Talk:Patrick McHenry

IP issues?

It seems a lot of the issues mentioned below are by IP 65.40.234.49. Should this be pursued by the admins? I'm not going to try to hold a one-person whinefest here, but it certainly seems that that IP (and the Jason Deans IP) are clearly editing to hide or otherwise maliciously damage information (I'm under the impression it's McHenry staffers). Thoughts? --Ziegfest (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing content

To all the anonymous editors: quit unilaterally removing content without a good reason and/or consensus.--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed non-neutral, poorly-sourced content, in accordance with commonly accepted standards for biographies of living persons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.194.118.11 (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, good to see that the National Republican Congressional Committee is so well versed in wikipedia guidelines. Forget about COI?--150.212.40.71 (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was the NRCC, although the citation was to... a blog written by a Democratic activist with no neutral sourcing in any major or minor media outlet. That said, here's what was removed back in January. You decide whether it should have stayed. --Kallahan (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

According to voter registration applications uncovered by Mike Rogers of BlogActive.com, two other men, Matthew Allen Hamilton and Neil Everett Capano, have also registered to vote using Rep. McHenry's home address. Another man, Jason Jent Deans, registered and voted in McHenry's district but used an address outside of the district to receive payments from the McHenry campaign.

McHenry Daily KOS dispute

Upon a semi-revert war with User:Kallahan, I slightly changed the post I made to be more NPOV by not mentioning the blogs, however, I simultaneously added another link to prove that the term "liberal blogs" is legitimate. This should end this dispute, and no further editing is necessary, as it is clear that this should agree with both of our positions, as the facts are preserved. Also, apologies on the "Preceded" typo. --152.17.138.92 (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this one. On the one hand... the entry says that it's speculation from a blog and I've always been more of the mind set that if an entry says what it is and it's a notbale blog (which Dalykos is)... then it should be allowed. Indeed... this could be a great example of the lengths DailyKos and other websites are going to in order to hurt McHenry's political career so it may have value from that perspective on top of value from a left wing perspective. On the other hand... ti's a pretty severe peice of speculation. It's largely circumstantial. I'm on the fence... I could go either way.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. My main reason for reverting it was because it was new information that had been removed by an experienced editor. If it had been established information that was removed or if the confrontation was between two experienced editors I wouldn't have done so.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

As it says at the top of this discussion page: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." The more controversial a claim, the more reputable the source required, generally speaking. Speculation in a blog, unless reported on by notable mainstream media (and then cited to those sources), is unlikely to be a suitable source for such accusations and claims. Vassyana (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding edits and edit protection

I accept the current incarnation of the page, but I suggest the community assess whether the speculation contained in the second-half of the Controversy section (previously entitled "OPSEC Violation Video in Iraq's Green Zone possibly resulting in three deaths") should be here at all. I worry that the edits made by 152.17.138.92 are meant to make this article decidedly non-NPOV and, rather than encyclopedic, a partisan outgrowth of political blogs. --Kallahan (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Y'know... I actually meant to side with you and remove it completely. I didn;t realize what edit I was reverting... oh well, can;t do nothing now until the protection expires... if you change your mind you may want to appeal to User:Gonzo_fan2007.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• That whole section should just go, or be completely rewritten as an extremely short para. Recentism gone mad. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Baby of the House

"Baby of the House" is not a term used in the United States. McHenry is simply referred to as the youngest member of Congress. This should be removed when the edit protection expires. JTRH (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

True, Baby of the House it is an unnoffial term. Superdelegate is also an unofficial term yet there's an entire page about it (whose page title I disagree with) and that term is used on many other pages in wikipedia. Just because something's unnaoficial doesn't mean it can't be mentioned on wikipedia. Would you also remove all mention of superdelegates?--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be removed because it's unofficial. I'm saying it should be removed because it is not used in the United States. It is not accurate to say that the youngest member of Congress is referred to as the Baby of the House. JTRH (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

I removed the controversy section entirely, in keeping with WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP, especially WP:TABLOID. It is simply unacceptable to dominate an article on a living individual with the nine days' wonder of a tabloid flap over a careless comment. The news media are primary sources in this respect and, crucially, they never go back and say "oh, well, we over-reacted a bit there" - they are all about vividness, not impact. We should step back and see how weightier more analytical secondary sources describe this. A short placeholder is fine, but at the earliest opportunity we should go to less immediatist sources - even Newsweek would be a good start, or the Wall Street Journal's overseas edition, which does a remarkably good job of condensing the meat of silly political dramas. If it's not a resignation issue (which it does not appear to be, just routine election time dramatisation of everything any politician says), then we should not overdramatise it ourselves, and we absolutely do not go with blow-by-blow stuff sourced to YouTube, blow by blow belongs on Wikinews and YouTube belongs at dev/null. Feel free to propose a nice short section to be going on with. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully submit that a Member of Congress being accused of violating security procedures in a war zone is hardly "a tabloid flap over a careless comment." This has been widely reported by objective media in North Carolina, and is becoming recognized as a legitimate issue in the Congressman's re-election campaign (even if he's not going to lose because of it). The issue should be re-written (NPOV, non-tabloid) but not removed entirely from this article. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Starting point? --Kallahan (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

McHenry stirred controversy with his remarks on April 1, 2008 regarding a recent trip to Iraq. During his remarks to 150 Republicans attending the Lincoln County GOP Dinner, he called a contractor -- reported first by liberal blogs as a "U.S. soldier" -- performing security duties in Iraq as "a two-bit security guard" because the contractor denied McHenry access to a gym.

"We spent the night in the Green Zone, in the poolhouse of one of Saddam’s palaces. A little weird, I got to be honest with you. But I felt safe. And so in the morning, I got up early — not that I make this a great habit — but I went to the gym because I just couldn’t sleep and everything else. Well, sure enough, the guard wouldn’t let me in. Said I didn’t have the correct credentials.

It’s 5:00 in the morning. I haven’t had sleep. I was not very happy with this two-bit security guard. So you know, I said, “I want to see your supervisor.” Thirty minutes later, the supervisor wasn’t happy with me, they escort me back to my room. It happens. I guess I didn’t need to work out anyway."

He later apologized, saying "[i]t was a poor choice of words to describe a foreign contractor."

I like this so far. Good work! JTRH (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good... the DailyKos thing should stay out unless a reputable news source picks it up.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Stay on the lookout; it appears our motivated IP friend has gotten a Wikipedia account. Special:Contributions/Atomgryo --Kallahan (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected this article for a period of one week, largely out of concern for adherence to our biographies of living people policy. Please refrain from adding material concerning the photographs that are being circulated in the blogosphere, and perhaps even linking to a site that carries them. If these allegations are investigated by a reliable news sources (other than blogs, even respected political ones) then it might be appropriate to mention. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, VanTucky 19:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality

There are plenty of rumors that Patrick McHenry is gay. This is important to his biography, so I believe that it should be mentioned in his biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm Very Good (talk • contribs) 16:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

The recent edit by 96.231.117.108 smacks far too much of political advertising, which is far beyond any standard of neutrality. Lines like "Congressman McHenry has fought for adequate veterans' health care for his district." are clearly stuff from his own campaign- any Congressman in the world would say the same thing, and it's not necessary to list out his individual votes like merit badges for an overgrown boy scout. If someone doesn't edit this, I may, but we need to somehow retain the important information and get rid of the blatant self-promotion going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.189.11 (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take it up right now, and I invite other (legitimate, non-McHenry) guys to work with the material as it stands. I'm making the decision to remove much of the Hickory Clinic, as many current Congressmen work on similar projects and Wikipedia has yet to chronicle those- it seems needless, lest we all want to begin documenting in excruciating detail every vote made by each Congressman. In addition, a lot of it references back to his website- reads like an ad, go figure. Anyway, thoughts on my edit (coming up in about 10 mins)? --Ziegfest (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick note- McHenry is not involved in H.R. 1616, according to info- which isn't even the bill mentioned. I attached the only one that appears connected to the whole meth topic, but correct me if I'm wrong. --Ziegfest (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I have updated the page with the cite to his legislation, H.R. 1616, which was incorporated into larger legislation. The text (including bill number) can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1616:

Potus128 (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the last two external links because they both violated NPOV. The second one is a blog that is poorly sourced. Some Members of Congress have external links to their state or national political party, but I can't find any that have hate sites in the list.

Ystava (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Added them back. The blog is well sourced and referenced in a few newspapers (both the Hickory Daily Record and News@Norman). To remove the link would be to unfairly balance the article pro-McHenry, and honestly, it's only a link anyway. McHenry's site is full of pro-McHenry information and clearly at the top, it's not as if readers will be unfairly biased- and in defense of the site, it is properly sourced even to Wikipedia standards. Far from "attack sites" such as Pat Go Bye Bye, which was on here for some time. To remove it would be meaningless- and considering it's been in newspapers, it's certainly wikipedia-worthy. --Ziegfest (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This blog is not in keeping with Wikipedia's standards on biographies of living persons (BLPs). Specifically: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2]" Potus128 (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest issues

see here. Skomorokh 14:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)