Talk:Darrell Issa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Military Career, Education, and Alleged Criminal Activity[edit]

In the article, this section lists several alleged criminal activities Mr. Issa may have participated in. The section does not only contain his military background and education. The heading needs to accurately reflect what is contained in the paragraph below the heading. Alternatively, we could move the alleged criminal activity into a separate paragraph and then have a new heading entitled, "Alleged Criminal Activity". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar2k (talkcontribs) 21:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

I changed the last paragraph to more accuratly represent the controversy and not make it seem that Jewish groups are targeting him becasue he is an arab. -Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverberg

The Hezbollah quote[edit]

There's a quote attributed to Issa in a hitpiece by Debbie Schlussel. She gives her source as the Beirut Daily Star from October 2001, but I haven't been able to track that down. The Daily Star has a website, and the search page gives date options going back to 1996, but their search functionality gives only errors at the moment. Searching Google for mentions of Issa's name on the Daily Star website shows only more recent results. There are no reputable sources on the internet with this quote, all of them come from Schlussel.

Apparently Issa generally denies making statements sympathetic of Hezbollah. Given that the current source is secondhand, coming from someone with a history of attacking Issa, potentially distorting things for her own self-promotional purposes, I think the quote's going to have to come out for now. If somebody can find a reliable source for it, this can be reconsidered. In the meantime, we need to follow the lead of reputable publications like the San Diego Union-Tribune, which discusses the battles between Issa and Schlussel, but doesn't repeat quotes without knowing where they really come from. --Michael Snow 00:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Issa interview at [1]. I Dont have the time to read it right now, but there may be some useful things there to include in the article. --Asbl 15:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Religion[edit]

Is there a source for Darrell Issa being an Antiochian Orthodox as opposed to Non-denominational Protestant? --Kevinkor2 18:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Because of no reply, I removed religion as being unsourced. --Kevinkor2 06:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's probably best - it doesn't appear to be very clear. Newsweek says "Protestant (no denomination)"[2] but NNDB says "Eastern Orthodox"[3]. The only direct evidence I could find was that he attended the 45th General Convention of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese [4] - but just because he attended doesn't make an Antiochian Orthodox adherent. —RP88 07:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll resurrect this old thread since it has come up again. The best sources I've found:
  • Roll Call profile - Religion: Antioch Orthodox Christian Church [5]
  • Vote-CA Biographical Profile for Darrell E. Issa - Religion: (current and past religious affiliations, beliefs): no response [6]
  • MSNBC profile- Religion: Protestantism, Antiochian Orthodox Church [7]
  • Project Vote Smart - Religion: [blank] [8]
  • Congress.org - Religion: Christian[9]
  • National Journal - Religion: Antioch Orthodox Christian.[10]
What I don't see is him answering any questionnaires about his religion, or otherwise making comments on it. One source, which I've misplaced now, said that his father was Greek Orthodox and his mother was Mormon. I think we need to leave it undescribed until we get a sufficient source.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Worth nothing that Maronite Catholics are Christians who practice the Eastern Rite (which involves the way liturgy is said, among other things) but are in fact Catholic, i.e. in communion with the Roman Pope. They are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Christians at this time. So if Issa remained with his father's religious affiliation, he is in fact a Catholic. If not, it would be good to cite a source documenting his conversion.70.49.35.250 (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Corruption[edit]

Viewing the trail of documentation [11] in the Lam case it is seemingly obvious she unfortunately were following the money trail and this was leading far too close for comfort to Issa's supporters. Once again it has proven that if you have enough money in your pocket you can hire and fire anyone, even people who are supposed to be non-political and follow crime wherever it leads and not just depending on if it is an easy target or convenient for the local politicos.
All in all I hope his district wises up and votes him out of office come around next election. I sincerely hope the Democrat organization will use all that comes out about the Lam case against him. -- Lindus 18:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Issues and Legislation[edit]

It would be nice if these politician entries focused more on the actual positions that these guys have on issues, and the legislation that they have helped to introduce. Jumping right into allegations and controversies smacks of "partisan hackery." When I look up these people on Wikipedia, it is often to look for this kind of information, not so much seeing their dirty laundry. Just my two cents. Quigonpaj 12:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So whether someone is a criminal doesn't enter whether you'll vote for them? -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Issues[edit]

I don't think Issa would benefit by a discussion of position. He doesn't appear to actually have any, just opposition to other representatives positions. Govtrak (which is mostly nonpartisan http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400196) puts him as a centrist but if you ever watch him on CSPAN, well, it is mainly because he will object to anything. On the Internet, we call such people trolls.

For example, from a couple of recent CSPAN broadcasts

Issa's first statements to a European scientist testifying at a Congressional Hearing on Global Warming about his research: ISSA: "Do you believe in God? My constituents believe in God."

Issa's last statement at an Ethics committee hearing to the Inspector General of the GSA: ISSA: "I think you had a personal agenda in reporting that Hatch act violation. If you want to keep your job, you had better find some way to fix it." The IG had reported (not prosecuted) a Hatch act violation by the head of the GSA, something he was required to do by law.

And, of course, Issa's all time classic (at another ethics committee hearing): ISSA: "I want to object to the amendment!" WAXMAN: "Could we read it first?" ISSA: "Why are you stopping me from objecting?" WAXMAN: "I'm not. It just that the amendment has to be introduced before you can object to it."

Recordings of the Waxman, Mica, and Issa confrontations at ethics committee meetings on CSPAN is a favorite at many Political Science students drinking parties, where they are viewed as a sort of political science Extreme Wrestling event and the basis of a drinking game. 71.239.175.188 05:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading the above nonsense, I can't, for the life of me, figure out why a great many people think any attempt to label Wikipedia as encyclopedic is a complete farce, almost as farcical as the claim that watching Issa for a few minutes on C-Span and providing a few out-of-context quotes enables someone to make the ludicrous assertion that Issa doesn't stand for anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Contrary to what you apparently believe, inability to figure things out is not a virtue. Consistent with that, your claim about what you can't figure out is nonsensical, or at least the opposite of what you seem to have intended. No wonder you're a fan of Issa. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Lam[edit]

I have removed this section. As far as I can tell, the evidence of Issa's involvement consists of him criticizing Lam. There are no accusations of wrongdoing in that section, making the "controversy" here largely vacuous. If there is a well-documented, well-reported-on allegation that was made about Issa himself, please feel free to write a section along those lines. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Cute. You didn't need a citation for his mother's background, but someone felt that a citation after his father's background was warranted. Racism at it's finest. --69.246.107.50 (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

National Institutes of Health Vetoing[edit]

Someone should add a note about this (from Science 11 September 2009; Vol. 325, No. 5946):

From the Science Policy Blog The U.S. House of Representatives dug into minutiae at the National Institutes of Health last week before passing a $31 billion NIH funding bill. At the behest of Darrell Issa (R–CA), members okayed an amendment to kill three peer-reviewed grants Issa doesn’t like. They support efforts to understand the spread of HIV/AIDS by studying risky behavior among prostitutes in Thailand and China and alcoholics in Russia. Issa called them wasteful; biomedical groups protested. But rather than debate the issue, bill manager epresentative David Obey (D–WI) accepted Issa’s amendment. As with similar grant-killing measures a few years ago, many expect it to be stripped out in negotiations between the Senate and House on a final bill.

California Recall section and over all appearance of article[edit]

The article seems a bit slanted in a direction of support for a politician and what is up with the "Recall" section? Really? OK......what recall? Mmmmmmmm. Here is the section as it appears now;

Gubernatorial recall

Issa came to national prominence when he contributed over $1.6 million to help fund a signature-gathering drive for the petition to recall Gray Davis. At the time he made the contribution, it was widely believed that Is intended to place himself on the ballot to replace Davis. However, following the entrance of fellow Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger into the race, two days before the filing deadline, Issa tearfully announced that he would not run.[10] Issa later said that his mission had been accomplished since Davis was recalled and he wanted to continue representing his district in Congress and work towards Middle East peace. For the recall election, Issa endorsed Schwarzenegger. However, at one point in the campaign he actually suggested that people should vote against recalling Davis, concerned that Schwarzenegger and fellow Republican Tom McClintock would split votes and install Democratic lieutenant governor Cruz Bustamante as Davis' successor.

No matter how you look at this section something VERY important is missing. The state this took place in. Not one word mentions the state of California by name. Also for the impact this had it could be a bit lengthier and a little more information. You can expand on sections even if they have a main article. The addition of information that is accurate and referenced will not be looked down on by most established editors unless there is an edit war. As this is a biography of a living person why is there no section for current activities and controversies. Information comes out everyday, and while to a Wikipedia is not a current news source, when a person is a ranking member of the committee he sits on and is accusing the President of the United states of an Impeachable offense.......I think most editors would agree (not all, but a good portion) that the information becomes valid when it can be sourced and referenced and has a direct bearing on the subject....yeah, you can add a section.

The article has a great deal of room to grow. I feel I would be creating a conflict of interest by editing this article now, but suggest editors take a good look at this through the eyes of a disinterested person and try to explain thoroughly what is be claimed so it has context as well as, short, pointed prose.

Personal life[edit]

In the Personal Life section it states he is the grandson of Lebanese immigrants. Then goes straight to his being the wealthiest man in congress.......that is way to soon for that information if you are going to bring up anything else that took place before it. The first line about the grand parents....that's called a Glittering generality which I am afraid this article suffers from greatly. Either information about the grandparents and their move to the US is mentioned or it would be more encyclopedic to say. "Issa's family immigrated to the US in (?)....then go into at least some details as to where they settled, what they did do to provide for the family etc. Otherwise the first sentence is out of place and has a tone that makes me very uneasy, and I am not sure why it has to be written is such a sappy cliche way.

The auto theft is in two separate sections and should probably simplified in the first section and then go into detail in the controversy section....however. I am inclined to remove this as even with an inline citation from a verifiable source, it's still just an allegation and the heavy use of the weasel word seems unjustified. For an article of a biography of a living person it may be better to use the term "Accused" as that is what this amounts to in the article used to reference this particular claim and I this does appear to be disproportionate space given the lack of a details from the editor mentioned plainly in the citation. This seems like just trying to tell the story in the worst way. Also I am confused as to why the article says Dodge sedan but the reference is for a Mercedes and the second online reference is a dead link...well just not to any article. This needs to go or become accurate information written in a neutral manner.

As for the rest most of the sections look like bullets point lists from a pamphlet or promotional material and need to be re written in prose that include actual paragraphs.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wholesale revision for BLP concerns[edit]

I've gone through and removed a large amount of material per BLP--some was undersourced, some was direct copyvio, some was reported by the RS'es simply as allegations. Much of it was entirely non-NPOV and unencyclopedic in tone. While I've noted in the edit summaries that several parts of this could be readded appropriately, any wholesale return to the former tone is completely unacceptable and would constitute a BLP violation. Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Car Thief?[edit]

Somebody posted in a Washington Post forum that he's a former car thief with a conviction. I'm not researching this further, but it doesn't surprise me either way. If anymore info is found, prove it first, and don't muck up the article. (BTW, I don't support his yahoo, nor his views. But I wouldn't want true or false info on his article posted anymore than on Obama's, as an example of principle.) Apple8800 (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh... I saw that same comment at the Washington Post that you did, and headed over here to see if there was any information on it. Hopefully someone can shed light on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just Below 39 (talkcontribs) 16:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I also stopped by to see if this was something discussed in our article. It's possible that the earliest mention of it is from this New York Times article from last July. There is very little context, and personally I would not be comfortable putting anything in the article based on that story, particularly since it's not clear if Issa was even convicted. I think the only way this would be worthy of inclusion is if we get more firm information on it from a reliable source. Even then it might be questionable, though it would probably definitely be worth talking about if there was a link between previous criminal activities and Issa eventually achieving success with an anti-theft system. Perhaps there will be more detailed reportage on this history once Issa takes on a more prominent role as investigator-in-chief of the White House—for now I'd suggest holding off on including anything. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is an article on it. [12] Truthsort (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that if that article was fabricated then Issa would have sued. It seems detailed enough, apart from the fact that the court records were never apparently made public. I guess that is where the retired cop comes in. 124.149.125.81 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  • In West Coast recall, shady past recalled Ex-Cleveland Hts. man leading effort to oust governor is on hot seat; Stephen Koff, Plain Dealer Bureau Chief. The Plain Dealer. Cleveland, Ohio: Jul 24, 2003. p. A.1
According to this 2003 article in the The Plain Dealer, there are court records for the Cleveland arrest. After the prosecution made its case the judge dismissed the charges on the grounds of insufficient evidence. There was also a 1980 California arrest for a car theft, which Issa later admitted but which the prosecution didn't pursue. There was a conviction in a 1972 conviction on a concealed weapons charge in Ohio. It also discusses the arson charge, and cites public records of a co-worker accusing him and other incriminating information, but notes that no charges were brought. The article, which came out in conjunction with Issa's involvement in the California gubernatorial recall, says that these charges were often mentioned in the press, so there is some significance to them. If nothing else, the fact these charges are frequently mentioned is itself notable. "Issa has been dogged by press reports of possible criminal activities in his past, but he was only convicted of ...." or something like that.   Will Beback  talk  00:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Arson[edit]

Seems like WP:UNDUE to me, as it does not appear any charges were brought. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Agreed. The information, which appeared to be properly sourced, suffered from excessive detail--but the final verdict (there was no final verdict) suggests that this is at most a footnote in his biography, and not necessarily in this article. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
In light of the Ryan Lizza article in the New Yorker [1], which is presumably a proper source, which argues that he was investigated by the insurance company and the insurance company refused to pay out for the inventory of the factory, it does seem reasonable to at least mention, possibly if not probably in a controversy section, the fire and insurance company investigation. I agree with the undue weight concerns, however, this seems to be a legitimate developing controversy (actually the previous lack of controversy is becoming a controversy in and of itself[2]) and failure to mention it would be improper. Additional citations that the Lizza article has invigorated the controversy [3][4] Michael Keith Jewitt (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) Why not write up something here for proposed addition to the article? We can discuss the actual text as needed, and it can be implemented easily enough after language is reached that is appropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The Lizza article is an excellent source, putting all these things on the table in detail. I was shocked they weren't here already, and in fact the Christmastime edits are explicitly discussed in the article:

He noted that after Christmas his Wikipedia page was rewritten to highlight many of the old controversies. “Fixing Wikipedia is a full-time thing when you’ve got people hacking it, or editing it, in a rather slanted way.” He added that in most areas of knowledge Wikipedia works well. “If you’re looking at the history of Picasso’s ‘Scream,’ ” he said. “What’s that famous—'Ahhhh'?"

Well, no one ever said he was an art aficionado. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Botched edit summary in full[edit]

I'm on an unfamiliar computer and this edit saved before I could finish writing the edit summary. So, I changed "all" to "some" because Issa did not explain all of the suspicious behavior Adkins alleged before the fire to Lizza. He explained the increased insurance and removal of the computer, but not the removal of the software, manuals or business records, nor placing the silkscreens in the fireproof box. Nor did he deny them, at least not anywhere Lizza quoted them. Therefore, we cannot truthfully say that he explained all the allegedly suspicious behavior, just some of it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You must be on a very unfamiliar computer, considering that "this edit" is actually the history of The Reader. :D (Pre-caffeine, I spent a moment starting at that edit history in confusion, but I worked it out.) Seems like a sensible change. We want to be strictly accurate here.
I believe that there may be some weight issues with the article as it currently stands. I presume that the bulk of his notability lies in his political career, which (including the "political views" section and all headers) currently receives 1,042 words. The time from his dropping out of high school to deciding to enter politics has 2,021. It's also, of course, very heavily drawn from a single source, which introduces some concerns of bias. (Though I recognize that Lizza's interview is probably the most comprehensive coverage of these events.) The material is important, but I suspect that it is overly detailed at this point, unless it is going to be balanced out by additional material on the career choice that merits his inclusion. I would not feel it appropriate for me to add substantially to the article because of my involvement via WP:OTRS, but I may be able to find some additional sourcing for the earlier material or help condense content further, if need be, to maintain due weight. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It's probably my journalistic background, but I feel that this level of detail is necessary to treat the allegations fairly, since Issa himself offered refutations of very specific aspects of those allegations. Saying something like "In 1982, Steal Stopper's factory burned down. Investigators from the insurance company and two former business associates believe Issa started the fire himself, which he denies" is not only going too far in the other direction but, IME, invites the reinsertion of more dubious treatments of the subject that may remain there for some time without being caught.

I would say as much of his notability comes from his business career, and there is more that could be added (like the detail about him owning 16 patents; I should put that in). I think your comment also points to a need to develop the political career section; it deserved more detail in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't propose truncating it that far. :) I agree that it needs to have an appropriate level of coverage. But there's an awful lot of detail--one example that jumps out of me, we even have the model and year of the car with which he was involved in an accident. Speaking of which, that's a perfect discussion point. How encyclopedic, I wonder, is that accident? There's no allegation of wrongdoing (except liability in a car accident) in the article, unless it was a crime in California to leave the scene of an accident. It is not, where I live and it does not seem to be in California at this time. ([13]) There's no allegation that he failed to properly identify himself, and it seems to have been resolved routinely. I would recommend we omit that altogether.
I concur. The accident actually occurred in Ohio, so I went and checked what the Ohio Revised Code has to say and found that, contrary to what I thought (and what may be the case in some states), it is not, at least under current law, necessary to wait for the police before you leave as long as you give the info to the other person (But if they're incapable of receiving it, you do have to wait). So it's just a routine traffic accident and lawsuit that could be on anyone's resumé. It goes. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Additional detail on his career would be a welcome balance to controversy. And information on his political career would be a welcome balance to the focus on his business career. Again, though, I don't feel like I should be substantially adding content (good or bad) to this article under the current circumstances. Do you have it in you to expand more? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Welll ... technically I should be on OTRS because that's how OS is handled now, but I have not yet set myself up for that. So, I could do this but it may take some time. At the very least the Union-Tribune and other Southern California newspapers probably have covered Issa in more depth since he's local, and whatever they might have in their archives, we could cull something from to give a more rounded account of his career (at the very least we should have something about more of his election campaigns than 2008, even if he represents a very solidly Republican district and probably didn't get any better challenger than that year). Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Just being on OTRS wouldn't in itself create issue. So even if you do transfer over, I don't there'd be a problem. :) I've removed the accident material, and I'll take a look through to see if I see any other areas that might be good for tightening at this point. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Richest Member of Congress[edit]

I suspect that it would be more accurate to list him as the richest member of the House of Representatives. I believe that Senator John Forbes Kerry (D-MA), whose net worth is roughly $800 million, is the richest member of "Congress."

According to The Washington Post Kerry was only worth $231 million in 2010, making him only the 4th richest member.
--Qwerty0 (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


--- Wondering about the phrase, "self-made millionaire." It doesn't seen very objective. According to the article, in the mid-1970s he borrowed $50k from a family member to invest. That's nearly $280,000 in 2013 dollars. Would someone today who invests over a quarter-million dollars of a family member's money be considered "self-made?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.196.82 (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I guess there's a sense of "self-made" that could apply here, but it's awfully weak. Removing that phrase would improve the article's accuracy and objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.181.33 (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think "self made" should stay. Basically there are four ways of getting rich/acquiring money: inherit it, marry it, earn it through salary, or earn it through entrepreneurship. A person who earns it through entrepreneurship, as Issa did, is called a self-made man. The fact that he got a startup loan is irrelevant; it was Issa who converted that $50,000 loan into hundreds of millions. MelanieN (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Car theft[edit]

  • Issa decided to return to civilian life instead. A week before he was discharged, he and his brother were arrested again on theft charges. Near the end of 1979, William Issa, who by then had served federal and state prison time for theft, had sold his brother's 1976 Mercedes-Benz sedan to a San Jose dealership for $16,000, giving the dealer an Ohio license with Issa's name on it. Issa had soon reported the car stolen and told the police he had left the title certificate in the trunk.[1] Issa made conflicting statements to police about whether or not he had obtained a second license and also about his brother, whom he had recently seen at Christmas in Cleveland Heights. With the investigator suspicious that the brothers might have conspired to commit insurance fraud, they were indicted. Issa said he had no knowledge of his brother's intentions; William said Issa had given him power of attorney a few weeks beforehand and had authorized him to sell the car. Issa bought the Mercedes back from the dealership for $17,000 in February; in August, the case was dropped..[1]
  1. ^ a b Lizza, Ryan (January 24, 2011). "Don't Look Back". The New Yorker. Retrieved January 20, 2011. 

This material, which has been discussed before on this page, was deleted with this edit summary: "Rm cruft per WP:BLP."[14] "Cruft" is defined by Wikipedia as "jargon for computer software or hardware that is of poor quality." That is certainly not the case here. The issue is well-sourced, and neutrally presented. It is not a violation of BLP to report significant criminal issues from a subject's youth. the fact that Issa went on to make his fortune selling car alarms makes the issue particularly relevant to his biography. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  08:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Will. I see we're skipping from B to D in WP:BRD ...
I deleted that stuff because 150+ words ending in the "the case was dropped" struck my as a classic example of WP:UNDUE in violation of BLP. Also, the unsourced claim about conflicting statements set off alarm bells. But the thing that really smells is the single source, a source who/which (shall we say) is not known for writing positive things about Republican politicians.
There has been a concerted effort by Democrats and their allies to throw as much mud as Issa as they can. I'm 99% sure this Lizza story is part of that effort. I strongly suspect that many of the other sources used in that story are also part of that effort. That does not make them invalid as Wikipedia sources, but it does mandate exercising more care than this article seems to be getting.
IMO, any negative story about Issa that has only one source should be treated as a presumptive BLP violation. Cheers, CWC 11:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Oops, was I supposed to revert? ;)
The New Yorker is at the very top of the reliability pyramid. If there is going to be one source, we couldn't do better. I'm sure we can find a second source to address the single source issue.   Will Beback  talk  11:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I've looked and found numerous sources for this, including at least one article that's entirely about the incident.
  • A powerful politician's San Jose past. Herhold, Scott. San Jose Mercury News [San Jose, Calif] 06 Feb 2011: B.1.
  • Issa Likely to Run Even if Vote Delayed; In a shift, Republican says he will probably be a candidate for governor even if the recall election against Davis is held in the spring instead of fall.: Garvey, Megan. Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles, Calif] 04 July 2003: B.10.
  • M&R: Presidio YMCA fights rent hike plan / Democrats come out swinging at Issa: Phillip Matier, Andrew. San Francisco Chronicle [San Francisco, Calif] 30 June 2003: B.1.
  • Bull's-eye pinned on recall leader ; Inland congressman's brushes with law decades ago prove grist for critics. Vitucci, Claire. The Press - Enterprise [Riverside, Calif] 03 July 2003: A01.
  • Past puts California recall proponent on spot ; Lawmaker blames brother for legal woes: [Fourth Edition]. Jim Puzzanghera and Dion Nissenbaum. Seattle Times [Seattle, Wash] 27 June 2003: A17.
These are all reliable sources and they indicate the notability of the matter. I'm going to restore it.   Will Beback  talk  07:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. You've certainly taken care of the sourcing problem. I still think the amount of detail is excessive. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP, I would trim this down to something like "When Issa's older brother William stole and sold Issa's Mercedes-Benz in 1979, Issa tried to cover for William, as he admitted in 2011.[ref=Lizza]", drop the wall-of-car-theft-OMG UNDUE/SYNTH paragraph and the first sentence of the next paragraph. But I don't have time to work on this page now. Cheers, CWC 11:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Weight issues are debatable. This issue deserves a mention and some weight due tot he extensive coverage, including one article just about it. However I won't defend the current text. It seems like it could be half as long and still be appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke[edit]

The issue of whether to include information about Fluke's non-appearance at the hearing on contraception insurance coverage has been bouncing around in the article for the last couple of days. Casprings, the creator of the Fluke article, put it into the controversies section. I at first reverted it completely, but another editor restored it, so I decided to keep it but reorder the article so it had a place in Issa's history but not as a controversy. I also reworded it because it wasn't source-compliant (only one source, The Washington Post) and to improve some of the wording. Casprings reverted, not only putting it back in the controversies section but restoring the poor wording. Silly. I reverted one more time, and it stuck for a bit until Chris, another editor, came along and removed it completely, saying it was "incomplete" and was sourced to a "hostile opinion blogger". On an unrelated matter, Chris also added a "descriptor" ("a liberal advocacy organization") for American Family Voices. Chris implied it came from the organization itself, but I looked at their website and didn't see it on the homepage or in the About Us part.

My main concern is the Fluke stuff. I am going to restore the article to before Chris's removal of the material completely and also remove the descriptor. I invite Chris and Casprings to come here to discuss these issues rather than edit-war over them. I think the Fluke material is noteworthy and belongs in the article. I don't see a major problem with the Washington Post blog cite. A lot of major newspapers now have so-called blog sections - that doesn't necessarily make them unreliable. I don't know what Chris means by "incomplete", and I don't see the piece as particularly "hostile".

However, I don't think it belongs in the controversies section for two reasons. First, such sections are disfavored at Wikipedia - it's far better to integrate any "criticism" of the subject into the main part of the article rather than have it stand out in a criticism section. Second, one source is insufficient to say that what Issa did was "widely criticized".

As for the descriptor, I never like those things, but if it is going to be included, then it needs a source.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Darrell Issa received significant criticism for not allowing her to speak. He also went on the Rush Limbaugh show and stated:

I am struck by your clear failure to recognize your own contributions to the denigration of this discussion and attacks on people of religious faith” in the debate, Issa wrote. “I propose that you join me in a broader condemnation of the attacks on people of faith, the false and incendiary claims made about this committee’s efforts to examine the threat to religious freedom, and the regrettable personal attacks that have come from individuals on both sides of the issue.”

He went on to complain that Democratic committee members “have appeared outright giddy” in criticizing the hearing on the contraceptive coverage rule. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73557.html#ixzz1oAnIOPcg
How is he not part of this and how is not the right section? Casprings (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing that says that Issa went on the Limbaugh show. The quote from Issa was in a letter he sent to Democrats, not something he said on the Limbaugh show. I think you need to focus only on the role Issa played at the hearing and on the legislation, not on the whole Fluke/Limbaugh contretemps. Leave that for the Fluke article and the Fluke AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Chris (AKA CWC) here.
Re American Family Voices. I took the words "liberal advocacy organization" from the first sentence of the CBS news story we use as a source. In fact, I saw that paragraph, wondered who "American Family Voices" are, glanced at the cited article and added the descriptor, all within a couple of minutes. I should have spent more time and made my edit comment clearer. I still think the descriptor adds some useful context to that para, but it's not a big deal.
Re Issa and Fluke. (1) Ezra Klein is an opinion blogger with open enmity to the GOP. That does not mean his stuff is necessarily unreliable, just that it needs to be used with care. Using one of his opinion pieces as the sole source for a hostile claim in a BLP seems wrong to me. (2) I thought that paragraph was too disjointed and unbalanced. Later I read this (not a WP:RS), which shows that there is indeed another side to the story. The Politico Casprings linked to covers the same ground. If we cover this, we need to give both sides. (3) I see no reason this incident is that significant in this article, at least not yet. I think our current coverage violates WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and I recommend removing the coverage until we get better sources, specifically a news story instead of an opinion piece.
Also, I completely agree about "Controversy" sections, especially in BLPs. Merging their content into the rest of the article can take some work, but the result is a much better article. Cheers — CWC 18:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Chris, thanks much for clarifying your points. Now that I understand the source of the AFV phrase, I don't have an objection to it; at the same time, I don't feel strongly that it needs to be included - so count me as neutral on that one. As for the hearing story, my view is that if it goes anywhere, it goes in the regular part of the article, not in the so-called controversies section. I tend to agree with you that it is not of any great significance and therefore could be left out, but it doesn't bother me to include it - and there was another editor who also felt it should be included based on his edit summary, although he hasn't contributed to the article since or to this discussion.
As for Klein, I think based on the current wording, we are using it "with care". If it were going to remain in the article, would you reword it in some way? As for other sources, it would be great to find another source, but I don't think it's necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but whoever flagged my entry regarding Sandra Fluke and The Man Panel as it's become known -you are doing absolutely NOTHING to keep Wikipedia credible. What a joke! To not have even the slightest mention of Fluke in Darrell Issa's bio page and to not illustrate a pattern of behavior by the ultra-Conservative Issa is just censorship, pure and simple. Might as well be the old soviet-run state media. Unless this is addressed ASAP, I'll be on my own campaign to discredit Wikipedia as a censoring organization that's run by power-tripping idealogues with their own agendas and their own little "club" of wikinerds. My entries were clearly footnoted and full of quotes and facts from widely accepted reliable sources. My wording was balanced and explained the story from both perspectives. But NO, Wikipedia would prefer to "scrub" history than tell inconvenient-to-them truths. Shameful.
Anyone/everyone who agrees with me that omitting our entries (censoring them) on Issa's "man panel"/Sandra Fluke controversy is akin to criminal, join me in discrediting Wikipedia's censoring ways. I'll be sending Mr. Assange an email explaining all of this. Let's see what HE says. unsigned comment by XtiangRevision as of 17:18, 25 March 2012

FIRST; Issa has NOTHING to do with what Rush Limbaugh did or didn't say - the place for that is Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy, and you are welcome to edit. SECOND; There is no RIGHT to Testify to Congress. This is a fact-finding Hearing, and Congress selects who is on the witness list. THIRD; If you want to include anything about this, you have to make it NPOV, namely, stick to facts and not talking points. "Man Panel" is not NPOV, and isn't even in popular usage, and you can't say someone "refuted" something someone else says, that is practically a definition of your POV. FOURTH; If you want to describe the Hearing which did not include Fluke (and there are thousands every year that also do not include her on their witness lists), then you have to state objectively what it was (Agenda published on the Monday, before anyone had heard of her), when she was proposed, why she was not added to the list, and report statements equally. Hope that helps. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

He certainly had nothing to do with Limbaugh. However, his decision to not allow her to testify, is important in his bio. That said, given that this has already been discussed with no consensus, I will now try to move the process forward with an informal request for mediation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal Casprings (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no agreement on this, I have asked for mediation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/01_July_2012/Darrell_Issa Casprings (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Reddit AMA controversy---Wikipedia is not a soapbox![edit]

I believe that this section may constitute political advocacy, discouraged per Wikipedia policy. It seems that users at [15] are attempting to use this page as part of a "3 pronged attack" to provoke a response from Issa. This does not belong in an encyclopedia. Agree/disagree? 129.2.201.239 (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I've removed it, and will reremove it if it reappears. If it's reported in a newspaper or something as a controversy then we can (possibly) include it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. It is completely reasonable, albeit controversial. If politically he does one thing, after saying another and it blows up online it becomes a part of history. Just because it is controversial does not make it 'soapboxing'. So long as it is written fairly and without aggression or bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.219.182 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
our policies do not permit synthesis, and are especially strict about this with regard to living people. If it gets reported by a secondary source, we can (maybe) add a mention of it. Until then it does not belong in the article. Don't readd it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree with Kevin's removal of the material. To the extent it is potentially noteworthy, it will need to be picked up and reported by secondary sources. And the thing about Facebook is quite obviously synthesis. The material is unencylopedic and should not be reinserted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of Conflicts of Interest, Committee Work and Scrubbing.[edit]

There's quite a few things missing from this article.

I'd like to see more about the allegations contained in the new York times article by Lichtblau, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/us/politics/15issa.html?pagewanted=all I don't see anything in here about either the article, which Issa publically called to be retracted by the New York Times, or about the allegations raised in the article. These allegations include many conflicts of interest between his congressional office and his private business interests. The allegations were quite serious and raised the specter of public corruption and improper abuse of power for monetary gain.

It would also be nice to have something on his congressional investigations of attorney general Eric Holder, but I don't see that in here at all. I don't see anything about his actions as the House Oversight committee chairman (not necessarily just the recent Fast and Furious hearings).

In fact, there seems to be a rather sterile quality to this article that has been noticed by some prominent media outlets. There are allegations that this article gets routinely scrubbed by Issa's staff. Ryan Lizza at the New Yorker has this article about an interview with Issa, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/24/110124fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all. There's actually a quote from Issa about edits to this page.

165.214.14.24 (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 June 2012[edit]

Please remove the following from the CongLinks template washpo=Darrell_Issa| And add


184.78.81.245 (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Done I don't understand why the washpo parameter didn't work, thanks for finding that out and suggesting the change. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke (revisited)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would suggest that his decision not to allow her to provide testimony belongs under the controversy section. The decision has more notability then some of the other controversies currently listed. Casprings (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Fluke material has been discussed before (see topic above). I'm not going to discuss it again. Unless you can get a consensus for your viewpoint, the article stays the way it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I've opened a topic on this material at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK, anyone? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that he made a decision not to allow testimony. That in and of itself was a national news ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/meet-sandra-fluke-the-woman-you-didnt-hear-at-congress-contraceptives-hearing/2012/02/16/gIQAJh57HR_blog.html ) It was his decision, and I don't think a small mention in the controversy section is unwarranted. Casprings (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
What Fluke wanted to do was NOT to testify, but to deliver a speech she had given at a student event the week prior. Congressional Committees solicit testimony like Courts solicit testimony; the opening statements, often allowed, are a courtesy, not necessarily an integral part of testimony. Witnesses are generally called not to give speeches, but to give expert testimony, namely, to answer, as experts, questions posed to them by the Congressional members. The speeches are often skipped entirely, and witnesses are always asked to have an alternative, 1 minute opening statement, if time is tight. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
To get to NPOV, this highly POV entry would have to be inappropriately expanded.

On February 16, 2012, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on the Department of Health and Human Services's regulation requiring insurance plans to cover birth control, which Issa believed was a violation of the religious freedom of people who oppose the use of birth control. Sandra Fluke was submitted as a witness by Democratic members, but Issa did not permit her to testify, saying that her name was submitted too late, a claim Democrats challenged.

  • "regulation requiring insurance plans to cover birth control, which Issa believed was a violation of the religious freedom of people who oppose the use of birth control." is not NPOV. The hearing was not GENERALLY on all insurance plans, but ONLY on the lack of a Conscience Clause, and the First Amendment violations in the new rules promulgated that spring.
  • "Sandra Fluke was submitted as a witness", well, technically, NO. Witnesses needed to be submitted, meaning names and expertise and biography and where they would fit within the topic of the Hearing, by Monday. She was never submitted. Her name was introduced, without any of the necessary material, except for her student event speech, far too late to be included.
  • "Issa did not permit her to testify", well, NO. This implies she had a right to testify, which she does not. He would have affirmatively had to break House rules and make a special exception for Fluke, and he simply did not do so, and Democrats refused to cooperate to make any such decision possible.
  • "her name was submitted too late, a claim Democrats challenged." The lack of submission was one of the reasons she was not ultimately considered as a witness, but only one of many. Democrats also never submitted any biographical information, nor explained her expertise, she was considered to have no relevant expertise by Google search (the only method available, due to late submission and lack of cooperation from Democrats) in First Amendment issues, since she was a law student with no record of publishing or being involved with First Amendment issues, she submitted a speech that did not address the issues before the first panel, she was demanding to speak to the first panel on the theological basis of the various First Amendment issues, but was not clergy nor a theologian, and she and the Democrats never asked to include her in the second panel (which was made up of lay persons, including two leading female academics) on the effects of the Conscience Clause, but instead chose to storm out. Also, Democrats did NOT dispute that she was submitted late, only that since Issa had already bent the rules (for the Democrat members) to allow the submission of the only witness they submitted, Barry W. Lynn. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical faults in the description[edit]

Another problem with the additions certain editors wish to make is that they are making inappropriate use of passive and active voices. This is addressed somewhat in the above sections. Issa did NOT do something, Fluke did nothing (being basically an inanimate piece of scenery in the whole House incident), yet all the descriptions use active voice describing THEM. The Congressional Democrats tried to game House rules, tried to insert an inappropriate witness at the last minute, shouted and screamed and delivered pre-written outrage speeches to sympathetic press outside who had been alerted they were going to storm out of the hearing, which HOUSE DEMOCRATS did. Yet descriptions of the active participants use passive voice, an utterly inappropriate construct (dare I say, Clintonian?). If you are going to include the Democrat protest/attack on the Conscience Clause Hearings, and the Democrat failure to provide witnesses, do so.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


RfC[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am placing this rfc, because Bbb23 indicated that he would not take part in mediation. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard ) That said, I suggesting that Rep. Issa's decision not to allow Fluke to testify was national news[1] [2] [3] [4]. Placing a section in the controvery section is justified, in my view. Bbb12 disagrees. I would ask for comments on this subject. Casprings (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources are many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talkcontribs) 00:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Added reflist; in the future, format as links. Dru of Id (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I cannot load the Washington Post blog; the 4th reference doesn't mention Rep. Issa; none of them provide comparison of whether this is the first since becoming chairman or the 435th, nor provide any comment/explanation from Rep. Issa or his office, even a 'no comment'. While the event was widely covered and likely merits inclusion in the topic, it is presented as a single factoid with no evaluation meriting inclusion in Rep. Issa's bio. Dru of Id (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I included 4 articles and did so quickly. This google search should provide the information needed for Issa's role and the importance of inclusion.http://www.google.com/search?q=sandra+fluke+issa&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=664&sa=X&ei=Ku7wT63AMuPY2AW6zJSNAg&ved=0CAkQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F7%2F1998%2Ccd_max%3A2%2F28%2F2012&tbm= Casprings (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • RfCs must be worded neutrally This one is not. And the Fluke affair is not of significance in this BLP. Nor has it found in any BLP/N discussion to be notable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Include the material about Sandra Fluke I did a Google search, and found a number of additional sources stating that Issa prevented the testimony of Sandra Fluke.[16][17]. Issa's unwillingness to let her testify is also mentioned in the Wiki article about the Rush_Limbaugh–Sandra_Fluke_controversy: "Democrats requested the committee add Sandra Fluke to the first panel, which was composed of clergy and theologians. Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) refused, stating that Fluke lacked expertise and was not member of the clergy, and that her name was not submitted in time. Democratic members criticized the decision not to include Fluke since it left that panel with only male members." 71.251.32.232 (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)71.251.32.232 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep out. The Democrats failed to add witnesses by the deadline. The story was that they tried to find an excuse to storm out and change the subject. Fluke was basically nothing more than a prop in the short term political theater. Lots of people do not Testify, and anyone who is not submitted as a witness (like Fluke) or who has no expertise (like Fluke) or who does not want to address the topic (like Fluke) generally does not become a witness. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude: we don't add every item which makes national news; Issa's involvement is a brief blip in his long political career.– Lionel (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Inconsistency Should the Fluke mention in "4.2.3 House tenure" section also be removed? Makes less sense there.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reliable sources all point it out, passing the bar for undue/due weight. No source denies it. Binksternet (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude here, if the content is in the Sandra Fluke article I can see it, as it would be about the subject of that BLP; however, this is an article about Representative Issa, and whether or not Ms. Fluke was able to testify or not testify in a committee he is the chair of has very little relevance to the subject of this BLP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak include: Issa's involvement in Ms Fluke's time in the spotlight was minimal and perhaps not worthy of mention in Issa's biography. The case itself was quite clearly notorious (i.e. notable) enough for Wiki editors to be erring on the side of inclusion. BTW, there is no conflict with, let alone a violation of, any relevant rules in that. -The Gnome (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude: I agree with Lionelt; inclusion would be a violation of WP:RECENTISM, IMO. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak include:Though his refusal made possible the Fluke Affair it may not be notable here. Issa has done, and will do, many things over the course of his career. It will only be in retrospect that we can tell which of them will be notable. It might be recentism right now but it can always be removed if it is agreed to be nonnotable in the future. Ayzmo (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
this is not a vote

Add

Casprings
71.251.32.232 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Binksternet
Gnome (Weak include)

Exclude

Dru of Id
Collect
209.6.69.227
Lionel
RightCowLeftCoast
Nstrauss

--209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time as Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee[edit]

I would suggest that the page needs an expanded look at his time as Chairman. He has been involved in several major news events. From Health Care contraception coverage, Fast and Furious investigations, to Abound Solar. As the NY Times said, he was the "Obama’s Annoyer-in-Chief" This role is significant and I would suggest we develop a section detailing his time as Chairman. Casprings (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I know this is political "silly season" but it is not our task to expose or investigate anyone. Period. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
What investigation? It will just be a subsection dealing with his tenure as Chairman. That tenure was highlighted by several high profile investigations. This doesn't involve an investigation. It involves notable and reliable facts. Casprings (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Collect but for a different set of reasons. Keeping WP:RECENTISM in mind, Issa's article should mirror Henry Waxman's in large part. Waxman doesn't have a separate oversight committee section, even though he was in the news a lot; so neither should Issa. On the other hand, Waxman's deeds on the oversight committee are in a subsection called "Tenure" rather than "Political Views." Based on standard WP practice I think we should separate out Issa's views (which should remain in "Political Views") from his deeds (which should go in a new section, "Tenure"). Also, I support adding materials from the NYT Annoyer-in-Chief article, which has a lot of very noteworthy material, as long as its done in a balanced manner. --Nstrauss (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 July 2012[edit]

There should be a section about the 2012 election, including

184.78.81.245 (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Added a section on it with your requested link [18]. Monty845 00:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

New Section on his time as Chairman[edit]

I would suggest a new section on his time as Chairman. He has had some rather high profile and politically charged events as chairman. I would suggest a new section. We could start with outlining the events that this should coverage. Casprings (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You are repeating what you wrote only a handful of lines above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
In other words, consensus achieved that Sandra Fluke is not significant in a Biography of Issa, so now you want a section where you can put Sandra Fluke. Essentially you want a do-over of all the previous discussions. Please stop. If you have an argument please make it, and address the issues present, and in the proper space; don't just repeat what you want under different headings.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I forgot about that. However, I am not trying to add something on Sandra Fluke, per se. I am trying to look at his time as Chairman. Fast and Furious and other hearings are significant. Casprings (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Casprings that Darrell Issa has made his position influential and that it deserves the public spotlight shone upon his actions.
PeteBobb (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2012[edit]

Please change the statement "Issa poltical view is generally conservative" since the next statement indicates he voted almost 95% with the republican party. Please eliminate the word generally or replace it with mostly or aother like adjective.

65.34.250.247 (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: I don't see that the use of the word "generally" is ambiguous as it is clarified in the next sentence. Topher385 (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Not done: as per Topher. Floating Boat (the editor formerly known as AndieM) 06:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

New changes re Fluke[edit]

User:Anonymous209.6 has been making edits to the article that I believe are problematic. I reverted the first ones. After a discussion on my talk page, Anonymous just made some minor adjustments to the way the refs were listed. They struck me as acceptable, and I made only one minor change, to move a comma outside a reference. However, Anonymous then went back in and removed the phrase "a claim Democrats challenged", saying it wasn't in the source. That change was disingenuous at best. The source says that Democrats "had submitted her name too late to be considered (Democrats contest this)." ([19]) So, I reverted.

Anonymous has said (and it's partly in their user name) that they used to edit as User:209.6.69.227, so if you see comments above on this talk page from the IP address, that is apparently Anonymous.

My overarching concern is that this section is touchy and has been discussed extensively in the past. Any substantive changes should be discussed here, particularly if reverted (WP:BRD) and a consensus achieved before editing the article. I wasn't the only editor to revert Anonymous's susbtantive changes (if you look at the recent history).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"her name was submitted too late, a claim Democrats challenged." The lack of submission was one of the reasons she was not ultimately considered as a witness, but only one of many. Democrats also never submitted any biographical information, nor explained her expertise, she was considered to have no relevant expertise by Google search (the only method available, due to late submission and lack of cooperation from Democrats) in First Amendment issues, since she was a law student with no record of publishing or being involved with First Amendment issues, she submitted a speech that did not address the issues before the first panel, she was demanding to speak to the first panel on the theological basis of the various First Amendment issues, but was not clergy nor a theologian, and she and the Democrats never asked to include her in the second panel (which was made up of lay persons, including two leading female academics) on the effects of the Conscience Clause, but instead chose to storm out. Also, Democrats did NOT dispute that she was submitted late, only that since Issa had already bent the rules (for the Democrat members) to allow the submission of the only witness they submitted, Barry W. Lynn, they could bend the rules more for Fluke.
B; you are misreading the source. There is no ambiguity that Fluke was "submitted"(that she was actually ever submitted is disputed) in time, in time meaning the previous Monday. Democrats never disputed that she was submitted late, just that Issa had the discretion to add her. They vehemently contested that she COULD not or SHOULD not be added, but entirely on the basis of her gender. Every source and the transcript and video confirm this. The source in question says "Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chaired the hearing, said the minority party had submitted her name too late to be considered (Democrats contest this).", the "contest this" referring to the "to be considered", which is accurate. The WP Article takes the quote and changes it to say something that the source did not; that the Democrats "contest" the "late", not the discretionary powers of the Chair to consider a late submission, which they do.

B has, I believe, asked for a resubmission of all the various problems with the present paragraph, but here. The previous discussion was primarily one of whether there should be any mention at all of the Democrat protest of the Hearing, and particularly if there should be a whole section on it. Consensus and reason indicated there should not. Reasons are all laid out in the above, 3 month old analyses; so, sincere question; rather than making a duplicate, would a ref to above suffice?--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly having trouble following you. I don't know what you want to do or what sources would support what you want to do. My belief is the status quo of the short section should remain unless you get a consensus for change. I don't think you need to "duplicate" what was said before, but only refer to any relevant portions that support whatever it is you want.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy[edit]

I added to 'Criticism and controversy' " Revealing Secret CIA Base

The location of a secret CIA base in Libya was disclosed during the Public Testimony portion of an October 10, 2012 Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). The public testimony portion of the hearing regarding the Benghazi attack that disclosed the classified information was broadcast live on C-SPAN. [55]"

The source quoted was the Washington Post. Deleted 02:55, 12 October 2012‎ Bbb23 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (38,094 bytes) (-638)‎ . . (Reverted edits by PeteBobb (talk) to last version by MMEKAYHAGAN - coatracky, misleading material from an opinion piece)

What source does Bbb23 approve of?

http://www.politicususa.com/investigating-security-leaks-darrell-issa-puts-libyans-lives-risk.html http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/11/991231/republicans-reveal-cia-base-libya/ http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/milbank-did-a-house-libya-hearing-reveal-classified-information--20121011 http://inagist.com/all/256361960076099584/ http://www.newser.com/story/155607/congress-just-blew-the-cias-cover-in-libya.html Or are none of these reputable enough to be mentioned in "Criticism and controversy"? PeteBobb (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Two editors have reverted your material, and I'm going to revert it again. You have to obtain a consensus for inclusion. Many of the sources you cite above are unreliable (blogs, advocacy journals, etc.), but even if, for example, you believe that the National Journal is a reliable source, it wouldn't matter. This material does not belong in the Issa article as it has more to do with the committee as a whole, a confluence of events, and, as one source put it, inadvertence. This is pure WP:COATRACK. Don't re-add the material unless you can obtain a consensus for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
So far, only Bbb23 and some anonymous web address poster who won't even show a screen name dislike this posting.
No consensus has opposed this posting on the talk page after more than a week on the talk page.
One person has cited numerous news sources and one person has deleted this and one anonymous web address which may be a sock puppet of Bbb23 has deleted this. There is NO CONSENSUS that this should be deleted.
IF Bbb23 unilaterally deletes this again without any consensus, I will appeal to the Administrators to have Bbb23 blocked from posting. PeteBobb (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This should clearly be part of the article. Deletion is clearly politically motivated. Casprings (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This should clearly not be part of the article. Inclusion is clearly politically motivated.--Malerooster (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Malerooster comment here is not in chronological order. it belongs further down in this discussion, after the notice to discuss this on the .
PeteBobb (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I am hoping that people actually read the source, because nowhere in the opinion source is it stated that it was infact a secret CIA base, this is an opinion piece and as such cannot be used for factual statements. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? Political talking heads are sqwaking. Got it. Nothing new there. If Issa is reprimanded, or such, then I would be more interested and would then maybe consider inclusion. Right now there isn't even a smoking gun so to speak so who really freaking cares(besides politically motivated editors, but that usually goes without saying). --Malerooster (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The "insiders" section also seems pretty weak and could use discussion here. Its linked to one non notable partisan group and a Huffington Post blog? Really? I guess we aren't calling the guy a car thief, so I should be happy :). Never mind :) --Malerooster (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The watchdog institute is two ex-reporters and many student interns from the Journo School at San Diego State. Not exactly a WP:RS, especially since not-always WP:RS is the only place that picked up the "big" story. Not impuning their facts, just that WP:RS is also marginal, particularly as regards notability in a BLP.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
.
No one questions that these are reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
The question appears to be whether these are "Blogs'.
Wiki only publishes the opinions of reliable authors, and these are written by reliable professional authors.
So, we are considering whether these statements are opinion or fact.
Will it please the posters here if a notation is added that attributes the opinion to the author in the text of the article as per the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteBobb (talkcontribs) 15:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Anyone that uses Think Progress as reliable source for a factual statement can be quickly dismissed. Arzel (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The inagist cite is TWEETS! Not even a blog! Politicususa is not a "reliable source" - it is a fairly blatant political opinion site at best. In other words, if you are to the left of Ayn Rand Tea Party Social Darwinism, if you think we have some responsibility for the poor, the elderly, the veterans, the disabled, and the vulnerable in society, welcome to PoliticusUSA. seems fairly clear. Newser.com just got me to a malware installation, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Revert trolling[edit]

I removed some pretty obvious trolling. Its too bad that this article attracts that type of behavior. Oh well. --Malerooster (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You removed a bit of investigative reporting by Ryan Lizza in which Lizza interviewed various people to determine as much of the story as he could. Trolling? No. Indiscriminate information? No. What this stuff is is very unflattering but it is nationally reported material and part of Issa's public image. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Unflattering? Who the f$ck cares? I sure don't. Why not just include the entire article then? Look at the past discussions above. Which part of her investigative report really rises to the level worthy of inclusion? If multiple stories report something, then maybe it can be discussed here. --Malerooster (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Sh&t, I was here a month ago, great, nice to be back. --Malerooster (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I brought this to the WP:BLPN board, that is how I guess I came here before. --Malerooster (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not going to feed the troll any more, good luck guys. --Malerooster (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if you have even read the piece—Lizza is a guy, not a gal. Regarding multiple stories on Jay Bergey's car being stolen allegedly by Issa, there's the San Francisco Chronicle and Counterpunch. How about if you let people who have read the available material edit the biography? Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I said I wasn't go to feed, but yes, I did read the article. OUT!--Malerooster (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Removing data that goes to the subject's motivations in working in the car alarm business is not removing trolling, it is vandalism of the article.
You could not remove the information months ago, and to now call it 'trolling' in your latest attempt to sanitize the article does not make the removal acceptable. PeteBobb (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2014[edit]

Under 4.2.4 - Oversight committee

In the first paragraph, "Towns then changed the locks" - Towns should be spelled Townes.

bluesixer (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually "Towns" was correct; it was the first mention in the paragraph that was wrong, and I have fixed it. I also fixed several typos and errors in the paragraph. Thanks for calling this to our attention. --MelanieN (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014[edit]

The URL in reference No. 64 no longer exists. It is pointed to in the 3rd paragraph of the Oversight Committee section. url=http://www.watchdoginstitute.org/2011/02/28/industry-insiders-score-jobs-on-issas-team Maniaczak (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this link since the identical material was already supported by the Huffington Post link in the same paragraph. The article you referenced is actually still available, via Wayback Machine, but I don't think we need them both. Thanks for calling this to our attention. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Complete, unacceptable bias[edit]

After reading this, people will go away thinking that this man is a thieving arsonist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.143.247 (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That's rather vague. Do you have any examples of topics or incidents that are given undue weight or insufficient weight? Do you believe that the article should mention those incidents at all? do you see a discrepency in weight vs. other sources? WP:UNDUE and the following sections (e.g. WP:BALANCE WP:VALID WP:BALASPS) are relevant here. --Jeremyb (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

oversight box at the top[edit]

The dates about time are not right. Please correcte that. --82.192.229.198 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

I removed the following:

According to Issa, the Examiner reporter misunderstood an anecdote he had related.[1] A fellow soldier from that time, Jay Bergey, claimed that Issa stole his Dodge Charger in 1971, stating: "I confronted Issa ... I got in his face and threatened to kill him, and magically my car reappeared the next day, abandoned on the turnpike." No charges were ever filed. Issa has denied any theft.

I removed it because this is a level of detail - about something barely above hearsay - that only obscures the more important information in the rest of the article - in other words, a WP:UNDUE problem. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Darrell Issa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017[edit]

Under Elections - 2008 the page reads "In 2010, Issa won re-election to a fifth term". It should say "In 2008, Issa won re-election to a fifth term". 2600:8802:306:B100:9CEC:592D:1B64:7E63 (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Darrell Issa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Darrell Issa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Darrell Issa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)