Talk:Bob Etheridge

"Assault" video

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

Due to the edit war regarding this section I've protected this article for an hour so things can simmer down. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Here it is, should anyone feel that it "happened" - or that having one of the nation's most respected liberal writers calling for a Congressman's arrest is "notable":

Incident with student

In June 2010, a blogger posted a video to YouTube which shows the full confrontationfrom two cameras between Etheridge and two photographers who identify themselves only as students and whose faces are blurred in the video. Etheridge initially responds to the question about "do you support Obama's agenda" by asking the men to identify themselves. It is normal media procedure, including documentary film makers to introduce themselves and their organization before asking a question. The young man pictured in the video just keeps saying "we're students" and mentions a "project." In some versions posted online, text has been introduced into the video, but filmed portions show the entire incident from the initial encounter to showing the Congressman walking away. Some versions, e.g. on utube have been edited with both apparent cuts and repeat(s). The video shows Etheridge grabbing one photographer by the wrist after taking his camera, then pulling him close around his neck and putting his arm around his shoulder, turning him towards the camera and repeating "who are you?" Etheridge's office has now released an apology.

Glenn Greenwald, a former civil rights litigator and columnist for Salon, has called for Etheridge's arrest on assault charges.f>

Etheridge was ambushed by opponents of health care reform last year and has repeatedly endured protestors outside his local office in NC.

You mention that he can be seen in the video taking (stealing?) one of the "students'" cameras but the article does not mention that the congress man did this. Weather he did or he didn't take the camera has been debated several other places including the comments section for the original video. If he did it should be mentioned since that is technically yet another crime he committed. 98.247.192.99 (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Etheridge "took" the young man's camera is speculative at this point and does not belong in the article. None of the above references mention this at all in the article. This accusation is mentioned in the article discussion, but that is not a reliable source.--RadioFan (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the edits

As for the edits, they are due to issues with BLP/NPOV regarding the poster & content. It came from an entity known for provoking such actions. The second camera angle is the other person with the camera. They aren't going to be likely to keep things neutral and provoke at the same time.

I've also cleaned up the commentary that should have been put in the Talk page (that was in the article).

At least it's now protected so it can be talked about.

208.54.35.94 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It could have been talked about before. You were out of line with your continual blanking of content.—Chowbok ☠ 17:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Covered by Fox News, no reason to hide it now. Spoom^Talk 17:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that students questioning a public official is normally seen as a provocation justifying assault. But then I could be wrong, so luckily we have notable secondary sources like Greenwald. His words, "Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC) was walking on a public sidewalk last week when he was politely asked a question by someone holding a camera, and this is what happened: (Video Link) That's a clear case of assault and battery (the unedited video from the first camera is here). There is some speculation that the individuals questioning him have some connection to the right-wing organization of Andrew Breitbart. I hope it goes without saying how irrelevant that is. The only reason I think this is worth noting is this: imagine what would have happened to those students if this situation had been reversed, and it was them who had physically assaulted Rep. Etheridge, rather than the other way around. How quickly would they have been arrested and prosecuted? The application of our laws isn't supposed to depend upon who is perpetrating the crime and who the victim is. Obviously, there are few principles, if there are any, more discarded than that one in Washington, but it would be nice to see its being applied in this instance by having this Congressman, obviously inebriated with an extreme sense of entitlement, arrested and charged." 99.141.250.125 (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The point is that it's already been covered by numerous reliable sources. We don't have to form an opinion here about whether he was justified or not (in fact, we shouldn't), but it's ridiculous to suggest that it shouldn't be in the article at all. There's supposed to be a press release on the incident coming from Etheridge's office shortly, that should help balance it out.—Chowbok ☠ 17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I was merely questioning 208's apparent take that no mention should be made of the "justified" assault.99.141.250.125 (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is quite relevant to know who those people were from - it establishes their reputation and history, whatever that may be.

To reverse the situation would also mean that you'd have to give those people Congressional immunity. Otherwise you would see these folks arrested.

208.54.35.34 (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. If a journalist with an agenda (Michael Moore or the ACORN "Pimp") approached someone on the street with a question, and the subject of the interview assaulted the journalist, the fact that the journalist had an agenda shouldn't matter a bit. Any edits seeking to change the tone of this article to "explain" or "justify" the Congressman's actions because the students might have had an agenda, might be conservative, etc. is unqualified for retention. I think the two videos speak for themselves, and this article should reflect those plain facts without undue Right or Left wing spin.

Full apology:http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0610/Etheridge_apologizes.html?showall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.250.125 (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I think we should reinsert the paragraph about the assault, possibly still under protection. The video is being played heavily in the news and the Congressman's office has released a statement, so the time is ripe for the article to reflect the news.

Said sources started with already biased/non-neutral information. I don't recall Wikipedia being a place you can put undesirable stuff for just political gain. That's what those people who can't bother to name themselves that ask for trouble are doing. They are non-constituents harassing a Congressman - only wishing to score political points.

Sign your comment, if you don't mind.

208.54.35.34 (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a newsworthy event - regardless of what political persuasion you are. Politicians generally do not get physical with people asking them questions on the street. My point is this is a factually verified event that should be included in the article. Nothing more. And check your own political agenda - your allegations that the students were "non-constituents" are completely unfounded and unproven, as is your claim they were "harassing." The video clearly shows they were polite before and during the encounter. Stick to the facts and you'll be alright. 72.4.247.26 (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Everybody needs to stop talking about who was right or wrong in the incident. This is not the place to discuss that. The question is whether it's notable enough to be added, and I think it clearly is.—Chowbok ☠ 18:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Those people have not proven that they are constitutents of his district/state, much less offered to identify themselves. They came to provoke, and would have not been satisfied with any answer. They already knew his record. The best way for them to clear it up is to identify themselves accurately, truthfully, and without further attempts at provocation. Thus my comments stand.

Notability, yes - for knowingly going in with a political agenda from out of state.

208.54.35.34 (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This information belongs in the article, what doesn't belong is any deeper analysis of the situation than is offered in sources used to reference what is written here. Even that should be kept as neutral as possible. Were the students trying to provoke him, perhaps, did the congressman react violently, sure appears that way and reliable sources are backing up that assessment as well. That's as far as the coverage here needs to go. We dont need to delve into the motives of these students or even whether the congressman was right or wrong to react the way he did, doing so would possibly make it a bigger deal than it actually is (either way), thats what Wikipedia is for. It happened, it was widely covered in the press and the congressman so it belongs here.

We should also be careful not to read anything else into the situation, particularly if its not backed up by reliable sources. I just removed language that stated that the young men "refused" to identify themselves. The source used (WRAL) does not characterize it this way so doing so would be original research.--RadioFan (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, its still not clear who the 2 young men involved in this incident are. They claim to be students but reliable sources are questioning that (Washington Post theorizes that they are from Brietbart.com for example but offers no clear evidence of that). Until there is a reliable source credibly identifies who these people are, it would be best to identify them generically (i.e. "young men") rather than as "students".--RadioFan (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

But "young men" is WP:OR... nah, I'm kidding. Section looks good now. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, perhaps we should change it to "humanoid bipeds" just to be safe ;)--RadioFan (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the description of the event leaves out important information.

1. The identity of the individuals besides the Congressman- if they are known.
2. Any affiliation they might have with other groups- if it is known.
3. That during the incident, as shown on video, the Congressman continues physically holding onto the arm of one of the individuals after being asked multiple times to let go. I believe this is significant, as the text currently in use does not communicate that the Congressman held on for a substantial amount of time (27 seconds), or that the other individual tried to disengage from any physical altercation- as they did in a fully peaceful manner (at least on the videos I have seen).

• I will plan to edit the section to address (3) later tonight. As verifiable information regarding (1) and (2) are available, they should be added.

Packetmonger (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What appear to be unedited source video from both camera's, including the one that spent most of the time on the ground are available at [1]

• A few other links:
  • "Bob Etheridge Altercation With "Student" Caught on Tape, Goes Viral" [2]
  • "Bob Etheridge Apologizes for "Poor Response" to Sidewalk Cameramen" [3] This includes an edited (by CBS) video of the Congressman's second news conference on the subject, where he apologized again.Packetmonger (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Breitbart secret police

It's being reported that the students were actually secret agents under Breitbart. how come the articles doesn't mention this? its reported here and I heard it on msnbc. Rick "I shoot dead people" Grimes (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If verifiable information from multiple reliable sources is available, then the article should be updated to reflect that, but not before. At present the only coverage I've seen in the media on the identity of these young men is pure speculation including the link above (and its from the Talking Points Memo blog, not MSNBC). Breitbart claims they know nothing about the 2 in the video. There isn't even any "unnamed sources" type reporting going on (though that's not good enough for our purposes here) just assumptions about the identity. This is likely being driven by the DNC criticizing Brietbart in the same breath they talk about the incident in. It may be Breitbart, it may be some other blog, it may be actual students as they claim, but none of this belongs in the article until it can be better sourced.

Look, this article is being watched by a lot of people and we need to be careful not to introduce any original research and pay special attention to BLP guidelines. Not just for BLP's sake but to prevent this from turning into a breeding ground for partisan nonsense. Everyone keep in mind that this article isn't going anywhere, additions can wait until there are good sources for the material.--RadioFan (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if it is verified that they were in fact working with or for Breitbart, only a passing mention of it is needed. We may not agree entirely with how his website is run and some of us may define his brand of "journalism" as something closer to propaganda, but that is beside the point. Rep. Etheridge has been approached by much more aggressive reporters in the past and not reacted this way. This section is getting to big as it is.98.247.192.99 (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

New Democrat Coalition & Freemason membership

The previous out of date, unreferenced information has started showing up quoted in the press. Not just bloggers but supposed professional journalists are lazy and will copy and paste a Wikipedia article including any inaccuracies. This section has been completely rewritten to better comply with WP:BLP. It was either out of date or just plain wrong and lacked any references. Claims of membership and leadership in the Freemasons have been removed. Please provide reliable sources before adding these back. --RadioFan (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, a quick and easy Google finds clear confirmation of his status as Freemason - something that also appears quite politically valuable as a service organization doing charitable community work:[4][5] As both the organization ("Grand Orator Bob Etheridge, representative to the United States Congress, will make the keynote address"[6]) and the subject (in the form of his official bio[7]) claim it, revert yourself.99.141.250.125 (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Still more Freemason ref's: Here he gets nearly the whole front page,[8] More:[9]....99.141.250.125 (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add information on his membership in this organization (with appropriate references). Please do not simply restore the previous section however because it was clearly out of date (number of grandchildren was wrong for instance) and had zero references.--RadioFan (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to revert yourself. The article is locked.99.141.250.125 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's semi protected, not locked.--RadioFan (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, its members only "Semi". I still can't undo your removal of longstanding, non-controversial and easily sourced info. 99.141.250.125 (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Also please re-add the quite notable "Bob Etheridge is a member of the New Democrat Coalition." that you removed. Also, it should more correctly read, "Bob Etheridge is a charter member of the New Democrat Coalition." It's quite notable and should never have been deleted.99.141.250.125 (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's an easily found source for that info you removed. [10] .... 99.141.250.125 (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I'm in the least surprised to see you, RadioFan, ignore this and fail to correct your error.99.141.250.125 (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It was unsourced, it's a BLP, so it goes Let's keep this about the article and the process and not get personal. "Easily sourced" doesn't cut it either. It's the responsibility of the editor adding the material to properly source it, dont leave work for others, especially with a BLP article. If any of you want to read this material with proper sourcing, feel free. If the current protection level prevents you from doing it, post your proposed addition here and one of the reviewers like myself will review it and post it. I'm not going to restore unsourced material and neither are any of the reviewers. --RadioFan (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced? It's in his official bio and widely available. You've been here long enough to know proper etiquette: "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." That you now find any reason, no matter how specious, to resist returning non-controversial and incontrovertible long-standing edits to the article is striking. Your petty use of the power of an account on a locked page and resistance to restoring the long standing info is neither neutral nor in the article's, or even Wikipedia's best interests. I really do object to your effort to evade, ignore and resist a simple request to correct your heavyhanded and mistaken removal of the longstanding, non-controversial and easily sourced material. 99.141.250.125 (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

membership in New Democrat Coalition has been moved to the politics section and is sourced by official biography. The Masonic newsletter seems to be a reasonably reliable source and it has been used to add a sentence about his membership and position there. With an eye to keeping the article as nuetral as possible, the word "active" has been left out as the sources that have been discussed here do not describe him this way. The references mentioning the Grand Orator position are from 2006 so "currently" doesn't appear to be appropriate either.--RadioFan (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Confusedkid, 16 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please include the date. The exact date is 14th June 2010.

source: http://etheridge.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=190412

Confusedkid (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Include the date of what? June 14 is th exact date Etheridge released the statement you reference above. It is not clear from that statement when the incident actually occurred. A dateline on a press release is of little interest, the date that the incident occurred would be a good addition however. Are there any sources that identify when the incident occurred?--RadioFan (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Description of incident

As Etheridge has not been charged, let alone convicted, of any crime, using terms like "assault" violate WP:BLP. Referring to what hapened as "The 14 June incident" whilst decribing what the video appears to show, is sufficient. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The language needs to be as neutral as possible. Should charges be filed, things might change but that doesn't appear to be the case now or anytime in the future.--RadioFan (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Relatedly, 'neck and back of shirt' seems to very, very odd phrasing. I just watched the video. Doesn't sit right. Lots42 (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Any other suggestions for wording here?--RadioFan (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Like suggestions to write a neutral and encyclopedic article on the subject? Should we include coverage of notable affiliations? 99.141.250.125 (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, notable affiliations would make a good addition to the article as a whole, provided they are adequately sourced, but I dont think they belong in description of the accident. That is what we are discussing in this section, look 2 sections up for discussion of that information. --RadioFan (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Two sections up is where you're having a laugh toying with the article, and its well sourced and long standing listing of notable affiliations. You removed them without basis only to have multiple refs produced within minutes - and now you refuse to do the right thing and correct yourself - and most importantly, the encyclopedic record. 99.141.250.125 (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The "encyclopedic record" should be a dispassionate, non-POV account of what happened, with no WP:BLP issues. It should not include speculation about the effect this might have on his career, loaded words or POV that either seeks to excuse his actions or the opposite. The section as it is now I think is pretty good. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The particular tangent of the discussion you responded to was regarding the well sourced, long-standing and non-controversial edits referring to his membership in the New Democrat Coalition and as a local Freemason.[11][12][13][14][15][16] [17] The article, (starting with only the 30th contribution and going back 4+ years [18][19]), stated, "Bob Etheridge is a member of the New Democrat Coalition. He is active in Freemasonry and is currently the Grand Orator for North Carolina Freemasonry." RadioFan removed that sentence because a different sentence said he had two grandchildren when he apparently now has six. I can't square the logic of why an error in counting grandchildren somehow gives license to wholesale revisionism and excising of long standing edits - but that was his, RadioFan's, "reasoning". His error was pointed out within minutes - he's now ignored, evaded and resisted all efforts to correct his error. .99.141.250.125 (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that the "encyclopedic record" should be a dispassionate, non-POV account. It's quite glaringly obvious that at this point, and on this point, it is anything but dispassionate, neutral or encyclopedic. .99.141.250.125 (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Re-election chances

Does this

Political analysts have commented on the potential effect of this confrontation on Etheridge's chances of reelection against Republican candidate Renee Ellmers.

fall foul of what Wikipedia is not? I am looking at sections like: "By comparison, the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." What may or may not happen in November's election is pure speculation, as is whether this incident will affect his chance of re-election. The sources cited are either blogs or merely pose the question of whether or not there will be an effect. Until we know there has been an effect, or until it becomes an issue on the campaign trail. I don't think such speculation should be in the article. Indeed, other sources can be found to say this is just a flash in the pan and it will all have blown over by November. I don't think either kind of speculation should be included. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The controversy has been linked to a significant increase in fund raising for Etherridge's opponent. While Civitas institute, a conservative organization hired the pollster, Survey USA is a non partisan pollster that found Etherridge in a dead heat. Perhaps this info would better be situated in a new section for the 2010 election campaign? I agree that going into too much detail and speculation would be overboard but a sentence might be appropriate.Boromir123 (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The first reference used in this section mentions nothing about the incident impacting Etheridge's reelection chances. It specifically mentions voter turnout as a factor for Etheridge at the new election. Both the ABC news story and N&O article address the impact of the incident on his re-electability. As written in the article, its neutral ("analysts have commented") is suitably neutral , meets verifiable requirements and is significant enough to warrant inclusion in the biography. I would argue that the first reference can be removed as it doesn't appear to be supporting anything in the article.--RadioFan (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Prior incident

RadioFan just removedthe details about the prior incident allegation. Although there are conflicting reports about what happened in that incident, it seems like it should be mentioned. Thoughts? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the incident is sourced and relevant to this article. Providing both sides of the conflicting reports is important.Boromir123 (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This info was added, removed and has been readded. The only reference provided is this one. It's a story based on recolections of an encounter with Etheridge by then high school senior 14 years ago. The man in question describes the event as "trying to get his attention" rather than trying to hurt him. Seems to me that including this is making more out the event than it really is. I wanted to get some other opinions before removing it.--RadioFan (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree it has no place in a discussion of the June 2010 incident. If it was such a meaningful incident it would have been added to the article before now. It would have been notable without this further incident. We need to be very careful that this article is not used for a partisan agenda, on either side. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course the event isn't notable by itself. But it is relevant as an aspect of the ongoing controversy. That's the clear context where it arose. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

An unfounded allegation made by partisan interests is rarely, if ever, relevant, and should not be inlcuded in a BLP. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what evidence you have that this is a "partisan" allegation, and even if such allegations were rarely relevant the relevancy of this particular claim is pretty obvious given that the behavior is the same sort that Etheridge engaged in on video camera. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

allegation of Republican operative involvement

I removed the blurb on purported involvement of Republican campaign operatives for the following reasons:

1. The allegation is given the briefest possible mention (and as an aside) in the cited article. No names or other supporting details are provided. There's no way to verify
2. Even if true, there is no attempt to substantiate *why* this matters. This situation is weird enough that there's probably some truth to all of the explanations - they probably were students, but maybe they knew people working for Republican campaigners, etc. Who cares? As written, it sets up a POV WP:COATRACK of guilt by association. Best to leave it out.

Ronnotel (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I trust the NY Times to verify. "Briefest possible mention" does not mean it is not a valid point. The NYT article was not about Etheridge alone; it mentioned the Etheridge situation in the context of broader actions by Repulican operatives. The Etheridge article is about Etheridge, not the entire political system. There is no reason that verified information that pertains to Etheridge should not be included. It has direct bearing on how Etheridge lost the election and some (not all) of the factors that were behind it. It does not violate WP:WEIGHT either; this was a major event in Etheridge's career. It is one sentence in the entire article. And the article does not stray from what the NY Times reports.
2. "Even if it were true"??? There's no reason to believe it is not true. I fail to see this questioning of the reliability or accuracy of the NY Times; please provide a rationale for why you consider an article in the NY Times to be so unreliable. As for "why" it matters, I addressed that above. This is not a minor blip in either Etheridge's political life or U.S. politics. And no one has denied that these people were students. "Who cares?" Wikipedia readers care, regardless of their politics. Remember readers? That's who we are writing for; not for those of us who are already familiar with the information. The fact that it discusses conflicts between political parties is not POV. "POV" suggests bias. The information is as well sourced from a neutral source as it can be. I think it is more POV to leave it out. If someone can find additional reliably sourced information refuting the NYT information, I welcome it; that would make an even more informative article. But in the mean time, this is perfectly legitimate information that does not violate any Wikipedia policies.

For a complete article, imperative to leave it in. Cresix (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If the point to this blurb is that the Republicans were involved in unethical political shenanigans then the text is fine as is. However, that hardly seems something appropriate to comment on in this article. I've tweaked the comment and removed much of the unnecessary commentary. What's left is barely notable and, IMHO, detracts from the article's quality, but there it is. Ronnotel (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"Shenanigans", regardless of political party, is quite appropriate to report in an article about a political figure. Read other articles about politics. I tweaked further to indicate that the source is reliable (NYT), and to reflect what the source reported. I'll ask you not to turn this into an edit war. Let's see if other opinions are reported here. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

One person's shenanigans are someone else's First Amendment-protected free speech, no? In any case, the source of the statement is available in the citation and not needed inline. I don't see any relevant details about who denied what when, nor do I see why it would matter. Per WP:UNDUE. Ronnotel (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As for the source, I don't object to removing that it was from the NYT; I added that because you were making such a fuss that the information might not be accurate. Otherwise, I completely disagree with you. You're the one who used the word "shenanigans". I'm not concerned with whether this is called shenanigans, First Amendent rights, or any of a thousand other descriptors. I just want the complete facts as reported in the reliable source; and the source does not use qualifiers such as "allegedly" or "possibly". And once again, one sentence of useful information is not a violation of WP:UNDUE. Now, this is a legitimate disagreement between you and me, so let's see if a consensus develops. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)OK - let's take out the source. I'm still not sure about the "despite earlier denials". Can you source that? Ronnotel (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable point; I may have interpreted too much into the statement "Only this week" from the source. Without objection, I'll remove it. Cresix (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I really think the wording of the Republican Strategists coordinating the incident is too strong or misleading. According to dictionary.com to coordinate means to place or arrange in proper order or position to combine in harmonious relation or action. To me "coordinating the incident" implies a premeditated and planned effort to target Bob Etheridge in an attempt to to illicit the specific reaction he gave. There is no evidence or sources that I can find that said that the Republican strategists premeditatively and specifically targeted Etheridge or created a plan to get this strong controversial reaction. There has been acknowledgement that the men asking the questions were associated with the Republican Strategists is some way, but they could have just coincidentally ran into Etheridge or were in an area were Democrats were present and just wanted to ask a question to any democrat they came across. There certainly isn't any evidence that the young men went out in an attempt to provoke a physical confrontation. Also I dont think anyone who is intellectually honest with themselves could believe that asking "Do you fully support the Obama agenda" was an attempt to provoke or "coordinate" a physical confrontation. I believe a proper wording would be something along the lines of, "the young men had an association with the Republican strategists", rather than Republican Strategist coordinated the incident. Remember the burden of proof lies on people making strong claims such as Republican strategists planned and coordinated the confrontation, and that burden of proof, at least currently, doesn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.188.95 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is not for a discussion of politics; it's for discussion to improve the article. The information from the article is a summary of what is in a reliable source. That's all that's needed for it to be in the article. Cresix (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with anon. The allegation is unsupported by the source. An off-hand mention, utterly lacking any specifics is not adequate to make such an accusation. BLP articles require solid sourcing, which has not been provided. Ronnotel (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh geez Ronnotel, not again!! How many times are you going to try to POV-push this. Get over it. The New York Times reports the incident as it is described in the article. The New York Times. Are you again arguing that the description in the Wikipedia article is not an accruate reflection of the NYT article? If so, how does the Wikipedia article differ from the NYT article? Are you again arguing that the NYT is not a reliable source? If so, please provide a rationale. We settled this. Please move on. Cresix (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I just changed the wording from "coordinated" to "they were behind the episode", a direct quote from the New York Times. Does that satisfy everyone? Cresix (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Cresix, accusations of POV-pushing are uncalled for. I'm simply pointing out the WP:BLP requires a higher level of sourcing. Not everything published by a reliable source needs to be included in the article. Given that the reporter didn't bother to provide any details whatsoever - names, dates, places, etc. - of the alleged involvement of these "Republican operatives", we can and must infer that this detail was not considered all that important. Therefore it fails per notability. If you can find better sourcing then it may belong. For now, I'm leaning strongly that it should be removed. Ronnotel (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

See my comments after the anon's comment below. And "lean" all you want. Lean until you fall flat. Just don't edit war and change without consensus. Cresix (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. And to be honest, I don't really see a consensus for keeping it. Ronnotel (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And further, from WP:V: "sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." (emphasis mine). To support this statement, I think you need something more than an unverifiable throw-away line with no details to back it up. Ronnotel (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it is poorly sourced and a "throw-away line". In the absence of any contradictory evidence, I consider it very well sourced and notable. And to be honest, I don't really see a consensus for removing it. I'll kindly remind you again not to edit war or remove without consensus or other acceptable means of dispute resolution. You are not an admin in this discussion, Ronnotel. You are a participant in a consensus discussion, and you do not own the article. I will not hesitate to take this to WP:ANI if necessary; and that's not because I feel so strongly about the Etheridge article in particular. This is a matter of principle. I don't intended to sit back idly so you can shove your version of policies down others' throats. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) Look, I'm really not interested in edit warring. But do you realize that WP:3RR doesn't apply when removing poorly sourced contentious material from BLP's? I suggest we remove the material for now, and open a thread at WP:BLPN to get broader feedback. Ronnotel (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

3RR applies when there is disagreement about whether the information is poorly sourced. And that is the case here. No, I do not agree to removing the material now. But, of course, you are free to take this up in any venue to obtain more opinions. Cresix (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"They were behind the episode" isn't much better. I also don't understand how my previous post was a political discussion. Im specifically talking about a piece of the article and how to improve it by changing the wording. I believe the wording in the WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE was misleading and mischaracterized the story. I don't see how one article from NY times that doesn't cite any primary sources or quote anybody is alone enough to support such strong wording as Republican Strategists "coordinated" or "where behind an incident" in which a Democratic congressman physically confronted a young adult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.188.95 (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat something: It is a direct quote from the New York Times. What is "mischaracterizing" about a direct quote from the source? As a direct quote it can be considered accurate unless you can make a valid case that the New York Times is not a reliable source. Please make that case before you argue for "changing the wording". Make the case that the New York Times is not a reliable source. Additionally, feel free to provide an equally reliable source which disputes that Republican strategists were behind the incident. That's the way it works on Wikipedia. If a reliable source provides information, it generally is accepted, unless an equally reliable source disputes the information, and then the discrepancy is noted in the article. Cresix (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Burden of proof does not lie on disproving a claim. I can not just go around making claims and then stating disprove me or it stands as fact. For example there are blogs and articles speculating that Etheridge could have been drunk during the altercation, I can not simply post that speculation or weak claim in the Wiki article and then say the you must supply me proof he wasn't drunk for it to be removed from the article. You can't make the claim that Republican strategists were behind the incident without much evidence and say that its a Fact because we haven't disproved it. Remember this is Wikipedia not the New York Times Encyclopedia. Its not like the NY times is infallible. In fact the NY times has made gross mistakes in some instances when covering politically charged incidents, the Duke Lacrosse case being one of them. If you want evidence here is one example. In a march 32, 2006 aricle by the Times by Selena Roberts on the Duke Lacrosse case She falsely stated that none of the players “have come forward to reveal an eyewitness account.” This has been proven to not be the case, as the 3 Lacrosse Captains gave voluntary detailed accounts of the goings on of the party in question before the case became public without being asked and volunteered to take a lie detector. Evidence of this can be found at this site here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong. She falsely contended that a “court document” described the accuser as “the victim of a hate crime.” She noted that the accuser was “reportedly treated at a hospital for vaginal and anal injuries consistent with sexual assault and rape.” The reports were false; no correction ever appeared. Robert also stated that “something happened March 13” that “threatens to belie [the players’] social standing as human beings.” Since the Lacrosse players were in an unprecedented action actually declared INNOCENT of any wrong doings by the government of North Carolina not just not guilty thus making the NY times and Roberts claim grossly incorrect and in fact slanderous. Look these claims by roberts online. They have all been disproved. Here are the main two sources the point out Roberts falsehoods. http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/03/times-party-line.html and the book Until Proven Innocent which the NY times itself gave a positive review to. If you want me to further show you incorrect and false claims by NY times, especially their gross mishandling of the Duke Lacrosse case I can continue.

The burden of proof when a reliable source is challenged lies with the editor who is challenging the accuracy of the source. We're not discussing the ethics of journalism as in the Duke case. We're talking about whether information from a reliable source can be accepted by Wikipedia in the absence of any contradicting reliable source. And the answer is: Information from reliable sources is accepted unless such contradictory evidence is provided. How far do you think I would get if I went through hundreds of Wikipedia articles challenging everything reported by a source as reliable as the NYT? Not very far. And no one said that the NYT is infallible. No person, no newspaper, no source is infallible. But do we then leap to the conclusion that because good sources can be fallible we should never accept content from a reliable source if one or two editors think the information might not be true? The Duke case even illustrates my point. When the veracity of information in the Duke case was provided in reliable sources, then that should be noted in a Wikipedia article on the topic. That's the way it works here. A reliable source is accepted until someone provides reliable evidence to the contrary. And so far, that reliable evidence has not been provided except in the opinions of two editors. Two Wikipedia editors' opinions that information from the NYT is not reliable is a far cry from sufficient to reject the information. Stop running roughshod over WP:V and WP:RS. I'll repeat: when a reliable source is challenged, there needs to be some evidence from another reliable source that the information is inaccurate. Please provide something besides your personal opinion. Otherwise it is POV-pushing your own interpretation of Wikipedia policies. Cresix (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Is a Student Asking a Simple Question Really an "Ambush"?

Come on, a Member of Congress ought to be able to answer a simple question on the street without erupting into anger and certainly without grabbing the kid's arm. Using the label "ambush" makes it seem as if somehow it is inappropriate to see a Member of Congress and pose a question to him/her regarding a vote. But that isn't at all inappropriate in America, nor is it an "ambush." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not referred to as an ambush in the article. Also, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ after them. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 00:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Anon 70.44, new sections go at the bottom of this page, not the top. And this matter is under discussion, immediately above. Feel free to comment, but don't remove the information from the article without consensus. Cresix (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Cresix's and Ronnotel's etiquette

WP:EQ. I have found Cresix's etiquette on this page to be very uncomfortable, condescending, rude and unprofessional. In our discussion of this article, primarily dealing with the alleged Republican Operative involvement , Cresix has used tactics to prevent discussion and mischaracterize arguments. He simply states that anything that goes against his opinion on what should be in the article is either simply a POV push or an attempt to discuss politics which is not the case. By mischaracterizing discussion he is preventing discussion.

As for some of his rude and unprofessional behavior I have posted the following incidents:

1. "Oh geez Ronnotel, not again!! How many times are you going to try to POV-push this. Get over it." Im not sure how this qualifies as a legitimate discussion or counter argument to a disagreed upon point. It comes off rude and can intimidate an attempt at true discussion. I don't see "get over it" as an intellectual way to state your disagreement or provide a counter argument to some one's point in a healthy discussion.

2. "And "lean" all you want. Lean until you fall flat." Once again Cresix in a rude way is dismissing an argument, threating the poster with marginalizing his discussion points along with a superficial dismissal of any evidence he may present.

3. "I don't intended to sit back idly so you can shove your version of policies down others' throats." Once again a very rude comment that grossly mischaracterizes a point by a poster. This over exaggeratory mischaracterization of points that conflict with his own is uncalled for and very dangerous. Just because poster has an opinion on what should be or not be in the article that you dont agree with doesn't mean he is "shoving ideas down peoples throats" and that its you moral mission to stop it. This comment took me aback, quite honestly. This could intimidate discussion and could serve as a censoring tool to discussion. By just labeling certain valid points simply as malevolent action (shoving ideas down peoples throats for example) cresix is promoting censorship as well as possible intimidation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.188.95 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for riding to my rescue, 76, but I assure you I'm not bothered by any of these comments. :) In the future, there's a board dedicated to discussion of etiquette issues. Probably best to post these sort of comments there. Ronnotel (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My purpose was to not simply ride to your personal rescue, though I'm glad you appreciate it. I'm glad these comments don't bother you, but they bother me and possibly others. Though the comments may have been directed towards you they have a wider reaching effect on anybody who reads the discussion and is contemplating posting. Also some of cresix's tactics could be applied to others to dismiss and marginalize their points now or in the future, which doesn't sit well with me. It seems to be a trend for discussion for this article and I posted accordingly.- 76.102.188.95 (talk), 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bob Etheridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619082501/http://www.newsobserver.com:80/2010/06/16/535042/etheridge-slip-puts-foe-on-map.html? to http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/06/16/535042/etheridge-slip-puts-foe-on-map.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615004302/http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/pittsboro_mayor_named_new_democratic_party_chairman to http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/pittsboro_mayor_named_new_democratic_party_chairman
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425234901/http://www.bobetheridgeforgovernor.com:80/ to http://www.bobetheridgeforgovernor.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708112036/http://www.house.gov/tauscher/ndc/index.shtml to http://www.house.gov/tauscher/ndc/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bob Etheridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100608223034/http://etheridge.house.gov/Biography/ to http://etheridge.house.gov/Biography/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/06/16/535042/etheridge-slip-puts-foe-on-map.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thepilot.com/news/2010/jun/18/former-resident-recalls-run-in-with-etheridge/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101023224835/http://grandlodge-nc.org/nc-mason/archives/2006/NCM%20131-2.pdf to http://www.grandlodge-nc.org/nc-mason/archives/2006/NCM%20131-2.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bobetheridgeforgovernor.com//

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)