Jump to content

Talk:Alan Grayson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.13.223.188 (talk) at 16:51, 21 February 2010 (→‎NPOV tag). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

News This page has been mentioned by a media organization. The mention is in:
  • Rush Limbaugh (01 October 2009). "Rush Limbaugh Show". {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

More NPOV language from Scientus

Scientus refuses to discuss his edits (beyond churlish insults on my talk page, which lead me to suspect that he is Grayson or someone very close to Grayson). So let's run down his new NPOV edits: 1) and such allegations, including similar ones over another speech, are “Republican propaganda” and “lie[s] to distract people from the truth”.[1] According to Grayson the Republican party is “party of 'no' [and] well on its way to becoming the party of 'nobody'”.[2]

We already concluded that his additional insults against Republicans are not pertinent to his biography. Scientus is attempting to restore some of the same information "party of nobody" that we have already reached conclusions on.

2) On October 8 Grayson gave a speech in which he reiterated that he would not apologize to the Republicans (“America doesn't care about [the Republican party's] feelings”), while accusing the Democratic party of narrowly focusing on procedure over policy [original research?] (“We as a party have spent the last six months, the greatest minds in our party, dwelling on the question, the unbelievably consuming question of how to get Olympia Snowe to vote on health care reform”) and the Republican party for dogmatic opposition to the Democrats (“If Barack Obama has a BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon”).[3]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). told Grayson that her office does not know and is not tracking where this money is.[4] Bloomberg has totaled the credit put out in the bailout as 9.7 trillion dollars,Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). and Elizabeth A. Coleman regarding federal spending. Grayson joined with fellow freshman Democrat Jim Himes of Connecticut to introduce the Grayson-Himes Pay for Performance Act, legislation to require that all bonuses paid by companies that had received funds under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to be "based on performance"[5]; on April 1, the bill was passed by the full House of Representatives by a vote of 247-171.[6] Grayson is a co-sponsor of the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009.

Grayson attracted bi-partisan criticism for September, 2009 appearance on the Alex Jones Show radio program, during which he called Linda Robertson, an assistant to Ben Bernanke, a "K-Street Whore.[7] Grayson subsequently apologized for his characterization of Robertson. [8][9] Trilemma (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article should not be an attack on Grayson based on taking a comment out of context. Your version is particularly laughable in that it excludes any link to his statement.Scientus (talk)
Scientus, not only will I not engage you while you insist on hostile confrontation ("laughable"), but I'd encourage others to ignore you as well. If you have something positive to contribute, feel free to do so, but merely attacking other editors isn't welcomed behavior. Trilemma (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trilemma, not only will I continue to respond to you as I feign indignation, but I will also evade criticism while pretending it is ad hominem.Scientus (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with the proposed shortening. It summarizes the section in question well, and is as long as it needs to be considering the current edition basically documents the bi-partisan criticism in unnecessary detail. The "who said what and when about his comments" isn't important, what is notable is that he said it, was publically criticized, and apologized.—DMCer™ 07:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that what he said apart from those three words—the entire context of Alan Grayson's conversation about bank lobbyists, is irrelevant to an article about Alan Grayson?Scientus (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying that I support trilema's edit and that I consider it a large improvement, there is already a main article that explains and includes all the excessive stuff. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are three editors here clearly involved on the talkpage who support the reduction, please take your time with reverting as trilema's edit has a fair degree of support. Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLLINGScientus (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is reflective of your attitude to other editors opinions throughout, please apply good faith to other users. Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the trend continues, then Scientus will simply continue to ignore the talk page. Then when we again establish a clear consensus on revisions, he will revert them, accuse me and others of POV pushing, and start the cycle again. Trilemma (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does look like that is the case, I am going to ask a neutral editor to rewrite the section. Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I'm moving these from hidden text in the article to here in case someone wants to see if they can be used here: -- Banjeboi

HaliburtonWatch as an RS? Trilemma (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These were in the article so I removed them. If someone wants to look at using them they can certainly do that - even POV sources might help explain issue for those researching the subject. If they are indeed used they should only be used appropriately and, as a general rule, the more exceptional claims need more exceptional sourcing. Using strong sourcing from the start is likely the best bet. -- Banjeboi 22:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also removed these two from the external links, they may be useful as sources but don't meet the stringent WP:EL policy. -- Banjeboi 22:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Undue, WP:Soapbox and WP:Recentism

I've taken the weed-whacker to clean-up and trim all the excesses from Alan Grayson#2008 Health care comments. First off YouTube is generally not a great source so i encourage those using such to start backing up those with print journalism ones which tend to be more stable. Secondly it was a bit of a soapbox and quotefarm which seemingly was to be NPOV-ish to present multiple views but just ending up being so-and-so also didn't like ____. Get to the point, state it NPOV and move on. Guess what, as it's written now it presents that Grayson either says a lot of foolish things to simply enrage or actually spark debate. This is what his article should cover, not digressions and quibbling. There are good articles all about the current health care debates and any extra content can go to those if it needs to go anywhere. Try to see US politics for what they are and don't fall for the hype. Also Politico is used extensively. They may be a good or even great source but it may be wise to diversify sourcing in future editing. -- Banjeboi 22:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely a big improvement. I have a few issues with it but I'll hold off on delineating them while others weigh in. Trilemma (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the whole article is structured a bit oddly which doesn't help. IMHO, it's currently set to push each "issue" into its own section when politicians, and most people simply don't work like that. It likely would be wiser to restructure everything chronologically and this also separates the person from the issue to show why he does what he does. For instance this current dust-up on health care will undoubtably play into his next election yet that connection would either be not explored or doubled-downed explained in two sections rather that just a common thread in one. But that's for another day ... -- Banjeboi 23:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube videos from Alan Grayson's official channel not stable? So if its been printed its true? Even when the video is direct evidence? Perhaps you should exclude all print media because The Sun or The Onion prints things of questionable accuracy...Scientus (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no doubt it his his channel or controlled by him then it can be included. However, all video has a drawback that once the link dies it's gone so it is likely wiser to source to print media which even if they go dead can still be viewed in the web archives. -- Banjeboi 21:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many are public domain documents. They include context/semantic information. Someone could upload them to http://archive.org and many are available on http://c-spanvideo.org/congress/ Scientus (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're still not hearing me, you can use videos as sources but they have some major drawbacks for verification. The main one being that when the video link goes down we have no back-up like we do with the Internet archives. -- Banjeboi 03:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we're hearing you loud and clear, pal. Except no one believes you. If you're so concerned about video links dying then go through EVERY single article in Wikipedia deleting every video link along the way. BTW, LOTS of links die - not just those of vids. And they aren't all available in archive. That doesn't mean we don't use them. You're just trying to whitewash Grayson's CRAZY side and not fooling anyone... Big Daddy 69.244.182.135 (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In line linking to utube is not correct and not recommended. There is no whitewashing at all, please keep the discussion civil, consentrate on the content. Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob reverts

Source says "four to one in our favor" [1]. this is inaccurate, yet Off2riorob reintroduces it, twice!, with only justification that my edit is "unfounded".Scientus (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, please do not mass edit the article without discussion, please state your issues and allow the other involved editors time to investigate your issues. Also the utube in-line sources should anyway be removed, I suspect the editor used one of the other sources to paraphrase, I will look at the sources. Off2riorob (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued edit warring over this is disappointing, I assure you that is not the way to affect change, your refusal to discuss is very poor. I have to go out and will deal with this later. Off2riorob (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was the fact you reverted back twice without reason other than my edit being "unfounded" false?Scientus (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scientus, I'm not sure if you are adding the YouTube references but please allow me to suggest how they should be cited; using the Grayson on Hardball video example, the source is Chris Matthew's Hardball - we need to be clear on that, use a WP:Citation template if possible and then add the YouTube link for verification. -- Banjeboi 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to give an outside view, the section on the K-Street whore bit seems overly large to me. I would try to trim it down to focus on Grayson's views on the issue in dispute and the fact that his comments referring to someone else as a K-Street whore were controversial and move on. I've also refactored the unnecessarily provocative thread heading. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue to which I had to change it was that it seemed your paraphrase was not supported by the source, and therefore could be inaccurate. By including the source, essential context is preserved and the reader can consider the appropriateness of Grayson's statements. Without context, the existence of someone, somewhere, criticizing him is just hearsay.Scientus (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K-street whore, K-street whore, K-street whore, K-street whore

We only use "K-street whore" four times including a pull quote - surely if we try hard enough we can mention at least a dozens times. Maybe we could explain whether one or both of his parent were K-street whores in the early life section. -- Banjeboi 16:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Trilemma is contributing to this degeneration of Wikipedia into a tabloid. The fair and NPOV way is to include the full context by an appropriate quote from the interview, as was in the article.Scientus (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the pull quote and I agree that it would be best boiled down to one instance. My revisions were aimed at removing the soap boxing that was present. Trilemma (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

Resolved
 – Article rolled back. -- Banjeboi 21:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the NPOV tag as this article has once again degraded. This time to pile a list of seemingly transgressive actions into a hitlist of shame against the subject of this BLP. This violates our NPOV and BLP policies. These items should be integrated appropriately with due weight into the main text of the article or removed altogether. Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sadly, you're missing the point that most of this guy's notability is *from* the items you have rolled back. It's OK for a liberal to have a controversies section on Wikipedia! Remember, that's what NPOV is all about...
  1. ^ "Alan Grayson on Hardball: Is Dick Cheney a Vampire?". October 22, 2009.
  2. ^ "Rep. Alan Grayson: "The Party of No is quickly becoming the Party of Nobody"". October 21, 2009.
  3. ^ Rep. Alan Grayson: I Will Not Apologize- America Doesn't Care About Your Feelings,(transcript and video), CrooksAndLiars.com, 2009-10-09
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference mindingthestore was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ A Better Way For Wall Street, grayson.house.gov, 2009-03-24
  6. ^ Grayson gets his bill through the House, Orlando Sentinel, 2009-04-01
  7. ^ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28763.html
  8. ^ A Statement from Congressman Alan Grayson, grayson.house.gov, 2009-10-27
  9. ^ http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=news_result&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAkQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fblogs%2F2009%2F10%2F27%2Fpolitics%2Fpoliticalhotsheet%2Fentry5427087.shtml&rct=j&q=grayson+apologizes&ei=j1zvSv63IoLDlAfhhdT_BA&usg=AFQjCNHJLlElWkBC69ZCln6mzCbqpHOImg
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alan_Grayson&oldid=345452165"