Talk:Alan Grayson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Issues during protection

this edit goes against consensus here and here Scientus (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Speeches by Grayson are not “Irrelevent”. [1] I am not the only one that has put in reference to this speech. (look as history) Trilemma is the only one that seeks to remove it. Scientus (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Grayson's response to accusations are not "irrelevent", that is preposterous. [2] [3] This has was raised after the first removal here.Scientus (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fox...

One of those big loud people on Fox did a segment on this guy. Expect a lot of traffic and vandalism attempts for some length of time. 75.73.208.167 (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much all the 24-hour news channels are running segment's about him. Apparently every outlet but Wikipedia thinks his fringe comments are notable.—DMCer™ 07:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really care what you do. Go over to google news. Type "alan grayson" and add every single quote you can find to this article. Clearly that is what you want to do so be WP:BOLD and do it then we can discuss aftewards.Reliefappearance (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I never proposed that. At any rate, there would have to be consensus first.—DMCer™ 19:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Another Grayson article

I think this is pretty significant[4]. I think it should be included in the health care debate section, with something to the extent of: "Grayson's comments brought criticism from some of his colleagues. “There’s no call for that language. No call for it. That’s absurd. If he was standing here now, I’d say that to him,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) “Is this news to you that this guy’s one fry short of a Happy Meal?” asked Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.).Trilemma (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh and it is also significant that Grayson appeared on the Alex Jones radio show. Trilemma (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's another statement Grayson made covered in the article that is getting coverage:"Here I am, the only member of Congress who actually worked as an economist. And she’s, this lobbyist, this K Street whore, is trying to teach me about economics."Coverage includes the aforementioned article as well as[5][6][7].Trilemma (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how this wouldn't be included. This is a separate comment contextualized in an interview and which prompted general responses on Grayson's tenure in the house from numerous colleagues on both sides of the aisle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.224.99 (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think including any statement by Grayson is given WP:UNDUE weight unless you include all other statements by Grayson that have been covered by googlable WP:RS. Reliefappearance (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the criteria you suggest is analogous. I think that the Cheney comment does deserve inclusion due to the attention it received in the press versus his other comments but I can at least see why it may be seen an non-encyclopedic. However, this second statement about Bernanke's assistant was not only notable in the press and amongst his colleagues but it also prompted numbers of quotes and assessments of Grayson's job in congress by his colleagues. Additionally, this included colleagues from both parties making comments captured in a political news outlet. Therefore those comments almost certainly rise to the higher level of significance than what you are suggesting as they actually characterize Grayson's performance/character on a larger scale. Simply including the comments made by other congressman about him without listing what they were responding too would decontextualize the statements too much. Finally, your criteria is certainly too extreme. Not only would it require a full scrubbing of quotes across thousands of wikipedia pages because of a new standard it would set, but the original health care comment Congressman Grayson made should also be removed by those rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.224.99 (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As I previously stated about another one of his remarks, I don't think including it adds undue weight. I think not only should the "K street whore" comment be incuded, but the "blood that drips from his teeth" comment as well. It's kind of ridiculous that something hasn't been added about his statements. Perhaps instead of just adding lengthy notes about the reaction to them, we should add something along the line of, "Grayson quickly became the subject of discussion among political pundits for his controversial word choice/characterizations of policies and oponents. For instance, ________ and ________." It doesn't have to be a lengthy documentation, but it should be included.—DMCer™ 08:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable proposal. Trilemma (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the proposed edit? Could the suggested edit be written in full? Off2riorob (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO, it is better and more encyclopaedic if a person has made some rude name calling and derogatory comments about other people it is better to simply explain and say then he made some comments that were considered by someone to be derogatory and then add a link to the comments, we are not here to repeat derogatory comments made by one politician against another. Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

if you can find it on google news

Seems to me this article (and many other on Wikipedia) basically follow this general procedure.

1. Someone sees something covered on cable news, or a prominent news aggregator.

2. Said person googles for an AP or Reuters source, whatever.

3. The info is added to Wikipedia.

4. Debate ensues.

Is this really appropriate for this article? I think you should all head over to Wikinews if you want to copy and paste AP headlines. Reliefappearance (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed this contention in the earlier comment you made. First, as other users have mentioned it seems to depart from standards used on many other figures' pages. Secondly, it's simply too broad a characterization to be accurate in this case. While including all quotes would certainly not be encyclopedic there are clearly some which deserve inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.224.99 (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

Should this guy's statement about the Republican position healthcare really be included in the lead? It may be what many people know him for, but he has had several other notable achievements, and to highlight it in that way strikes me as pretty POV. Let's have a sense of perspective here: just because someone's been involved in a recent controversy, doesn't mean it's so important that we have to put it in the lead of their article. Doing so here looks like undue weight and recentism to me. (I would edit the article myself, but it's been fully-protected...) Robofish (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes totally agree. user:Trilemma has repeatedly removed mention of what Grayson spent years doing before getting elected, prosecuting war profiteers. Trilemma thinks that this page needs to be a hatchet job of Grayson and shouldn't mention what he spent years doing, and received much attention for, against multiple consensus. While the comments on the lack of a Repub health care plan are less notable, I think it is reasonable to include it currently.Scientus (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead isn't for tracking what you consider to be notable. It's for recording what the person is known for. And for Grayson, this is his controversial remarks, most notably the "die quickly" remark. Trilemma (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The only reason anyone knows who Grayson is is because he said Republicans were trying to kill people quickly, and he called FOX News the "enemy of America" and he called a female Treasury Dept. employee "a paid whore." He brags about it himself, calling himself a "Congressman with Guts." Each of those issues (especially the "die quickly" one) have been getting a ton of coverage on all media.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28786.html

"The lead isn't for tracking what you consider to be notable.", yes exactly. The Wall Street Journal and Vanity Fair, along with user:A8UDI believe that the work that Alan Grayson for years before entering congress, in which he uncovered and prosecuted billions in fraud, is notable. Your opinion is that they are wrong. Stop going against established consensus.Scientus (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am starting to think that the get sick die quick comment is being given too much weight in the lede, it is better now that another comment has been added, if the lede is to be expanded a bit regarding the main points of his life then I can support inclusion in the lede of the comment but it is one comment from the whole career of this guy and it should not be given excessive weight in the lede, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He is notable without the get sick and die comment, that comment is not the reason for his notability, it might be the most recent or the most titillating but that is not a reason for insertion of that comment in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Even without the comment he is notable, yes, but if you look at the general trend among congress people, perhaps one thing at most beyond very basic details is listed in the introductory section, and that one thing is something that particularly distinguishes that representative. For Jeff Flake, it's his anti-spending crusades. For Grayson's, it's his controversial statements, same as Michelle Bachmann. Trilemma (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with that even if is is occurring on another article that does not make it correct. The quality of the whole article has to be considered. Is this single comment an overview of the article, no it is not, I am leaning more and more to the comments removal from the lede, it is being given excessive weight. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that those comments singlehandedly took an otherwise thoroughly unknown congressman with a flailing reelection fundraising effort to being a massive fundraiser and one of the most well-known and talked-about congressman, I fail to see how the weight given them would be undue. Trilemma (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps in another article about health but in this article bio the comment is being given a flashing light in the lede, I don't think the comment belongs in the lede, we can ask at the BLP noticeboard for more opinions, but we are not removing the comment we are simply putting it in its correct place in the body of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

More edit conflicts

Some of these are rehashes. We had established earlier that we don't need exhaustive exchanges, rebuttals, and soundbites involving Grayson. Trilemma (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have issues and want to remove something or change something, bring them here one by one and we can work it out. Off2riorob (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Health care section

This has been remove as excessive detail..

Grayson described these comments as “Republican hissy fits”,[32] and the next day gave a speech from the House Floor, saying “I would like to apologize: I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”[38] He cited a September 2009 Harvard study[39] that found 44,000 Americans die each year due to being uninsured. Grayson, who is Jewish, apologized to the Anti-defamation League for those offended by his generic use[40] of the word 'holocaust'.[41]

On September 30, 2009, Grayson called Congressional Republicans "nattering nabobs of negativism" and "foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who think they can dictate policy to America by being stubborn" despite having lost the election. He argued that on the issue of health care "the Republicans have been insulting … [and] disserving America," and that "some thoughtful opposition" has been missing in the debate. He responded to criticism of his comments about the Republicans by saying he was speaking "the honest truth", because he contends that Republican leaders have offered no feasible counter-proposal to that of the Democrats, and that when the minority is not compromising and thereby stopping progress, few alternatives exist from which to draw conclusions. During the interview, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos responded to Grayson with four initiatives that he believes Congressional Republicans are now proposing or have previously proposed: (1) enacting tort reform, (2) expanding health insurance portability, (3) permitting consumers to shop for health insurance across state lines, and (4) ensuring access to health care regardless of pre-existing health conditions. Grayson maintained his position that Congressional Republicans have failed to offer a feasible plan, and in his rebuttal to the second and fourth points said "What you just described is the Democratic plan. You think you can steal the emperor's clothes that way?"[42][43] On October 1, 2009, Grayson referred to Congressional Republicans as "'no' mongers" and added, "They've got 'no' answers for anything."[44]

On October 8, 2009, Grayson gave a speech in which he reiterated that he would not apologize to the Republicans (“America doesn't care about [the Republican party's] feelings”), while accusing the Democratic party of narrowly focusing on procedure over policy[45] ("We as a party have spent the last six months, the greatest minds in our party, dwelling on the question, the unbelievably consuming question of how to get Olympia Snowe to vote on health care reform") and the Republican party for dogmatic opposition to the Democrats ("If Barack Obama has a BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon").[46][47]

Opinions

I agree that the whole Grayson said this, Joe Schmoe called for him to apologize, then Grayson said this, then Joe Schmoe said this is really becoming tedious in his article. Furthermore I believe anything included is given WP:UNDUE weight, because Grayson has said all sorts of stuff that is not included in the article. I think we should summarize Grayson's modus operandi and stop adding quotes every time we see him say something on TV. Reliefappearance (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I can easily support this position, the section was in need of summarization by a good writer, the repeated, he said this and he said that is a bit like cherry picking the comments that appeal to the editor, there is not much in this removed material that really says anything at all worthy of inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Along this line the out of context attacks in the "Controversy" section need to go. While the text removed above puts Grayson's word in context, many commentators have taken out of context, and even deliberately mis-represented Grayson's comments (such as him referring to the 44,000 Americans who die due to lack of health insurance as _a_ halocaust).Scientus (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any comment here in this material that you would say is really informative or can you accept its removal? If you accept its removal then I also don't think the controversy section is very good and also needs looking at. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the second paragraph on his 3rd speech should be in the article. The video has 150,000 views and summarizes Grayson's stance on the events before. I also think these paragraphs actually do highlight positions on this issues. Because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, detail is not a problem as long as content fallows other policies. If the article fallows approiate WP:SUMMARY style, I don't see any problem with having detail on relevant content. I do know that many Wikipedia articles that deal with current, or former current events, have a problem with excessive detail, but detail can be presenting in an approachable manner.Scientus (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Rob, I was earlier referencing Tom (A8)'s statement: hat's funny lol. Sorry.. yeah that is blatant POV..... Who cares about his analysis of the GOP? It's irrelevent A8UDI talk 13:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC). This was decided, then Scientus unilaterally and surreptitiously added it back in. I'm not very familiar with the whole dispute resolution process but it certainly seems that given Scientus' string of outright dishonesty and hostile editing, he deserves topic banned. Trilemma (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The current wording of the final paragraph is poor: Grayson criticized Senator Jon Kyl who said, “I'm not sure that it's a fact that more and more people die because they don't have health insurance.″[40][42] Republicans accused Grayson of violating campaign ethics guidelines because the website links to Grayson's campaign website.[43] However, according to Grayson, no formal complaint has been lodged against him, and such allegations, including similar ones over another speech, are “Republican propaganda” and “lie[s] to distract people from the truth”. First, we should combine it with the prior paragraph and start the sentence with Kyl's criticism, which is the point of the sentence, not Grayson's retort. Furthermore, "however" should be removed, and the second half should be reworded as something like: "to which Grayson responded by arguing that no formal complaint has been lodged." Once again, we simply do not need multiple quotes of every response Alan Grayson gives. Trilemma (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Article stability

A lot of edits in the last couple of days, some discussion. I would like to see some stability in the article, can all involved editors, take a step back and look at the article as it is now and bring any concerns they have to the talkpage, excessive tit for tat editing will only result in the article being locked down again and no one wants that. Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that this was the point at the beginning, when the page was unlocked. Unfortunately, Scientus embarked on a hostile editing campaign, and seems to have persisted in this. Trilemma (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I was also under that impression, another editor has made a lot of edits and alteration with no visit to the talk page at all, I despair. Editors need to think about the quality and fairness of the article and not just think if it represents an one sided opinion it is good, because its not, people come to the article and see wikipedia reflected it the article, we should be wikipedians first and foremost and try to create articles that are neutral in position and fairly written. Please try to continue with the discussion as it is the only real way forward. Inserting something without agreement or consensus that is there for a few hours and then reverted it a huge waste of energy. Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Grayson Cheney Comment

Please add the following:

{{editprotected}}

Grayson's comments on Former Vice President Cheney

On October 22, 2009 Grayson made the following comment during an interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews: “By the way, I have trouble listening to what [Cheney] says sometimes because of the blood that drips from his teeth while he’s talking, but my response is this: he’s just angry because the president doesn’t shoot old men in the face. But by the way, when he was done speaking, did he just then turn into a bat and fly away?”"

It can be sourced by a dozen or so news articles including politico http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1009/Alan_Grayson_v_Chris_Matthews.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.224.99 (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is worth including. As a comparison, I would note the inclusion of various controversial comments Michelle Bachmann has made. Calling the vice president a vampire certainly qualifies.Trilemma (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt a blog is a reliable source. At any rate, the point is moot; the pages is full protected, so I've asked for an administrative opinion. Intelligentsium^review 21:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there would be a problem citing Politico, CNN's Political Ticker [8] etc. Trilemma (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a viable source? Are you joking? Not only is it viable, but the quote itself is worth including. If a Republican made a similar statement about the other party, it would be on Wikipedia in minutes. It should have been added by now, IMHO. I find it odd that the "Health Care" section is title as such, when it's more about his "Controversial comments regarding health care." A heading similar to the latter would be more appropriate, but that's another issue. —DMCer™ 07:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is worthy of inclusion at all, its nothing more than an insult, adds nothing of any encyclopaedic value at all, it is cited to blogs and is taken out of any context from a (lengthy?) interview. Off2riorob (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• comment about the template. When edit warring has been occurring as it has at this article and the page is locked then the template needs to be added to ask an admin to make the edit, the admin will not pass an opinion regarding the edit but will only look if there is clear consensus on the talk page to make the edit, the way to use the template is to have a good discussion about an edit and agree on something to insert and then when you have a clear consensus to add the edit then add the template and request an admin to make the edit. Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done. Obviously not an uncontroversial edit request at this time; please establish consensus before requesting again. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Grayson has made lots of off the wall statements. If you want to compile them head on over to Wikiquote. This article should basically state that he is a liberal firebrand and leave it at that. Reliefappearance (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If any congressman makes comments (e.g. Linda Robertson characterization) that cause the majority leader of his own party to condemn them (as well as words of rebuke from other members of congress within his own party), and for the congressman to apologize and issue a formal written apology (media release) on his own congressional web site, that becomes an issue that defines him and is worthy of being written about in his official Wikipedia page, not just Wikiquote.James.DC (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Again I would reference the Michelle Bachmann page. Generally, when a politician becomes a firebrand, they get coverage of several of their most controversial statements. I do think that some should be quardoned off to wikiquote, but several of his comments have attracted sufficient attention to warrant inclusion in here.Trilemma (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you would want to reference that article, since it is much worse than this one is. Reliefappearance (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquote isn't really the place for this, since we're talking about more than a quote in and of itself. I've been watching political pages on here for years, and I think it's fair to say that the reason there's so much resistance to these proposed inclusions is due to editorial bias. Just because you think Bachmann's page is "worse" than Grayson's doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that far less controversial figures than Grayson have many paragraphs written about their statements on their Wikipedia article, few are getting the news coverage of his. I think not only should the "blood that drips from his teeth" comment be incuded, but the "K street whore" comment as well. Perhaps instead of just adding lengthy notes about the reaction to them, we should add something along the lines of, "Grayson quickly became the subject of discussion among political pundits for his controversial word choice/characterizations of policies and oponents. For instance, ________ and ________." It doesn't have to be a lengthy documentation, but it should be included.—DMCer™ 08:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

the controversy section

Grayson has gained a reputation for several statements he has made, which has led to condemnation by some of his colleagues. After Grayson appeared on 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones' radio show, during which he called Linda Robertson, an adviser to Federal Reserve Chair Ben Barnanke, a "K-Street Whore", Democrat representative Bill Pascrell condemned the remarks, saying, “There’s no call for that language. No call for it. That’s absurd. If he was standing here now, I’d say that to him.” Democrat Representative Anthony Weiner said, “Is this news to you that this guy’s one fry short of a Happy Meal?”[9]. Grayson subsequently apologized for the remark.[10].
Grayson has additionally called Fox News and Republicans, "Enemies of America."[11]

I can't see any additional value in what is in this section and having a controversy section is not a good idea, if there is any content worthy of inclusion it can be moved to a better location. Off2riorob (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I do think it would be better in a different section, perhaps in the congressional career heading. Initially I wasn't sure which section would be appropriate so I set it in a new section. One issue is that like Michelle Bachmann, Grayson is becoming increasingly known for his series of controversial statements, and so providing a structural linkage of the controversial statements may have advantages as opposed to splitting them up into subheadings for individual matters. Trilemma (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well. perhaps in a controversial things that he has said article but not in his Bio, there is enough material and explanation that he is controversial without this detail, It is simply another rude comment he made and in the way of he is usually saying this sort of thing it becomes not notable except to say and cite that he says a load of controversial things, of course the really biggies are worthy of inclusion but not loads of them, I would say this one is not adding anything informative to the article and if we just deleted the section the article would actually be better and more readable. Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps add the enemies of America link as an external link. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If its recent and related to the healthcare issue then perhaps put it to that section? Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is all what I would save, Grayson has gained a reputation for several statements he has made, which has led to condemnation by some of his colleagues.[12] Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This cite is from Oct 2009 so is in relation to the health section so should go in there, somewhere, the bottom , imo, any comments? Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That sentence has weasels twice. Also the quote from Weiner is out of context, and doesn't represent Weiner's full views. [13]. Agree with Off2riorob that the section does not add the the article.Scientus (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Rob, while I think your sentence would be good, it still doesn't directly mention the controversial statement. That's why I would prefer something like, "Grayson has gained a reputation for several statements he has made, including calling Fox news and Republicans "enemies of America", which has led to condemnation from some in his own party. Trilemma (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I like that it is a good addition, I support adding that to the health section, as that is what it is referring to, afaik. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added Trilemmas suggested edit, it is not much to keep from the whole section and is neutral and informative. Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Grayson's characterization of Linda Robertson and the reaction and rebuke that it prompted from the Democratic Party leadership and other Democrats warrants its own section and should not be included in the Fed. Audit section. This issue has grown into its own issue and transcends the Fed Audit issue. It should not be included in the Fed Audit section as the characterization and reaction from other Democrats does little to inform the reader about Grayson's position on the Fed Audit issue.James.DC (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Grayson certainly has a studied position on many issues, and it seems a mistake to obfuscate that by forcing his bombast (his playing to the cheap seats, as it were) immediately alongside. It seems to me the best way to do that encyclopedically is to consider Grayson's cultivated public PERSONA as its own section. That will allow us to discuss certain notable comments and the pattern of {cough} outspokenness which cannot be ignored but which has no other ready container. My draft of such a section is at Talk:Alan Grayson\Controversial statements#Draft to keep free from edits. --24dot (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversial statements

It seems like these are not "gaffes", but political calculations. Grayson seems inclined to continue his pattern of controversial statements, and the technique is not necessarily without merit if it moves along discourse, crystallizes points, and accentuates differing views. I created a section to allow readers to quickly compare Grayson's statements with their timeline and with each other, in a format that I believe to be encyclopedic. It was here, but now is here. At least it's a place to start the discussion about what format such a section should retain. --24dot (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I object to this addition, this is a Biography of a living person and imo a section with a list of what is claimed to be his controversial comments is not correct WP:MOS any of the comments that are notable and relevent should be distributed to relevant sections throughout the article, where they can be more easily explained and rebutted if needed. Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as a another notable person's bio might list his world records, his books, his filmography, it seems comparable to think of each of Grayson's incidents of outspokenness as a discreet accomplishment within a planned framework. Grayson is a character, and seemingly by design. The section would explore this part of his cultivated public persona. There would still be plenty of fodder for the proposed section even if the section limited itself only to those statements which are explicitly described as "controversial" by reputable secondary sources. Subsequently, if Grayson's own words are simply quoted verbatim (with attribution to a newspaper or magazine's categorization of it as "controversial"), there would seem to be no need for bloviations of 'explanation' and 'rebuttal' by editors who may be among Grayson's supporters or detractors. Readers are well-served by having undigested quotes presented without interpretation, such as I suggest doing with a bulleted list in a section similar to that I've written at Talk:Alan Grayson\Controversial statements#Draft to keep free from edits. --24dot (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We are also not here to excessively quote people. That is wikiquote. This bullets suggestion, no, sorry I like the bullets less than I like the list, and I don't like the list. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and the article as it is is very liberal with dates, so it already has all the information 24dot is requesting. It seems to me that 24dot wishes to take the substance out of the article and try to de-prose it to remove substance, turning it into an attack article.Scientus (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

user:24dot should feel free to contribute to Wikiquote. I hope that he shall not blindly push a POV, however, and shall hold himself to including appropriate context on the quotes included.Scientus (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rob that the bullet proposal is a bad one. We are trying to aim for conciseness here and that very much does not achieve it. I do think it's relevant to include Grayson's most controversial quotes, when they have gained attention, but this can be done much more efficiently. Trilemma (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well that the "die quickly" and "k-street whore" statements should be included, though the k-street whore quote, as it stands now (as a block quote) is a bit lengthy. I can appreciate trying to show the full context, but I don't think a block quote is the most appropriate way to go about that. Simply referencing the "whore" statement, then adding his stated intent/meaning should suffice. I agree with the way the "die quickly" quote is covered in the current version.—DMCer™ 09:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the block quote is not a good way of structuring it. The opening few lines are irrelevant: what gained attention was calling her a K Street Whore. Trilemma (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I also support Dmcer summarizing the block quote down to the notable comment is sufficient, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I moved my earlier contribution to Alan Grayson at Wikiquotes and put a link in the "See also" section. Regarding the interest in including context while enabling readers to easily find the most notable part of the quote (per the comments immediately above), I added a quote box. --24dot (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Weiner quote

user:James.DC is trying to remove a Weiner quote that was a response to a question about the federal reserve comments. [14] [15] The other quote supposedly from Weiner it is not clear what it about at all, and is completely unWP:VERIFYable.Scientus (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Weiner quote that does not belong under the "Federal Reserve transparency" section is this one: "[Grayson] is making an argument about health care that is not wrong, the Republican plan of doing nothing is indeed killing people.…We have people on both sides who believe that in this age of media being what it is, the way to get attention is to say things that are fairly outrageous…" Weiner is clearly talking about Grayson's argument on health care, regardless of what question may have been asked. This quote belongs in the "Health care" section of this article, if anywhere. It should be deleted from the "Federal Reserve transparency" section. Additionally, Weiner's "Happy Meal" comment about Grayson is appropriate in this paragraph and should be kept, as it is about Linda Robertson, as per the Politico article, in which a number of quotes were published by various members of Congress in response to Grayson's characterization about Linda Robertson. The "Happy Meal" quote has been widely published, and Weiner has not disclaimed credit for this quote. It is therefore appropriate to associate the comment with Weiner. James.DC (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Manner of political discourse

I just deleted the newest James.DC addition because having a whole sub-section based on one article places undue weight on a single columnist's opinion, and because, as it was written, the section didn't even represent the source article well - the article also has quotes from people who like Grayson's style. It smacks of POV-pushing. Just checking in here to see if there's a consensus either way. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The quotes were taken from an editorial that appeared in the New York Times, a leading and respected global publication. These are not quotes from right-wing talk radio or other news outlets around which I doubt we would ever reach a consensus. Having said that, I can see Dawn Bard's point that one editorial may be insufficient to support an entire new section, but the fact that the New York Times opines in this way is noteworthy and should not be dismissed. I am content if Dawn Bard or others want to supplement this new section with the quotes from those who "like" Grayson's style (e.g., those from Barney Frank and James Carville), but for clarification, they didn't really say they "like" his style but rather they think Grayson's style can be useful or may serve a purpose within the Democratic Party. As soon as this new section can be sourced from other publications and with additional viewpoints, then it should be included, because few other congressman are receiving such national acclaim for their "manner of political discourse" to the extent Grayson is receiving such discourse. It is fair to state that Grayson's style of discourse is one of his defining characteristics as a congressman, and it should therefore be included in his "Congressional career" section. For the record, the addition at issue that I wrote (which Dawn Bard deleted) was, IMHO, objectively written and without POV, although, once again, I can agree with Dawn Bard that it should be further sourced/supplemented. Below is a copy of the deleted section. Additional comments and suggestions are welcome. (James.DC (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Grayson has received media recognition for his manner of political discourse and style of representation. On Octotber 31, 2009, the New York Times observed, "...Mr. Grayson has catapulted himself to national renown for outlandish rhetoric and a pugilistic political style that makes him seem less staid lawmaker than a character on the lam from one of his Orlando district’s theme parks.... Mr. Grayson could be the latest incarnation of what in the American political idiom is known as a wing nut -- a loud darling of cable television and talk radio whose remarks are outrageous but often serious enough not to be dismissed entirely." The New York Times' editorial cited Grayson's comments regarding health care, former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, and his characterization of Linda Robertson as examples. James.DC (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Dawn Bard. Media reaction is not notable in and of itself, irregardless of how much rhetoric it might contain. Also, the section was clearly pushing a POV.Scientus (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Whistleblower cases - irrelevant citation, does not back up claims

The text of the section: In recent years, as a plaintiffs' attorney, Grayson specialized in whistleblower fraud cases aimed at Iraq war contractors. One contractor, Custer Battles, billed the government $15 million for inspecting allegedly non-existent civilian flights at Baghdad Airport, and $10 million on a time and materials contract that had cost $3.5 million. The contractor received payment in newly printed cash direct from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.[3]

Is not backed up by the citation [3] at all. An Oversight Hearing on Waste, Fraud and Abuse in U.S. Government Contracting in Iraq - Witness Biographies, U.S. Senate Democratic Policy Committee, 2005-02-14, accessed 2009-09-30.

This is merely a brief bio of Grayson and does not outline anything about these contractors, government bills and anything about the federal reserve bank. (side note, all money is printed from the federal reserve, how is this relevant?).

This section should be deleted and i'm sure the rest of the article has many more such fake citations that need to be cleaned up.

Hi, thanks for coming to the discussion. I replaced it as is was cited but it appears the cite does not totally support the comment, is this material about the contractor really relevent? Comments? Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe it is relevant. I think that it is reasonable to say something along the lines of, "Grayson pursued cases against several military contractors, including Custer Battles, whom he alleges were engaged in war profiteering." This would make the subject of the sentence GRAYSON, as opposed to talking about the defendants of the cases. I also do not believe that the legal terminology of the case is relevant--this is a biography article, not a law article. If a case gains enough attention to warrant a page, then the legal terminology would be appropriate there. For now, I think it should go. Trilemma (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I could support an edit like that. Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

He was an economist?

Where did he work? What job title? What qualifications did he have as an economist? I see nothing anywhere on Google that explains this, and it seems to come from his own vanity self-biography webpage. This is most certainly not npov. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.184.210 (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a worthy question. What substantiation do we have for Grayson's claim of being an "economist"? James.DC (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Jewish

I have removed the uncited claim to religiousness from the info box, it is also unsupported in the body of the article, religiousness claims should only be inserted if he declares it himself in a strong cite or if a citation says he is a regular synagogue attendee. There is a cat paternal Jews which could be added. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there any cited claim of religiousness? If not we should replace..Grayson who is Jewish..for..Grayson who is Jewish by birth...or.. is a paternal Jew. Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps "...is of Jewish heritage..."Trilemma (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I added jewish by birth, heritage is also possible although here in the uk we would say by birth..so I don't know...I also notice that actually his parentage is or seems to be uncited...I am sure he is jewish by birth but is the a citation to support? Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's some cites: [16][17]Trilemma (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea great work, we could the second one ..where he says..I am Jewish...that is enough for parentage, but I would say not for religiousness. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

external link?

yes or no?

http://www.mycongressmanisnuts.com/

Reliefappearance (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's relevant. Trilemma (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It clearly violates WP:EL so likely should not be used anywhere. -- Banjeboi 22:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for shortening the health care section

Current version:
Grayson described these comments as “Republican hissy fits”,[37] and the next day gave a speech from the House Floor, saying “I would like to apologize: I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”[43] He cited a September 2009 Harvard study[44] that found 44,000 Americans die each year due to being uninsured. Grayson, who is Jewish, apologized to the Anti-defamation League for those offended by his generic use[45] of the word 'holocaust'.[46]

On September 30, 2009, Grayson called Congressional Republicans "nattering nabobs of negativism" and "foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who think they can dictate policy to America by being stubborn" despite having lost the election. He argued that on the issue of health care "the Republicans have been insulting … [and] disserving America," and that "some thoughtful opposition" has been missing in the debate. He responded to criticism of his comments about the Republicans by saying he was speaking "the honest truth", because he contends that Republican leaders have offered no feasible counter-proposal to that of the Democrats, and that when the minority is not compromising, few alternatives exist from which to draw conclusions. During the interview, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos responded to Grayson with four initiatives that he believed Congressional Republicans have proposed: (1) enacting tort reform, (2) expanding health insurance portability, (3) permitting consumers to shop for health insurance across state lines, and (4) ensuring access to health care regardless of pre-existing health conditions. Grayson maintained his position that Congressional Republicans have failed to offer a feasible plan, and in his rebuttal to the second and fourth points asserted, "What you just described is the Democratic plan. You think you can steal the emperor's clothes that way?"[47][48]

My proposal: Grayson subsequently refused to apologize for his remarks, giving a speech in which he said, “I would like to apologize: I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”[43] Grayson, who is Jewish, later apologized to the Anti-defamation League for those offended by his generic use[45] of the word 'holocaust'.[46] Grayson later charged that "some thoughtful opposition" has been missing in the debate, and that the Republicans lacked a counter-proposal, a charge that Republicans, including Alex Castellanos, rejected.[47][48]

The point of my revision is to condense what is currently an overlong series of back and forths and sound bites. This parlays the relevant information to the biography of Alan Grayson (note that I still object to the inclusion of the word "generic") Trilemma (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of that section as they currently stand are well written. Your hack job only makes them confusing, and disconnects from the events. The generic use (lower-case "h) is documented with consensus above and confirmed by Grayson in the citation. Scientus (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I do also prefer the first verion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

At the very least we could make the second paragraph more concise, particularly as it relates to this: "On September 30, 2009, Grayson called Congressional Republicans "nattering nabobs of negativism" and "foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who think they can dictate policy to America by being stubborn" despite having lost the election. He argued that on the issue of health care "the Republicans have been insulting … [and] disserving America," and that "some thoughtful opposition" has been missing in the debate. He responded to criticism of his comments about the Republicans by saying he was speaking "the honest truth", because he contends that Republican leaders have offered no feasible counter-proposal to that of the Democrats, and that when the minority is not compromising, few alternatives exist from which to draw conclusions." and the last retort from Grayson. If we include a Grayson claim and a rebuttal, there's no need for a further inclusion of a claim from Grayson. That gives undue weight. Trilemma (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The second para for be could be trimmeda bit, it is rambling and I am left wondering what it is all about. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The healthcare section is getting excessive and unreadable, you may think ,,oh I got my edit in but if excessive poor additions make the section almost unreadable to uninformed people like me for example then it is wasted. There is also already the other article about graysons comments Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The secondary article is supposed to be merged into this one; Scientus set it figuring it would get deleted and thus he would gain ground for his position in an editing dispute (you can find this on the talk page of the article). Still though, this one does indeed need trimmed. Any suggested versions? Trilemma (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

this is not "media coverage", so no, it doesn't immediately belong in the other Article.Scientus (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it is media coverage of graysons comment, I just feel the section is getting excessively long and hard to read and understand, with excessive quotes and reports of each rude word and in the end it is unclear and doesn't really say much at all, could we trim to say what is the simple points, he moaned about the healthcare and he's a bit rude about everyone and then what happened? Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think that we basically should have only his initial quote, "die quickly", then maybe one quote illustrating the reaction, one the reference to his reference to health care as a holocaust. We can trim down the rest. Trilemma (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not support the condensed paragraph proposed by Trilemma. The new paragraph he has offered does not paint a complete enough picture to help the reader understand an appropriate degree of context for Grayson's perspectives on health care. The amount of time Grayson has spent on the health care issue, the vast media coverage he has received, and the reactions provoked by others warrants more than a minimalist summary of events. The current version has undergone substantial revisions and discussion for weeks and should be kept. James.DC (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I totally disagree, the current version has enjoyed constant tit for tat reverting and is imo almost unreadable. There has never been any agreement about anything in that section, I am looking for an independent copy editor to rewrite it to something that a reader wanting to know what it is about could understand something, at present it is just a collection of comments from this cite and that cite and the whole section is very poor. Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I find that section at least as intelligible as any other text on the page. What exactly is "unreadable" to you? I find it entirely coherent. You seem to dismiss it on the basis of "tit for tat" editing, which may or may not be true. However, even if it were the culmination of tit for tat editing, that in and of itself does not make it unreadable, so please at least offer a couple of examples of what is unreadable to you. Additionally, you do not address the substance of my argument as to why this section should not be condensed, and the justification for keeping it expanded (i.e. Grayson's expended energy on the issue, media coverage of his work, and the provoked response). James.DC (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The section to an outsider is meaningless and explains nothing, take it from me, someone who is a passer by, and just looking to know .. what is the section actually all about? ..also the rest of the article is basically stable, Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's useful to consider what is essential in his biography. His "die quickly" remark certainly is; so is his holocaust remark, due to it prompting enough of a controversy that he apologized. The rest of the information in the health care section is questionable, at best. Trilemma (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's another proposal:

Grayson has gained notoriety for his fiery rhetoric concerning Health care reform debate in the United States. An advocate of a national health care plan, he denounced the GOP's alternatives as a plan of "don't get sick...and if you get sick, die quickly." The remark drew considerable criticism from Republicans and media figures; Grayson subsequently refused to apologize, saying "I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America." Following criticism from several Jewish groups, including the ADL, Grayson apologized for his use of the term 'holocaust.' Trilemma (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

At the least it is understandable and concise, all those worthless tabloid insults actually make the section rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I support Trilemma's reduced version of the section, it summarises the issue and it is easily read and understood this version is the one I am talking about, simple clear and consise, as I said, the version that has been reverted to again now is a mess and unreadable and confusing to the reader. Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

user:Trilemma seems to think that if he WP:BLUDGEONs enough that anything he wants is immediately "consensus", and anyone who disagrees is a "rogue editor". user:Trilemma continually changes the page when no one has addressed mine, or James.DC's concerns, and leaves the page in a complete mess.Scientus (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the order of edits:

• 01:21, 11 November 2009 - creates a total mess that is designed to smear Grayson
• 01:31, 11 November 2009 - immidiately start attacking a new section of sourced content, arguing that all content and context, should be yielded to a screed while the page remains broken

It seems clear that user:Trilemma puts removing sourced information, and pushing her POV against Grayson, over building a correctly formatted, coherent encyclopedia.Scientus (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientus, you have consistently failed to positively contribute to the discussion on this article. All that is left now is to determine the precise path to take in dealing with your abuse of wikipedia. Trilemma (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

in line linking to utube

We dont do that, so they are going to have to be removed and any info that they are supporting will need a new citation. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Discriminating against a specific publisher, (YouTube) especially when videos have been released by the specific topic (Alan Grayson's official YouTube page) seems foolish and counterproductive. Such a change to Wikipedia would be quite large, and should be proposed at WP:BOTREQ.Scientus (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You're free to push for rule changes but the guidelines as they stand now are pretty clear. Trilemma (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for shortening Federal Reserve section

Now that we've addressed two other issues, let's get down to the federal reserve section. Here's my proposal to make it more concise: During his first term in office, Grayson gained attention for exchanges with Federal Reserve System Vice Chairman Donald Kohn and Elizabeth A. Coleman regarding federal spending. Grayson joined with fellow freshman Democrat Jim Himes of Connecticut to introduce the Grayson-Himes Pay for Performance Act, legislation to require that all bonuses paid by companies that had received funds under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to be "based on performance"; on April 1, the bill was passed by the full House of Representatives by a vote of 247-171. Grayson is a co-sponsor of the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009.

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

No, the article should not be an attack on Grayson based on taking a comment out of context. Your version is particularly laughable in that it excludes any link to his statement.Scientus (talk)

Scientus, not only will I not engage you while you insist on hostile confrontation ("laughable"), but I'd encourage others to ignore you as well. If you have something positive to contribute, feel free to do so, but merely attacking other editors isn't welcomed behavior. Trilemma (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Trilemma, not only will I continue to respond to you as I feign indignation, but I will also evade criticism while pretending it is ad hominem.Scientus (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with the proposed shortening. It summarizes the section in question well, and is as long as it needs to be considering the current edition basically documents the bi-partisan criticism in unnecessary detail. The "who said what and when about his comments" isn't important, what is notable is that he said it, was publically criticized, and apologized.—DMCer™ 07:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that what he said apart from those three words—the entire context of Alan Grayson's conversation about bank lobbyists, is irrelevant to an article about Alan Grayson?Scientus (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I was saying that I support trilema's edit and that I consider it a large improvement, there is already a main article that explains and includes all the excessive stuff. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are three editors here clearly involved on the talkpage who support the reduction, please take your time with reverting as trilema's edit has a fair degree of support. Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:POLLINGScientus (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That is reflective of your attitude to other editors opinions throughout, please apply good faith to other users. Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If the trend continues, then Scientus will simply continue to ignore the talk page. Then when we again establish a clear consensus on revisions, he will revert them, accuse me and others of POV pushing, and start the cycle again. Trilemma (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It does look like that is the case, I am going to ask a neutral editor to rewrite the section. Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible sources

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

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

• Rose, David."The People vs. the Profiteers", Vanity Fair, 2007-11
• Senate Democratic Policy Committee Hearing: "An Oversight Hearing on Waste, Fraud and Abuse in U.S. Government Contracting in Iraq", U.S. House of Representatives, 2005-02-14
• "Halliburton unlawfully sent civilian truckers into combat in Iraq", Halliburton Watch, 2006-09-19
• Phinney, David Iraq Contractor Claims Immunity From Fraud Laws, Corp Watch, 2004-12-23

HaliburtonWatch as an RS? Trilemma (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• Congressman Grayson Wins Another Round by The Nation
• 30 Second TV Spot Shakes Up A Congressional Campaign In Orlando -- Meet Alan Grayson Howie Klein, Huffington Post, 2008-07-27

WP:Undue, WP:Soapbox and WP:Recentism

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

That's definitely a big improvement. I have a few issues with it but I'll hold off on delineating them while others weigh in. Trilemma (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the whole article is structured a bit oddly which doesn't help. IMHO, it's currently set to push each "issue" into its own section when politicians, and most people simply don't work like that. It likely would be wiser to restructure everything chronologically and this also separates the person from the issue to show why he does what he does. For instance this current dust-up on health care will undoubtably play into his next election yet that connection would either be not explored or doubled-downed explained in two sections rather that just a common thread in one. But that's for another day ... -- Banjeboi 23:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

YouTube videos from Alan Grayson's official channel not stable? So if its been printed its true? Even when the video is direct evidence? Perhaps you should exclude all print media because The Sun or The Onion prints things of questionable accuracy...Scientus (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is no doubt it his his channel or controlled by him then it can be included. However, all video has a drawback that once the link dies it's gone so it is likely wiser to source to print media which even if they go dead can still be viewed in the web archives. -- Banjeboi 21:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Many are public domain documents. They include context/semantic information. Someone could upload them to http://archive.org and many are available on http://c-spanvideo.org/congress/ Scientus (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You're still not hearing me, you can use videos as sources but they have some major drawbacks for verification. The main one being that when the video link goes down we have no back-up like we do with the Internet archives. -- Banjeboi 03:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Personal Life

Most politicians have a section on personal life.

About all I can find here is the last paragraph of Career saying that he had a wife and 5 kids, the box saying his wife is named Lolita Grayson, and reference 5 suggesting that his wife is Shellie Ruston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimJJewett (talk • contribs) 14:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob reverts

Source says "four to one in our favor" [18]. this is inaccurate, yet Off2riorob reintroduces it, twice!, with only justification that my edit is "unfounded".Scientus (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, please do not mass edit the article without discussion, please state your issues and allow the other involved editors time to investigate your issues. Also the utube in-line sources should anyway be removed, I suspect the editor used one of the other sources to paraphrase, I will look at the sources. Off2riorob (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Your continued edit warring over this is disappointing, I assure you that is not the way to affect change, your refusal to discuss is very poor. I have to go out and will deal with this later. Off2riorob (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Was the fact you reverted back twice without reason other than my edit being "unfounded" false?Scientus (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientus, I'm not sure if you are adding the YouTube references but please allow me to suggest how they should be cited; using the Grayson on Hardball video example, the source is Chris Matthew's Hardball - we need to be clear on that, use a WP:Citation template if possible and then add the YouTube link for verification. -- Banjeboi 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just to give an outside view, the section on the K-Street whore bit seems overly large to me. I would try to trim it down to focus on Grayson's views on the issue in dispute and the fact that his comments referring to someone else as a K-Street whore were controversial and move on. I've also refactored the unnecessarily provocative thread heading. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue to which I had to change it was that it seemed your paraphrase was not supported by the source, and therefore could be inaccurate. By including the source, essential context is preserved and the reader can consider the appropriateness of Grayson's statements. Without context, the existence of someone, somewhere, criticizing him is just hearsay.Scientus (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

More NPOV language from Scientus

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

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

2) On October 8 Grayson gave a speech in which he reiterated that he would not apologize to the Republicans (“America doesn't care about [the Republican party's] feelings”), while accusing the Democratic party of narrowly focusing on procedure over policy (“We as a party have spent the last six months, the greatest minds in our party, dwelling on the question, the unbelievably consuming question of how to get Olympia Snowe to vote on health care reform”) and the Republican party for dogmatic opposition to the Democrats (“If Barack Obama has a BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon”). told Grayson that her office does not know and is not tracking where this money is. Bloomberg has totaled the credit put out in the bailout as 9.7 trillion dollars,

This is a biographic article of Alan Grayson, not an article on the Inspector General.

I think it's abundantly clear by now that one can not assume good faith with Scientus. He has behaved in a hostile and dishonest manner perpetually.   Will Beback  talk  07:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Agreed. Trilemma is contributing to this degeneration of Wikipedia into a tabloid. The fair and NPOV way is to include the full context by an appropriate quote from the interview, as was in the article.Scientus (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the pull quote and I agree that it would be best boiled down to one instance. My revisions were aimed at removing the soap boxing that was present. Trilemma (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Resolved

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

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

• Sadly, you're missing the point that most of this guy's notability is *from* the items you have rolled back. It's OK for a liberal to have a controversies section on Wikipedia! Remember, that's what NPOV is all about... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.223.188 (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Crashing Republican meeting

Why this there no mention of this? Truthsort (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Religion

Is Grayson a citable religious person, I have never seen anything, he said he was jewish in a cite but I thought he meant by birth . Any citations to support religiousness and practice?   Will Beback  talk  07:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversy?

There's no mention in the "Controversy" section as to why the quotes therein are listed under this heading. Did anybody deem them controversial? If so, was the incident of this controversy a significant enough aspect of Grayson's bio to warrant mention here? I'm not inclined to think so.   Will Beback  talk  07:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obietom (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Misleading ad

Two reputable groups have criticized the subject for a misleading political ad. It's not a huge event, but it's not nothing either. I cut the previous material down to a single sentence, which I think is appropriate weight. However the anon deleted even that. He hasn't made any effort to explain the deletions here. I hope he does so before deleting it again.   Will Beback  talk  07:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It is very notable, there have been many sources discussing the attack ad. The Anon needs to come to talk and discuss before removing reliably sourced material. Arzel (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a desire to try and "balance" out this section by changing what the sources say so it doesn't sound so bad against Grayson. Well that is WP:OR. We can only say what the sources say, we can't give our own interpretation of what they say. Arzel (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruption, vandalism and a foul mouth. Sounds to me like 24.151.113.86 might be Grayson himself! :P ...or at least someone worth reporting. Has anyone done so yet? --70.181.171.159 (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't do anything wrong but try to remove bias in wording. But whatever. 24.151.113.86 (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Edited the section w/ the Taliban Dan ad to add on that PolitiFact.com verified the substance of the ad. I left the part showing the critique of it in the Sentinel though because that is equally true. I originally referred to PolitiFact as the Pulitzer Prize winning group but removed that language because it was biased on the re-edit after my original edit was reverted. Also removed reference of a Philadelphia Inquirer OpEd piece questioning the validity of the Florida TEA Party because it is merely an OpEd piece without any journalistic rigor or verification. While it may be a good read, it is a poor reference. 75.112.131.164 (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Z October 22 12:51AM

I apologize for accidentally removing that Politifact piece; I didn't mean to. I will try to find a better citation on the TEA party. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad we can be civil. 75.112.131.164 (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither Politifact, or from what I saw in the stated sources The Sentinal, said that the ad's substance was verified. However, Grayson did release a new toned down ad which PolitiFact did comment. The first source looks at the frist two facts of the Grayson ad and calls them True and Barely True, but doesn't seem to come to a conclusion on the third fact. The second source only looked at the first fact and called it true. I've made the changes so it is clear that these are two different ads. Arzel (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that Grayson merely took Webster's words out of context is ludicrous. . Grayson out and out lied. He deliberately excised entire sections of Webster's speech in order to change the meaning. That is not simply taking things out of context. The deliberate nature of it makes it a lie. Mincing words in regards to the action of the defeated Grayon is a disservice to anyone reading this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but this is wikipedia, not our private blogs. We're here to inform, not criticize. I do think that "Grayson's ads were criticized for taking Webster's words out of context" needs some work. First, it was primarily the "Taliban" ad which was so accused. Second, "criticized" is a little to light, given that virtually every news source except the Huffington Post specifically stated that he did take them out of context. It was more than criticized, it was found false by the vast majority of sources. LewisWasGenius (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Newsweek

"America's Worst Politician"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of section on 2010 campaign

The last two paragraphs especially (leaving out the one concerning his concession) seem to portray Grayson as a hero of the American left -- hence all the cited praise from prominent liberals -- who became the powerless victim of relentless right-wing smears. The obviously one-sided narrative laid out in the cited grafs needs to be scaled back significantly at the very least, balanced to some measure, or failing all else, deleted. --SchutteGod (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I see you primary concern. Are you saying it is biased from the left or the right? Arzel (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at improving the section. Summary of my changes:

• Removed "harsh attacks and high spending" weasel wording. Who made the attacks and spent the money?
• Clarified Taliban Dan issue. How exactly did he take Webster out of context?
• Clarified what was toned down about the second ad.
• Removed "was still criticized by websites such as PolitiFact.com." "Websites such as" is weasel wording, and it is only marginally true that PolitiFact criticized the new ad.
• Replaced "became a prime target of" with the more neutral "was targeted by".
• Replaced "became a special target of" with the more neutral "was heavily targetted by".
• Replaced "These ads" with "The Chamber of Commerce ads" to accurately reflect the ref cited.
• Removed a discussion of a minor legal battle which was only marginally related to the campaign.

Feel free to criticize, comment on, or modify these changes. LewisWasGenius (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement

An encyclopaedia is expected to be neutral, this page reads like a campaign advertisement, it needs rewriting. I think it deserves a tag advertisement. 8digits (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The page says he was born on March 13, 1958. That sounds very encyclopedic to me. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we agree to leaving that and getting rid of the rest of the advertisement 8digits (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The page also says he's a U.S. Representative in Florida. That also sounds very encyclopedic to me. I've waved my magic wand and instantly made all "advertisement" leave the article. Our work here is done. Good job. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

By your comment I think we are in agreement that the page is far too big. What I am thinking is we reduce it to about a quarter of what it is. 8digits (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have misread. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

How so? I have taken out some stuff that I think you will agree are too long winded and put in the areas where I think the article needs to be improved. I note it appears that people have been waiting over a year for some facts to be verified. Normally they should be removed the items in three months 8digits (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. You are right where you added citation needed templates; however, I don't quite understand why you removed information about a legal organization and the law firm that he founded, as this seems highly relevant to a biography about a lawyer. That part about what judges he worked with seemed overly-detailed, but that was only one sentence of what you removed in that section. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

8digits, what Xenophrenic has been getting at is that, as the placer of the tag, you should be pointing out SPECIFIC instances where you think the article sounds like an advert; this would allow us to discuss it in detail, establish consensus, and remove any truly offending material. If you give instances where the article truly sounds like an advert, then we can take care of it. However, vague pointing at the whole article as an advertisement with no given evidence will result in nothing. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I will put tags in where I think it should be redone.

8digits (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)