Talk:Steny Hoyer

Someone is getting ahead of his or herself

Steny Hoyer, nor Nancy Pelosi, have not made an announcement about their positions in the leadership in 2013. This article assumes that Pelosi will step down and that Hoyer will get elected. There is no indication of any of these things happening.

politico source

The following was removing under the rational of "blog quoting blog":

In Congress, Hoyer's concessions to the Republican minority and President George W. Bush are earning him a reputation as the "new Joe Lieberman."

Under WP:Verifiability: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." The politico blog is not a personal blog. The post furthermore isn't sourcing a blog, it's quoting an influential blogger. Greg Comlish (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The entire section is heavily critical of Hoyer to the point of being unsalvageable, and I've removed it per WP:BLP. --Tom (talk - email) 18:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Congressional Reputation" section is sloppy hack job with a major POINT OF VIEW

It is filled with factual errors, dishonest presumptions, and quotes from inconsequential far-left bloggers.

The first two sentences dishonestly present Hoyer’s reputation in Congress; but it really is stating Hoyer’s reputation among far-left bloggers. Hoyer has an outstanding reputation in Congress, as evident by his elected position of Majority Leader.

Most of the bills listed as evidence of Hoyer conspiring with Bush and Republicans are in fact widely popular bipartisan bills that passed with a majority of Democrats.

Hoyer did not draft the bankruptcy bill.

Hoyer did not vote for the Terry Schiavo intervention.

Hoyer fundraising and his Leadership PAC are nothing but typical for any member of Congressional Leadership of either party.

David Sirota is an inconsequential far-left blogger, not an authority on Congress nor a progressive leader.

There is no citation for the lobbyist citing the bankruptcy bill. This was probably made-up.

Where are the Wikipedia editors who stand up for the principle of NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW?!?! This is a disgrace. Caphillstaffer (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section since it seemed to be overly critical of Hoyer, and therefore raises WP:BLP issues. While everything it said was cited, the way the facts were presented were heavily slanted. --Tom (talk - email) 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Numerous items were not cited. And some of the cites were completely different from what was said. Caphillstaffer (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I have made several additions to this article, which have been abundantly cited in proper accordance to WP:Verifiability. If some people believe that the cited material does not fairly portray the subject, then the solution is to address the distortion by rewriting existing material in a more neutral tone, and adding missing material.

Prior to my editing the article was a profound whitewash of the "boy wonder" congressman. It even made the incredible allegation that Hoyer was a leader in "civil liberties". (I imagine the ACLU would beg to differ). I've tried to improve the article. My edits, like everyone else's, are imperfect and incomplete. This is wikipedia, afterall. One persons edits are never the end of the article. But the solution is to improve the article, not to erase inconvenient facts.

Now to address specifics:

Most of the bills listed as evidence of Hoyer conspiring with Bush and Republicans are in fact widely popular bipartisan bills that passed with a majority of Democrats.

Be specific. Which bills are you talking about? The Iraq War? The Fisa bill? NCLB? The Bankruptcy Bill? Help America Vote? Hoyer himself has called the Fisa bill and his own numerous votes on the Iraq War "compromises" so I think it's fair to call those "concessions". The word "conspire" was never used.

When a large number of Democrats vote for a bill along with a large number of Republicans, you say it should be called a "concession" rather than a "compromise"? And you really think you are writing with a nuetral point of view? You are far from it. You sound like Fox News. The Iraq_Resolution passed the House 296-133 and the Senate 77-23. The Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_and_Consumer_Protection_Act passed the House 302-126 and the Senate 74-25. No_child_left_behind passed the House 384-45 and the Senate 91-8. The Help_America_Vote_Act passed the House 357-48 and the Senate 92-2. All of these bills passed easily with large numbers of Democrats. Please do research before making accusations. Caphillstaffer (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What was it you'd like me to research? Perhaps the definition of compromise?

compromise 1 a: a settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions.

Regarding the Fisa bill, the Republicans got everything they wanted and then bragged about in the national media. That is, by definition, not a compromise. Whether or not many Democrats were complicit is irrelevant to the degree their actions constitute concessions. Furthermore, the totals you quote represent the total votes in congress, not votes in the Democratic Party. Greg Comlish (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You say it was not a compromise, along with the far-left bloggers and a few members of Congress. But Obama called it one: "Obama Defends Compromise on New FISA Bill" [[1]]. And so did the Washington Post Editorial Board: "A Better Surveillance Law, Congress shows it still knows how to reach a compromise in the national interest" [2]. And so did most of mainstream America. Caphillstaffer (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Imagine that: A capital hill staffer lecturing me on the beliefs of Mainstream America. Please benighted creature of the beltway, indulge us with your heartland credentials. Regale us with your Conventional Wisdom. Don't be shy. Also Note: the bloviating of Presidential Candidates and The Washington Post Editorial Board do not dictate reality or alter facts (except perhaps to credulous congressional staffers?), nor does their editorializing and political spin alter the fact that the Republicans have gotten everything they wanted while conceding nothing. "I win, you lose" is not a compromise. It's called losing. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A major principle of Wikipedia is Neutral Point of View. You, my friend, have a very strong point of view. And you have thousands of places and blogs to go express your point of view. Please do not pollute Wikipedia with your opinions. Caphillstaffer (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your primary allegation of bias is that I used the word "concession" instead of "compromise". However, you baselessly insist that the FISA bill is a "compromise" without ever naming a single concession won from the Republican minority. And failing to given any factual justification for your views, you simply declare facts as in violation of "Neutral Point of View." Well let's see ... how about we compromise? Instead of "concession" we can call it a "compromise wherein the Republican minority and the Telcoms were given everything they wanted and the Democrats received nothing in return?" Does that work for you? Greg Comlish (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My primary problem was that the section was labeled his "Reputation in Congress", but you were in fact just listing his current reputation among far-left bloggers, who happen to be very upset with him at the moment. There is a huge difference there. The bill that was just passed contained numerous concessions from the Republicans. If this compromise bill was not passed, then a large block of House Dems would have revolted and helped the R's pass the bill that had already cleared the Senate by a wide margin. Then how would the D's in Congress look? For an in-depth analysis of the numerous concessions won by the D's in the latest bill specifically over the most recent Senate bill, [look here] and for more general analysis look on Hoyer's FISA page.Caphillstaffer (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We already know that Steny Hoyer describes his actions as a compromise. The relevant question is how Republicans feel about the FISA bill. Do Republicans believe the bill is a "compromise"? Republicans described their ecstatic embrace of the FISA bill right here:

The proposal — particularly the immunity provision — represents a major victory for the White House after months of dispute. “I think the White House got a better deal than they even they had hoped to get,” said Senator Christopher Bond, the Missouri Republican who led the negotiations.

The White House got more than they even hoped for. Republicans also dismissed the narrow court review on the immunity question that Mr. Hoyer has falsely trumpeted as evidence of his hard-won concessions as a mere “formality.” Greg Comlish (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Caphillstaffer, I agree with you that the original wording was NPOV. However, I also agree with all of your critics here that Hoyer's pack of invertebrates are worse than useless, and if there were any justice in the world they would be thrown out of office this November. - Frankie (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fundraising

Hoyer did not draft the bankruptcy bill.

Hoyer did not vote for the Terry Schiavo intervention.

Ok.

Hoyer fundraising and his Leadership PAC are nothing but typical for any member of Congressional Leadership of either party.

Feel free to add a citation for that assertion, but you can't just silence the Center for public integrity just because you don't like what they say.

I would point you to the 'only' media article I can find that even considered that report news. And what did they have to say about it?

"That's like saying somebody who deducts mortgage interest on their taxes is exploiting a tax loophole," said Nathaniel Persily, a campaign finance expert and University of Pennsylvania Law School professor. "What exactly is the problem?"

"Bundling is very common," said Steve Weisman, of the George Washington University's Campaign Finance Institute.

What Hoyer, a lawyer, did was perfectly legal, the Federal Election Commission said, too. In fact, his insistence on detailed reporting made tracking the funds easier.

Caphillstaffer (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

David Sirota is an inconsequential far-left blogger, not an authority on Congress or a progressive leader.

First of all, the citation is from Politico not David Sirota's "far left" blog. Secondly, labeling widely published authors as "Far Left Bloggers" is a transparent excuse to eliminate their viewpoints from consideration. Sirota is an established media figure. I saw on Colbert Report last month talking about Congress. He's progressive. He's a leader. He's a progressive leader.

There is no citation for the lobbyist citing the bankruptcy bill. This was probably made-up.

The citation is right .here from "The Hill" article "K Street happy with Hoyer victory ". And the specific quote is "Business lobbyists most point to Hoyer’s vote last year in favor of bankruptcy reform".

Where are the Wikipedia editors who stand up for the principle of NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW?!?! This is a disgrace.

Ok. Greg Comlish (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are some of the problems with what you wrote:

• This section is highly critical of Hoyer but is simply named "Congressional Reputation" and was placed in the middle of the article. That is misleading. If anything, your criticisms should be placed at the end of the article in a clearly defined "criticisms" section, which is standard practice here.
• Clearly state that everything you are writing is, in fact, criticism. The Joe Lieberman comment, for example, is quite a serious swipe at any Democrat nowadays, yet you write it as if it is not. Another way to start the section would be "Hoyer has been criticized by [Group A/Person X/etc.] for his concessions and compromises to the Republican minority as House leader." That tone is more appropriate for a criticism section, at least in part because it clearly states its intentions. --Tom (talk - email) 11:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, be as conservative as possible when re-writing the criticism section. There isn't much of an uproar about Hoyer in the public right now, thus there isn't much basis for a long criticisms section. Otherwise, we have WP:BLP issues that could emerge. --Tom (talk - email) 11:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I am actually not the original author of the "congressional reputation" section. I encourage you to review the article history. Some articles have "criticism" sections and sometimes that works. However, it is not "standard practice" to deliberately remove all potentially negative facts and banish them into a criticism section. I worry that the effect of creating such a section would be to marginalize and eliminate information that Congressman Hoyer deems undesirable, especially since you declare as fact "There isn't much of an uproar about Hoyer in the public right now, thus there isn't much basis for a long criticisms section". It kinda sounds like you intend on concentrating negative details into a criticisms section and then removing most of those details on the grounds that you believe Hoyer doesn't warrant a long criticism section. I hope that's not the case. I think a right solution to any perceived bias is to work with the article, and to add facts, not to subtract them. Greg Comlish (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You certainly seem to be the original author of much of the material, as can be seen by your additions here. The problem is that if your edits are critical, why should they be misleadingly titled as just "congressional reputation"? You say I am marginalizing your edits, but what did you do to everything that was "whitewashing" Hoyer's reputation in the article? You removed it as glowy POV material. However, you went right back and added in a great deal of material critical of Hoyer's role as a Democrat. Are you implying that no one has anything positive to say about him? You can't have it both ways, and that isn't impartial. --Tom (talk - email) 15:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I introduced material pertinent to the preexisting section called "Congressional Reputation." There's no basis for removing this material simply on the grounds that it's critical of Congressman Hoyer. Contrary to my recent additions to the article, all material that I had previously removed from the article was uncited and false.

I believe many have positive things to say about Mr. Hoyer. I included some positive quotations from both the prominent Democratic Leadership Council and business lobbyists. I never claimed my paragraph was exhaustive. I encourage other people to make their own additions. Greg Comlish (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal

Looks like the decision to remove the section was correct: the NPOV problems were serious. If someone wants to try again, it might make for a less bland encyclopedia, but that's hard to do for WP:BLP. Kingdon (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please delineate the specific NPOV problems that you feel justify removing this section in its entirety. Greg Comlish (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

another factual error on "Position on international affairs" section

Under Iraq section, Hoyer has never sponsored a troop funding bill. The "cite" does not say that anywhere. Please fix. Caphillstaffer (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the article to say "supported" instead of "sponsered". Greg Comlish (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Campaign Fundraising" section is irrelevant and should be removed

The report is old news and was barely news to begin with. The few articles that were written about it pointed out how common and perfectly legal the practice is, e.g. http://somd.com/news/headlines/2007/5612.shtml The presumption that Hoyer broke the law is dishonest and misleading. Caphillstaffer (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia article never "presumed" or suggested that Hoyer broke the law. It only said that Center for Public Integrity said that Hoyer exploited a loophole. Which is true. Greg Comlish (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would point you to the 'only' media article I can find that even considered that report news. And what did they have to say about it?

"That's like saying somebody who deducts mortgage interest on their taxes is exploiting a tax loophole," said Nathaniel Persily, a campaign finance expert and University of Pennsylvania Law School professor. "What exactly is the problem?"

"Bundling is very common," said Steve Weisman, of the George Washington University's Campaign Finance Institute.

What Hoyer, a lawyer, did was perfectly legal, the Federal Election Commission said, too. In fact, his insistence on detailed reporting made tracking the funds easier.

Caphillstaffer (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Template

I'm not very familiar with formatting templates, so could someone look at "Representatives to the 98th–111th United States Congresses from Maryland" (bottom of the article) and figure out a way to make it a normal template? (drop-down box, like Template:MD-FedRep) Gracias. APK straight up now tell me 13:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)