Talk:Heather Wilson

WHY NO EXPLINATION OF HER DOCUMENT TAMPERING SCANDALL?

this is something that should be mentioned

POV?

Sorry if you felt that was POV. Stern IS a talk radio giant, that doesn't mean I support him or hate Heather Wilson, or that I support Wilson and hate Howard Stean. --JamesB3 15:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

JamesB3, I responded to your comment on your Talk page. Again, please don't take POV to be a personal insult or the be an indication that I think you added POV material (an opinion) on purpose. I was just trying to bring the article into a more encyclopedic style of writing. If you have specific concerns or points you'd like to make, I'd look forward to hearing them. Again, thank you for adding the more recent material! --ABQCat 04:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ip 66.166.243.37 - It is against the rules to make unsigned changes to a page. Blatently partisan attacks will be removed Bachs 00:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please make this article less biased; it is difficult to compare both parties when one biography is basically an attack on the individual. Thanx

DeLay

None of the allegations against DeLay have been proven. Ronnie Earle, the Tom Delay prosecutor, has a history of indictments against Democrat and Republican political enemies that have failed (see Kay Bailey Hutchison) and it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to several grand juries because some refused to indict. [1] One of the charges filed by Earle was summarily dismissed by trial judge Pat Priest. Earle has partnered up with producers making a movie, called The Big Buy, about his pursuit of DeLay that has been filming since before DeLay was notified of the charges. [2] [3] [4]

This was added because the added statement about Tom Delay is an unproven allegation that is used to make the member of congress guilty by association. Especially when there is much evidence that Ronnie Earle's indictments are politically motivated. You cannot include one side of an unproven allegation and not include the other, to do so would be unfair and biased. The best course of action is to leave any reference to DeLay on Tom Delay's page and not Heather's until this matter is resolved in a court of law.

Changed Delay Paragrapgh again in accoprdance with compromise with editor Roma

Now Reads

Wilson was the fourth largest recipient of former House Majority Leader DeLay's ARMPAC campaign contributions. DeLay is being prosecuted on charges of felony money laundering of campaign finances and conspiracy to launder money. To date, Wilson has returned less than a quarter of the $46,959 she received from ARMPAC.[5] [6] Republicans say that the charges against DeLay are politically motivated because prosecutor Ronnie Earle has a history of unsuccessful indictments against political enemies of both parties such as Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and because it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to multiple grand juries because one refused to indict. [7] [8]Bachs 07:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Public health edit

I believe that this edit is overtly POV.

Voting against state's rights & public health

Wilson is supporting an amendment to the Toxic Substance Control Act sponsored by Representative Paul Gillmor (R-OH) that would set the stage for removing states' rights over public health protections from toxic chemicals, and would place the politically-appointed head of the EPA in authority over international treaty law. The EPA head is currently under attack for possible collusion with the pesticide industry for approval of pesticides without adequate scientific safety study. Wilson's votes would override her own state's existing legislation regarding protecting the public from toxic chemicals.

Main reasons:

• This isn't an enormously publicized piece of legislation. It seems that the only reason it's here is because the editor has a bone to pick with the bill and with Heather Wilson. Personally, I don't really think this should be here if all of her other votes aren't here as well.
• It doesn't actually SAY what the bill does in specifics, it just makes sweeping statements like "set the stage for removing states' rights.

-Vontafeijos 02:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

New Poll

Someone include the new poll that shows them tied.

This is just wrong

I find it remarkable that the hullaballoo about the "missing documents" pointed out that it was a sexual allegation by a minor, in the section headline, but somehow failed to mention that when the documents finally surfaced, they showed that the department and the police thoroughly investigated and found that the allegation lacked sufficient credibility for criminal prosecution. All editors who were involved in that should review WP:BLP. Dino 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this article too biased?

Just a question for discussion. It seems that this article fails to focus on Congresswoman Wilson's personal and legislative accomplishments, putting far too much emphasis on so-called "scandals" and other trivialities. Certainly, the current scandal involving the firing of the U.S. attorneys merits attention, but I don't think it's necessary to focus so much attention on it. Perhaps someone should include an excerpt of her explanation of the affair, contained on her website. Based on what it says, the call she made was far from an ethics violation, it was simply fulfilling her responsibilities to respond to the concerns of her constituents.