Talk:Texas's 22nd congressional district

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

Colbert Report detail?[edit]

I enjoyed the satirical news item on Stephen Colbert's show, but does it need to be mentioned on the wikipedia page, let alone given an entire section? Seems like a Colbert-fanboy inclusion to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.173.0.1 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 26 September 2006

Delay has dropped out of reelection[edit]

And he did this after the primary election, allowing the Texas Republican Party to select the Republican Nominee. This isn't counting chickens, it's stating the facts. Or do you have other information? Chadlupkes 19:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, Chadlupkes, my mistake. I posted almost the same time as you. So my "Edit summary" comment ("let's not count our congressional chickens before they hatch" was actually directed at the previous editor who'd listed the district as vacant. Clearly, you corrected this before my edit posted (as evidenced in the page's history). Nevertheless, I posted my edits, but didn't change my Edit summary. Sorry for the confusion!! —Markles 21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is cool. Mine was a rushjob anyway, and you put in more details. Chadlupkes 00:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The names of Delay's Friends[edit]

There is an attempt to put in the article the names of friends of Tom Delay. This is irrelevant information. Delay is no longer in the race for Texas' 22nd congressional district seat. Even if was, which he obviously isn't, it would not be relevant what the names are of two people that Delay knew. And it clearly has nothing to do with make up of the 22nd voter base or the current candidates for the 22nd. --Getaway 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeLay's withdrawal from the election is part of the history and should be included. To do so otherwise is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. This is especially true for why DeLay withdrew from the race and his indictment was not the only reason for this. If that were the case, then he would have resigned back in September 2005 when he got indicted, not shortly after he won the Primary election. His connection to friends are applicable when the connection is made via a cited source as a reason for his resignation. In this case there wasn't a source provided, but a quick search of news articles from that time brought up a number of sources that linked DeLay's withdrawal to his scandal ridden past and the guilty pleas of his aides just days before. [1] [2] --Bobblehead 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getaway -- why are you deliberately using the word "friends"? They weren't just "two people that DeLay knew" -- they were his top political aides! Tony Rudy was his deputy chief of staff and Michael Scanlon was his communications director. When I first edited the lead of this article, the indictment was the only reason mentioned. But Bobblehead is correct -- that certainly wasn't the main reason he resigned, for the idictment was six months prior to his resignation announcement. The fact is that DeLay's resignation announcement came just three days after Tony Rudy pleaded guilty (Apr 3 and Mar 31, respectively). DeLay ("Representative #2") is even referenced in the plea agreement! To have any statement that says "he resigned after" without mentioning his own deputy chief of staff's pleading guilty just three days prior would be a misleading omission, don't you think? -- Sholom 20:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT a blatant violation of anything. Delay is OUT of the race. Period. No, we don't need to go over each and every detail of Delay's downfall.--Getaway 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask the question again: "To have any statement that says "he resigned after" without mentioning his own deputy chief of staff's pleading guilty just three days prior would be a misleading omission, don't you think?" To include the state indictment and exclude the federal guilty plea in which he was referenced, is misleading. -- Sholom 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. The article is about the district, not Delay.--Getaway 20:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A district that DeLay represented and resigned prior to serving his term, which apparently is notable enough to mention in the intro for this article. Why wouldn't the same apply to the reasons behind his resignation. At least the ones that meet Wikipedia's guidelines. --Bobblehead 20:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is notable that Delay once held the seat. Yes, it is notable that he resigned. Yes, it is notable when he resigned. No, it is not notable who the associates of Delay's with which he was engaging in questionable practices. At that point, we are way off the topic of the article, which is the district. The district is the topic, not the names of Delay's henchmen.--Getaway 21:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're being inconsistent. Why do you accept the mention of his state indictment? That's my point. The state indictment, which you continually leave in, is much less important that the federal guilty plea in which DeLay was referenced, and occured three days prior to his resignation announcement. -- Sholom 21:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more revert and your in violation of of WP:3RR, Getaway. That being said, it is notable enough to note that DeLay resigned his position and one of the reasons why he resigned, why isn't it notable enough to include the other reasons why he resigned. The provided sources made it clear that one of the reasons why DeLay resigned was his re-electability due to connections between his staffers, himself, and Jack Abramoff. --Bobblehead 21:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because they're amply covered in the article on DeLay himself, and should also be refered to in the articles on Scanlon and Rudy. In an encyclopedia, or any other authoritative work, there should usually be only one primary discussion of a topic. When that topic is connected to another topic directly, then an appropriate reference should be added. DeLay is directly connected to the 22nd; his resignation directly affects the history of the 22nd, so we refer to it here. If his reasons for resignation were district-related, it would be appropriate to refer to them here (and explain them in depth in the DeLay article, probably). However, his reasons are not particularly connected to the district; they're connected to DeLay himself and his criminal and allegedly criminal associates. Therefore, we don't refer to them here. We don't copy anything tangentially related to the 22nd into the article on the 22nd, or else we'd be talking about the affect on the mayor's race in Sugar Land and the effect Sekula-Gibbs write-in candidacy is going to have on the Houston City Council. Apportioning material and references across the articles is certainly got an element of art; I don't think cur-and-dried rules will always work. But I'll agree with the other editors who think that the various reasons and rationales and triggers for DeLay's resignation should be kept out of this article. studerby 21:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then remove all the reasons for his resignation, not just specific ones. That's the problem Sholom and I are having with Getaway's edits. His money laundering indictment is mentioned, which should then bring in the other reasons. --Bobblehead 21:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delay was not involved in the federal guilty plea. Delay was clearly, unquestioningly, involved in the indictment. We have to draw a line somewhere. There is a distinct different between the two. Also, this is not an edit war. The focus should not be on how many times I corrected the article. The focus should be on why Jack A. needs to be mentioned in article about the 22nd cong district in Texas. And so far, I have not heard of a good reason why Jack A. and his associates should be mentioned in the article about the 22nd. None of the them are running for office in the 22nd. None of them live in the district. We need to draw lines and limit the amount of information that is put in the article and only limit it to details that are relevant to the 22nd district. These folks don't live there and they are not running for office there. --Getaway 21:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Studerby brings up the valid point of why any of the reasons needs to be included in this article. How is DeLay's money laundering charges any more applicable to the 22nd Congressional district than any of the other reasons for resigning? His laundering charges are at the state level, not the district level. --Bobblehead 21:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know and I know that he resigned for a reason. He would still be in there if he thought he could have gotten re-elected. There is a reason that he is still not there. The state charges are against him, not Jack A. and the others.--Getaway 21:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If people are curious as to why he resigned, then they can go look at his article. The removal of the reasons works for me. --Bobblehead 21:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear up one matter here. Gateway, it is incorrect to state, as you did, that "Delay was not involved in the federal guilty plea." He was directly referenced as "Representative #2" right in Tony Rudy's plea agreement. See the plea agreement right here, and read the first paragraph. -- Sholom 22:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we still arguing about this? I removed all reasons per the suggestion of Bobblehead. Also, where I went to law school and where I practice law we don't condemn someone for the crime of an associate. Delay is has NOT been indicted for under the Jack A. scandal, that is a fact, and we can't condemn in Wikipedia based upon the fact that an oblique reference is made to him in an article about one of his aides. Studerby made the point and I second it that we need to limit the discussion in the article to the current make up of the 22nd district: its size, its people, its counties, its former size, its former people, its former counties and the current candidates and the former candidates, not the peripheral facts about the names of associates, friends, families and other people who have not even visited the district, much less lived in it. This is boring. Let's move on to other stuff. I think that you did a good job of editing the U.S. House elections, 2006 article. Take care, --Getaway 22:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment on the article. As for why we are arguing, I was simply "correcting the record" -- i.e., that DeLay was, indeed, referenced in the federal plea agreement. I was not arguing against the decision to remove DeLay's reasons. I would also point out that I (also a law school graduate) was not condemning DeLay at all (you were the one that used the phrase "Delay's henchmen"!)-- only explaining a major reason why he withdrew from the race. Nevertheless, as to this article, it seems we've reached an agreement. I'm sure I'll see you again somewhere! ;) -- Sholom 02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More info needed[edit]

About how the Texas redistricting effected this district. To wit: with DeLay's agreement, the district "gave up" some GOP strongholds to surrounding districts in order to strengthen the other districts' GOP hold. Redistricting isn't mentioned at all in this article. -- Sholom 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. There's a quote somewhere (maybe in the DeLay article) where he talks about how he needed to be an example; that he couldn't make his district safer at a time he was asking other (R) party members to accept more risk in order to increase the number of (R) seats. studerby 21:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I remember it differently (but my memory is often faulty). I thought it was that DeLay felt so secure in his district, that he "gave away" (so to speak) some GOP territory to surrounding districts in order to make those other districts more Republican. -- Sholom 13:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radical restructuring proposed[edit]

I have to say, I'm not a big fan of putting detailed election information in a article about the district. Consider: what will this article look like in seven years -- after three more elections and a redistricting?My own (fairly strong) feelings on the matter are this: if the information about an election is voluminous enough, or significant enough, to create a separate article, then a separate article ought to be created and the information placed there. In this particular case, we already have Texas 22nd congressional district election, 2006, and we are starting to duplicate efforts by having to include the latest developments in both this article and that one. So . . . my (not-so-)radical restructuring proposal is this: remove most of the election stuff and replace it with a fairly short summary, and simply include {{main|Texas 22nd congressional district election, 2006}}. Thoughts? -- Sholom 13:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's why I earlier disagreed with adding in the names and the reasons for DeLay's downfall. Yes, it is relevant, but it is not essential. We need to stick to essential information. Just an outline of the size of the district, its borders, its demographic, etc. and list the current candidates. If people want to know more then there articles to cover those things.--Getaway 15:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the information should be there. At least the most recent three or four elections. If people are on a page about the district they probably would like to see it's electoral history in recent years. Otherwise I would agree that elections could have their own pages.NickPruet (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert segment[edit]

There is no notability for one segment of Colbert's show. It was removed. This is an encyclopedia and there is no need to write out even single episode of Colbert's show. Is information important for inclusion? No. Will a child need this for school? Will anyone need this information? No. Not notable. Removed.--Getaway 17:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Texas's 22nd congressional district[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Texas's 22nd congressional district's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Generalelection":

  • From United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2014: "Texas Statewide Results General Election - November 4, 2014 Official Results". Texas Secretary of State. November 4, 2014. Retrieved February 2, 2015.
  • From United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2016: "2016 General Election, 11/8/2016". Texas Secretary of State. Retrieved December 5, 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Texas's 22nd congressional district[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Texas's 22nd congressional district's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "txsos":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Texas%27s_22nd_congressional_district&oldid=1209802896"