Talk:Tom DeLay

How do scumbags like this get to be free?

Just because he was able to get bailed out? Fucking leech. Useless waste of skin.

======

If "this is not a forum for a general discussion of the article's subject," why is this section allowed to remain? Terry J. Carter (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Who wants to be a millionaire

--Cooly123 16:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)On todays episode of Who Wants to be a Millionare? October 29,2009 he stated that he wanted to be a doctor during his turn as a expert, I do not know where to place this information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

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

---

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Tom DeLay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force ("GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs major work to meet current criteria, outlined below:

• There's significant issues with bias and pushing a POV, starting right off with a hatnote directing people to Tom DeLay campaign finance investigation (which, considering the article is entirely outdated, is a double insult).
• What's with the long-winded explanations of his nicknames in the lead? How are these so notable they have to be included here and in the already-bloated infobox?
• "Previously, in season three of Dancing, DeLay made his then-biggest foray back into the public eye when he publicly campaigned against "smut" and for "his good friend, country music singer, and GOP supporter" Sara Evans, before she withdrew from competition on the show due to her very sordid, public divorce from her then-husband, a Republican politico." More borderline notable shading.
• "On August 19, 2009, while making the media rounds to promote his participation on the upcoming season of Dancing, DeLay made political news when he became perhaps the most famous Republican yet to promote the "birther" conspiracy theory about President Barack Obama." Source?
• The article is poorly structured, with much of the personal life section meaningless so early in the article (we don't even know when he was in the Texas legislature for his comments to make sense.)
• Significant parts of the article are unsourced, particularly in early career.
• Significant focus on controversies, going into excessive detail.

Given the serious underlying issues and amount of unsourced content, I am boldly delisting the article at present. You may renominate at WP:GAN at any time, but I encourage working with a team of editors to deal with the POV issues. Contact me at my talk if you have further questions. Thanks, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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

August 16th - DOJ "No charges"

Read here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gip-lz16ENl6h1WGTogPuD7JbMjgD9HKQIJ00 98.118.62.140 (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Weight of "Participation in Season Nine"

This section is overweighted given the subject of this article. 123.3.92.217 (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the whole DWTS section is overweighted.Originalname37 (Talk?) 17:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Criminal categories

He is a convicted criminal now. Why are there no categories to reflect this? Merrill Stubing (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the history on Wikipedia to confidently make a unilateral change, but it seems to be fairly common practice to put a felonious conviction in the first sentence. For example, "Tom Delay is a former Congressman...and convicted money launderer." Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LicenseAppliedFor (talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Recentist and vengeful

[1]

Thomas Dale "Tom" DeLay (pronounced /dəˈleɪ/; born April 8, 1947 in Laredo, Texas) is a convicted felon and former member of the U.S. House of Representatives who represented Texas's 22nd congressional district from 1984 until 2006.

So let's get this straight: His being a convicted felon is of greater import than his having served as a Rep for twenty-two years? --87.78.121.149 (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• To be fair, I do think that "former member of House" should be before his conviction. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Source

I found:

• "The real scandal of Tom DeLay." CNN. May 9, 2005. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Legality of Cuban Cigars

The parenthetical "but was, at the time, not illegal for U.S. citizens abroad" referencing smoking of a Cuban cigar in Israel is questionable. I do not believe it has ever been legal for the US to forbid American travelers, including hypocrites, from engaging in activities legal in the nations being visited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.7.196 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Number of convictions

Regarding this, the sources indicate that DeLay was convicted of two crimes: conspiracy to commit money laundering and money laundering. See the third paragraph of this article, which describes the sentencing possibilities on both counts. If he were not convicted of one of those crimes, then it would be impossible to be sentenced for it (and printing information about it would be irrelevant).--Chaser (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Something about the felony convictions should be in the lead. In the articles of other politicians convicted of felonies, the convictions are mentioned in the lead. FurrySings (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ya i think the felony convictions should be in the lead also.Millertime246 (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Repetitious Sections

IMO, the section "Dancing with the Stars" and the two following elaborations are at minimum repetitious and possibly contain detail which is not at all necessary or even relevant to the subject's political service and political controversies. Would anyone object to at least boiling this down so that the facts are only mentioned once?

Terry J. Carter (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)