Talk:Ron Dellums

Removed

I removed this:

Other than taking a significant role in the fight against apartheid in South Africa, Dellums produced little original legislation or memorable work in nearly 30 years of service.

Pretty blantant POV language and characterization. --NightMonkey 07:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This was put back but it should be removed and POV, as should the reference to him being on the "fringe of his party" and the odd statement about the seniority system, which is, of course, true of all congressional leadership.

It has been removed, at least at last reading. Can all the anonymous IPs who care about this article please register before editing further? It really helps to monitor the article for vandalism. Thanks. --NightMonkey 00:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What vandalism are you talking about? There are some POV disputes, but there has been no vandalism.

As far as his accomplishments, what did Dellums *ever* do? --71.112.11.220 15:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The article lists many accomplishments. Ron Dellums certainly would remember his own work, as would many of the voters and supporters in his district, in Berkeley, and in Congress. The problem with this statement, which keeps getting re-added in slightly modified forms, is that it is a person's personal opinon, but not labeled as such. It purports to state that, in the neutral opinion of Wikipedia, Ron Dellums produced litle memorable work. And that has to have sources to make such a strong statement about a noteable public figure and former Congressman. How can an encyclopedic article flatly state with any credibility that a person's work was not "memorable"? Now, one could have a statement like "In the editorial of May 20, 1998, XYZ Magazine stated that 'Ron Dellumm's tenure in Congress was a complete waste of time and resources.'" But, even then, the magazine must be noteabe and reputable (i.e. not a blog). Do you see what I mean? --NightMonkey 22:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

it took me a while to track down a reference to dellums doing little (and it is on an anti-dellums site). more revealing was that in all the reading i've done in the past few days i couldn't find anything that he DID do (beyond apartheid and limiting weapons procurement). just when i thought the vietnam hearings were his own making, i uncovered more info that made it seem like more of a me-too show trial than novel work. i'm buying his book to see what he has to say for himself. btw, you can use the cover of his book for a photo -- its considered "fair use" --71.112.11.220 17:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, removed it again, though the language was a bit better. Now it is not speaking as Wikipedia, but as Wikipedia describing others' characterization. As I said above, a blog (an "anti-Dellums blog" at that) is not a noteable enough reference to back up such a strong blanket statement about Dellums entire career. But, the rest of your contributions have been great! :) --NightMonkey 19:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey NightMonkey, thanks for the kind words. I must have read fifty pieces about Dellums and I can't find any other legistlative accomplishments. I also lived in his district for quite a while and don't remember his doing much at all (hence "little memorable work"). That website is not a blog, though clearly the author doesn't think much of Dellums. I wouldn't say its a blanket statement, as it says the major accomplishments (one POV of Dellums) and then says he didn't do much else (another POV about dellums) the bad stuff via a quotation and citation. We are dealing with one Congressperson out of nearly 500, so we won't necessarily find reams of historical analysis on the guy. If you're located in the Bay Area ask around a bit, I think you'll see the website is correct in its description --155.91.28.231 19:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I removed this again, after checking out the site. It is so right-wing that it is attempting to defend the legacy of Joseph McCarthy. Blog, or personal site, it doesn't matter - it is not noteable, and doesn't represent a wide enough slice of the public to be a source for such a blanket statement. Please do not add this again, unless there are more noteable and verifiable sources for this opinion. Here's the removed text:

Despite these acheivements, Dellums has been characterized as the "one of the most ineffective and least influential legislators on Capitol Hill."[1]

--NightMonkey 02:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Public Domain picture?

Any chance of someone open sourcing a quality photo of Dellums for inclusion here? --NightMonkey 00:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I just bought his memoirs. Not the best reading but it should help with the article. Also I'll photograph the cover so we can use it as fair use in a section about his book. -155.91.28.231 01:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Oakland mayoral race

Oaklanders: Can it really be said that Nadel has the “same base” as Dellums? Even though she’s always struck me as sort of your typical white peace-and-love hippie, when I stayed in West Oakland, she seemed to have reasonable support from her constituents—still, it doesn’t seem like her base of support is the “same” as Dellums’, even though they do support many of the same issues (just maybe not in the same order).

—Wiki Wikardo 22:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

-We need more peace and love leaders here Wiki, maybe even Nancy Nadel, dig? I have also admired Dellums as a peace and love leader in a great way, as Bernie Sanders of Vermont was. Dellums was on the board of NORML and was the only Socialist members of Congress for a while. My hats off to him for his testicular fortitude. This election is a refreshing contrast to the nauseastingly centrist statewide and national elections we see. We'll see how things get down here in the coming weeks and months -Downtown Clown

I think its in the sfgate article cited there. Might be off. No two really have exactly the same base. If the issue is war/defense spending, maybe they are interchangeable, but maybe on other issues one or the other is stronger. I don't think you'd see a revert war erupt if you weakened it to "somewhat the same base" or some similar language. Justforasecond 01:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The references to Afro-Americans being the "predominant" group in Oakland were not in the Chron article but they are a significant issue in this election, worthy of discussion, absolutely. Some argue Af.-Am. are in the seat of political power in this city, others disagree. In factual census numbers Af.-Am. is the largest single identified cultural group. While most of us chose to label ourselves in the census, some of of did not on philosophical grounds. Fact is Af.-Am. will lose that "largest" "predominant," (whatever you want to call it), title in Oakland, at the very least from a population standpoint, sometime in the next 10 years. That is demographic fact. On a different tempo, does it really matter here, Cornell my brother? Fact is, the air is crisp enough here that most us see a rainbow in the sky. -Downtown Clown

As a point of fact I have restored vandalized FACTUAL sentences stating that Dellums has no campaign website as of this writing 3/3/06. What is to dispute about that? it is relevant, accurate information which speaks to the mechanics of his campaign, and conceiveably, from a political science standpoint, his campaign strategy. -Downtown Clown, 3/3/06

I've restored this information. Justforasecond 21:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This section has devolved into a very lengthy and lightly veiled attack on Dellums for not having a website "in the Internet age", having fundraising dinners" that many cannot afford" and not being true to his "1970s socialism". This is not in accordance with our NPOV policy. Please do not restore the section again -- it needs to be balanced and much, much shorter, considering the length of Dellums's career his work. BCorr|Брайен 12:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

wikistyle

hey guys

while i won't say i disagree with some of the recent edits, we need to keep this article a little cleaner.

- please don't add subject headings if there isn't yet any content to put there.

- similarly, don't add parenthetical requests for content in the article. the talk page (this page) is a good place to do that.

- keep things in a more removed tone (don't say "our city").

-Since many sentimental Dellums fans are summarily remove large blocks of factual info that might cast him in a bad light, until we have more Oaklanders contributing to the aticle, I've taken the temporary liberty of using a subjective, defensive tone ("here in Oakland") to tell you how things are down on the ground, here in the flatlands of Oakland. You can sit thousands of miles away in your elite liberal ivy league tower and wax philosophic on your former congressional hero (he used to be mine also until he started his mercinary lobbying), but I'm telling you a very real perspective from poor and lower middle class Oaklanders. We feel the city government is bloated and mildly corrupt here, we have a shortage of police officers relative to the number of residents, 673 officers for 411,000 residents, a nationally low ratio for the number of people. In comparison, Frisco has over 1,900 sworn officers for 775,000 residents. Do the math brother. Violent crime is running rampant. I got mugged here in December. We are on track to have 150 murders this year. It could be worse, but its far from Greenwich, CT. Our school system has among the lowest test scores in the state, and is currently under state takeover for several reasons. We literally have a crumbling infastructure with an expensive inafrequent bus system. We have potholes you can ride a mule down into. We have homelessness and panhandling most places you go. We have one of the highest rates of child and adult hunger. Yes, literally a statistically significant percentage of children who do not get adequate nutrition and go to bed hungry. Things are bad here pal and we need true progressive leadership in Sacramento, not Dellums shadow of his former self catering pork to re-developers and permit pimps. I have yet to see his CURRENT progressive credentials. People change in this life. -Don't let the nice weather forecasts fool you. Why don't you come visit. If you are serious I will take you on walk or cab ride and show you the poverty, urban despair, and ill health of the real Oakland. Leave a note here, and I will make arangements so you can call or e-mail me to set this up. I'm dead fucking sincere about my offer.

Okay, so I am an Oakland native & resident for 30 years, and I disagree with very little of the above. However, I will say that using a "subjective, defensive tone" is not appropriate in any way for an encyclopedia article. For either side. I agree that things in the Town are bad (although they are far better than any other time in the past 25 years), but quite honestly very little is riding on the next election, no matter who is chosen. The pot-holes, transit system, and crime have been problems in Oakland since Samuel Merritt was mayor, and are far more a function of our disfunctional beaurocracy than any mayoral leadership. All that being said, the next election is a very important part of OUR civic history (in spite of the fact that it is practically pre-determined), but will by no means be the defining moment in Ron Dellums' life—if it were, the election would be a close one! We need to remember that this is an article about RON DELLUMS, not a current civic election affecting 411,000 people, nor about the incredibly wonderful city that spawned him. Those items have their own pages, and have plenty of room for more information. Also, you may wish to be very careful about the tone of your invitation... it comes across as quite threatening (I think the "dead F****** sincere" part does it), in spite of the fact that I personally know that a vacation to Oakland would be ideal for anyone living outside our city limits. Further, if you wish to leave such a caring invitation, you should probably sign it. Otherwise your guest will have no idea what name to put on the wine they bring their host!Reggaedelgado 04:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

the census info is a good point of reference for how much $125 is to many oaklanders, but try to keep it breif. for instance, you could say something like "to the average oaklander who makes $21,000 per year, the cost of this dinner was exorbidant"

try as hard as possible to find citations for information and include them in the article. dellums will have to release his campaign donor list, this should have names and addresses of all donors. until then it might be a little premature to say many are from out of oakland, though many probably are.

lastly, try to be fair. wiki has a "neutral point of view" (see WP:NPOV) policy which can be taken to lame extremes by some users. for instance, some articles begin every sentence with "according to so-and-so..." and have numerous "however, according to other-so-and-so" that really cloud what the article is about. i don't think we want to go there (ever!), but we need to give dellums a bit of a break to for this article to be taken seriously. he isn't who he pretended to be for many years, but he also isn't Jack Abramoff or Willie Brown either. $125 a plate is a lot for an average oaklander, but in politics its actually a fairly small donation. many of dellums' old school fans are now middle-aged and flush with cash (hint: they bought bay area real estate in the 70s and 80s and their kids are through college) these folks are happy to spare benjamins on such youthful indulgences as lobster dinners with ron or overpriced stones tix.

Many in Oakland are young, and old, and NOT wealthy. A good slice of us are poor, most of us are lower middle class, we are renters who cannot, and never have been able to afford Bay Area real estate in 2006, 1986, or 1976. We cannot afford Stones tickets, and we can barely afford to donate $25 dollars to these sickening political campaign styles with their outdoor billboards and TV commercials. That amount may not be alot a for a Statewide candidate or for Mike Bloomberg but THIS IS OAKLAND, not New York, not Frisco. Answer this, if I wanted to hear Dellums speak and could only give a smaller donation would they turn me away for lack of funds, would Ron's hero Fidel do that? How about a $25 dinner, less fancy food, and a larger turnout of the workaday citizens of Oakland. I live here and see the nit and grit on the streets, do you?

Heyyyyy don't take me the wrong way. $125 is a lot for a LOT of people, but there are thousands of people in Oakland who can put up that sort of money. There are a fair number of poor people but there are also *many* middle class homeowners. It's no excuse to leave out the bottom X% but $125 isn't usually enough to pull off a bribe. $25 a plate wouldn't raise much, it sounds like a lot but when you rent out a space and have food (even mediocre food) brought it it ends up costing over $10 a head. Inexpensive restaraunts do the same thing day-in and day-out so can get the price lower. You are absolutely right about Ron being out of tune with socialism -- I think its a result of a couple of things 1) times and people change 2) campains need money and 3) he may have been a bit of a poser even in the early days. I'd tell you were I live but there are wikistalkers out there -- feel free to email me though ;). btw, after you type a comment it's best to "sign" it. Just type four tildes in a row (~~~~) Justforasecond 18:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

-Hey Justforaecond, just a second here bro, aren't you the original author of the "pay-for-access-dinners" segment? Anyways, you make some good points here. Campaigns have become way more expensive with the advent of soundbite media buys, but isn't it fucking outrageous?....... What ever happened to a campaign appearance to enegize the base? Sadly, it's 90% fundraising these days. Well with all that cash on hand, how about hiring someone to design a website at least Ronald? Or is it mostly going toward paying a high priced "campaign consultant" shyster attorney(s) as payback for something else that happened in favor session over the years? And then, did that guy previously appoint one of Vernie's penuckle pals to some blue-ribbon bullshit state commission with a six figure salary and a room at Hyatt when they have to trek it up to Sac. for 8 meetings a year? You know they guy with the green visor laughing while he counts the money in a smoke filled room..........Oh wait a minute, that's Ferrari owning Willie "term limit" Brown. -By the way are you voting for De La Fuente? Should we unleash the hounds on Nacho? -Broadway Joe

Haha. Yeah that was me :) I actually wrote most of this article (as user 71.... and user 155...). I even bought Dellums' book to get more info on the man -- what a waste of $10. I should have realized how self-congratulatory the book was going to be before the purchase. And his referring to himself in the third person gets old fast. And...there isn't a negative word about him in the book. The one good thing about it is now I can cite page #s.

I was going to flesh out the section about his lobbying, but got sidetracked and then when the Abramoff stuff came out Ron's indiscretions all seemed miniscule in comparison. (There's an article in the East Bay Express with a tremendous amount of content). I do think the dinners are out of line and we shouldn't let Ron slide on these. Give him an inch and he'll take a mile -- Willie Brown probably started with dinners and moved his way up to corrupt access to .com IPOs and questionable real estate deals. Of course Ron is 71 years old, I don't think he has time to come anywhere near Willie's slime.

You are dead on about the attitudes of some folks here. Almost every article you put some muck in you'll find a user that comes and removes it with some lame justification. Try editting a congresperson page, their staffers come and clean it up right away. But I think Reggae is correct too -- the tone needs to be a little less ranting sometimes. People will take it more seriously. And when people take it seriously, maybe Ron will get off his butt and get a website up and tell us what his platform is.

I don't have enough information on Ignacio to get an article together, but if you do, by all means get it started! Justforasecond 17:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

if we can get things together i wouldn't be all that surprised it a local journalist picks up this page and the content we're assembling gets noticed. more info about nadel and de la fuente is sorely needed.

oh yeah, i almost forgot, any of you mostly anonymous apologists that keep removing any negative info about dellums -- your contributions would be more appreciated if you added things like what dellums is running on (though he has no website so who knows what *that* is).

-Justforasecond 05:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Since this is an online encyclopedia and not a running current events blog, the emphasis in this article should weigh more towards Dellums' congressional career, positive and otherwise. A lot of stuff seems added quite recently in light of the new political campaign, the more POV-ish statements and quotes from geocities and frontpagemag that casual readers see, the less credible will be our collective effort, on this and other entries.

There's no way I can see to rewrite the $125-a-plate fundraiser spiel - it seems to me in CA that ANY serious candidate for an office representing hundreds of thousands would have require such an event. Are we going to write them into every candidate's bio?

I've read about some of the wiki-controversies y'all have involved yourselves in, and that also goes to credibility as well.

I agree. This section has devolved into a very lengthy and lightly veiled attack on Dellums for not having a website "in the Internet age", having fundraising dinners" that many cannot afford" and not being true to his "1970s socialism". This is not in accordance with our NPOV policy. Please do not restore the section again -- it needs to be balanced and much, much shorter, considering the length of Dellums's career his work. BCorr|Брайен 12:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Son Michael Dellums, convicted murderer section

I removed this as it really seems not too relevant to Dellums's history and life and is another veiled attack on his character:

Dellum's son from his first marriage, Michael, was convicted of murdering a man in 1979 over a twenty-dollar bag of marjiuana. He is still in prison. Michael was born during divorce proceedings between Dellums and his first wife, and Dellums has stated that he did not raise Michael. In his memoirs Lying Down With the Lions: A Public Life from the Streets of Oakland to the Halls of Power, Dellums acknowledged all his children except Michael. Referring to himself in the third person, Dellums wrote:

"I know, in ways publicly apparent and in ways that can never be discussed outside of a secure room, that the world is a better and more humane place for my children -- Joshua, Alexander and Kimiko -- than it would have been without the steadfast engagement of Ron Dellums.

Lying Down With the Lions, page 207

On the dedication page, Dellums acknowledged his and his wife's children from a previous marriage: Pam, Brandy, Erik, Piper, Joshua, Alexander, and Kimiko; here too skipping Michael.

BCorr|Брайен 12:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've restored this. Why is it not relevant? It is a revealing look at the man's character the extent to which he distances himself from his own son (unlike Ignacio De La Fuente) -- even disincluding him from the dedication in his book. It's a very unclassy/ugly thing to do. Justforasecond 15:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Some editors want a biographical, hindsight, looking-out-towards-the-sunset type article on a man who's not even dead, let alone out of politics. Others are critical of the way we have contributed to this article's sections about Dellums current campaign finance. They want a simple brief article on 71 year old Dellums, a complex man with a lengthy and significant political career marked by a Congressional Chairmanship, among many other things. They appear to want the "reader's digest" version so to speak. If they are political scientists, professional or amatuer, they are, sadly, in many ways similar to the increasing trend of one-dimensional political campaigns and their 5 to 7 word sound bites, conveniently packaged for the short attention spans of television addicts. Accordingly it is no wonder they are apologists for Dellums current campaign finance dinners. But hey, BCorr, you don't even have a intelligent defense of the dinners, i.e. that they are at least accountable hard money contributions. Or maybe you have no problem with Soft Money anyways. I'll stop giving you bullets here and flip a quarter in the air, (do they still manufacture quarters in the US anymore), and wager that you probably have a secret disdain of Russ Feingold. Go twist that one up Cappy. 70.198.250.111 08:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Broadway Joe

I visited this page briefly and was immediately put off by the above-referenced section, which apparently had been restored. It's in appallingly bad taste and completely over-the-top. I've deleted it. There should be a section on Dellums' family and even mention of this son -- but certainly not in this fashion, and not with a huge, honking headline. Just incredibly tacky. And I wonder why there's no mention of Erik Todd Dellums, Ron's (extremly gracious and) talented actor son?[2] Deeceevoice 13:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this section is way over the top. Family does seem pertinent, but the in depth analysis of his family relationships does not appear appropriate, and the headline is not only innappropriate but in poor taste. As broadway joe points out, here's a 71 year old man with a long career... his son's issues are of less general and historical interest than his work during vietnam, yet is given a larger headline and more detail. I don't think that that makes any sense. Let's come to a CONSENSUS here and improve the article!Reggaedelgado 18:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added info about two other children and shortened the section on Michael. Don't know if any of you have lived in the Bay Area for long, but Dellums relationship with Michael does come up from time to time in the local press. Justforasecond 19:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. And yes, Michael & his relationship with his father has been receiving a fair amount of press, but still I'm not sure how much interest/importance there is there. With this edit, it seems much more balanced and provides a context for the information about Michael. Again, nice work......Reggaedelgado 02:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Justforasecond 02:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A $20 bag of pot in '79 was maybe, oh a 1/2 an ounce of mexicali brick brown-schwag, what a waste. Somebody was hot tempered loser. Well, Dellums' son Michael has particular salience during the current mayoral election in Oakland as Delllums' leading opponent in the election, De La Fuente, also has a son who committed heinous crimes. Many are looking at this strange angle of the candidates, and their positions on crime and punishment. 70.198.20.149Broadway Joe

As an outsider who came here via an alert on the admins' noticeboard, my opinion is that as it stands it's relevant and NPOV: "Michael, the product of Dellum's first marriage, was born when the couple was undergoing a divorce and was raised by his mother. He is currently serving a prison term for a drug-related murder.". The diatribe previously deleted, however, was totally and utterly over the top and was simply character-assassination-by-association. --kingboyk 12:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I rewrote the section to read as it currently does. (I returned and inserted the rewrite. I don't know if the editor who removed it BCorr (or somethig) meant to. He left me a note thanking me for my input and apologizing for a hasty edit that reverted some of my stuff.) I respect Dellums enormously, but I, too, believe that the info is relevant -- even poignant. It's a reminder that no family is immune from misfortune/tragedy. Deeceevoice 13:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User Bcorr

Watch out for User:Bcorr, he went around removing my edits on unrelated articles (such as Gummy Bears) tagging them "obnoxious vandalism" because of the work on the Dellums page. He used an anonymous IP when doing so, but has been unmasked User_talk:65.96.160.248 Justforasecond 16:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

He also engaged in minor counter-insurgency editing of my overhaul of the Oakland City Center article. He did, however, make only a minor change, but nonetheless, the point is, he is demonstrating his anti-social propensities to be a "Wikisurveillance" operative. 70.198.166.63 06:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Broadway Joe

Article is no longer written from a NPOV

I have tried to remove unbalanced and overly attacking material from this article and have been repeatedly reverted by Justforasecond and other anon IP editors. The discussions with me have devolved into attacks of my character and mycommitment to campaign finance reform, rather than the points I've made. BCorr|Брайен 23:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Bcorr, you logged in anonymously, reverted my edits on articles like "Gummy Bears", and described them as "obnoxious vandalism". If you've got some NPOV issues please describe them in a civil fashion. We're trying to right an honest article here about Ron that covers him completely, not in the way an obituary or promotional piece would. There are so many wikipedians that are shocked to see less then glowing material in an encyclopedia, but facts are facts and all of this is cited. BTW, I wrote most of this article ("Broadway Joe" has added quite a bit recently). It was a rather drab stub when I arrived. Justforasecond 01:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read this article through. I was directed here by another editor, but I don't have time to read it. I'll have to come back later. But one thing that jumped out at me immediately was the section on Ron's son who was convicted of murder. In incredibly poor taste and completely uncalled for. I deleted it. Yes, information on the Dellums' family should be included, but certainly not in this fashion, with this bitchy, carping tone. If the rest of the article is in this vein, then, IMO, it needs serious attention. Deeceevoice 13:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Bcorr or BCorr, you have been rightfully criticized for engaging in your counter-insurgency surveillance and editing of other articles I and justforasecond have edited, elsewhere on Wikipedia, and I don't believe you stumbled across those by accident. Who are your other targets? How ethical of you. In regards to "anon IP editors" maybe I'm mistaken here, but don't the Wikipedia guidlines, namely the "editing basics" section direct us to "not sign edits you make to regular articles?" I'm done with this guy. 70.198.20.149Broadway Joe

Broadway Joe -- create an account for yourself, it makes things work better. I'm curious how deeceevoice ended up on this page. This is outside the scope of her usual interest (Ancient Egypt, Anthropology, Jazz, and Kwanzaa). I did a little wikisurveillance of my own and found a very mysterious user, User:BTR seems to have invited her here, but that user hasn't edited any other articles. Justforasecond 18:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You could have saved yourself the trouble, JFAS. I already stated above how I arrived here. And, no. This isn't "outside the scope of [my] usual interest." I've edited pieces on all kinds of subject matter, but particularly black subject matter. Dellums is a brother I've watched from time to time and mostly admired since I met on the Hill back in 1970. So, hey, I'm right at home here. :p Deeceevoice 09:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

A request for intervention

I agree. I deleted the entire fundraising section. It's absurd. $125/plate for a dinner is actually reasonable in this day and age, when candidates routinely host $1,000-a-plate and up affairs. This sort of fundraising is necessary and commonplace. I've also all but completely deleted the section on the mayoral campaign. I put the lead para in the section up near the top. But until all the crap can be sorted out -- much of it very clearly POV and crafted w/an eye toward affecting public/voter sentiment -- it shouldn't be in the article. Further a lot of the material seems more suited to a newspaper article; it's simply current events.

I've asked for admin intervention in the matter of JustforaSecond's insistence on an incredibly tacky and vicious treatment of Dellum's family life, reasonable changes to which he continues to revert. This is incredibly unseemly, vicious and, IMO, immature. Wikipedia should not be used as a rag to smear candidates running for office. One would think that, after the Seigenthaler episode, this sort of thing would be more closely watched. I smell, if not a lawsuit, certainly more really nasty public criticism/scrutiny for Wikipedia if editors like JFAS and the anonymous hack who libeled Seigenthaler are allowed to continue in this manner.

Disgusting.

I advise those of you who are similarly concerned about the tone and content of this piece to do likewise. Perhaps this matter belongs before the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard? I don't have the time (I've got deadlines) to pursue this appropriately, but I encourage others to do so. I think User JFAS needs to be very sternly warned about such conduct, as it is potentially extremely detrimental to the project. Deeceevoice 08:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the "request for intervention" method of dispute resolution. I wrote a consensus version of the family life section (see previous messages on talk page), which some seem not to like. Is it "incredibly tacky" to have very small subjects devoted to relatively well known children? The man's family is at least as important and notable as the other topics on the page. Justforasecond 16:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Angola and Cuba

Dellums supports Castro -- that much is cited. The analysis of why -- that Cuba supported poopular uprisings in Africa needs to be cited. As it is smacks of original research. I'd guess he supports Cuba/Castro because they're both socialist.

Justforasecond 16:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

sloppy reorgs

After a recent reorganization:

1. 4 Foreign policy controversies

   * 4.1 Cuba and Angola
   * 4.2 Grenada
   * 4.3 Criticisms of post-Congressional work
   * 4.4 Legacy
   * 4.5 Congressional tribute

A "congressional tribute" is not a foreign policy controversy -- please be less careless when reorganizing. Justforasecond 16:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

please explain

Calton,

Please explain the removal of information about Ron Dellums' lobbying activities. These are verifiable, notable facts.

BTW, unlike others, you've added precisely zero content to the article.

Justforasecond 04:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond:

Your version of this section has devolved into a very lengthy and lightly veiled attack on Dellums for what is -- in your opinion -- his not being true to his "1970s socialism". This is not in accordance with our NPOV policy. Please do not restore the section again -- it needs to be balanced and much, much shorter, considering the length of Dellums's career his work.

BCorr|Брайен 13:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Bcorr, good to see you aren't sockpuppeteering today.

Please explain how including facts is an NPOV violation. Remember, wiki is not paper. If you've got something to "balance" it out, please add it...but it might be a challenge. I've included most of his high-profile lobbying activities: Peralta colleges, A/C transit, Haiti, LBNL, and those that some keep reverting. Justforasecond 15:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There's been no discussion on this so I re-added the information about Dellums' lobbying. Justforasecond 16:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There's still no discussion here. It is POV to remove only lobbying items you don't like. I've placed both questionable and more-benign lobbying activities there. Remember to act in good faith and utilize wiki talk pages. Justforasecond 01:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As a general rule, I don't discuss disingenuous and/or transparently bogus edit summaries, since them what make them are usually fully aware of what they're doing, and discussion is normally pointless. Nevertheless, to deprive you of your excuses du jour:

1) wiki is the uncensored store of all human knowledge. First, if you're going to do the pompous quotation thing, get it right: Wikipedia is (aiming to be) the SUM of of all human knowledge. Wikipedia? Not Everything2.

2) removed POV. Wrong, twice. You're not removing anything, and what you're adding is POV: pure campaign-attack-ad detail; I suspect you'd add ominous thrumming music in the background if you could figure out how.

3) uncensored. Another word you're misusing. Hint: "editing unimportant, irrelevant, trivial, and/or tendetious details" =/= "censoring"

4) (From previous edit summaries) rv -- propoganda [sic] and censorship have no place on wiki See #3 for the latter and #2 for the former: take your own advice, or at least don't cloak your axe-grinding with such obvious hypocrisy.

Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with WP:NPOV -- and a decent dictionary. --Calton | Talk 02:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries labeled "minor" that actually remove large portions of text are vandalistic and not acting in good faith, Calton. Wikipedia is aiming to be the warehouse for all human knowledge, and you are working against that aim. I've done my part to be neutral, adding inforamtion about all of Dellums lobbying. Now its your turn to be neutral: cease removing relevant, notable, encyclopedic content. Justforasecond 02:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Lobbying activities

What's the problem with listing Dellums lobbying activities? As far as I can see, the edits are sourced and a newspaper is an acceptable source. CoYep 02:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any response to this but there is a lot of reverting going on. Could editors that are opposed to information about the lobbying activities (User:Guettarda, User:Joshuaz, etc) please explain their rationales? It's not a consensus if you don't discuss. I've put in information about the contrvoersial and less controversial activities so I don't think it is unbalanced. Justforasecond 17:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Refusal to discuss

Several editors are refusing to discuss their opinions on the talk page. This is counter to the spirit and policy of wikipedia. Picking and choosing factual material to remove to support a POV is also counter to wikipedia. Please act in good faith, follow wikipedia policies and we can all make wikipedia a more useful resource.

Justforasecond 05:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Justforasecond, IMHO you are accusing people of not following Wikipedia's policies if they don't edit an article for a few days or don't endlessly continue a discussion with you where you make veiled (or open) personal attacks on editors and their motives, continue to push what appears to many of us (and as we have explained over and over) to be an anti-Dellums POV, and quote policies that many of us feel you are not following in your own edits. Please take a break from the various crusades that you have listed on your user page and please refrain from impugning the motives and morality of those that you disagree with. BCorr|Брайен 12:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Bcorr, please be more civil. I have editted neutrally, and, like I said, added information about *all* of Dellums' lobbying activities, whether it is for the Peralta colleges or for Haiti. A couple of editors continue to delete particular lobbying activities that might make Dellums look bad. They refuse to discuss their reasons for this. Some have not said even one word about this, just reverting...not very wikilike behavior! I would implore users that don't have time to adhere to wikipedia policies of consensus building and neutrality to take a break.

BTW, I have no part in politics, unlike some political consultants who may be editting here. Justforasecond 14:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

trinidad, dc, new england and tokyo

editors from trinidad, dc, new england and tokyo, your help on wiki is appreciated, but when it comes to local politicians in california that you don't have much experience with or knowledge of, please think twice before making changes. and, of course, discuss your changes here.

thanks! Justforasecond 18:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So much wrong there:

1) Smarmy and disingenuous claims of special knowledge. What exactly are YOUR special qualifications? Do you even live in Oakland or even the Bay Area? Hint: self-righteousness doesn't count.

2) Irrelevant claims that only certain editors are able or should be editing certain articles: not even wrong, as Wolfgang Pauli reportedly once said. You certainly have no qualms about boasting about your work on Dan Rostenkowski (so, you live in Chicago, too?}, George Miller (you also live in Contra Costa County?), and Woody Allen (so, you and the Woodster are close?).

3) Factually incorrect: I'm a former resident of his district -- for many years, in fact -- and still vote by permanent absentee ballot. Hell, I voted in California's last recall/gubernatorial race BY FAX from Tokyo (special circumstances allowed by the state, due to the short notice for the special election -- fat lot of good it did me, since the bastard still won).

Justforasecond, your excuses are getting more and more desperate. --Calton | Talk 19:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Calton, please remain civil. You may have lived in the district (though it doesn't sound like you actually lived there when Dellums was in office), but certainly others have not and know little to nothing about Dellums. If these editors were actually adding to the article or doing research, then they are welcome to add content, but they aren't -- they are simply reverting. Some have not even typed a keystroke on this talk page.

As for voting from Tokyo: You don't seem very informed in what is going on in the state -- the last gubernatorial election was not a recall. Schwarzenneger was re-elected in an ordinary election in 2005 2004. If you can't keep up with something as basic as this, maybe you could let Oaklanders decide their own leaders? Justforasecond 20:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop with your disingenuous nonsense about "civility": you've been insulting everyone's intelligence here with your nonsensical and ever-shifting rationales for your obvious axe-grinding. Frankly, I'm more amused than angry by the holes you keep digging for yourself.

though it doesn't sound like you actually lived there when Dellums was in office Really? And you know this HOW, exactly? What tests did you apply to my writing to come to this conclusion? Computer-aided textual analysis? Deconstructionist techniques? Ouija board? Or did you, as it sounds like, simply pull out an empty and meaningless phrase from your nether regions and hope no one would notice? Whatever technique you used, you'd better get a refund from whomever taught it to you, since it is blatantly -- and probably knowingly -- false.

You don't seem very informed You don't seem to have much reading comprehension: what part of the conjoined phrase "recall/gubernatorial race" did you miss?

Schwarzenneger was re-elected in an ordinary election in 2005. That's funny, the California Secretary of State doesn't seem to have heard of this election. There WAS a special election where the Guvenator's pet propositions got thrashed (that one, I did by ordinary mail). If you can't keep up with something as basic as this, maybe you leave this to people who know what they're doing.

And speaking of qualifications, you dodged the entire question -- the one on which your whole flimsy argument of local knowledge giving you special qualifications rests on -- of where, exactly, you live: Berkeley, Oakland, Chicago, or Woody Allen's back pocket? Be straight, for once: which is it?

(My marginal bet is I've been in Berkeley and/or Oakland more recently than YOU have, despite living in Tokyo, and my sure-thing bet is that I've spent more time there than you. Not that it really matters, but if you're going to make this claim, you need to put up or shut up, guy.) --Calton | Talk 00:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Calton, please be civil. Don't know if you noticed the teacup at the top of the page. "Put up or shut up" is not a friendly way to talk to people. But if I were in your shoes, I don't think I'd be putting much on that "sure thing" bet. Justforasecond 00:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered, I dunno, giving a straight answer? An actual answer to the actual questions you've been repeatedly asked? No? Didn't think so. Into the bozofilter with you, troll-boy. --Calton | Talk 04:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Boys! Relax, this is rediculous. Neither of you is taking the high road here (although both of you are close). Justforasecond, I know we all are irritated by the edit wars going on here, but that really doesn't have anything to do with the location of our computers. Carlton, I understand how that would make you feel defensive, but it was not an intentional personal attack, and perhaps we all need to assume positive intent... of course that is easier when we keep our words positive! And keeping it positive does NOT mean one conciliatory sentence followed by baiting or attacking. Lets get this article good, I'm not sure we have enough time to do that AND bicker. Have great days, although I think some of us are ending one and some of us are starting one.Reggaedelgado 00:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, based on JFAS's history, I strongly suspect that it his/her edits were intentional personal attacks. But Calton shouldn't waste his breath on trolling. Guettarda 03:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed this personal attack but Guettarda re-inserted it and called my edit vandalism. Justforasecond 04:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean "typing fingers", since I don't yell at my computer much these days since the neighbors started complaining. But yeah, taking JFAS seriously is an utter waste of energy, and he's simply best ignored or marginalized. Well, actually, it seems as if he's self-marginalizing... --Calton | Talk 04:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I see Calton has chosen to inbibe this discussion page with his emotionally invective patter. I point out Calton's favorite techniques which he consistantly uses in the many discussion pages he enters, whips into a froth and then leaves. Nearly every discussion page post he makes has some judgement of character which makes little of the person he edits against. He consistantly chooses a target, uses language to belittle the target. His forte' is "I'm right and you are wrong," I liken his methods to building a fort of words and then throwing brick-like words over at the other fellow. His discussion page posts usually begin with a judgement which he makes and states in such a way as to get everyone's agreement. And then he becomes uncivil. Could you imagine a politician talking like he does? heh ! Terryeo 17:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I liken his methods to building a fort of words and then throwing brick-like words over at the other fellow. As Sam Spade said in The Maltese Falcon, "What do you want me to do, learn to stutter?" Articulation: clearly an enemy of Terryeo.

...he makes has some judgement of character... Some people need their characters judged. You're an obvious example, maybe someone should...wait, it's already been done and is being done. Boy, sucks to be you, doesn't it? --Calton | Talk 06:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking the same: the basic reason. --ElectricEye 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked JFAS for 24 hours for revert warring and gaming 3RR. It is not appropriate to force through your desired version against consensus — we have to engage others in discussion instead. Having said that, I'd also like to remind people of the No personal attacks and Civility policies. — Matt Crypto 19:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Standards

Accuracy, Verifiability, Credibility -- Unless the San Francisco Chronicle is lying, the informations included by JFS are accurate, verifiable and credible

Neutrality & Objectivity -- Listing facts without judgmental comments is IMO neutral and objective.

And, I for my part like to know who is on who's payroll. (I would love to see the list of W Bush included in his article as well)CoYep 21:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Truth in edit summaries

Hey friends. Wiki requires consensus. Looking around this talk page it seems like only a couple editors have been discussing, and seems like there is agreement or "consensus" among these. There are a few others that have been reverting. I encourage these editors to discuss their changes here, but in the mean time they won't be part of the discussed consensus.

I'd also like to get the article out of the back and forth reversion mode, but it seems any change, even if it doesn't involve the lobbying activities of Dellums is reverted.

Justforasecond 02:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, Justforasecond, the version that you continue to revert to is YOUR preferred verions, NOT the consensus version or the one that the discussion on THIS ENTIRE PAGE has tended to support. BCorr|Брайен 18:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Bcorr, please limit your CAPITAL letters. They come across as shouting, which is uncivil. I'm hoping to get discussion about the article here, which is the wiki way. The consensus on the talk page is that Dellums lobbying should be described in the article, but some editors keep cutting this information out. Justforasecond 18:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

i've only been shouting because i have felt that i am struggling unsucessfully to make myself understood by you. BCorr|Брайен 20:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

All I'm requesting is discussion of the edits rather than reverts. Its hard to assume good faith when editors appear out of the blue, and begin reverting without comment. These editors have been invited by users with names like "Stealth Technology" and no edit history. It's also hard to assume good faith when editors try to turn Dellums into a racial issue by posting on an invitees-only "race and ethnicity" noticeboard[3], even more difficult when these editors label others "trolls" and "white supremacists"[4] Justforasecond 21:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Strangely to me, that's all that many of us -- myself, Colton, Guettarda among others -- have asked you for weeks, and you continue to revert and revert and revert to a version that you favor (and from time to time another editor will come along and echo you, such as Broadway Joe or CoYep). Although you have relented on insisting that some of the more (IMHO) POV sections and statements, you have continued to insist that all sorts of side issues -- as mentioned above on this entire page -- are reasons that other opinions aren't valid or don't constitute real discussion: e.g., living in New England, someone at some point called someone a troll, using capital letters, and so on.

IMHO I feel that those are red herrings and distract from the main point: namely that you have been engaged in a campaign, as outlined on your user page, to highlight in Wikipedia articles what you consider hypocrisy and dishonesty of certain individuals. Please desist.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 21:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Bcorr, you've sockpuppeted around and reverted my edits on pages such as "Gummy Bears" and "Berkeley Marina" and posted info about the Dellums page on the "Race and Ethnicity" noticeboard. Notoriously uncivil users have shown up here without showing any previous interest in the page after being notified by suspicious users like User:BTR a.k.a. "Stealth Technology". Several of these editors don't seem to have any ties to the Bay Area at all. Their newfound interest in a mayoral election in Oakland is unusual. You might not think it odd that these users appeared and of the blue and began revert warring and making personal attacks immediately....but many would.

But to get beyond that, what are the issues with Dellums' lobbying? It's all cited information. How did y'all decide which of the lobbying activities were fit for the article and which weren't? And what are the issues that require the NPOV tag on the top of the article? I inserted one in the lobbying section, which seems to be the big bone of contention, but some editor reverted it without commenting. Justforasecond 23:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, the familiar cycle of complaints from you, Justforasecond: surprise, lack of understanding of our differences, implications of alleged unethical behavior, indignant rejection of others' "standing" to edit the article, and flip rejection of other editors' points, and focus on minor events and points, and citation of only vaguely related guidelines and policies.

The problem that we have all noted is that you have been adding large amounts of information related to Dellums' lobbying, his children, and his campaign for mayor of Oakland. Your older versions of the article demonstrate this clearly: such as this one and this user and perhaps going as far back as this edit (since this user is interested in the same topics as you are). As the article has been expanded a bit to keep it balanced, more of your desired information has made it in, but you seem to be unsatisfied unless the article clearly gived the reader the impression that Dellums didn't do his job as a congressman, father, mayoral candidate, or even as an American -- and that no one who lives outside of the Bay Area could know as much as you do.

BCorr|Брайен 11:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

(getting away from indentation)

Call it "allegedly unethical" if you want, but logging in anonymous to remove my edits on articles such as "gummy bears", "credit score" and "berkeley marina" strikes me as odd behavior. It is unusual for editors from Trinidad to be interested in Oakland mayoral candidates.

Yes, I believe the article should have information about Dellums lobbying activities and his son Michael, the one in prison, as well as his fight against Apartheid and his son Erik, the one in "The Wire". Why would it make sense leave either out? I've expanded the article in almost all of the sections, as the history shows. You and the revert-only users that have shown up lately don't seem to mind when I've created or expanded sections that make Dellums look good.

To make things simple: what is your standard for lobbying activities that are fit for the article and which aren't? Justforasecond 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The section on Dellums' family as I've rewritten it and as it now stands is perfectly in keeping with the treatment of the families of other notable persons in biographical entries, generally, and on Wikipedia in particular. There is absolutely no rationale for making separate entries/subheads for selected offspring. Your deliberate overemphasis of the one son's criminal background is a transparent and, IMO, tacky attempt to smear the father with the sins of the son. It won't be tolerated. Deeceevoice 13:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dellums accused of cocaine and marijuana use

Dellums was investigated for cocaine and marijuana use back in 1983:

Rep. Ronald Dellums (CA)(1983) H. REP. NO. 98-559, 98th Cong., 1st Sess., at 3-4, 15-16, 56-63, 398-401, 406-409, 411-419 (1983)

Used cocaine and marijuana

Preliminary Inquiry voted (March 15, 1983); Special Counsel investigated and found no basis for charges; Comm. took no further action (Nov. 17, 1983)

www.house.gov/ethics/Historical Chart

I haven't been able to find out much more about it, but it looks like his staffers were also investigated. The article is locked right now but we can put it in when the time comes.

Justforasecond 05:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a good example to demonstrate that people have tried to attack the character and reputation of Ron Dellums by making charges that had no basis and were demonstrated to be false.

I support this being part of a short subsection with the heading "False charges made against Dellums" and text such as "In 1983, Dellums was falsely accused of using cocaine and marijuana. A special counsel thoroughly investigated the accusations and after eight months could find no basis for the charges, and Dellums name was cleared." Of course, his staffers also being investigated (and cleared) might be helpful in showing just how much people tried to find something on Dellums and weren't able to. I hope you can find more about any resolution of that side issue.

Good work finding something that helps balance the article. I'm glad we can agree on a piece of information and I'm sure we can also agree on how to present it in the article.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be noted that the counsel found nothing worth pursuing. I don't think we can say "falsely accused" and "thoroughly investigated" because we don't really know if the accusations were false and "thoroughly" is a POV term. Do you know anything additional about the allegaions? Who made them? Justforasecond 14:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying here, but surely you agree that any investigation of charges as uncomplicated as these and that lasts for eight months is by definition thorough -- unless you have some information to share that demonstrates that the special prosecutor completely failed to do his or her job. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "we don't really know". That is not the standard that we use here. We don't really know if Dellums was elected or if he somehow stole the elections without most people finding out. We don't really know if he is the father of his children or if it's another man. We don't really know if he is African-American. We don't really know if he is still alive, but that someone else is impersonating him for political gain and profit. It seems very reasonable to assume that the allegations were false unless you have some information that indicates otherwise. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)