Talk:Steve Stockman

Reversion due to political bias

So, due to clear bias of including the OKC bombing information, I reverted the article back to its original state, sans the prejudicial information.

OKC bombing

this page is ridiculously biased. Good job wikipedians for cleaning up clear political bias. You make "wikipedia" synonymous with "bullshit" Benwetmore 21:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Receiving a fax erroneously isn't noteworthy, so I think the OKC bombing reference ought to be deleted. Benwetmore (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The fax section isn't even referenced, it ought to be deleted. Benwetmore (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Megan's Law

Stockman did not co-author the Megan's Law. Ex-Cong. Dick Zimmer wrote it.

unsigned comment above, so this isn't really worth debating, but the bill was sponsored by Zimmer and had 27 cosponsors, of which Stockman was one. Why isn't Megan's law listed along with the bills? Here's a link to the cosponsors Benwetmore (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Runoff

Stockman did not win his first race against Lampson. He lost both the November election and the court ordered December election.

69.39.172.127 07:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he did win.

Bias

This page is ridiculously one-sided and loaded with inflammatory language. The admins should clean it up. 69.143.125.221 04:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Restored

I've restored the previous posts. I've deleted the OK Bombing Fax reference because the details that were included were probably erroneous. I'll repost it again when I've researched it properly. All other details restored are accurate.

Obvious Campaign Edits

This is ridiculous that this page can't be objective about Stockman and keeps adding irrelevant or inane details about him. Whether some random group called him a hero to taxpayers or the best Congressman of the century isn't quite relevant. Whoever keeps posting that Stockman is a Hero to the Taxpayer obviously never paid many taxes since Stockman tried to cut taxes, but kept getting knocked around by his fellow Republicans. He didn't cut taxes though, so how can he be a hero?

NPOV

There are multiple instances of NPOV violations in this article, such as quotations around phrases like "terrorized his wife" and other things I am going to cleanup. Benwetmore 03:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV again

This page reads like a campaign website. Seriously, "to define and protect the institution of marriage"? How in the world is that not biased language. That whole section should be tagged. 166.250.101.207 (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal re: Stockman's new staff hire

Stockman has hired a spokesperson who is currently taking considerable legal heat for alleged major campaign contribution violations in numerous states, most particularly Montana. It would certainly seem worthy of mention. However, an undo of the edit was accomplished by an editor who appears to have a long history of unexplained and controversial removals of properly sourced and germane materials. If there is believed to be a legitimate reason for the edit, please post any such reason before undoing this or other posts. The hire or appointment of an aide or manager with a history of questionable behavior is certainly notable. For instance, the appointment of Elliott Abrams by G.W. Bush after his Iran-Contra Affair conviction has been found to be worthy of mention on the relevant pages.

Opinion request

Stockman has been on the faculty of the Leadership Institute, which was hilariously described on the Stockman page as "non-partisan." In fact it boasts of its conservative credentials almost to the exclusion of anything else. I've deleted my "hyper-conservative" and substituted "very conservative." I noticed a moment ago that the page for Terence Hallinan describes his father as a "leftist attorney." I think that's very accurate. Similarly, Leadership should be described with its own terms. "Conservative" doesn't begin to express their positions and operations, to wit from Wikipedia: The Institute was founded in 1979 by conservative activist Morton C. Blackwell. Its mission is to "increase the number and effectiveness of conservative activists" and to "identify, train, recruit and place conservatives in politics, government, and media." Notable alumni include Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, (Jack Abramoff money laundering associate) Ralph Reed, (male prostitute James Dale Guckert, a.k.a.) Jeff Gannon, Congressman and Indiana Governor-elect Mike Pence, (and convicted criminal) James O'Keefe,. Activist (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Leadership Institute is non-partisan and conservative. The terms are not mutually exclusive. It is appropriate to describe the organization as conservative, though very conservative would be inappropriate given what is current mainstream conservative ideology. The Leadership Institute, on their web page describes themselves thus "© 2012 The Leadership Institute is a non-partisan educational organization approved by the Internal Revenue Service as a public foundation operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. The Leadership Institute does not endorse, support, or oppose candidates or proposed legislation. The Institute has an open admissions policy; all programs are open to the public. Contributions to the Leadership Institute by individuals, corporations, and foundations are tax deductible". Partisan organizations cannot operate under 501(c)(3) of the IRC. I am editing this text to reflect this. I find your points describing the Leadership Institute as hyper-conservative, or that "'Conservative' doesn't begin to express ..." unconvincing and your comments regarding perceived negative characteristics of some of their alumni irrelevant- unless you are arguing that the organization is very Conservative because it supports money laundering, male prostitution and criminal activity? If you have reasons to support that the Leadership Institute is in fact not non-partisan, or should have an intensifying adjective before "conservative", please present them so that the article can be further improved. Packetmonger (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WTF is "computer sales and lab researcher division of IBM" ?

IBM does not have this "division". This section claim should be verified or removed; it is clearly false as it stands now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.168.139 (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

FEC investigation into casino contributions

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/fec-looking-donations-tea-partier ... the AP reported, noting that the donors cited Stockman’s support of the gaming bill and the casino opening. The donations totaled about $10,000 in all.

Well sourced enough yet? Hcobb (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Public relations campaign?

I notice that over the past few days, a relatively large amount of material has been added to the article that appears in my view to be "cheerleading" or public relations material on behalf of Steve Stockman, the subject of the article. Also, material not so complimentary of Stockman from the Houston Chronicle has been removed. Stockman is currently involved in a campaign for a U.S. Senate seat from Texas, and I'm not sure about some of the material that had been added, in terms of whether it would be considered soapboxing on behalf of Stockman, or just tendentious editing in the form of a public relations effort that tends to promote Stockman's political career.

Thoughts, anyone? Famspear (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This page had many spiteful malicious unsubstantiated comments using some half truths published or agenda driven stories by some media outlets. It has been cleaned up and citations with everything. Unlike other politicians there are no grey areas on Stockman you can either love him or hate him for his positions. His clear cut positions on different issues defines him and will either lose him the vote or get him the vote. There is no need to put absurd malicious lies or untruths about anyone as Wikepedia is supposed to be unbiased and neutral. 1houstonin

Dear 1houstonian: It appears to me that some of your edits removed well-sourced material from reliable sources. The fact that you feel such material consists of "spiteful malicious unsubstantiated comments using some half truths published or agenda driven stories by some media outlets" is not a valid reason for deleting material from reliable sources.

For example, the Houston Chronicle is considered to be a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia. It is one of the largest newspapers in the United States. It is not your place as a Wikipedia editor to second-guess a major newspaper in the nation's fourth largest city -- no matter how strongly you feel that the material might contain lies, etc.

Here is the rule:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.....

from WP:RS (bolding added).

The Houston Chronicle is a reliable source. I don't want to hurt your feelings 1houstonian, but you and I as Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. The Houston Chronicle has editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. You and I as Wikipedia editors cannot credibly make that same claim about ourselves. As Wikipedia editors, it is not our place to delete material from a reliable source merely because we strongly believe the material to be incorrect, or full of lies, or biased, etc. Please keep this in mind when editing. Famspear (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear 1houstonian: Here is an example of what I contend is some tendentious, non-neutral editing. This was a contribution you made on January 17, 2014:

Contrary to what is being reported and used in negative AD's in election campaign by opponent Steve has NEVER been charged with a felony. What they refer to took place 40 years ago when he was pulled over for misdemeanor traffic violations as a teenager. The record was expunged, and disclosing expunged records is a crime. Opponent's super PAC may now face criminal charges for that and opponent himself may be deposed in that case

See [1]. Your material was removed by another editor.

Your first-name basis reference to "Steve" in this material might be interpreted by your fellow editors as an indication that you may be using Wikipedia to support Steve Stockman's current candidacy for the U.S Senate.

You claimed that Steve Stockman was never charged with a felony -- yet we now have a reliable source (Texas Monthly magazine, Feb. 1996) from nearly seventeen years ago that says he WAS so charged, but that the charge was dropped.

You also stated -- without any source to back you up -- that "disclosing expunged records is a crime." That may or may not be the case, but it is not your place to make that determination and put that statement in a Wikipedia article without proper sourcing.

You also stated that a super PAC (political action committee) for one of Stockman's opponents "may" now face criminal charges for disclosing "that" -- meaning, apparently, disclosing the supposedly expunged record. Who told you that? What is your source? Which opponent? Which political action committee? That statement by you was completely unsourced conjecture on your part. Were you saying in the article, without any sourcing, that a political action committee for one of Stockman's opponents may now face criminal charges for disclosing expunged records to Texas Monthly some seventeen years ago? It's not clear. Is that what you were saying? Without any sourcing to back you up?

Please tone down the rhetoric and stick to what reliable sources have actually reported -- and don't try to remove material from reliable sources under the pretext that the sources are "biased" or are "lying", etc., etc. Yours, Famspear (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit correction: The Texas Monthly article was over seventeen years ago, not "nearly" seventeen years ago. I guess my math skill isn't very good this late at night! Famspear (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, you may notice that I myself removed the reference to the "felony" charge here: [2]. Although the Texas Monthly article did use the word "felony," I feel that because the charge was dropped, it's better in this particular case to leave it out. Anyone can be "charged" with a felony and yet not be guilty of a felony. Also, it's unclear whether the "charge" was merely an accusation by police or, alternatively, whether a district attorney actually accepted the charge. In any case, according to the magazine article, the felony charge was eventually dropped. Famspear (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

PS: Dear 1houstonian: I now see that the material you deleted had, as its source, the Washington Post -- and the Post material did not actually include the word "felony." Therefore, I want to apologize, because I now see that your removal of the material could have been based on a determination that the Post material did not properly back up the use of the word "felony." The fact that I found the Texas Monthly material that does include the word "felony" does not change the fact that you were correct in deleting material that was, at the time you made the deletion, not properly sourced. In any case, as noted above, I removed the word "felony" from the article, for the reason I cited. Famspear (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Stockman unlike other politicians has strong positions on issues like guns, abortion, drilling, jobs, small government which some newspaper may not like. Just because they are the only newspaper they do not have the right to engage in name calling congressman clueless or weird etc. The half truths published by this newspaper I am referring is for example they published a headline that he failed to declare income from his company in Virgin Island without mentioning the fact that the companies were closed several years before he ran for Congress and there was no reason to report and other self serving low level journalism.

The edits on this page have citations added that indicate what Stockman has done during his tenure ie sponsoring bills or supporting them or his work on the issues. The edits provide facts and are not cheering him as there are a lot of people like this so called journalists writing against who do not like these positions and will go vote against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've added the neutrality and advertisement tags to this article. There are some clear cases where the article is non-neutral in tone:

Some examples:

• Stockman has consistently chased the EPA to expedite permits for new plant construction

== FACT == and I have put citations

• Stockman is a believer in small government and considers government intrusion into healthcare Obamacare, as being tantamount to socialism.

== FACT == and I have put citations

• In February 2013, Stockman voted against the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act which allowed gays and transgender the same rights as those to biological women.
  • We can state that this was Stockman's objection to the bill, but the current text implies that this is the only significant fact about the bill, which is non-neutral.

you have interjected here say, just put the fact he voted against

• Senator John Cornyn voted for the Wall Street Bailout T.A.R.P.,[40] Medicare Part D, Fiscal Cliff Tax Hike, and other spending and tax increase programs and his refusal to defund Obamacare was the breaking point where Stockman decided not to seek reelection on his safe congressional seat and on December 9, 2013, Stockman filed for the Republican nomination of U.S. Senate for Texas against incumbent U.S. Senator John Cornyn.[3][4]
  • The tone here is more appropriate for campaign literature than an encyclopedia

==FACT Stockman put a resolution to defund Obamacare and Cornyn voted to fund Obamacare, and this is not campaign literature.

I intend to remove or modify all of these claims and make additional modifications as well. GabrielF (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

1houstonian: Please don't shout, and don't interleave your comments with existing text. --Alexbook (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Can we avoid an all-out edit war, involving accusations of POV editing?

User:1houstonian complains that other editors are trying to turn this into an anti-Stockman article. Some other editors are accusing 1houstonian of cheerleading. Edits are being reverted. We need some grown-ups in the room. --Alexbook (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please try to stop people from vandalizing Congressman Steve Stockman's page, this is election season and there are lawsuits for libel already on this subject http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/bay_area/opinion/stockman-sues-cornyn-super-pac-for-false-statements/article_d51b4716-797d-5f97-ad18-195fb3e95ebf.html and we do not want this vandalism to enter Wikepedia which is supposed to be neutral

Thank you 1houstonian