Talk:Diane Watson

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


What's the evidence on her being a Scientologist? I found something saying Heber Jentzsch gave to her campaign, but I'm not sure that's evidence. She's not on the List of Scientologists. (Note I don't edit articles here anymore)--T. Anthony 14:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Congresswoman Diane E. Watson is a practicing Roman Catholic. The Church of Scientology is headquartered in her congressional district and many of their members are our constituents who request our assistance from time to time. -- Jim B. Clarke, Chief of Staff, Rep. Diane E. Watson

Well even if this is a hoax I've already edited today anyway. I'll take her out of Category:Scientologists and if someone finds evidence to put her back they may do so.--T. Anthony 06:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Clarke, Scientology claims to be non-mutually-exclusive with other religions; for example, I believe Tom Cruise self-identifies as being Catholic and Scientologist simultaneously. Rep. Watson's NNDB entry [1] and her Thomson-Gale "Campaigns and Elections" profile [2] list her as being a Scientologist, which is not excluded by her also being Catholic. Can you tell us definitively whether the NNDB and Thomson-Gale descriptions of Rep. Watson as a Scientologist are in error? Thanks very much. 21:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
She is certainly a Scientologist. She supports many of their programs, goes to bat for them politically, and appears at their functions. Also, she IS in the member lists under *Diana,* which she used before Diane. As far as I know she makes no real secret of it, although her aides aren't super forthcoming about it.Infinitysnake (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


I realized the link to the socailist party was incorrect so i fixed it. However then i realized that no where in the article it says she is a socialist.. kind of odd. I looked on the other links and the sites say she is a democrat. However i know that there IS one member that is Socialist but i have no idea if it is her. I just know that it was someone who has been in congress already and offically is socailst as of the last election and still does everything with tde Dems. Does anyone know if it is her? Or if someone purposly put socialist trying to insult her since she is liberal?

Regarding rv section[edit]

I reverted a section about her playing the race card as it appears to violate WP:BLP. The diff is available here. Falcon8765 (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You were wrong - she said it, it's exceptionally clear what she did, you can listen for yourself. If that isn't playing the race card, what is? ~~

"Playing the race card" is your analysis. Please do not inject it into the article. --NeilN talkcontribs 21:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Watson's Race-Card Playing and Support for Fidel Castro[edit]

All I did was quote her directly; I didn't draw any conclusions. The liberal hypocrites who control this page are trying to suppress any information that would make Watson look bad. Don't blame me if Watson says how much she loves Fidel Castro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying "race-card playing" makes it pretty clear that you are trying to advance a political point of view by using primary sources and offering your own interpretation of them, which is a definition of original research. This has nothing to do with my political point of view, as my objections to your additions on this and numerous other pages have simply been that you are violating Wikipedia's policy of presenting a neutral point of view by writing your own synthesis of primary sources, giving undue weight to highly politicized facts which are substantially minor (i.e. making comments about Fidel Castro the first item in a section about Watson's Views in Congress). Throughout, I have tried to explain to you the difference between constructive edits and POV-pushing, I have wikilinked numerous policy pages (as I have done here) to exhort you to read up on them and make edits that do not violate these guidelines, and I have assumed good faith, as you have not, even if the pattern of your edits suggests that advocating a political viewpoint is a strong motivating factor in your edits. Even if that is the case--even if you do feel that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, as you have claimed, which needs counterbalancing--there are constructive ways to conduct your edits. First of all, look at other politics-related pages to see how they handle controversial comments made by the subjects. Research secondary sources that contain the criticism which you feel these articles ought to reflect. Finally, consider how much weight these issues deserve in an encyclopedia article that is, for example, biographical in nature, and intended to give a general overview of a person's life and notability. Do these things, and you will have the support of Wikipedians of all political stripes, who are, on the whole, supportive of new editors even though those new to Wikipedia will no doubt make "mistakes" in terms of the way we write and format articles. Show good faith and people will be patient as you start to get the hang of this. Continue to show bad faith and make your edits without regard for wikipolicy or the guidance of other editors and you will be treated as a vandal. Feeeshboy (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You're a pot calling the kettle black. (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The alleged bias of the source you're citing is not relevant to this matter. What is relevant is that you are giving undue weight to out-of-context material that is clearly intended to present a negative view of the subject. Please refer to policies on biographies of living persons for more information about presenting criticisms in a responsible context and using a disinterested tone. I am not interested in engaging in a revert war here, but continued edits that violate NPOV will be treated as vandalism and you will be banned. Feeeshboy (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're trying to fix this content, but your most recent edit doesn't establish context, despite your claim. Instead, it provides extended summary. Let me explain what this needs and then maybe we can work on this together, rather than continuing to simply revert. As a reader of this biographical article, I want to know why this is a notable event in the subject's life. What does it relate to? If this is a controversy, why was it controversial, and what were both sides of the controversy? How do the details fit together (for example, you mention that Ward Connerly is an opponent of affirmative action--what does this have to do with Watson's comments? To answer these questions, we need secondary source info about the significance of this incident. You've found some good sources, so that's a start. Please refer to the policies I've cited, if you haven't already, for guidelines as to how to present the issue with a neutral point of view. Feeeshboy (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Diane Watson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)