Talk:Keith Fimian

Funding Amounts?

There is a typo.... "$2,197,60"? 68.110.237.188 (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dissenting information?

This seems like a campaign poster rather than an encyclopedia article. Where is the dissenting information?— Preceding unsigned comment added by

Please add some. That's why you're on Wikipedia, no?69.15.200.122 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry, there's some new kibbles and bits about his opposition to stem cell research, his tea party connections, and a near complete lack of a civic life prior to running for congress. More tidbits to follow. CriticalChris 03:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues

Users such as Critical Chris make this page so negative towards Fimian that the whole thing sounds like it was written by a Connolly or Herrity operative. Critical Chris even admitted above that he added information specifically to attack Fimian, though I don't understand why opposition to embryonic stem cell research and tea party support are inherent evils. And sorry, but a blog which claims without proof to have an email from a former colleague with all sorts of attacks is not a well-sourced piece of information. I am re-adding the bias template. See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Keith Fimian. BS24 (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but unless I were rollin' in DCCC opposition research money, (and from what I hear there's lots of it out there this cycle) I can't really dig your bullshit cracked(tea)pot conspiracy theories about me working for Connolly, or Herrity for that matter. Are you accusing me of a violation of WP:COI? If so, please state your case sir! That's not something I take lightly and you'd better watch it! I will escalate that kind of accusation up the food chain to watch you flounder around if we have to. I'm sure you noticed Jimmy Wales himself was editing this page yesterday. And since when did I "(add) information specifically to attack Fimian?" You care to defend that one? CriticalChris 04:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You should take care, you did say this above which is a clear comment of your POV and general intent...Not to worry, there's some new kibbles and bits about his opposition to stem cell research, his tea party connections, and a near complete lack of a civic life prior to running for congress. More tidbits to follow. CriticalChris ... I strongly suggest you at least stop with the to and fro reverting and use discussion Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with having an "endorsements" section?

Does someone care to educate me as to the problem with having an "endorsements" section? Personally, I believe endorsements can be notable and politically significant in races for public office inasmuch as political observers and writers note their relationship to alignments with movements and party undercurrents. Is placing them somehow a form of WP:OR? I am inclined to keep them here in this article for now. CriticalChris 04:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Text like "garnered notable and prominent endorsements" and "enjoyed support" is totally inappropriate here. First, it is not encyclopedic (this is not a website to promote a point of view). Also, the references might verify that person X made statement Y, but they do not verify "notable and prominent" (we might see that such a phrase is "true", but that's just not how articles are written here). If a neutral and reliable source writes a story that focuses on a political candidate and makes a major point concerning endorsements, then an "endorsements" section might be appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

On the general issue of whether endorsement listings are appropriate for articles on politicians, I, and apparently a consensus of other editors here believe they are, otherwise they'd be long gone days ago as are Fimian's CatholicMil.org board associations with Leonard Leo. I am open to a compelling counter-argument otherwise and if there are guidelines or ArbCom rulings of which I am ignorant, please educate me as to those. In regards to "notable and prominent," I'd estimate that endorsements from Virginia's Attorney General and the House Minority Whip qualify as such. I would like to hear from other editors though on these issues. CriticalChris 18:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Signing my edit

My edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Fimian&oldid=375676152 at 20:41GMT on 27 July, 2010 was made under an IP address instead of my login name; the software timed out and signed me off, so I will claim responsibility for it now. I reformatted and reinserted some references which were previously excluded, purportedly because they were not properly formatted. That problem is now fixed, so we can move on from marginalizing those fact-checked, editorial-board-supervised, mainstream newspaper references, such as those from the Washington Post, the Virginia Gazette, and the Manassass News and Messenger. I did excise libertarian CATO Institute fellow, and conservative commentator Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller cushy spin piece on Fimian's conviction. I believe the ideological tenor of the Daily Caller, to include partisan credentials brought to the table by co-founder and former Dick Cheney aide Neil Patel, does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion as a reliable source. For similar reasons, I reduced the --spun-- weight of the section on Fimian's criminal conviction. The section as previously written seems like a rosy attempt to mitigate the legal and ethical gravity of the assault in a positive light with emphasis on the victim being a "male student," and references to a "water fight." Consider the larger context that this occurred 34 years ago during his college years. Fimian has since moved on, has no other known criminal convictions at this time, and can anyone attempt to argue that he hasn't made other positive contributions to society? Quite frankly, I believe this conviction and one week of incarceration merits one sentence at most, and surely shouldn't carry more weight than his newsworthy (see old newspaper archives from the late 1970's while he was a Junior and Senior) accomplishments on the football field while at William and Mary, or possibly his academic achievement of a bachelor of business administration degree there. Of more encyclopedic significance, I expanded the section on his political positions. Fimian has made offshore oil drilling a central component of his platform, having an "energy" issues section in his platform, but no "education" issues section. I have included new and well-sourced information on Fimian's tea party support. I also expanded the endorsements section for now, having seen a consensus emerge on this issue inasmuch as other editors have seen fit to keep details of endorsements from Cantor and Cuccinelli. CriticalChris 05:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the decent version, as you have a stated intension to drag up dirt and suchlike about this living person please do not make whole sale additions to the article, there are other editors involved in this article so please allow for discussion about your desired changes, I realize this is an election and strong partisan positions are held but this is a wikipedia BLP not a campaign blog, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted back to a more encylopedic version of the article which now includes 19 additional (properly-formatted-to-wikipedia standards) fact-checked, mainstream media sources which note Fimian's policy provisions on various matters. Do you care to explain at what point I stated any intention to "drag up dirt?" Now you are cutting things out of whole cloth. Also, why do you consider a previous version of this article more decent? I didn't revert anything that Jimbo Wales edited, despite your attempts to insinuate that I've reverted his content. I've added 19 sources! I've added well-sourced detail about his time in Peat Marwick's executive offices in New York City in the 1980's. I've added sourced detail about FEC data showing $269,000 cash on hand at the end of June, and the NRCC's elevation of Fimian to the "Young Guns" program. I've added well-sourced detail about Fimian's stated support in October, 2008 for the TARP bailout plan. I've added an unsupported attributions "who?" tag to a sentence indicating he has the endorsement support of Virginia Delegates. I've added a well-sourced and attributed quote from Bob Holsworth on his campaign. I've added and reorganized reliable sources about the Tea party movement's support for Fimian. I fixed an over-linked wikification of Eric Cantor's title. I added a FreedomWorks PAC endorsement press release as I concur that endorsements are appropriate for this article. I reinserted well-sourced material from Fimian's platform and from a WAMU program in July, 2010 in which Kojo Nnandi and Tom Sherwood spent almost 10 minutes discussing his support for about offshore drilling and Fimian's articulation of his knowledge of directional drilling technique. I added well-sourced information on Fimian's support for ratification of new free trade agreements. I added well-sourced material about Fimian's pledged oppostition to "any and all tax increases." I reorganized constitutional issues into one section and added well-sourced information on Fimian's opposition to congressional legislation granting voting rights to DC residents. All of these encyclopedic sources on Fimian's public policy positions are notable and relevant to Fimian's run for public office, yet you want to suppress these edits, with reliable properly-formatted sources, in favor of a less developed version of the article in which Fimian's assault convition 34 years ago dominates an entire paragraph. You reversion with a lengthy explanation from an unreliable source, Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller spins the incident in a less-negative light. With it's length and verbosity, the assault seems to carry more weight than his accomplishments on the football field, which, if you were to take the time to look at old newspaper archives, were certainly considered by periodicals of record more notable and newsworthy than the assault. I disagree that the older version was more "decent" and I am reverting your edit. CriticalChris 15:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

i asked you to discuss, and to stop reverting. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am both making positive changes to the article as per WP:BOLD --and-- discussing my edits here, so let's get down to business. Which of my edits do you feel are inappropriate? You now have 19 additional sources from which to add content to the article, perhaps you will collaborate with me and add more sources; I'll be looking for more of your contributions here as you seem to have taken as much of an interest in this article as I have. CriticalChris 16:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Assault conviction

After a week of edit warring over this we need to decide. Is some misdemeanor assault conviction 35 years ago really notable for his biography? Who really cares? It's just meant to slander him. BS24 (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been commented upon by notable reliable sources, such as Ben Pershing in The Washington Post. That's what matters. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet. In my opinion, if the Washington Post and two other Virginia newspapers saw Fimian's assault conviction as newsworthy in articles about his candidacy, than I believe it is both notable and encyclopedic, but of course not with WP:undue weight. I do think it merits a sentence. I don't think it merits multiple sentences and certainly not a paragraph. Now that might change if it becomes a more significant issue in the race, or at the point this article really grows branches and gets into massive kilobyte territory and there is a paragraph on his childhood, a few sentences on his presidential appointment to the United States Naval Academy, a paragraph on his college football career, and a paragraph on his honors project in college, ok, then at that point maybe more weight on the criminal conviction could arguably be warranted. For now though, at the article's present state of development, I think his proposed tax policy as a congressional candidate in year 2010 certainly merits more weight than a mid-1970's dormitory assault. CriticalChris 18:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't take much to create a news article. I could go drink a gallon of milk and if someone at a newspaper found it interesting, they could write a story about it. Does that mean the event should be noted on the milk page? BS24 (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, your clever repackaging of the "indict a ham sandwich" cliche is neither fitting, nor correct. Ask any professor of journalism or civil law whether drinking milk is newsworthy. It's not, and if you snapped a photo of someone doing that and published it, along with an article on the milk drinking, you could be arguably be committing a privacy tort by intruding on another's seclusion. On the other hand, the public record background of a candidate for public office is entirely newsworthy and falls outside of the scope of a privacy torts, and has a special significance for someone making criminal law in the chambers of the Capitol. Do you think (and has) the editorial board of the Washington Post approved for print articles on Fimian's diet and beverages? CriticalChris 20:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Legatus organization and accusations of "religious bigotry"

Editor BS24 has edited the article to read - "Fimian is a member of the national board of directors of Legatus, a Roman Catholic group of business executives started by Domino's Pizza founder and philanthropist Tom Monaghan. Fimian faced attacks from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which sent out mailings criticizing the group's "radical agenda" of opposition to abortion and contraception.[16] Fimian and some Catholic leaders accused Connolly and the DCCC of religious bigotry, saying the group simply follows Catholic doctrine on those issues."[16]

Another editor has questioned the inclusion of the last clause of the last sentence which reads "saying the group simply follows Catholic doctrine on those issues." Does editor BS24 care to point out the source of this last clause of the sentence? I would like to make the inline citation a bit more clear to the reader on this point, lest it be confused as WP:OR CriticalChris 19:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I was referencing this source which had been removed. It should be okay now. BS24 (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No apology needed sir. The wording is a bit more clear, and I will leave this as is for now to let other editors weigh in and edit as they see fit. I do need to take a closer look at the source later to see how it falls into the scope of WP:RS. Any periodical with the word "advocate" right in the title, may need better attribution. CriticalChris 20:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The source is the criticism itself; i.e., the "one blog" is the citation. BS24 (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That "one blog" may still need to be attributed in context to a source with an angle of "advocacy." It's ok to quote op/ed writers here on the wiki, such as Davon Gray, but sources need attribution in certain instances. I'd like to hear what other editors think. CriticalChris 15:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fimian's proposal to abolish of the U.S. Department of Education

Editor BS24 has, on at least one occasion here [1], has inserted material into the article which attempts to frame Fimian's call to abolish the US Department of education in the context of an effort "to return control to states and localities." He has sternly adminonished us, as he did with his edits on the "religious bigotry" issue - "Do not remove this again." I am writing now to explain that I removed it as, however "factual" you may believe it to be, from my plain reading it's just not in the news source listed. Please bring to my attention anything I overlooked in the news source. Your continued insertion of this material without a reliable source could arguably consitute original research on your part. There's nothing on Fimian's website political platform about education, and such a statement needs to be properly sourced, just like his birthdate, or place of birth. CriticalChris 19:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why else would he want to abolish the Department of Education? The rationale behind anyone who supports that idea is to return it to the states. If you can find some other reason for doing that, let me know. BS24 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If I find something, I'll be one of the first to place it in his positions section, but we have to stick to sourced material here on Wikipedia. Quite frankly I've had a very hard time finding any sources on Fimian's policy positions on either transportation or education; there's nothing whatsoever on Fimian's website/platform about education. CriticalChris 20:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

72% leaves one quarter

I reworded (shortened) Critical Chris's contribution of the WAMU-FM interview where Fimian is confronted with a report about the area off Virginia's coast being 72% devoted to sensitive military use, and him replying "so that still leaves one quarter" [for petroleum drilling]. This quote demonstrates Fimian's stance as a pro-drilling politician, even in the face of resistance from the U.S. military. A strong stance indeed. This quote is very apt, and I think it should be in the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

He is not resisting the U.S. military. If people want to find out about his energy policies they can click the citation. BS24 (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not say he was resisting the military.

This article is here to summarize the man, and he is a politician. Important elements to be considered for any politician article are policy positions. The petroleum position is one he has expressed himself about, so what's the big deal with your resistance to having it shown? People come here to find out about him; a brief bit about his petroleum drilling position is a good thing to know. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Binksternet was intonating that, at the least, the DoD's position conflicts with Fimian's, not that Fimian was resisting the military. Detail on policy positions, especially those on a politician's platform which are also high profile issues in Congress, are of paramount importance for such an article and should be detailed here with good sources like WAMU's Politics Hour with Kojo Nnandi and Tom Sherwood. So to reiterate, people should be able to find out about his energy policy positions right here in this article without having to surf over to a citation. An array of important issues this election year such as those arising to an increased significance after the Deepwater Horizon disaster and growing awareness of M. King Hubbert Peak Oil Theory could easily be overlooked and buried that way, which narrows the comprehensive encyclopedic scope of this article. CriticalChris 12:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Reason for my revert

A very minor thing but, Binksternet, I thought it would help to explain here why I reverted where you had reverted my previous edit. I'm not trying to get in an edit war. The brackets around the word "but" indicate that Mr. Fimian didn't actually say that word, but he did. The Washington Post blog cited correctly quotes him as saying it. You can confirm with the original audio on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyZ1AATFyIMBK DC (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! That works for me. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Navy Service

I believe the opening paragraph attempts to link Keith Fimian with the United States Navy, which he was not a part of. I am unaware of any reason to say, list the family as a Navy family when there is no information as to how long or in what capacity that particular member of his family served. Second, if we are to describe his entire family as a Navy family due to one person's registration in the Military you'd be able to describe any person by the occupation of just one in their household. I am editing the opening paragraph to not conflate Keith Fimian with the military, which he did not serve in.

I agree that Fimian's online biography is skimpy when it comes to naming who in his family was in a Navy-related career. Was it his mother, his father? And what was that career? Was this person simply a civilian contractor, or were they in the Navy itself?

I did not think that it was horrible to say in his early childhood section that his family was a Navy one. I don't think that sort of connection implies anything about Keith Fimian—it just says why his family moved around. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)