Talk:Louie Gohmert

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

NPOV issue with term "Pro Life voting record"[edit]

The term "pro-life" in reference to the abortion debate is NO NPOV. It is simply the anti-abortion movement's term for itself...and is a misleading euphemism. Rep. Gohmert's voting record should simply be labeled "anti-abortion".Ken Burch| 05:51 25 July 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.65.237 (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I've seen the term "pro-life" used on many pages of politicians, and I've also seen the term "pro-choice" used on many pages regarding the beliefs of politicians on abortion. I have never seen anyone else take issue with the usage of either of these terms.Concchambers (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

Italic text==57 States== "The president made the mistake one day of saying he had visited all 57 states, and...there are 57 members of the OIC, the Islamic states in the world. Perhaps there was some confusion...We have an obligation to the 50 American states, not the 57 Muslim, Islamic states. Our oath we took is...not to the Muslim Brotherhood, who may very well take over Egypt and once they do, they are bent upon setting up a caliphate around the world, including the United States. And this administration will [have] been complicit in helping people who [want] to destroy our country." — Rep. Louie Gohmert More and more reports come in that the fellow said this. However until we have a solid cite, I feel we cannot included it. Give it time and err on the side of caution. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You know the cite for this section (note 11) does not seem to prove Gohmert said what we said he said when we say he said it. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, Now I heard him say it, at 6.35 or so. Gosh he is a bad speaker. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Andy0093, I think these comments do belong here. All in all, in twenty year's time, I suspect the sort of fireballs this guy is throwing around the well of the House will be the most notable thing he accomplishes. Think about it, in 2030, if anyone remembers Gohmert at all, what will it be for? I suspect for being a rather strange conspiracy guy. (BTW have you noticed Hienz has 57 varities? I'm just saying....) Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually your right, never thought about it that way, but I'm sure if the title for the section is appropriate of his comments. --Andy0093 (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right too. It would be wrong to run this page like a blog on the guy. Lord knows he will always be saying something noteworthy for its silliness, but at some point listing them is not our job. Let us together make sure we do not cross that line. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy: Don't you think accusing the President of supporting terrorists goes beyond the "silliness" you mentioned? Johnnyb.3261 (talk)JohnnyB.3261 —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC).

Some citations: Texas Tribune: http://www.texastribune.org/texas-representatives-in-congress/us-congress/video-ac360-calls-out-gohmert-57-states-remark/ Anderson Cooper 360: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/20/kth-gohmert-resurrects-57-states-remark/?iref=allsearch Rolling Stone: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/photos/wingnut-watch-santorum-blasts-liberal-climate-hoax-20110609/rep-louie-gohmert-obamas-loyalty-is-to-islamic-states-0034767 Salon.com: http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2011/06/17/gohmert_terrible/view/index2.html Political Correction: http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201106170003

Added some sections.[edit]

I have added some sections and plan on adding more when I have some time. It appears a ip addresses user is refusing to allow changes to gohmerts page. this user may have an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy0093 (talkcontribs) 17:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Be Advised -[edit]

This article has continuously been vandalized by an user. He has tried to avoid detection by using three IP address 99.168.72.86, 75.60.185.120, 75.60.186.187 and two user names Jdblack326 and Johnnyb.3261. The IP addresses all trace back to Columbus, Ohio and have the edits are all revert attempts to edit and a section in the article entitled "Implication Obama is complicit in creating a Islamic Caliphate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy0093 (talkcontribs) 15:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Louie Gohmert controversies section.[edit]

I removed the section on Gohmert's comments on Obama policies towards the Middle East. As far as I've research this only has been referenced to on Talking Points Memo which is a web-based political journalism organization created and run by Josh Marshall, journalist and historian covering issues from a "politically left perspective," The other references in Google are also all from left-wing blogs. http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&pbx=1&oq=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=570l6454l0l6744l29l21l1l4l4l0l314l2410l5.9.2.1l21l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ff4e2b09f4e053ae&biw=1152&bih=584 From what I have seen all the referrals to this quote are attributed to left wing sources promoting a point of view. The source who put this cited CSPAN directly, not what should be cited if this was truly a controversy. In the mainstream media for instance it doesn't look like this actually caused much controversy. The other two incidents are more cited in the news media. For instance, the Terror Babies incident should indeed be kept in because it was widely covered in the news. The college of fine arts director incident was also not covered widely outside of one story on CNN and again on the website Talking Points Memo so I am not sure if it should be included because it also did not cause controversy. I have read the guidelines for reliable sources and the context of the, and the guidelines on controversy and I am not sure if these fit the context to be included. Just opening up the discussion.

--Andy0093 (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversial_articles

I forgot to add. I don't know if these comments belong here and were controversial just because they enflamed one side of the political aisle. Article related to other figures like Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Steny Hoyer do not have a controversies section even though I am sure one side could carve one out with the hundreds of floor speeches these people have given. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

--JohnnyB.3261 I don't know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia, but this is not vandalism. Enter "Gohmert 57 states" in Google and you will get 240,000 results. You have no right to divide people in left and right wing and reject all comments that you consider biased. You are obviously a partisan of Rep. Gohmert's or you would not remove comments that attracted national attention. These comments are historically significant because Rep. Gohmert is an influential member of the Tea Party Caucus and he is primarily famous for his controversial comments. In fact, this type of inflammatory rhetoric is a significant characteristic of 112th Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyb.3261 (talkcontribs) 01:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Enter in Andy0093 and you will find 943 results. The number of entries into Google does not make a source credible. I added furthermore that these comments did not stir up controversy enough to be added into his bio. If am not a member of Gohmert's staff as you have accused. If you look I agreed the "Terror Babies" comments met the required notability to be included. You say I no right to "you have no right to divide people in left and right wing and reject all comments that you consider biased." the accuse me of being partisan. I have aired my problems with the article above. I have no need to type them again.

--Andy0093 (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore. You have been making the same edits over the past several months, using three IP address 99.168.72.86, 75.60.185.120, 75.60.186.187 and two user names Jdblack326 and Johnnyb.3261. The IP addresses all trace back to Columbus, Ohio and have the edits are all revert attempts to edit and a section in the article entitled "Implication Obama is complicit in creating a Islamic Caliphate," with the description These statements, accurately reflected in the heading, attracted national attention and are historically significant as example of the type of inflammatory rhetoric that has been employed in the 112th Congress along with hate speech against the Presi)"

--Andy0093 (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Numbers of Google entries do speak to whether an issue is engendering discussion, dissemination or controversy. Do you have some alternate source saying the statement is untrue? As for credibility, has Gohmert denied making the statements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.65.212 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Accusation that Obama is helping international Islamic caliphate[edit]

{{edit protected}}

Request this soapboxing anti obama coatracking "conspiracy theory" content is removed. Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Any objections to removing this? Please speak now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I aired my grievances above. This doesn't belong in the article. It lacks notability. The title is extremely partisan and is just makes Wikipedia look bad. Pieces like this included in articles are why people say "don't trust Wikipedia" and "anyone can edit it." The Terror babies should stay. It did garner a great deal of attention but this part needs to be taken out. Andy0093 (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it should be removed. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs
22:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

JohnnyB.3261 I do not agree with its removal. These comments are historically significant because Rep. Gohmert is an influential member of the Tea Party Caucus who is primarily famous for controversial comments. In fact, this type of inflammatory rhetoric is a significant characteristic of 112th Congress. These comments attracted national attention, including those cited above Johnnyb.3261 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Remove synthesis The text is inappropriate for Wikipedia because it is synthesis whereby an editor has decided that a particular extract from some statement indicates something. Cherry picking quotes to make some point is never acceptable at Wikipedia, and particularly not in a WP:BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

-Get consensus before requesting an edit. WP:CONSENSUS, This template should be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.. If you reach agreement, please re-request. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  04:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a strong consensus to remove the paragraph. Crystal Clear action edit remove.png Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

JohnnyB.3261How can you possibly classify this entry as “synthesis?” This determination does not match the official definition, which is as follows: “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." It does not combine material from multiple sources. These comments are taken in their entirety, in context, directly from the Congressional Record. If you are serious that this is an example of “synthesis,” please explain why.

Some readers would concludes that the only reason Rep. Gohmert made these comments were to accuse the President of treason in such a way that he would not have to take responsibility. Apparently, Wikipedia wishes to assist him in this activity. I have been assuming that the editors who blocked these comments were Gohmert partisans. But now, I can’t imagine why Wikipedia has chosen to censor these comments. Johnnyb.3261 (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)JohnnyB.3261 09/28/11

There is a big difference between censorship and editorial judgment, and please note the "cherry picking" part of my previous comment. Synthesis occurs when an editor assembles information for some purpose not supported by secondary sources. An article does not contain every possible item in relation to its topic. You might review WP:TP or ask at WP:HELPDESK for information on how comments are signed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

comments regarding Israel[edit]

In a speech in congress, Gohmert delivered several untrue about Israel. The clip can be seen here [1]. Among other things, he claimed that Israel had given away parts of Northern Israel to Lebanon (either a lie or complete ignorance about Israeli history). He also claimed that Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula after being attacked by Egypt. As a matter of fact, it was Israel that attacked Egypt and not the other way around. The question, of course, is whether these claims should be included or not. It is certainly unusual for a congressman to try to rewrite history. Jeppiz (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This is just either your opinion or your original research and has no chance of inclusion in this BLP. The youtube link is also a copyright violation. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
You were quite correct to change the title. On the other hand, I disagree that it is "my opinion". Gohmnert is quite simply falsifying history, or is completely unaware of it. In either case, I fail to see how that is my "personal opinion". Please inform me when Israel ever handed over "Northern Israel to Lebanon".Jeppiz (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Without reliable sources discussing the subjects comments in regard to this speech all of our interpretation of what he said would be WP:Original research - reporting them and then rebutting them with sources about the border and such, even though it might seem totally clear, would equal WP:SYNTH - I am not actually passing any judgment as to what he said. If you present a couple of reliable independent citations WP:RS then I will have a look and further discuss - without such we are operating as a forum here - see WP:NOTFORUM - regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we agree completely on this, and my real intent with posting was to see if there has been any discussion about this. That he made these comments is clear, and it is also clear that they are false. However, if no media has reported on it, it's not a notable incident and should of course not be included. I had hoped someone else would know of some sources, but I'll take a look around the Internet myself.Jeppiz (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Energy and Resource Extraction - Expansion of Acronyms and Abbreviations[edit]

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

was originally cited under section as Energy... with the Acronym ANWR, but the succeeding reference had also a section on ANWR, but no naming of what it was. Expanded the text to replace the Acronym with its full name and the acronym in parenthesis after. Richard416282 (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Co-signer of the Michelle Bachmann letter[edit]

Gohmert was one of five House Republicans who co-signed the Michelle Bachmann letter "outing" Huma Abedin as an Islamic infiltrator. This is just one instance of a side of Gohmert's career not now mentioned in the article.--Wetman (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

02:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC) it really should be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.137.201 (talk)

Deleting several non-neutral, ill-sourced paragraphs[edit]

I am deleting a few sections from this article - namely the ones titled Gohmert Introduces The “Parental Notification and Intervention Act”, Congressman Gohmert Refuses to Take Subsidy Others Don’t Get, Aurora shootings position, The National Security Agency and Government Overreach, and Response to the State of the Union Address. These sections only contain one citation each, which is not robust enough for an article of this sort. Some of them are not neutral, others contain information that doesn't belong in a section of its own, and others seem to be simply copy-pasted from copyrighted content. Please comment below if you reverse this deletion in whole or in part with a reason why you feel it should be retained. LittleRoughRhinestone (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)