Talk:Eric Cantor

Personal Opinions

Personal opinions of people highlighted in these biographies should not be put into the article. I believe personal opinions (especially those that are not supported by fact) can be stated in this Discussion area. Articles are supposed to be objective, and including personal opinions renders the articles subjective, and people will be less willing to use Wikipedia as an authoratative source.

2006 House Page Scandal

I reverted this, and then self-reverted back when I saw Cantor's name, but then I followed the source to the AP article and it does not support the statement that Cantor was aware of this? We need to be very careful here to not violate WP:BLP. We need a source for this... --plange 05:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Repition that Cantor is Jewish

There is no reason to have both these sentences exist in this article: (1) Cantor is the currently the only Jewish Republican in the U.S. House. (1st paragraph) AND (2) Cantor is the sole Jewish Republican in the House. (4th paragraph) Infernallek 07:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Steve Cohen, D-Tennessee, is also Jewish and won the seat previously held by Harold Ford, Jr.

Therefore, these two redundent sentences would ONLY be true today if stated in the past tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.187.249 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, a senior moment. Please disregard my stupidity for the post of 03/02/09

Recent vandalism

Some people seem to be very irked by how this man blamed Pelosi for the republican vote against the bailout, and are taking out their (justified?) frustration on this article. Hopefully the attacks will die down after a day or so. I doubt it will continue past that, but if it does, we might want to consider semi-protection. BlastYoBoots (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Marriage

I'm not sure why the year of his marriage is 1999 - the cited source says 1989. (The article got reverted when I corrected it.) - 24.183.28.227 (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the "flavorless" food cooked at home by the rep's mother is relevant for his wiki. Changed section to take out irrelevant elements. Nhbunzl (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Subtle neutrality issue

With regards to the passages describing Cantor's statements regarding Pelosi and in response to Obama, the writing seems to be almost championing what he said. Fifty7 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism about Cantor's stance about the American Recovery and ReInvestment act

Some have removed lines regarding the partisan tone Rep. Cantor struck. While the inclusion of this line may seem Anti-Cantor-ish, this sentiment has been agreed upon by everyone, including Cantor himself. He has proudly stated (including on videos on his own site) that he is happy that he had nothing to do with the bill. Including this in the article is important as it is a watershed moment in Cantor's career (when Cantor runs for President, everyone will be pointing to this moment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.18.98 (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As categorized as sneaky vandalism, removed arguments that were cited to opinion pieces, not factual articles. These inclusions of plausible misinformation have been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.182.183 (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. However, those opinion articles were being used for the facts in those articles and not the opinions expressed. Additionally, Cantor's attitude toward this bill (i.e. vehemently opposing it) is an important historical moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.195.229 (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, there is vandalism occurring with regard to the language (i.e. calling the bill the "Democrat's spending bill"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.209.220 (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Position on Israel

Removed the statement regarding Cantor's response to an interview of then-Presidential hopeful Obama. The section included sound bytes from Obama's interview, thus being slanted toward Cantor's position. It is unimportant to the article, as Cantor's position on Israel has already been stated and because the article already mentions that he is worried about President Obama's approach to Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.18.98 (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody from 173.54.18.98, continues to remove the (referenced with citations) account of Cantor's view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Their explanation is that it is redundant or slanted toward Cantor. Those claims are not true. First, it is not redundant. Most people, including Barack Obama, find the conflict to be at the very least unfortunate, and agree that the lack of resolution makes foreign policy in the Middle East more complicated. But Cantor strongly disagreed with Obama's comment to that effect and thinks that the conflict or it's lack of resolution is a symbol of America's greatness. This view has not been mentioned elsewhere in the article and therefore is not redundant. Likewise, it could reasonably be considered a radical view to hold, and simply pointing out that he holds this view cannot be considered "slanted" toward Cantor's position. I'm not aware of many other poeple who think that conflict is a good thing. So 173.54.18.98 you need to justify your continued removal of that paragraph, which is written from NPOV. 71.232.20.61 (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

To say that it is from a neutral point of view is simply not true. If one reads the interview with President Obama, one can see that quoting him the way Cantor quoting him is chopping up Obama's words in an attempt to form a sound byte which makes Obama look anti-Israel. Additionally, the main point is that Cantor disagrees with Obama on Israel; there is no reason to put the political banter which was said by Cantor on the Wikipedia page. If that were the case, every article on a politician would be unreasonably long. Therefore, there is no reason to record the back-and-forth; there is only a need to state the main positions. This ensures that this article will remain to be written from a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.208.149 (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The portion of the article quoting Obama specifically does not misrepresent his words. Cantor may have tried to misrepresent Obama's word's in his press release, but so much the worse for Cantor. And there is reason to include this account in the article. Cantor is a politician and this incident conveys important information about his politics. Fears of a trend toward unreasonably long articles about politicians, not exactly an urgent constraint to begin with, simply do not warrant excluding the paragraph in question, which is brief, dense, referenced, and factual in style. 71.232.20.61 (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no argument that the paragraph in question is condensed and referenced. The issue, however, lies in the paragraphs importance. Cantor has had this sort of response to Obama (and other Democrats) on many issues. Additionally, while it may offer a perspective onto Cantor's politics, but it does not convey it an a neutral and fair way. Some may feel that it is slanted towards Cantor, others that it is slanted against him. Due to its lack of neutrality and no specific importance to the article as a whole, it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.208.149 (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How does the newest revision suit you? 71.232.20.61 (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this revision; I don't fully see the need for it to be included (it seems to be somewhat of a random quote), but it does contribute to a neutral perspective on Cantor and merely explains how he feels about the conflict. However, the statement was made, I think, in the context of the presidential campaign and was being used to make Obama look bad and the GOP look good. Most politicians think that a relationship with Israel is a positive thing. Therefore, the inclusion of the statement may make Cantor look good and others look bad. I have not removed the statement but I think a revision/removal should be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.196.214 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In order to keep an NPOV, I changed the statement that the conflict is seen by Cantor as a reminder to the greatness of America to the relationship with Israel. I personally am not a fan of Mr. Cantor, but having the sentence the way you have it is certainly not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.196.214 (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy over whether Cantor was on McCain's short list

The IP address 98..... keeps removing the material about the 2008 VP selection, or clouding it up with nonsense POV. The material as it currently stands and well sourced, and follows proper wording guidelines to make it clear this is what an ANONYMOUS source has said, and is not official history. If you would like to add a Reliable Source that directly refutes the claims go ahead, but so far there has been none that I am aware of. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't POV - it is cited from four sources, placing the anonymous and unverified source for the previous sentence in context. I have added reliable sources and you undo them anyway. If you have an agenda here, maybe you should stop editing the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.204.115 (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You added a link to a newsbusters article about the Sarah Palin kerfuffle, which is not a WP:RS and is not relevant to Eric Cantor. You then added a link to an August 2008 article from the AP which could not possibly refute a claim from May 2009. The link is supposed to back up the statement "This is particularly compelling, given that every other public source, from all ideological perspectives, disputes this anonymous report." Maybe because it is the Huffington Post carrying an AP story you think that makes the statement you added true, I'm not really sure, but either way it is not disputing the anonymous report as it was written months before. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 03:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is relevant to the proliferation of former "connected" McCain campaign sources who turn out to be completely bogus. You can find ample examples of this in the months following the campaign; if those sourced articles are not relevant to the article, than neither is your anonymous blog claim. This is particularly relevant, because respected verifiable sources - such as the Associated Press - reported the opposite of this single anonymously sourced blog story that you are using.

In addition, the source for your anonymous claim is from an extremist and/or fringe source (at least in the coverage of political events). It involves a claim about a third-party; there is substantial reason to doubt it's authenticity and the claim is based solely on this single anonymous source. As a fringe source for political news, it may not be used to dispute or obscure the mainstream view, nor can it be used to indicate the fringe theory's level of acceptance (as your preferred text would do). <class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.204.115 (talk) 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The material is sourced to The Rolling Stone. If you read the article you will see why the AP would have reported the Cantor Myth, they were relying on fabricated leaks from inside the Cantor camp. Again I'm open to refutations, but get them from Reliable Sources and get them directly dealing with the claims brought up by the Rolling Stone. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 03:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is not a primary source for American political news, it is an entertainment industry magazine. CNN, Huffington Post, Politico, MSNBC, the Associated Press (and others) all reported a different view (with the fact checking that their reputations demand). Since your claim is contrary to the established mainstream view, the burden is upon you to provide a second source and from a non-fringe source for political news. Your personal preferences should be set aside; your fringe claim is not properly sourced to be included in the article.

The Rolling Stone has a long history of covering politics, see Thompson, Hunter S. and a weekly circulation of 1.6 million readers, certainly 1.6 million reasons to mind their reputation! TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 03:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Rolling Stone is not a primary source for political news, it is an entertainment news magazine. Therefore, any political coverage should be considered a fringe source, particularly when compared to every major media outlet on the planet. The readers are not tied to the authenticity of their political coverage. I have provided multiple sources, you have provided a single blog post from an entertainment magazine that uses an anonymous source; this is particularly troubling, given the record of inaccuracies from anonymous sources after the campaign had concluded. How do you suggest we move forward?

Add in the following, but leave off the additions you had made. I think this expanded version makes it clear who reported it, and what they were reporting.

However, in May 2009, The Rolling Stone reported that an unnamed source who claimed affiliation with the McCain campaign denied those reports, calling them "a complete and total joke", and blaming "Cantor’s PR people" for being responsible for the false reports.<ref>{{cite news|title=The Myth of Cantor’s Vetting |publisher=[[Rolling Stone]]|date=May 5, 2009|url=http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2009/05/05/the-myth-of-cantors-vetting/|first=Tim|last=Dickinson}}</ref> TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 04:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I still feel that gives the fringe claim too much weight. How about this? In May 2009, The Rolling Stone reported on their website that an anonymous source who claimed affiliation with the McCain campaign disputed those reports, fueling conspiracy theories about the claim.

How about we leave off the part about "calling them "a complete and total joke"" and call them "allegedly false reports" so that it reads

However, in May 2009, The Rolling Stone reported that an unnamed source who claimed affiliation with the McCain campaign denied those reports, blaming "Cantor’s PR people" for being responsible for the allegedly false reports.<ref>{{cite news|title=The Myth of Cantor’s Vetting |publisher=[[Rolling Stone]]|date=May 5, 2009|url=http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2009/05/05/the-myth-of-cantors-vetting/|first=Tim|last=Dickinson}}</ref> TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 04:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What about this?

In May 2009, The Rolling Stone reported on their website that an unnamed source who claimed affiliation with the McCain campaign denied those reports, blaming "Cantor's PR people" for the allegedly false reports, fueling conspiracy theories about the claim.

But then we would need to point to another reliable source saying something along the lines of there have been conspiracy theories fueled. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 04:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The entire claim itself is inherently a conspiracy theory - true or not - it is, by definition, a conspiracy theory.

To quote the wikipedia article on conspiracy theory, "Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with institutional analysis of historical or current events, and are not supported by conclusive evidence.[2] The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe. Such characterization is often the subject of dispute due to its possible unfairness and inaccuracy.[3]" ... Given the wording of that I think that wikipedia cannot label the accusations as a conspiracy theory, we must rely on outside reliable sources to do so, otherwise we would be relying on original research which is beyond the scope of the project. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 04:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that text validates the use of the term. "they contrast with institutional analysis of historical or current events, and are not supported by conclusive evidence." That is exactly what this claim does. The institutional analysis, as defined by the event as it was occurring and the global media since that time, support one view. A single, anonymous and inconclusive source contrasts with that view. This is a textbook conspiracy theory.

Do any of those "institutional sources" rely on conclusive evidence? Or do they all rely on anonymous source and speculation as well? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 04:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Senator McCain commented on this at a Virginia event during the 2008 campaign.

Lets see a link. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 04:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Coming right up, Brad.

Are you saying you are Brad Dayspring? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 04:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Who is Brad Dayspring?

Cantor's PR flack, the guy responsible for [1] that. What is brad supposed to mean if not that. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 04:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh. You really are obsessed! My name is Brad, but not Dayspring. I am a video editor, director, and producer - done some documentary work in the past, from an ideological bent that would probably surprise you, given the nature of this exchange. Used to be up in Philly - couldn't get into an Ivy league school, who can these days - so, ended up back doing what i love, mostly video stuff. anyway, my concern here is the project - it seems that your concern is this one particular subject, with a definite POV going on. Maybe you should back off this article for a bit, focus on things where you have a NPOV like I have with this one.

I would suggest just removing the entire section. It's all rumor from unnamed sources, so what's it doing here anyway?
One other suggestion. Brad, you should register a Wikipedia account, and sign your posts. That will give your opinion more weight, at least in my eyes. Rees11 (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think these are good suggestions and we can take them as the consensus of the project community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.204.115 (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. Also note that most of us are not administrators, and so far no one commenting on this situation is an administrator. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 15:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

But this fracas may soon draw the attention of one... Tomer^talk 17:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not support all together removing the paragraph just because the sources within the McCain campaign are not named. The paragraph clearly states that the sources are not named, and Wikipedia just requires Reliable Sources, which Rolling Stones is. Dems on the move (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

We obviously haven't reached consensus so removing the section was premature. And I am not an admin, I am just giving my opinion. But I'll still argue for removing it. I have no problem with the sources, I just think the content is too petty to include here.
Brad, I'll once again urge you to at least sign your posts. It's starting to look like you have something to hide. Rees11 (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should remove it as well; the entire section is clearly too petty - it is not in the best interests of the project to post uncited opinions from a single anonymous blog source. I agreed with your proposal to remove the section; alternatively, there was language early in this discussion that I had proposed. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not anonymous rumors; particularly when those rumors run counter to the established institutional worldview. 98.218.204.115 (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, DemsontheMove (no agenda there), the section you cited actually stands in direct opposition to your position. "Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." 98.218.204.115 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached. I have therefore reverted the previous edit. Smartse (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the section should stay. It certainly deserves mention that he was considered as McCain's running mate and the Rolling Stone information clearly points out that it is quoting from the article and makes no suggestion that it is true. Given the accusations made in the article regarding PR men and the possible COI of 98.218.204.115, I can't see a reason to delete it. Smartse (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that gossip and rumors really have no place here. Some unnamed "source" from a magazine, while it may have a lot of readers, is not considered by any serious person to be a platform for political news, doesn't fit the bill. This smells suspiciously like an agenda based push for inclusion of nonsense that would be deleted quickly for the same reasons I state by the same people now pushing it because it didn't fit with their mindset/agenda. The statement "a single blog post from an entertainment magazine that uses an anonymous source" hits the nail on the head perfectly. 72.251.39.84 (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)hitcharide72.251.39.84 (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that "unnamed sources" also pushed the idea that Cantor was on the short list to begin with. Also note that Wikipedia only requires that the references be reliable. I think attacking Rolling Stone for reliability wont get you very far.

By the way, it is important to note that neither Cantor or anybody within his camp or within the McCain camp has come out denying this report. While this is not a proof that the sources within the McCain campaign were correct, it certainly tilts things in their favor.

Dems on the move (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, beyond the interest of Stormfront fans, I can't imagine what relevance or interest this discussion still holds...in no case I can see does the subject of this discussion hold merit in this article or any other, unless it becomes relevant again in a future election, perhaps. Tomer^talk 10:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it still merits a mention - at least I can't see the harm of including it. It is a big deal after all being discussed to possibly be one of the most powerful people on the planet. Smartse (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

February 2010 update

On January 22, 2010 an SPA removed the sentences saying that Cantor's consideration as VP was a hoax and replaced it with POV saying that "Several conservative organizations and grassroots leaders endorsed Eric Cantor for Vice President and encouraged John McCain to select him for the nomination". That sentence was based on a blog (not and a reliable source) and an article in CBS News. The CBS News article had one person saying that he thinks Cantor would be a good selection.
I reverted the SPA, but re-inserted his contribution with the following wording: "The idea for Cantor to be McCain's running mate was supported by conservative leader Richard Land." Victor Victoria (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 update

The same SPA mentioned above is at it again, this time boldly adding the sentence "...the nomination details have been kept private by Senator McCain and therefore not verifiable..." (emphasis added). Victor Victoria (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The information used as citations in this section - both the book and the article - are in violation of the policies related to the biography of living persons. Specifically WP:Grapevine, since they rely on anonymous sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HWTimmen (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The references meet WP:RS. Nothing in WP:BLP says that sources must be named. The references just have to be reliable, and as already discussed above, The Rolling Stone meets [WP:RS]]. Victor Victoria (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Can someone summarize the alleged NPOV issues --- I cannot see them in the text. Or is this tag no longer relevant? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Texting incident

The incident of Cantor using his Blackberry during Obama's speech has been added to the article. I think it was a very small incident. Should it be included? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I had already removed it once before you did, only to be reverted. As an impartial outsider it does seem to trivial for inclusion in my opinion. Smartse (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It does seem trivial however when the president of the United States is giving a speech to a joint session of congress, texting or other signs of rudeness are a breach of congressional protocol. It was significant enough to be mentioned in many news stories and I feel it's significant enough to be mentioned in his article. Lakerking04 (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm including it in the articleLakerking04 (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is mentioned in the news does not mean that it is suitable for inclusion on wikipedia. See WP:NOT#News. I take it that you forgot an important not in your first sentence btw. :) Smartse (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think this should be included. He could have even been taking notes on the speech or writing a response to it. While I don't need to speculate on his actions, this is a passing event that probably shouldn't be mentioned in his encyclopedia article. Nobody is going to bring this up in a campaign, for instance. It's not a big controversy. As far as I know, nobody has even asked him to apologize. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Poor research

"The Cantor children (Evan, Jenna, Michael) were born in approximately 1989, 1991, 1993." How can one approximately be born? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.28.104.151 (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the source used says that they were "8, 10 and 12" in 2003. That means that the years should actually be 91, 93 and 95 which I will change but of course they could be born in different years to these! If you can find a source which states what years they were born in then please change the dates accordingly. Smartse (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jenna Cantor

An SPA has removed the sentence

His daughter, Jenna, currently serves as the president of the Virginia Council of BBYO.

with the reason being "the content of that sentence is not directly about the topic of this page"

The sentence in question:

1. was in the personal section, where it is legitimate to talk about the subject's family
2. is a singe sentence about her notability
3. is verifiable, see page 4 of this newsletter (reference not included in article at the time).

Any objections to re-inserting this sentence?
Victor Victoria (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This information is not relevant to the primary subject of the article, it's inclusion is in violation of the BLP, specifically the WP:NPF —Preceding unsigned comment added by HWTimmen (talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:BLP prohibits this inclusion, especially since her name is in the public domain, as evidenced by the reference provided. Victor Victoria (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for it not to be included. ~BLM Platinum (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

To-do list

I am going to spend the next few weeks trying my best to improve this article, which would be mediocre at best if Cantor were any member of Congress. But when considering the fact that Cantor is one of the most powerful people in Washington, this article is a disgrace. I would also like to point out something which I have said many times before: There should be no controversy section. It is a symptom of bad writing and would never be found in any paper encyclopedia. But anyway, here is my to-do list for the article...

1. Find more information surrounding Cantor being elected Minority Whip in 2008. Done
2. Add a political positions section. Done
3. Locate a higher quality portrait. Not done
4. Arrange the various sections to be as helpful as possible to the reader. Done
5. Add pictures to the article.

Feel free to help me with this! My ultimate goal is to get this listed as GA, like Jim Moran. ~BLM Platinum (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Parents and grandparents

What information is there, of Eric Cantors parents or grandparents? Thank you for adding this topic to Mr. Cantors bio. -- Ben. 96.251.132.17 (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eric Cantor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I will look over the article and make a GA status review. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Initial Feelings

After looking over the article, I like it. It is not an automatic GA, but I think it will pass (I will do an official "rubric" review shortly. I would like to get some feedback from other editors before making a decision. So let's start a discussion here. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• What about quick criteria #5 "The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint." vis a vis 2010 elections? Racepacket (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Cantor has limited significance as far as the 2010 elections. He is a relatively safe incumbent, and the only thing that could change is his promotion to Majority Whip. I am considering putting the article on hold until after the election.

Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• I presume it is on hold until after the election then? Just asking since there's been no review progress since the note; the full review itself could still be done in the meantime. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

After reading this article through a couple times, I noticed many problems with it, unfortunately. There are many uncited paragraphs, let alone statements. The majority of the House section is about a single 2010 incident, and not much of his actual career is mentioned. Are there any major bills he has written or sponsored? For that matter, the whole last paragraph regarding the incident is not only unsourced, but could probably be removed if not shrunk, it doesn't seem overly major. Lastly, it's odd to me that the 2008 and 2010 elections get their own sectins when all his other ones aren't mentioned; the elections themselves could be put in its own section in one-two paragraphs (it's partially that way now, but not entirely).

I trust that becoming majority whip could help this article grow, but until then, this still needs a good deal of work, and I have to fail this as a GA. I will note some good points though; the personal and political positions sections are pretty well done, and it satisfies NPOV, which is impressive for a current American politician in a fairly major role. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I just want everyone to know that I am still watching this article, and I am still keeping the nomination "on hold". Once Congressman Cantor has been sworn in as Majority Leader, I will conduct an appropriate review and will make a decision (at this point, the article looks like it will probably pass). Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would also fail this article. As Wizardman states, it is full of WP:RECENTISM. The lead section is woefully inadequate. His nine years in the Virginia state legislature get less space than the 2010 campaign office incident. What people do in state legislatures is important, and surely more can be said than this; compare to the Hilda Solis#California State Legislature section, for example, which is a GA article. There is little description of most of his years in the House of Representatives and no discussion of how he came to rise so fast in the Republican leadership, which is probably the most interesting question to answer about his career. The "Political campaigns" section suffers from recentism, as Wizardman points out, and would be better merged into the biographical narrative where it would be integrated in with the rest of what he has done. The "Political positions" section seems somewhat selective in which issues it covers. At 12 kB (1957 words) readable prose size, the article is fundamentally too brief for a political figure of this stature.

I see no reason to hold this article's nomination until he becomes Majority Leader; that isn't going to change any of the article's shortcomings. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As the reviewer, I agree with a user who mentioned (above) that this article concerns a controversial current event (quick criteria #5). Once Cantor is officially installed as Majority Leader, I think users will come to his page and make the necessary corrections. But until that time, I feel it is only fair to keep the article on hold. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the critique given above, WP:RECENTISM as well as quick criteria #5 should be enough to wrap this up. If the nominator wants to renominate after a re-write, then he should go to the back of the queue out of fairness to all of the other nominators that are waiting for the volunteer time of reviewers. Racepacket (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not fail this? Us441(talk)(contribs) 22:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Note

This nomination was failed by Wizardman on 29 October 2010.[2]. It seems that the nominator chose to revert this edit. I have restored the failed tremplate. If you wish to renominate, then please do so. But to do that place a new nomination template on the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You have the history of what happened here wrong. The nominator was User:BLM Platinum, with this edit of August 16. It was then placed on hold by the first reviewer, User:Ryderofpelham123, with these edits of September 23. It was then failed by another reviewer, User:Wizardman, with these edits of October 29. It was then reverted back to 'on hold' by the original reviewer, Ryderofpelham123, with this edit of December 22; Ryderofpelham123 thought that his decision to place it on hold should not be overriden by another editor and that it should stay on hold until after Cantor had assumed the majority leader position and the article had gained more attention. As I (and some others) said above, I think the GAN should fail, but not for the reason you are giving. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that corrected history. Wizardman was not authorized by me or anyone else to fail the article. Therefore, I undid his inappropriate failure of the article. The original nomination stands. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I just want to make it clear that the nominator has done nothing to interfere with the GA review. I have not been in contact with the nominator and I, under the advice of other editors, made the decision to hold the article. I have decided to end the hold late Saturday, January 8. That is when I will publish a final assessment. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I just note that GA nominations are usually expected to be completed in seven days, perhaps fourteen at most. Dragging it on for three-four months does no-one any good and damages the GA process. It is perfectly normanl for experienced GA reveiweres such as Wizardman to step in when reviewers go AWOL. I shall open a thread on this mess at WT:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I note also that the reviewer has not even bothered to contact the nominator to say that a review has been started. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A brief survey of recent edits shows that the article does not meet the stability criteria either. Looking at Ryderofpelham123's talk page, it appears that this reviewer is not particularly aware of the GA criteria and comments such as "After looking over the article, I like it." hardly inspire confidence. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I came across this article in October and began a review. At the time, on advice of other editors above, I decided to put the article on hold until the midterm elections were over and Congressman Cantor was sworn into his new position. Also, I take offense that you say I am not aware of the GA criteria. I have been doing GA reviews for quite a while. My comments above were initial reactions and not official assessments. Wizardman should have contacted me if he was planning to take over the nomination, for which he did not even conduct an official assessment. As far as contacting the nominator, I personally do not view that as common practice. In my experience, the most involved editors check their articles for updates. My decision stands, and this Saturday I will publish an official review. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Your decision to place the article on a prolonged hold until after the election and/or new Congress was faulty and unnecessary (and the advice one editor gave you in this regard was faulty as well). BLPs for politicians do not usually change that much, even during an election season; most of their content is biographical narrative covering their whole life, not just what is happening 'now'. As an example, the John McCain article made both GA and later FA during the 2007–2008 presidential election season in which he became the Republican nominee. The "article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint" GA prohibition guideline referenced above is for articles like John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 or 2010 FIFA World Cup or Working on a Dream Tour – articles about particular events that have a well-defined beginning and end. It makes no sense to put any of those three examples up for GA until that campaign, tournament, or tour is over, because until that happens the article isn't finished. BLPs, on the other hand, are essentially open-ended, and they can be put up for GA or FA at pretty much any time. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The review will be given on Saturday, so the hold will be over. There is no point on saying what should've been done and what should not have been done. This was a small miscommunication blown way out of proportion. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Due to the overwhelming controversy concerning this GA review, I have decided that in order to preserve the integrity of this process, I will request a second opinion and remove myself from this article's GA review. However, in accordance with the rule that no one closely associated with the article can conduct a review, I expect that no one heavily involved in this debate will take on the review. I would just like this time to say I am disappointed at how this situation unfolded. I feel many editors blew a small problem out of proportion. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as my thoughts on the article, I feel it is almost GA quality, but needs expansion before being promoted. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd Opinion review

Ok, following the abandonment of the review and the lack of interest shown by the nominator, I shall conclude this review. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguations: Seven dead links found, can be seen here. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: blind date links to a disambiguation page, there is no Wp page on this, perhaps link to Wikitionary if you feel this is necessary. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead is too short, it needs to fully summarize the artcile, see WP:LEAD for more on this.

   There are a number of stray sentences which need consolidating into paragraphs

   The article satisfies the reasonably well written criteria

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Seven dead links as noted above.

   Several unstated statements remain.

   Those live sources used appear reliable

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As noted above there is little about his activity in the House of Representatives, especially in the early years. Has he written or sponsored any bills? How did he rise so fast in the Republican leadership? His career in the Virginia legislature could do with a major expansion.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article appears to be relatively neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   There is continuous editing activity, much has improved the article since nomination, but points already raised in the earlier review are not being addressed.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This review was started in September, following nomination in August 2010. the nominator has not responded to the review, so I am not listing it at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the formal review, Jezhotwells. I'm in agreement with your findings, as my previous comments here would suggest. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I would just like to state I did not "abandon" the review. I chose to remove myself due to the controversy surround my hold. However, this review does seem reasonable and I must say that I endorse it. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, rereading this page, I must retract my endorsement. According to the rules of GA nominations, no one closely associated with the article is allowed to review the article. I would consider Jezhotwells (talk numerous posts on this page "associated" with the article, and I feel that the review should be invalidated. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)