Talk:Randy Neugebauer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. House of Representatives[edit]

Committee Assignments Need to be Updated--request edit Subcommittee Names and Assignments have changed in 113th Congress. Financial Services: Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance (Chairman) [1] Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises [2] Agriculture: Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management Subcommittee on Livestock Dairy and Poultry is now Livestock, Rural Development, and CreditCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Subcommittee on Environment [3] Starfi$h (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't believe the comment is notable enough to include in the article. Notibility is not temporary, and I doubt coverage of this comment will last much past this week. (See WP:NEWSBRIEF.) I suggest deletion of the section in question. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest you bring that suggestion back up in a couple of weeks, as it will meet a lot of resistance now.--Milowent (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A comment should be added at the end of the existing Fund Raising section, stating that 'Rep. Neugebauer ln a video appeal with his wife, are using publicity from the recent "(It's a) Baby Killer" comment following the passing of monumental Health Care reform Legislation, to seek political donations on his campaign website.' and then footnote and reference it with the actual new site. http://www.randyforcongress.com/ His video explanation is illuminating. I also think related civil factual comments should remain.(New User:Jencks|talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.101.192 (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • lol. its not really an apology when you immediately use your outburst to raise money.--Milowent (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political Career[edit]

Edit needed request change

The second paragraph is incorrect: 'Neugebauer finished first in the crowded seven-way, all-Republican field.' It was in fact a seventeen-way field [4]Starfi$h (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Park service section[edit]

I just reverted an edit regarding a minor incident with a Park Ranger. The edit was filled with POV terms and written in an overly dramatic manner. Even the title of the section, calling it a "showdown" was over the top. Even without the POV terms, this is a big case of WP:RECENTISM. We're not a newspaper and this minor event will probably disappear from the news cycle quickly. I think we need to discuss it here first. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It's a citeable event that happened, and its definitely not a minor event. Actions, words, and speeches by highly-visible politicians are clearly article content. I don't see you making the same case for the "Baby Killer" topic. 108.131.133.245 (108.131.133.245) — 108.131.133.245 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

  • Just because something is citeable doesn't make it notable. Miss America went to the beach the day after her win. Plenty of news outlets covered it, but that doesn't make it notable so it isn't in her bio. This isn't a newspaper, it's a bio article in an encyclopedia. If you apply the suggested 10 year standard in RECENTISM, this minor incident fails. Even 1 year from now, it will be long forgotten. There is no lasting notoriety in this (non) event. And thanks for reverting again before discussing it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I wouldn't call it a non-event: it's an event that's "gone viral", and speaks well to the congressman's biographical profile. Many voters rely on WikiPedia come election time, as they otherwise pay no attention to politicians. Congressman Neugebauer's pubic record is a matter of biographical lore. It appears you're injecting a fair amount of your opinion and political beliefs into your argument for removing any mention of public events that Congressman Neugebauer is the center of.108.131.133.245 (108.131.133.245)— 108.131.133.245 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

  • Considering that most high schools won't allow Wikipedia as a source, the idea of "many" voters using it is the saddest thing I've heard this week. However, it makes my point even stronger. Highlighting this minor event is WP:UNDUE. Your claim that is has "gone viral" isn't compelling at all and is exactly why we do not respond to trends like a newspaper. In fact, if you read WP:NOTNEWS, you'll see it clearly says "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". Further it says "Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews". That is the case here. It may be newsworthy, but it doesn't have long term notability. It is suitable for Wikinews, but not here. There is a BLP issue at play here as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still not seeing any support for your claim of "non-event" or that you're not injecting your one-sided political beliefs into the argument.108.131.133.245 (108.131.133.245)— 108.131.133.245 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

  • Back up. My "one sided political beliefs"? Well goodbye AGF. Since you have no interest in assuming good faith, I'll call a spade a spade. Or in this case, it's WP:SPA. You have the nerve to talk about my one sided beliefs, yet you've only edited THIS article. You aren't just biased my friend, you have an agenda. Actually, you have it ass backwards. I don't need to prove it's not notable (a non-event), you have to prove that it IS notable enough to include. And learn to sign your posts. (Well, I presume you're capable of learning that.) Niteshift36 (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Your Wiki profile suggest you're a card-carrying republican. Removal of mention of this significant event from his Wiki page, by you, is pretty clearly politically motivated.108.131.133.245 (108.131.133.245) — 108.131.133.245 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

  • I am a registered Republican. You don't need to go to userboxes to find that out. I'll tell you. That doesn't mean I'm incapable of being neutral or that I'm politically motivated. You mentioned the "baby killer" section. Have you seen where I ever tried to remove it? No. If I were the hardcore propagandist you claim, wouldn't I have tried? On the other hand, you have edited nothing but this and done nothing but promote a singular agenda. Good luck convincing anyone you're unbiased. BTW, are you simply unable to understand how to sign posts? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I probably could figure it out, but it's entertaining seeing you get bent out of shape over unsigned posts.....I'm thinking I should edit the whole article...remove everything not 10 years old. Since no one uses Wikipedia as an information source, especially high shcoolers and voters, who'll notice?.108.131.133.245 (108.131.133.245) — 108.131.133.245 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

  • No, I fix it for you when I add your SPA label. And I'm not convinced you could figure it out anyway. Nobody said any info needs to be 10 years old. You never heard me say that and if that's what you think you saw in the Recentism essay (which I doubt you read), then I'm giving you too much credit. BTW, I've raised this issue at the BLPN to see if we can get outside input.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very experienced in Wikipedia, but I feel this recent incident with the park ranger is a significant event, as important as him shouting baby killer at someone. The reason I believe this is that I have been the unpaid Park Ranger working the barrier and taking the abuse of the general public during prior shutdowns. Now, most of these people are frustrated and confused. They don't understand that it is not a decision the ranger at the barrier made, which is keeping them from entering, but a decision made by the leaders of the nation. When one of the leaders of the nation who caused the incident berates a person making barely above minimum wage, basically at one of the lowest levels of authority over that opening or closing decision, OVER AN INCIDENT HE HIMSELF CREATED that is an unprecedented level of hypocrisy and posturing for the cameras. He thought he'd look like a defender of the veterans, and fool people who couldn't reason well enough to realize he caused the very situation. He told that woman that SHE should be ashamed for doing her job as he and his fellow politicians directed. How dare he tell her to be ashamed for his actions? His cognitive dissonance level must be off the chart. It tells voters something EXTREMELY IMPORTANT about a person when he seeks office in the future. To compare it to "Miss America goes to the beach" is extremely dismissive of the right of citizens to know who they are voting for. 15:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC) D.Brooks 11 am 10/4/13

  • Look at what you are saying. First off, Park Rangers make far above minimum wage, so that hyperbole is based on false facts. Second, he didn't create it himself. He's one of many. Third, yes, I have no doubt he was using it for publicity. No, I don't think he acted correctly. But it doesn't matter what I think about his actions or intent, just as it doesn't matter what you think about those things. What we're dealing with here is the lasting notability of the incident. It is already falling off the news cycle. A year from now, the only place you'll find it is in GNews archives and, if you have your way, wikipedia. Now, I'm sorry that you don't understand the EXAMPLE about the beach trip. It was not a comparison. It is an example of how the notion that 'it got covered' is NOT the basis upon which we determine what goes into an article. You and the other IP seem to be so worried about some potential voter, yet neither of you can vote for or against him. Only the people of a single district can. He was just re-elected with 75%, so I'm going to say that the people who matter most to him apparently approve of him. Lastly, read your response. Read all the personal opinion, conjecture and hyperbole in it. Neither you, nor the other IP have cited a single policy, guideline or even essay that supports your position. It has solely been a matter of personal opinion for both of you. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • US Park Service Rangers do not make far above minimum wage and further, since they're classified as 'seasonal' they don't receive benefits. This is notable in the context of a lockout where a major theme has been the treatment of federal employees. This Congressman made a point of carrying out this activity in sight of cameras. Not quite the equivalent of going to the beach. Not to mention that the Vice President of the United States has noted this, made a phone call to the Park Ranger, and also tweeted about it.108.28.47.42 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Today, on USAJOBS.gov, the official government website, the position of Park Ranger, is listing at $21.50/hr. It's a seasonal position. [1]. Even an student intern ranger makes $22,800, which is $11.00/hr. [2]. Federal minimum wage $7.25. Minimum wage in DC is $8.25. So even a student intern is making $2.50 per hour over minimum wage. So no matter what story you tell, I have proof. Do you have proof that the person he was talking to makes minimum wage? The VP tweeted about it? Seriously? Hmmmm, a politician on the opposite side of the issue said something negative? that's never happened before. As I said, I think he did it as a publicity stunt and I don't approve of it, but that doesn't mean I find it notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're kidding, right? $11.00/hr in DC? DC rangers are required to purchase uniform/equipment FAR in excess of the 400$ annual clothing allowance. You must be one of those repubs that think all federal employees are "living large". Come put on a flat hat and stand the line in front of angry visitors, bud..108.183.165.209 (talk) contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).
  • Fabricate much bud? Show me where I EVER said $11 was "living large" or even a lot bud? I didn't, you just made that lie up bud. What I did PROVE was that you were wrong when you said they make barely over minimum wage. Second, I've been a federal employee bud, so don't tell me what I think about federal wages. Third, since you're so interested in my userboxes about being conservative, you should notice the one about being a member of the law enforcement project. Wonder why that would be bud? I've done much more than put on a hat and deal with "angry visitors". So if that's all you've got to draw from, bud, then you're on the shot end of this conversation. In the end, you've still shown jack on the way of policy or guideline to include it. That's what matters bud. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum for general discussion of the particular incident. This is a forum for discussing the article about Randy Neugebauer. Getting into a deep debate about the General Schedule is unnecessary. Let's focus on the impact of the incident and what level of coverage the incident should receive in the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • At this point, it shouldn't receive any coverage here. Your own edit summary said "at this time" and that's my point. This is recentism. It's trying to be a newspaper. This is something that won't last more than a little while in the news cycle. Do you honestly think this (non) event will be getting any play a year from now? Even 6 months from now? That's the real issue here. Yes, it happened. Yes, some media covered it. No, it's not notable, per the policy I cited earlier. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is whether the event is a significant moment in his life and career, and the answer is unequivocally yes - given the widespread media attention and (mostly) condemnation he is receiving. It is at least as important and notable as the "National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers Reform Act" which he has sponsored. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, it isn't "unequivocally yes". Here is the point you're missing: While I agree that Act is minor, a year after it was passed, it was still law. A year from now, all this media coverage you are so impressed with will be long gone and nobody will care. The event was newsworthy, but that doesn't make it notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The act is not law. The incident is notable, in my opinion and the opinion of several other editors. You really should consider that you are the only person on this page who is arguing that there should be no mention of this incident. There is certainly a reasonable debate to be had about the size of the mention, and I agree that it should not overwhelm the biography. But in the context of his career, this appears to be about one of the most notable things he's ever been involved in. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back to the "several others" thing? 1 person using multiple IP's isn't more than one person. Remove the thing about the act, I don't care. That's not what is under discussion here. You have failed to cite any policy, just keep repeating that you like it. I will ask AGAIN, Do you honestly think this (non) event will be getting any play a year from now? Even 6 months from now? Of course it won't. And I still haven't violated the 3RR, despite your allegation. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift, you need to cease reverting the information out of the encyclopedia. You have already violated the 3-revert rule and the material has been added/replaced by three separate editors. This is a strong sign that the developing consensus on this page believes you are wrong to remove the material. If you do not want to be blocked, you should begin discussing why you don't think the material belongs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who do you think you are? Ordering me to "cease"? 3 editors? Seriously? 1 of them is an IP who is also committing vandalism related to this incident. The second refuses to discuss the issue, despite being invited to. And then there is you, someone who has not discussed the issue either. Instead, your action it to demand that I "cease". And no, I haven't violated the 3RR. I have made 3 reverts in 24 hours: 0721, 2147, 2232. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly this "significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail" per the requirements of WP:GNG. Notability is Not Temporary as suggested earlier in this comment thread. Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same person using different IP's? Must be pretty talented, able to do that and different usernames, too. Good point on him repeatedly reverting the same edit he claims is a "non-event". By his incorrect application of Wiki guidelines, he should be removing the "Baby Killer" topic as well, but he's not: more indication that his reverts are entirely politically motivated, have nothing to do whether the event is "notable", and his actions are nothing more than vandalism. I see a ban in his future.108.131.133.245 (108.131.133.245) — 108.131.133.245 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).
  • Ban in who's future jerkoff? Shows how little you know. Politically motivated? Everyone can look at your edit history, see your proven vandalism in a related article and know, without a doubt, that your edits are politically motivated and that you're nothing more than a hypocrite. And no, it's not hard for the same person to use different IP's. Then again, I may be giving you too much credit since you can't even grasp the basics here. Notice that once this was cut down to something reasonable, not the bloated, UNDUE violating, POV pushing shit you posted, I have left it alone. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Watch a Flag-Wearing GOP Congressman Berate a Park Ranger For Doing Her Job — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.165.209 (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics charge over his latest[edit]

On October 4, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed an ethics complaint against Neugebauer (R-Texas) for publicly scolding a park ranger over the closure of the WWII Memorial in the government shutdown. They said said Neugebauer abused his position by attempting to “coerce” the ranger to allow access to the memorial. [5]

71.191.96.38 (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ http://financialservices.house.gov/113th-congress-subcommittees/housing-and-insurance.htm
  2. ^ http://financialservices.house.gov/113th-congress-subcommittees/capital-markets-subcommittee.htm
  3. ^ http://science.house.gov/subcommittee-environment-0#overlay-context=
  4. ^ http://www3.nationaljournal.com/pubs/almanac/2006/people/tx/rep_tx19.htm
  5. ^ http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/326597-crew-files-ethics-complaint-against-rep-who-confronted-park-ranger
Please add a cite to support your request to include the text. I found the cite and here it is. Please discuss. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merely filing a complaint really isn't a big deal. If he's found to have violated anything, that would likely be notable.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Randy Neugebauer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Randy Neugebauer. 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:

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) 13:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Randy_Neugebauer&oldid=1207166279"