Talk:Aaron Schock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject U.S. Congress (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article is about one (or many) person(s).
WikiProject Illinois (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Recent additions[edit]

The following paragraph was recently added to the article with the new subheading "Controversy": "Schock has taken a strong public position against gay and lesbian equality, voting against the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and attacked President Obama's decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Yet he has felt compelled to repeatedly deny that he is a closeted homosexual in the face of persistent rumors, which have repeatedly flared up in the media since he assumed office. When online magazine Gawker published a photo of him wearing a colorful outfit which it suggested was "jamming up the gay staff listserve" of Capitol Hill, Schock went so far as to publicly announce that he had burned its belt. Further accusations of hypocrisy include him complaining about a spending bill in public while touting its advantages in his home district."

I am going to revert this addition, and here is my reasoning: It is already in the article, under the subheading "political positions," that Schock opposed the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and that he opposes gay marriage. There is no need for this information to be in the article twice. The allegations that he has "repeatedly denied that he is a closeted homosexual in the face of persistent rumors, which have repeatedly flared up...." is rife with weasel words and is a violation of WP:BLP, specifically WP:WELLKNOWN. It is unencylopedic to include information about gay rumors. These rumors are not, per policy, "noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented." The Huffington Post article repeatedly references Gawker, a gossip blog, which hardly seems a reliable source. There are no major newspapers/reliable sources that are cited in the Huffington Post article (Gawker, Wonkette, and TMZ, etc. are not reliable sources). A Tweet by Schock does not seem notable. The last sentence of the added paragraph has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph, and it is loaded as well. "Further allegations of hypocrisy...." If anything, that sentence can go under political positions, and it should be noted that the source of the accusation of hypocrisy is Rachel Maddow. Champaign Supernova (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"I am going to revert this addition" Oh quelle surprise. WP:WELLKNOWN. "If an allegation or incident is noteteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Well, given the allegation has come up in the media with the frequency of herpes or closeted Republicans being outed, and given the subject's opposition to homosexual equality, the allegation seems dazzlingly relevant. Both Gawker and the Huffington Post not valid? Both have broken significant stories and, given their valuations alone, must be considered major media enterprises in a time when newspapers will be soon digital only. " A Tweet by Schock does not seem notable." Oh honey. That did make me laugh. Nice try. Treat yourself to another glass of Johnnie. I'll update the entry, but it ain't gonna change the meme tsunami given Mr Google's relentless indexing of the association of the Senator with 'The Gay Thing' -- forgive me, I believe that's the terminology employed by hypocritical Republicans caught with their pants down, is it not? Engleham (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Your colorful metaphors aside, my point is that gay rumors surrounding the article's subject are not sufficiently well-documented to warrant inclusion. My point about the Huffington Post article is that it is using Gawker, TMZ, and Wonkettte for sources. It's a feedback loop. Gawker is the provenance of these rumors, which you don't see published in the New York Times. Gawker is a self-described celebrity gossip site. Hardly a sufficient reference for contentious material about a living person. To clarify my position on the Tweet, the Tweet is about a belt. Presumably a belt that was a part of his outfit? It's unclear, and I don't think a 140 character opinion on fashion (presumably) is notable. Wikipedia is a verifiable, fact-based encyclopedia, not a rumor mill or Perez Hilton. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I've indulged you. See my User Page for the reasons why I don't waste my time indulging further. As you well know, the page is already a puff piece, without the slightest shadow. What a strange miraculous political career he has crafted if that were true! I noted you as the entry's Winged Monkey before I posted, so I presumed the entry's lifespan would be short. But my real aim was to get the issue on the record in his Wikipedia entry, both for Main (archive) and Talk pages, for search engine indexing. And that I've achieved. So, like that other opportunistic political player Macbeth, you/he have won. And lost. Engleham (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
You have not addressed any of my content or policy concerns. Please see WP:NOTGOSSIP, and note that "Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libelous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy." It's also not for airing your personal grievances against an article's subject in order to attempt to influence search engine results. Please also assume good faith and be civil. Calling me a "Winged Monkey" and "opportunistic political player" don't seem to fit the bill. I'm trying to engage in a substantive, good faith discussion about the article's content. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
"I'm trying to engage in a substantive, good faith discussion about the article's content." Bitch, please! Spare us the dissembling. Please read: WP:BULLSHITTING You have zero intention of allowing any reference to his denials of homosexuality (newsworthy given his voting record), even if they were referenced via Page 1 of The Times! Engleham (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
As far as I can see, this question is not unambiguously covered in the policies: there is definitely a gap between WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:WELLKNOWN, which requires quite a bit of personal judgment. While Wikipedia's mission is definitely not in bursting rumors, the person taking strong cut against gay rights being accused of being gay himself is something worth mention. That said, nearly every public person, specifically in politics and show business, is sometimes called gay, and the more they deny it the more tabloids insist on it. Thus I believe that this information should be included, but only with citations to mainstream reputable news media. Unless such citations are there, this content should be removed. The blog's accusations and response via Twitter are specifically pathetic in this context.— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
"the person taking strong cut against gay rights being accused of being gay himself is something worth mention." Precisely. Of course it is. Which is why I shall post a revision with impeccable dead tree sources for "Champaign Supernova" aka Aaron/his mom/BBF/hard-labouring staff mole/whoever. And how illuminating this was to research. Google brings up 273,000 results for "aaron schock" + gay, but a truly astonishing and sobering 651,000 results for "aaron schock" + hypocrite. Quite an achievement for someone who is only in their early 30s. For the sake of neutrality I'd suggest that the Grand Canyon between this indexed reality and the entry, which reads like a PR release, needs to be closed somewhat, and warmly encourage others to do so. Which of course will only result in more midnight labour and carefully constructed prevarications for Champaign. Unfortunately with those mounting Google stats it's rather like trying to suck out a tsunami with a straw. Engleham (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure. But tabloids, blogs and other sensationalist media should not serve the basis here. Strong words need strong sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 07:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Political Positions and Votes[edit]

I added the following paragraph to this Article:

Even though Schock stated he didn't want to emphasize his social views he voted against Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal even though a majority of virtually all demographics and a vast majority of the United States support, then and now, repealing it.[1] [2] Even continuing now, Schock and a few other members are trying to add an amendment to the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act to rollback the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.[3][4]

I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia so when I posted a similar paragraph before I accidentally copied/pasted a part about Schock's same-sex marriage opposition. I don't think that was a good example to post, I didn't mean to post it, because that isn't supported by a vast majority of the United States. Tucsontammy deleted the paragraph I added. I believe that was in error. Tucsontammy didn't even leave a Talk page comment or contact me in anyway. ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 16:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


I added a section to Schock's political positions about civil liberties. ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 17:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Matthewi. In my edit summary when I reverted your original edit, I noted that it did not adhere to Wikipedia's policies on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Coatrack, and WP:Synthesis. It appears you are taking a quote by Schock ("social issues are not what compelled me to run for office") from one source, adding polling information about openly gay service members from another source (a source that does not mention or otherwise involve Schock, the article's subject), and using the combination of these sources to advance a position that Schock's opposition to Don't Ask Don't Tell is incongruous with his previous statements. If Schock's original statement had included information about DADT, that would be fair. As it is, this addition is violating the SYNTH and NPOV policies, and is being used as a coatrack to advance positions about DADT. The "even though a vast majority...." bit is NPOV as well, and is WP:Weasel. Tucsontammy (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Another note: recently, information has been added about the legislative particulars of several bills/amendments that Schock has voted on. Schock's votes may be included here, but including several sentences of background information on these bills is WP:UNDUE. Legislators vote on 100s of bills each year. To include information about a particular of a bill on a particular legislator's page, there should be a compelling reason. Was this particular bill a touchstone of their campaign? Did they sponsor it or heavily advocate for or against it in public? The article can't and shouldn't include a description of each and every bill that each representative has voted on (that's what Project Vote Smart is for). So unless there's evidence about why including information about a particular bill is important, it's apt to violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Tucsontammy (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Schock's sexuality[edit]

At this stage there is consensus against adding the rumour and events surrounding the rumour that Schock is gay be added to the article. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content about his sexuality and actions to restrict gay rights have been added. His anti-gay actions aside, should we allow the content about rumors of his sexuality to be added here? --George Ho (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Week 1: 4–10 January 2014[edit]

New comments must go to #11 January 2014 to onward; replies still welcome here.
No. Speculation and rumours about the sexuality of living people are not appropriate on Wikipedia (except, perhaps, when significant real-world controversy or litigation results from them, which is not the case here). This content has rightly been removed. Robofish (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No, it should not be included unless circumstances change significantly: see WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Whenever someone promotes a controversial opinion, especially about personal behavior, it's common for this "irony" gossip like this to spring up as a response. This sort of coat-tail gossip is probably as old as civilization. In Schock's case, even the gossip itself is laughably insubstantial on its face: It's always basically "he cares about fitness and once wore a pastel shirt, so until he marries someone, I've declared him gay". That train of thought says more about the gossipers than about Schock. Puffery language, like maybe saying that it's "widespread speculation", does not make it turn noteworthy. By comparison: What about all the "gossip" from the last 20 years, that Hillary Clinton has testicles, since "obviously" there are indications from her personal appearance and behavior? Should that be dignified by inclusion in the Clinton article, since it's "widely speculated" even more than the stuff about Schock? Of course not; it's the same level of garbage. The claims are so obviously shallow that, even if Schock turned up married to RuPaul, it wouldn't make the previous gossip turn legitimate. Also, where are the high-quality sources about this being a big deal? It won't be good enough to say that these claims appeared in the kind of media sources that usually pass in uncontroversial Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia has a policy about supposedly "sourced" attention-grabbing claims of this kind — "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources":

    Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: ... reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended; claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in ... biographies of living people

Unless this gossip becomes big enough that it has become a repeat topic in multiple well-established, editorially-strict publications — like the main, for-the-record editions of The Washington Post or Time magazine or the CBS Evening News, not the low-oversight blogs with the same brand name on them — it is noise, and shouldn't be given any more legitimacy than the millions of other cheap shots, rehashed ad nauseum on the Internet, that never make it into a Wikipedia article. --Closeapple (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A Google search for "aaron schock" + gay now brings up 1,370,000 results. That indicates a massive disconnect between traditional print media and popular opinion/social media. Ignoring it is not a matter of ignoring the elephant in the room: it's a matter of doing justice to reality. True or not, the rumors are a significant fact which stalk the congressman repeatedly. So the article should at least state something along the lines of "Aaron Schock has long been the subject of rumors that he is homosexual (http://www.ibtimes.com/aaron-schock-gay-journalist-itay-hod-appears-out-republican-congressman-facebook-1526672), and has categorically denied the assertion." (http://www.details.com/culture-trends/news-and-politics/200904/aaron-schock-is-the-youngest-member-of-congress). But just as an entry, however balanced, that might be perceived as reflecting negatively on Reagan will always be quickly excised, so would this be. Wikipedia articles on controversial public figures are always exercises in farce, and consistently become merely PR puff pieces for the individual's supporters. So the discussion here is almost redundant. Engleham (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I just want a consensus (and extra protection if things go out of hand thereafter). People tried to add such material about living people, but outing them unofficially is normally discouraged, unless a living person doesn't mind the rumors, like Morrissey. This is no exception. George Ho (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Include if significant coverage in reliable sources support it. Maybe those who think it should be included could point the way to reliable sources. If there are multiple sources talking about his sexuality, especially in light of his perceived hypocritical political stands, then something could be included. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Reliability of sources is proven irrelevant, as long as the material is non-notable, unnecessary, and harmful; see Talk:George Maharis. George Ho (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
We can disagree on that I think, it's really quite a stretch to pretend that the material would be non-notable, unnecessary, or harmful. We are not the news media covering this so any harm is already done. And all of this would be in the light of his anti-LGBT stances, which is unsurprising for a Republican but is very shocking if he is indeed a gay/bisexual man, as alleged. And just the rumors alone can be significant, Tom Cruise is a good example of that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
According to that article, Cruise made lawsuits against those alleging his sexuality. Schock hasn't mentioned his personal love life, hasn't made lawsuits, and hasn't been caught in a sex scandal. Can you find a valuable information that is worthy of inclusion? George Ho (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
That is one example of rumors about sexuality being prominent enough for inclusion. I'm not sure why you are arguing with me since you were the one to put in the content? It would seem that you would be looking for sourcing on this. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking at David Dreier and Charlie Crist, none mentioned such gay rumors per BLP policy. The only "valid" rumors to verify are either scandals, self-published love life, or lawsuits, as said before. George Ho (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize for misunderstandings. I missed the phrase "significant coverage". I assumed that you wanted an inclusion deliberately, yet I missed it. George Ho (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The story has now been picked up by the Washington Post. No excuses now. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/01/07/no-schock-in-gay-gossip/ Engleham (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No, there are plenty of reasons (not "excuses") why this material is not significant or encyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

For any politician to be subject to the degree of public accusations of hypocrisy, as Schock repeatedly has, would be damaging. That's why it's significant to detailing his political career. And one of reasons the mainstream print media have finally addressed the story. As noted on this page there is a wide gap between WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:WELLKNOWN, which requires careful editing. I note editor Closeapple posted above "Unless this gossip becomes big enough that it has become a repeat topic in multiple well-established, editorially-strict publications — like the main, for-the-record editions of The Washington Post or Time magazine or the CBS Evening News, not the low-oversight blogs with the same brand name on them — it is noise, and shouldn't be given any more legitimacy than the millions of other cheap shots, rehashed ad nauseum on the Internet, that never make it into a Wikipedia article." Ironically references from the Washington Post and Time were included! You have NOT detailed any reasons in removing the solidly referenced material apart from your own opinion, and removed it before consensus has been reached. I'm therefore reverting it until such time as this happens. Engleham (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no editorial consensus on this page for its inclusion. Absent such consensus, the material does not belong in the encyclopedia.
Moreover, such an action would be in violation of bold, revert, discuss and initiate an edit war. Your bold insertion has been reverted by a second, previously-uninvolved editor - it is now incumbent upon you to discuss the material and gain consensus that it is appropriate for inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
There is an effort to discern what is the best route to go but also obvious is a WP:POV Railroad to keep it out. Likely there is room between these realities to state that there are prominent rumors and print Schock's take on the situation. An example is Anderson Cooper which had noted rumors, and eventually he came out, thus giving a definitive answer to the question. Likewise if reliable sources attribute all or most of this to his vanity, which is not unheard, we can state that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
No, we have no obligation to discuss anything which is based upon nothing more than "rumors." If Schock comes out, then we'll have something worth including. Otherwise, not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm open to reviewing sources to see what is notable or not. We have an obligation to NPOV, which counts for what is left out of a report as much as what is included. Let's see what the sources say. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Your own Washington Post link (which goes to an opinion blog, not a news story) notes that there is nothing more than rumors and gossip behind this "story" - that no one has offered anything resembling proof that Schock is gay. That suggests strongly that Wikipedia ought not to include the information.
This is clearly distinguishable from a case such as, say, Larry Craig, who was arrested for soliciting sex in a bathroom, or Jim West, whose sexual behavior was the subject of a direct, journalistic investigatory sting by a major newspaper.
Here, there is zero actual evidence that Schock is gay - the "evidence" produced is actually based upon alleged correlation with outdated behavioral stereotypes of gay people. There are tons of gay people who don't look or act a thing like the societal stereotype of gay people being used here, and there are many straight people who do look and act in ways that resemble that societal stereotype. Until there is something more than rumors and stereotypes, this has no place in an encyclopedic biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with what you've stated but am not, presently, looking to do anything but look at the sources. Some of which are alleging a person willing to go record as having a sexual encounter. If anything comes of it then fine, if not then we can look at what is already presently available. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Please provide the unimpeachable reliable source which reports that Aaron Schock had a gay sexual encounter.
And no, not the unimpeachable reliable source which reports that someone said that someone else's unnamed anonymous friend said Aaron Schock had a gay sexual encounter. Because those are two really, really different things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point. Whether Schock is gay is NOT the crux of the media storm that's bedeviling him. So the absence of 'gay proof' is utterly irrelevant. The storm is being driven by (a) the existence of the rumors themselves (which have at least once provoked the question to be asked of him by a Chicago newspaper, requiring Schlock to state a rebuttal) and (b) the widespread discussion they've again provoked on the legitimacy of outing ANY politician who activity works against homosexual equality, should they indeed prove to be homosexual and therefore a hypocrite. And that is what is detailed in the proposed entry. The disputed Washington Post link is a news opinion piece published under the Washington Post banner which would be subject to the same editorial review as material published by the paper and is used here to confirm the previous sentence which refers to 'online discussion about the practice of 'outing' and the obligations of the Media to expose hypocrisy should such rumors be true.' Which it does. I include the full text of the post and references below for anyone new coming in to this discussion. A **3 MONTH** Freeze? Now that made me laugh.

This was just recently posted. It at least tells the narrative of where this last round came from. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

--Proposed Entry--

Aaron Schock has long been the subject of rumors that he is a homosexual[5], but has categorically denied the assertion.[6] In January 2014 the rumors again went viral following a Facebook posting by journalist Itay Hod. [7] Given Schock's discriminatory voting record against homosexual people, it provoked intense online discussion about the practice of 'outing' and the obligations of the Media to expose hypocrisy should such rumors be true.[8][9] On its ratings of the voting of Congressional members for equality, the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT civil rights advocacy group and political lobbying organization in the United States, scored Schock a zero.[10]
References

Engleham (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You could not make this up. I see from the Talk Page of User:George Ho who requested the block that they created pages such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Young_Man%27s_World Oh the irony. Oh the humanity. But I get it. Without wishing to be personal, I believe this dispute isn't about providing facts: it's about the desire to protect an aging prettyboy. I think I'm about to dry heave. Engleham (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are you surprised that gay people dont necessarily support attempts at outing people based on nothing more than rumors, innuendo and stereotypes? I am also gay, and I categorically reject your inference. Provide some real evidence of Schock's sexuality and we'll have something to discuss. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof, Can you or I add {{User gay male}} to your userpage then? George Ho (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The rights and wrongs of outing as it pertains to this case are excellently addressed by Michaelangelo Signoreli here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/why-i-hate-outing-and-how_b_4560156.html I suggest you two read it. However, whether you, he or I find the attempt to out Schock justified or offensive is irrelevant. That is personal opinion only. Whether Schock actually is gay, and has actively worked to deny equal rights to gay American soldiers being shotup in Afghanistan while he's been happily cavorting in a shower in Washington, etc, which is one of the allegations made, is also irrelevant to the issue as it pertains to Wikipedia. What IS relevant is that this media storm is fact, is happening, and has generated more nationwide articles and public comment over the past few days than anything else in the congressman has done in his career! It has gone far beyond gossip to a situation which, by the implication that he is comfortable with lying (he has issued specific denials multiple times, and that and his possible hypocrisy -- rather than homosexuality itself --, is the crux of the matter), has potentially threatened his political career, and certainly cast a shadow over it. So the reality of this justifies its inclusion in his entry. To deny this due to personal opinion and attempt to practice Wikipedia "censorship by absence" is unsupportable. Therefore, census needs to be reached on how the article will address it. You therefore need to specifically address the wording of the proposed revision itself, and if any fact within it is you find incorrect, suggest a different wording. But 'personal offense' can't come into it. Engleham (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No one? So, while there may not be happiness, there is grudging consensus on the revision is there? In that case, shall we request the block be removed? After all, 3 months is atypical and extraordinary. Engleham (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I fear that disagreement on closing it is on grounds for more comments at this time. Perhaps invite other Projects, as I did WT:LGBT. George Ho (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion is fine, but by ignoring notable criticism we are violating NPOV by censorship. Some mention of this certainly belongs as it has become national news. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
"Censoring" disputed rumors? Since when nationwide, yet contentious rumors becomes "news"? And even some "news" may not be worthy of inclusion, as the so-called "source" started the rumor in the first place. --George Ho (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Engleham: No, there is not "grudging" or any other consensus for your favorite paragraph in the world to be re-added to this article, and, no matter what happens, there will never be consensus for you to contribute the text, since you have been trying to re-add repeatedly for so long (at least 15 months) that you were blocked in September 2012 for it and then created sockpuppets just to re-add it while you were blocked for exactly the same thing. Your "No one?" line above proves that you still have a chronic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to being told that nobody is buying what you're selling. It's getting into topic ban territory for you, and if you don't quit it, you will get a very blatant lesson in what actual consensus looks like, in the form of a community topic ban discussion. --Closeapple (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
By the way, that part to Engleham above isn't aimed at anyone else who believes this topic should be added, as long as they're not pulling the same re-adding stunts. I just didn't want to leave any doubt whatsoever about the misleading statement about consensus, considering Engleham's history of concluding that "no" and silence both mean "yes". --Closeapple (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

After week 1: 11 January to onward[edit]

  • Strongly Oppose inclusion of rumors, allegations, claims, innuendos and all such because (need we really explain this?) such a course would be in blatant violation of Wikipedia rules. We are not here to reproduce unverified claims on people's lives. In fact, extra caution is to be applied when we're dealing with living persons.-The Gnome (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I, too, oppose including defamatory gossip, especially in a biography of a living person. The [Post article] previously cited even says its defamatory gossip!Attaboy (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
How is it defamatory to report on the media reports that someone is gay? In fact, how would it be defamatory to report that someone is gay? According to Wikipedia, "Defamation is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation."Omc (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You don't believe in those rumors, do you? These rumors are considered false at this time, unless they are verified to be true solely by Schock himself. George Ho (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It's defamatory to stir these unfounded rumors so that he can be called a hypocrite. The NYT article is a story about Hod reporting hearsay on Facebook. What Hod said on Facebook is not a credible source for Wikipedia. Ergo, a story about what Hod posted is no more credible of a source concerning what Hod reported, than the original report itself. This needs to be dropped, since there's no credible sources out there saying that Schock is gay. Wikipedia is not a repository of rumors, especially defamatory ones. Attaboy (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It's defamatory to stir these unfounded rumors so that he can be called a hypocrite. I don't agree. Look at the Wikipedia definition of defamation. It has two elements: (1) communication of a false statement, and (2) statement must harm the reputation. Both elements are required for the statement to be defamatory. A reference in the article to the widespread rumors and controversy might satisfy #2, but not #1. That said, I'm not advocating for this issue to be included in the article. I'm just speaking to your statement that this would be defamatory.167.212.7.1 (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I stand corrected. It is true that there have been rumors. As has been said before, rumors and gossip doesn't belong here, even if the gossip has been documented (as gossip, not fact) by some news sources. Attaboy (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I support inclusion of this information in this article. If the information about his misnaming "illegal immigrants" as "undocumented citizens" is worthy of inclusion -a reaction to his actions- then the information that others have reacted to this accusation is equally relevant. GreaseballNYC (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Why comparing opinions about illegal immigration to rumors about his sexuality? Actually, I'd rather include his comments about LGBT rights if he made one already. However, I don't know if BLP-pushers approve. Oh wait; he voted against gay marriage (should be same-sex marriage if "gay" is too POV for you), so verified comments over unverified sexuality, please. (See my request below the next section) George Ho (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The discussion is not about if he is gay or not in fact. We are discussing if the scandal regarding the possibility of his state as a closeted gay person is most certainly relevant.GreaseballNYC (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
This is gossip, not a scandal. No matter how many people talk about gossip, it is still a gossip. There are no legitimate sources saying that he is gay. There are however, legit sources saying that there is gossip. As such, it doesn't belong, per WP:NOTGOSSIP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attaboy (talkcontribs) 00:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As long as the Congressman's denial is included and referenced and the allegations are referenced to respected media sources such as the Washington Post and Politico, etc than I think it should be listed as reoccurring allegations with the denial of the Congressman.

As requested by George Ho, I am reposting these comments here.

The questions about Congressman's Schock orientation has not been officially confirmed, but allegations have begun to appear in the media in a greater occurrence. Because of his stand on issues involving the Gay community and the past position of other Congressman and Senators such as Congressman Foley, this matter should be referenced in the Wikipedia article as unconfirmed allegations. It should be listed along with the denial from the Congressman's office and highly regarded references so it is even handed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GustavM (talkcontribs) 02:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)‎

You said it right, these are allegations, i.e. an accusation of wrongdoing without proof. If you have to qualify something as "unconfirmed allegations," it doesn't belong here. The only good references I've seen here are the ones that say that this is gossip. There's a reason the 'original source' didn't use his name, he probably feared libel charges. Then this gossip gets propagated as "unconfirmed allegations." Come back when you have a highly regarded reference that actually says he's gay and isn't just repeating rumors. Attaboy (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's an example to compare this to: There have been rumors in the past that Obama wasn't born in the US (I don't believe these rumors). Even though these rumors became widespread and there were certainly news articles about these rumors, they don't belong in Obama's biography. I hope that helps you to understand how I'm viewing this. Attaboy (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose After reading all of this mess, my opinions are as follows. This seems extraneous at best. Rumors have no place on Wikipedia, even if they are true and widely believed. If Shock comes out, or is fully outed with reliable media sources to cite, his sexuality in and of itself is still not noteworthy, however, the inevitable reactions may be, if he is recalled, censured or his career is measurably damaged. Even if it is decided that information about Shock's sexuality is noteworthy due to his perceived stance against LGBT rights, none of the cited articles are trustworthy, notable or academically diligent. I wouldn't cite any of these sources in a college paper, so they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. This is not a place for calling out hypocrisy or providing political insight. It is an encyclopedia. Rumors about living people do not belong in an encyclopedia, period. If these allegations remain, unproven, well past Shock's death, to the point where they represent a notable facet of how his term in office is characterized in retrospect, then they may be included, and there will certainly be reliable sources to cite at that time. For now, my personal impression is that including rumors like this compromises your academic integrity, which in turn makes the statements about his undeniable discriminatory anti-LGBT voting record appear potentially biased and less meaningful. Finally, I think it merits saying that Engleham has done a great deal to incite discord and seems deadset on an outright flamewar. He has no problem using an aggressive tone and slinging ad hominem attacks, but has refused to directly address most valid points brought against him. I would venture that if Engleham feels so strongly about this dispute that he needs to lash out and attack his fellow contributors, he may want to review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and consider leaving this matter to the community to decide. If a contributor feels the need to storm around, raging at others, they should keep that to 4chan and reddit. Mfrisk (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article full protected[edit]

I have fully protected Aaron Schock (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) for 3 months or until there is clear consensus as to whether to include gossip and rumours regarding whether Schock is gay under this ruling of the Arbitration Committee and logged here. Editors discussing should bear in mind the following policy sub-sections:

The addition and removal of any other content is not covered by this prohibition, full protection is only the tool used to achieve it. I encourage admins to add non-contentious material without the necessity of consensus. The page may be unprotected once a clear consensus is assessed by an administrator. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The recent protection history seems excessive, or at least disproportionate. It was semi-protected after only one action, and fully protected under pretty much the same volume. It may be worth letting editing go forward. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
So we can let re-insertion and removal of the similar content within three months? George Ho (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I amend my comments as I didn't see the history as going back to Jan 4 or so, the fully protect was after only two reverts, I think since these ideas are widely reported that some mention is inevitable and fully protecting from any editing serves only to give the nature of this information more emphasis than is due. Reasonable editors should be allowed to work this out without the constraints of talk page consensus which can be, and in these subject areas, is, easily disrupted, some might say purposefully. Allowing regular editing would allow consensus to build on its own with obvious disruptive editors having to account for their edits. It would also help keep all potential editors focussed only on improving the article rather than swaying an argument. In other cases I've seen the full protection is only for a few days. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
As far as I see, only you and Engleham are in favor of inclusions. The rest of us aren't in favor of violating BLP policy by such inclusion, unless I'm misreading. George Ho (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, one before semi, two after semi, leading to full. That's just similar content. Just ask Callanecc if you prove that unprotection or semi-protection won't lead to further dispute. George Ho (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
In this particular case, as previous blocks resulted in the same volume of abusive/non-consensus behavior, I'd support the unusually-long 3 month block, now that I've become aware of Engleham (talk · contribs)'s history, still jamming substantially the same paragraph into the article, after being account blocked for it, then creating a sockpuppet, then jamming the same paragraph in with the sockpuppet, and having the sockpuppet blocked; and even after that, he's still been at it for an additional 15+ months. A WP:TOPICBAN for Engleham, combined with a partial protection to discourage sockpuppets, might be worked out as an alternative to full protection, if other users will refrain from adding the paragraph without consensus. But I don't think anything less than full protection will keep the article in line with consensus as long as Engleham is unrestricted — as we can see from the discussion above, that user responds to pages full of "No" with "there is grudging consensus on the revision is there?" --Closeapple (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think pending changes can stop either; level one or two (which is under discussion) won't help much. George Ho (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

For the purposes of comparing how this has placed with other similar articles, I did an audit. I took three politicians named in Outrage, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1049400/ the 2010 Emmy-nominated documentary on closeted politicians, and checked their Wikipedia entries and their Talk pages: Charlie Crist, Jim McCrery and David Dreier. Very interesting. Drier's article is the only one that mentions his sexuality, while the Talk pages of all three fluff around as this one does trying to square the circle and slicing and dicing Wikipedia's acronymed legislation - which as I've said before, is hopelessly open to personal interpretation, and can used to justify or squash anything. Consequently, anything controversial gets nowhere. THIS will get nowhere. How could it, when even Jimmy God Wales pipes up on McGrery's Talk page to say (with regard to an endlessly fought over inclusion on his sexuality: "I like the way it reads now, because a reader is very likely to come away with a balanced view of what happened here. At the same time, I still question whether any of this manages to pass WP:UNDUE. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)" Guess what. It hasn't been included. Copout or simple editorial exhaustion? Probably both. I believe the mainstream press could print the allegation about Schock's sexuality all day every day, but even mention of such a phenomenon would STILL not be allowed in the article until he confirmed it in the national media, or a rentboy did. So all the effort is wasted labour. Oh: and to the self-loathers here against the outing of those vote against equal rights: you should view Outrage. And be outraged. Engleham (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

After looking up Engleham's homepage manifesto on how Wikipedia should be run and edited (no rules and an agenda free-for-all), I have to strongly support, too, a topic ban of whatever duration admins decide. Mattinbgn's words further below are to the point. -The Gnome (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I've reported allegations about David Dreier in WP:BLPN. George Ho (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: content about Dreier is removed. George Ho (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly any discussion is absolutely pointless: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:George_Ho/Block_History&action=edit&section=20 Engleham (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Oh: and to the self-loathers here against the outing of those vote against equal rights: you should view Outrage. And be outraged". Unfortunately, this statement suggests strongly that you do not appear to understand the purpose of this project. It is not here to further any cause, no matter how righteous you may think it to be. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Until you understand this, you are likely to be continued to be disappointed in this project and your fellow editors. If you want to out people, even one you think are hypocrites, be my guest. Just don't do it here. We are not agents for your cause, or anyone's cause for that matter. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The January 16th edition of The New York Times just did a write up ([http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/fashion/Facebook-gay-congressman-Itay-Hod.html?ref=todayspaper see here) of the brouhaha that been a major item and does everything short of outing the Congressman, with hyperlinks to sources that name names. I think it's time to reconsider its inclusion. --75.161.175.221 (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you just move it to above the section? It's highly irrelevant to protection. Also, the source doesn't mention explicitly Schock, and inserting interpretation is disallowed. George Ho (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 January 2014[edit]

Schock is opposed to gay marriage, demonstrated by his support of House Amendment 1416, which Prohibits Use of Funds in Contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act, adopted 247 to 166 in the House July 19, 2012.

I wonder if Schock explicitly opposes "gay marriage". His voting for HR 1416, a failed bill that would have amended the HR 5856 (Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013) and prohibited funding gay married couples, doesn't make him an opponent of gay marriage, does it? If not, then it should be amended to omit assumption and bad interpretation. Or let's find sources that proves his opposition. If so, then what about "gay marriage"? Should it be "same-sex marriage" or something? Either way, wikilink that to same-sex marriage in the United States. George Ho (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wait, I found that the bill passed under the section 7 of Title 1 of the United States Code, a federal definition that defined "marriage" as one man and one woman. I can't find a source that proves it was abolished or something. Even when section 3 of DOMA is now unconstitutional, the sect. 7 of title 1 USC is still enacted. George Ho (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong; both are section 3 of DOMA and Title 1 Sect 7 are the same. Why does the House.gov still have that unconstitutional Code? George Ho (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I was definitely wrong; Obama makes it unconstitutional. However, the law still stands. After Obama, I guess some Republican President will re-constitutionalize and refuse funds, and some next Democratic President will wait for either Senate or House to create bill that will abolish that nasty Section 7 (or Sect. 3 of DOMA). George Ho (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. His support or opposition to a bill is not in of itself any evidence of his support or opposition to gay marriage. In its truest sense, it is nothing more than his belief of what the people he represents want, regardless of his true feelings on the matter. If you wanted to make such a change to the article, you would first have to find a reliable source that verifies that is indeed his personal stand (and not just what he is saying to keep his position by telling the people what they want to hear), and build a consensus based on that or those reliable source(s). Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand your word about interpretation and reliability. However, this revision shows the above quoted passage shown in the article. I wonder if you overlooked it. --George Ho (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I was previously and am still requesting rephrasing the tone of the passage that was overlooked. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 January 2014[edit]

Current version:

Schock is opposed to gay marriage, demonstrated by his support of House Amendment 1416, which Prohibits Use of Funds in Contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act, adopted 247 to 166 in the House July 19, 2012.[1]

Proposed version:

Schock voted for House Amendment 1416, which Prohibits Use of Funds in Contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act, adopted 247 to 166 in the House July 19, 2012.[2]

References

The current version is totally biased and partially unverified. I would hope that someone here understands my proposal. Also, I think I need comments about this proposed edit. George Ho (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I support this change. The current version is making a judgement call, while the proposed version is fact-based. If there's a source out there quoting Schock saying that he's opposed to gay marriage, then the original version could be rewritten to include that source. Attaboy (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if either source proves his side on gay marriage: [1][2]. George Ho (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I've replaced the paragraph in the article. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 March 2014[edit]

Hi! I'd like to add the following information about a bill Schock introduced into the House that is scheduled for a floor vote today. Bills introduced by a specific congressperson are usually notable on that person's page because it indicates that s/he is highly interested in that topic. The proposed text is:

Schock and Rep. William R. Keating jointly introduced the Equitable Access to Care and Health Act (H.R. 1814; 113th Congress) on April 29, 2013.[1] The bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code, with respect to minimum essential health care coverage requirements added by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to allow an additional religious exemption from such requirements for individuals whose sincerely held religious beliefs would cause them to object to medical health care provided under such coverage.[1] Individuals could file an affidavit to get this exemption, but would lose the exemption if they went on to later use healthcare.[2] Schock and Keating wrote a letter in support of their bill saying, "we believe the EACH Act balances a respect for religious diversity against the need to prevent fraud and abuse."[2]

This paragraph should probably be under the "legislative history" section, but could potentially be incorporated into a section on related policy. Thanks!

HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. No objections in three days, so done. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Looks good. HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)