a person is not an event, DeLay is playing a primary role in a number of ongoing events, and this article is subject to rapid change. So, I object. Maybe we can generalize the template a bit, though. NatusRoma 23:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing current event tag 

message: "DeLay has declined to comment on a report in the The New Yorker that he is estranged from much of his family, including his mother and one of his brothers. [3]"
But then the link leads to an article by the New York Times not The New Yorker. Seems to be a mistake to me.
:No, it was right the way it was, because of all the convolutions here.  The New Yorker ran an article with this statement about the estrangement.  Later, a reporter for the New York Times was interviewing DeLay and asked him to comment on the New Yorker article.  DeLay declined to comment, and the Times reported that response of his.  Here's the full passage from the Times:
:: When asked about a recent New Yorker profile which said he is estranged from much of his family, including his widowed mother and a brother who has done jail time, he said, "I'd rather not talk about that."
:We need to link to the Times as the source for DeLay's refusal to comment.  Once we're linking to the Times story, which summarizes the relevant point of the New Yorker article, we don't need a separate link to the New Yorker. JamesMLane 10:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake? 

message: It's been about a month since there's been any specific criticism of the content of this page. How close are we to removing the NPOV tag from the article? What else should be done? NatusRoma 06:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the tag was put there correctly at first and checks of the past history will show, but as the article stands now, I think it the tag should be removed.  I'd like to hear any justification for why this article is still tagged as such. Calicocat 12:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After nearly two weeks without objection, I have removed the tag. May this article remain NPOV. NatusRoma 05:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are we progressing toward NPOV tag removal? 

message: Lighten up.  People are working on the article when they can, in whatever way they can.  The make typographical errors, misspell words, and may be less comfortable with proper grammar than yourself.  This does not mean that users are less welcome.  Your comments after editing a few small passages were anything but kind. Rkevins82 04:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Noodle Incident 

message: this article does not mention anything about the congressional investigations of DeLay's ethics. It does not include how rules were changed to protect Delay. Please add such information to this article. Kingturtle 07:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added paragraphs on the ethics committee admonishments, but there is still nothing about the rules changes.--RichardMathews 17:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethics investigations / ethics committee 

message: I have reverted the re-insertion of the section on cuban cigars because, at present, it violates WP:NOR. If there's evidence of an existing controversy here, I'd be glad to see the section in the article, but in its present form, it's original research. NatusRoma 00:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no fan of Tom DeLay, but this appears to be a complete non-issue.  He did something that wasn't illegal.  There are most likely thousands of politicians who are for the Cuban embargo but have smoked a Cuban cigar at one point or another.  This deserves mention why?  Even as hypocrisy it's pretty weak. —Cleared as filed. 13:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuban cigars 

message: I commented out:
In September 2005, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named DeLay one of the thirteen most corrupt members of Congress
CREW report.''
from the end of the article. I think mention of this report might be a good idea, as it is named after DeLay, but the above information is technically false, since the report names 13 further Congressmen ("Beyond DeLay") who have possible ethics issues, and does not itself include information on DeLay. I just can't come up with a good way of reformatting it right now. Lusanaherandraton 09:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CREW report 

message: It is hard to separate the Texas campaign financing issues from the Texas redistricting issues.  Currently, some discussion of redistricting is under Accusations of misconduct in Texas fundraising and Grand Jury Indictment and some is under Accusations of misuse of federal investigative agencies.  These should probably by combined into one section.--RichardMathews 17:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Texas financing and Texas redistricting 

message: The charges against DeLay may or may not be proven true eventually, but there is a substantial lack of balance in the intro of this article, much less the body.
Proposed balance:  
DeLay has publicly denied the charges, saying that they are partisan and thus politically motivated.  The charges  originate from the District Attorney of Travis County, Ronnie Earle, a Democrat who has prosecuted political foes, conservative Democrats and Republicans alike, including U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. 
Mr. DeLay's attorney Steve Brittain said that DeLay was accused of a criminal conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme along with two associates, namely John Colyandro, former executive director of a Texas political action committee formed by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, the head of DeLay's national political committee. Attorneys for Colyandro and Ellis have filed to have the proceedings moved out of Travis County in order to obtain a fair trial. 
BTW...this isn't the sort of thing that should be determined by 'votes'.  Wikipedia is notoriously (and ever more so) left-leaning.  If Wikipedia doesn't want to just fade into just another left-wing blog, the content of this intro should be determined by what's honestly balancing to this article.--66.69.219.9 16:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the only one who believes that three paragraphs about this one event is appropriate for the intro. The intro is currently factual. We do not need most of the information you have included. The information regarding Travis county expands on Delay calling it biased, and thus is appropriate for the body. "Political foes" is POV. You do not need to quote DeLay's lawyers to determine what he was accused of, and his accused co-conspirators and various motions in his trial are appropriate not in the into, but the body. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're clearly biased against presenting the facts as known, and have no one backing you up. Leave the NPOV up until people have a chance to comment.  Being left doesn't make you 'right.'  Thank you.  --66.69.219.9 16:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You fail to address any of the points I brought up.  Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro as you've concocted it slanders DeLay and only gives lipservice to his very deserved defense; the man is charged, not convicted.  Re. the "political foes" comment -- I have some flexibility on those two words, but not so much with respect to yanking the entire section you've deleted.  BTW, The Wall Street Journal speaks (as does Ronnie Earle) of his having "a history of indicting political enemies, Democrat and Republican, on flimsy evidence that didn't hold up in court."   The fact that Travis County is probably the only one in Texas that would support these charges is highly pertinent.  That you don't like those facts doesn't make them less so.--66.69.219.9 16:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not disagree that this info should be in the article. You insist that it all go in the intro. Please focus on making the intro the appropriate length. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: "Recent-ism" is pretty much what this is all about at this point in time.  It would be dishonest to give recent events short shrift in the intro, but I have pared it down and removed the NPOV on the basis of the above discussions...but we've got to get some balance into this from the get-go.  It is undeniable that there are a great deal of politics involved in this, and you/we/Wikipedia will only look bad if it doesn't set the right balanced tone in the intro.--66.69.219.9 17:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro is even worse now. "Without specifics?" Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is well established that there are no specific charges, but rather very general charges of conspiracy.  Do some reading and check back.--66.69.219.9 17:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you argue that the sentence "Without specifics, DeLay has been generally accused of a criminal conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme along with two associates, namely John Colyandro, former executive director of a Texas political action committee formed by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, the head of DeLay's national political committee. " is better than the sentence "DeLay has been accused of participating in a criminal conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme along with two associates, namely John Colyandro, former executive director of a Texas political action committee formed by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, the head of DeLay's national political committee."?Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Feel free to edit, but the second example doesn't mention that the charges are quite general...as is well-established.--66.69.219.9 17:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that there are no specifics is not accurate.  I've added a summary of the key allegations from the indictment. JamesMLane 02:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And I have restored the NPOV tag for violating the spirit of the above discussion.--66.69.219.9 18:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Marskell's edit has my complete unadulterated support. Tossing the kitchen sink in the intro, or trying to delve into the motiviations of people does not. Additionally, you need to read WP:3rr, anonymous IP. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Two libs don't make a 'right'...but fine, whatever.  Go ahead and violate the spirit of NPOV discussions.  I'm sure it will bode well for Wikipedia's future...as a web version of....... thumb|Courtesy Cable News Network.
--66.69.219.9 20:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag invoked re. intro 

message: The article reported DeLay's motion as if factual, when in fact the article linked gives an alternate interpretation by a criminal law specialist. I've inserted a couple of sentences to try and restore NPOV, but it's not very good - can someone take a look and try to clear up the language? 195.92.40.49 10:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion to throw out criminal conspiracy to violate election law 

message: This scathing critique of DeLay by conservative commentator George Will forecasts a new strategy - it looks like Republicans will be cutting the strings on DeLay and letting him hang on his own. Will basically excoriates DeLay as a big government big spender here.  BD2412 talk 16:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks like Republicans are preparing to cut the strings on DeLay 

message: I have folded most of the former "Controversies and accusations" subheading into the main narrative in order to bring the article into better agreement with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Controversy. I have left the indictment and the allegations leading up to it as a separate heading, because it has had such a big impact of his political career of late. It may be preferable to thread some of the material in some of the subheadings, especially in those under "Majority Leader", into the main narrative. I will look into that in the coming days. NatusRoma 05:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major restructuring 

message: Please don't put the warrant in the lead. It is the lead news story this cycle but it actually means nothing more than the indictment. Some rulings on the points of law would be more interesting. . --Gorgonzilla 00:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gorgonzilla.  The phrase "arrest warrant" grabs headlines, but it is really a proceedural move that follows naturally from the indictment.  By the way, I don't think the text of the warrant is important enough to put into the article, but I do find it interesting, so I'm putting it here:
 To any sheriff or peace officer of the state of Texas; greetings: you are hereby commanded to arrest
 Thomas Dale DeLay and him safely keep, so that you have him before the 331st Judicial District Court 
 of Travis County.
The warrant was ordered by Travis County District Judge Bob Perkins. Johntex\talk 22:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This sure is amuzing. Are you sure that there are no typos? I would think it should say "safely keep him", rather than "him safely keep" --Asbl 15:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Legal documents frequently contain word order that is uncommonly used in more informal speech. NatusRoma 17:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Warrant 

message: I removed a sentence and link noting that DeLay considered pleaing guilty to misdemeanor charges in an attempt to save his leadership position. The sentence was calculated to imply that DeLay had indeed committed a crime, not to note a consideration of a plea deal (a common thing in American criminal prosecution). --DDerby-(talk) 08:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  plea consideration 

message: One of the first sentences in this article is potentially misleading ... nothing political, just some unclear writing.  It reads
...was indicted in Austin, Texas on criminal charges of conspiracy to violate election laws in 2002 ...
"in 2002" modifies the verb violate, but on a quick read someone could think that the indictment was in 2002.
I'll leave it to someone else to make the change --- this seems to be a pretty sensitive article!!
66.67.121.171 01:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DeLay was indicted in 2005, with the indictment alleging that he broke the law in 2002. I have made this clearer in the lead. NatusRoma 02:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indicted in 2005, not in 2002 

message: Seems odd to me, reading this, that fully half the text about Tom DeLay deals with a (relatively minor) criminal charge which is not what made him notable in the world.  (He's not exactly Garry Condit), so perhaps it could warrant its own page with just brief mention on here with a See the main article at Tom Delay 2005 Indictment or something?  Just an idea Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 01:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The campaign fundraising and the indictments are a big part of what DeLay is known for. The article could perhaps be pared down a bit by removing some of the duplication between the timeline and the rest of the article, but I don't think that it's yet to the point that it needs a separate article. Maybe when his trial occurs. NatusRoma 02:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A seperate page for the legal trouble he's facing? 

message: What's the deal with child prostitution in the Mariana islands? According to the given source it only mentions sweatshops and sex shops. Btw, I changed it in the article. Garion96 (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mariania islands 

message: DeLay's former chief of staff, Tony Rudy, is identified as "Staffer A" in Jack Abramoff's plea agreement.  He's accused, in the plea agreement at least, of accepting bribes to steer through legislation, and of having his wife employed for $500,000.  See http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abramoff/usabrmff10306plea.pdf.  We ought to add this in, no?  Or, a separate article on Rudy? Sholom 19:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say have a separate article about that.  You might mention it by way of your first sentence above, but we'll have to make sure the discussion stays on the Rudy article.  It might be tricky, but it's probably worth mentioning. Littleman TAMU 18:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it permissible to simply copy from http://www.disinfopedia.org/index.php?title=Tony_Rudy and then modify? Sholom 21:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Rudy 

message: That picture at the top of the page looks kind of dated. Isn't there a more recent picture, besides the mug shot also used, that can be put there?--Hbutterfly 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: There is discussion of Dan Quayle attempting to use connections to get the Indiana National Guard to avoid service in Vietnam.  I am unsure what the relevance is to the article.  The next two sentences talk about DeLay's service record during Vietnam, but the citation is empty.  Should these things be taken out?
Justdelegard 19:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Congressional Career 

message: Shouldn't something about his renomination by the GOP be here?
Kashami 04:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like what? NatusRoma 04:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in there -- the last sentence before the table of contents --Sholom 04:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, it wasn't before. 
Kashami 02:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republican Primary 

message: The wording of the article implies that Mr. DeLay acquired this nickname in college, whereas the source clearly states that he got this nickname after graduating, during his career as a Texas State Legislator: "Later, as a Texas state legislator from 1978 to 1984, DeLay had a reputation in Austin less as a lawmaker than as a partyer and playboy known as "Hot Tub Tom." He roomed with other fun-loving male legislators at a condo they dubbed "Macho Manor.""
:You're right. I'll change it. NatusRoma 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hot Tub Tom" 

message: Does anyone have any info on the Majority Whip Office shooting of 1998?  Should be included in the article.  Thanks.
:MSTCrow 04:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go for it!  See , , and  for starters. -- Sholom 13:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority Whip Office Shooting 1998 

message: Major Re-Write Needed -- imho.  First off, the lede is kinda long, and 3/4 of it is on stuff that's happened since 2005.  And it doesn't include DeLay's major role in securing Clinton's impeachment, the K Street Project, his multiple censures from the ethics committee.  This article has, embedded in it, a nice capsule summary of his highlights.  I could take a whack at it, but I wanted to announce here first, hear some others' thoughts, etc. -- Sholom 13:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The K Street Project, the ethics committee rebukes, and the impeachment are all mentioned in the body, and I'm not sure what can best be said about them in the lead. The indictment is a current story, so it's inevitable that it will be given undue prominence. Ultimately, the material on the indictment should be reduced to a single paragraph, but that's not realistic until after the trial is over. Go ahead and take a whack, though. NatusRoma | Talk 18:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the highlights (or lowlights) of his life ought to be at least mentioned in the lead.  I will give this a whack.  I want to stress that the lead is just one example, I think major re-writing is needed all over, and I suspect it will be a bit easier to do, now that the major chapter of his life thus far seems to be closing.  But I'll start with the lead.  And feel free to whack away at my efforts, too! -- Sholom 18:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This re-write is largely an improvement, but it goes a little too far in the other direction. I have restored DeLay's denial of the charges to the lead, as well as some details that provide context for his denial. Some of the things mentioned (like the rebuke for the intellectual property bill) are somewhat obscure. The mention of the impeachment is good, but it needs a reference. The mention of his support for Bush's agenda also needs a reference, and can probably be folded in elsewhere in the lead. Finally, the mention of the indictments of Scanlon's and Rudy's guilty pleas immediately before the statement that he resigned on April 6 2006 imply that he resigned because of their pleas, while DeLay has stated that he didn't want to risk a loss to Lampson. NatusRoma | Talk 03:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Re-Write Needed 

message: Dont mugshots usually have a booking number and date on them?  Delay's mugshots dont ever show a number though?  Have they been sanitized?
:Not any more. They put the numbers into the JPEG file as metadata. Also they no longer do profile shots. A great pity, we will just have to wait for DeLay to do his perp walk. --Gorgonzilla 16:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no numbers on mugshot? 

message: There have been a few edits today (April 4, 2006 — date on which DeLay formally announced that he will resign his Congressional term before it ends) that change the intro from "politician" to "Former" politician.  DeLay is still a politician, he is still an elected official; he is no longer a candidate in the 2006 Congressional election.  Therefore "former" is not appropriate — as has also been discussed above. I am removing this edit with a reference in the edit to the Talk page. —ERcheck @ 20:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Former" politician - not correct terminology 

message: Can someone more knowledgeable than I convert the rest of the inline html citations and book references into references? I'm especially not sure what to do with the links to the government documents and with the various citations of The Hammer. Thanks. NatusRoma | Talk 07:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: I removed the following text from the article:
:(it should be noted that this is in opposition with his support for sweatshop labor in the Marianas Islands, where pregnant workers are forced to undergo abortions) 
First, voting in line with the positions of then National Right-to-Life Committee and against those of NARAL means voting on specific legislation. Because this legislation did not come up in 2005, it did not factor into either group's rating of DeLay's voting record. Second, making the contrast between DeLay's vote on this bill and his pro-life beliefs is original research. Third, assuming that DeLay's support for sweatshop labor equates with support for abortion is POV. NatusRoma | Talk 03:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweatshop legislation 

message: From Biography and early political career:
:...and spent two years as a pre-med student at Baylor University before he was expelled for drinking and vandalism—DeLay was caught painting a building at Texas A&M green and gold, Baylor's colors.
From Defense of Dan Quayle :
:DeLay was able to keep his student deferment after he was asked by the dean to sit out a semester at Baylor, which he attended from 1965 to 1967. Instead of taking the time off, DeLay got married and enrolled at the University of Houston.
So which is the authoritative truth? Did he get suspended from Baylor for a semester and voluntarily go to Houston, or was he expelled from Baylor? (Which implies that he was banned?) Anyone know for sure? KWH 10:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, there's some uncertainty, which has been previously discussed (see /Archive1#Expelled?). The conclusion there is that he was expelled, or at least kicked out permanently. There may have been a suspension involved prior to the expulsion. However, come to think of it, the Slate.com article, which is the source for the second sentence that you quoted is the only one that I've seen that mentions DeLay having been asked to sit out a semester, so the best solution to the contradiction may be to alter the second statement. In fact, given that the second statement has been copied straight out of the Slate.com column, it should be rewritten in any case. NatusRoma | Talk 06:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten the second paragraph, removing both the contradiction and the plagiarism. NatusRoma | Talk 04:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question/contradiction 

message: "The Hammer" should not be contained within DeLay's full name. A nickname should only be included in the bolded name of an article's subject if that nickname is both what the subject is commonly known as, and is not clearly derived from the subject's full name. For example, if DeLay were always referred to as "Larry" in the media, it would be appropriate to write Thomas Dale "Larry" DeLay. However, DeLay is not called "Larry", or "The Hammer", but "Tom", which is an obvious abbreviation of Thomas. Therefore, there is no need for "The Hammer" to be part of the bolded name. NatusRoma | Talk 17:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for that statement? We're talking about House members, not fraternity pledges. By the way, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. NatusRoma | Talk 22:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting "The Hammer" in the first sentence. 

message: The introduction states He was also a driving force behind President Bill Clinton's impeachment in 1998. Shouldn't it read the attempt to impeach Bill Clinton ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unmitigated Succes (talk • contribs) 
:No.  "Impeachment" is akin to "Indicting".  He was impeached by the House.  He was found "not guilty" (for lack of a better term) by the Senate. -- Sholom 19:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: most people are ignorant of this apparently. --75.3.114.32 06:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton impeachment 

message: The article says that the consumption of Cuban cigars is illegal. However, it's legal to consume any Cuban cigars that were purchased before the embargo. Am I missing something here? --Demonkey36 06:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This event is not sufficiently relevant for Wikipedia. The Nation and Rumsfeld analogies are unjustified: DeLay is not a principal supporter of the policy whose spirit he has been accused of violating. Please provide better arguments for why an already lengthy article should discuss this information. In this article's FA candidacy from a few months ago, multiple reviewers objected to the length. Why should we spend precious kilobytes covering this picture when we could instead use them to describe things like DeLay's congressional career in more detail? By the way, please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). NatusRoma | Talk 04:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Precious kilobytes" is not a good reason to remove a well referenced section. --RTCCP 22:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: References are not at issue here. Relevance is. There is a difference between someone being a chief supporter of a policy and someone being a prominent figure who also supports that policy. In the former case, apparent hypocrisy might well be worth mentioning in a biographical article. In the latter case, which applies to DeLay, there is no reason to include the apparently hypocritical actions. The key difference is that a policy of which a person is a chief supporter is relevant enough to that person's life to make that person's actions regarding the issue that the policy addresses potentially encyclopedic, while a policy that happens to be supported by person who is prominent for other reasons is not relevant enough to that person's life for the person's actions toward the issue to which the policy relates to be encyclopedic. NatusRoma | Talk 03:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuban Cigar