Jump to content

Talk:Barney Frank/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Anonymous vandalism

I notice a lot of anonymous vandalism is going on. Would it make sense to put the protection on the page that doesn't allow changes by anonymous users? Thanks to everyone who has been diligent in reverting. (Wallamoose (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Suggested Additions and Deletions

Would it be reasonable to cut out:

"In 1995, then-Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey referred to Frank as "Barney Fag" in a press interview. Armey apologized and said it was "a slip of the tongue". Frank did not accept Armey's explanation, and responded, "I turned to my own expert, my mother, who reports that in 59 years of marriage, no one ever introduced her as Elsie Fag."[8]"
Is this notable? If so no worries. Just trying to cut the fat.

The additions I would like to make would expand the very short intro section to summarize some of the major article sections. 1) I think the bit about his chairmanship of House Services could be expanded to note that he has been major figure on the committee for a long time in the minority and now as Chair (already there) and has advocated for affordable housing, but raised controversy for supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Yes, I know it would be tricky to phrase this in a fair and balanced way, but just short like that seem okay to me). 2) I think the intro should include some mention of Frank's role as an openly gay politician (the first in the House is that correct?) and an advocate for gay rights. This has been a big part of his notoriety (from attackers and supporters). 3) Maybe something about Frank often being at the center of controversies for his outspoken disputes with Republicans. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

I agree with most of your proposals. I went ahead and took a stab at the intro. Let me know what you think as we can go a few different routes with it. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Disagree - Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin who is the other openly gay member of congress has never had her introduction mention her sexual affiliation. I worry that this sets a precedent that biases political figures based on their sexual affiliation. Qwerspam (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
List of the first LGBT holders of political offices#United States:
--Qwerspam (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concerns. But on the other hand there is no denying that Barney Frank is a champion of gay rights and outspoken about his sexuality. It's played a big role in his civil rights advocacy and been a source of controversy in relation to many events in his life. So I don't think we're outting him or establishing that as a policy. I think we're just trying to include in the intro a part of his life that is extraordinarily significant. Not because he's gay, but because he was one of the first and is probably the most prominent openly gay house members, a huge advocate for gay causes and outspoken on "gay" issues. Does that help? Would there be a way to phrase it so it doesn't seem like something objectionable? (Wallamoose (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Speaking of Frank's being gay, this article seems to be flooded with anonymous vandalism of an untoward nature. So I requested a semi-protect. The vandalism makes it difficult to keep up with edits and is particularly inappropriate.(Wallamoose (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

Quips and controversies section

This is all POV trivia. Anything usable needs to be integrated into other appropriate sections. Controversy sections indicate a poorly written and POV article - getting rid of the section itself will help with POV concerns. -- Banjeboi 03:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


Two different pages

Resolved
 – -- Banjeboi 19:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

why/how are there 2 different barney frank pages. they have similar info, but are not exactly the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Barney_Frank & then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank they seem the same but are not & have different pages linking to them but they both share this discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.180.23 (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

okay, i opened both from google links. and refreshed a million times and they were different. now 20 min later they are they same. either someone fixed it or google took me to a cashe without telling me. very odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.180.23 (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's likely a back-end issue that was different computer servers redirecting you to the correct page. Apparently it was sending you to a cached version of one - at least temporarily. -- Banjeboi 19:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Epigraphs

While I like both of the little quotes recently added to sections of this article, I do not think the use of epigraphs (even from the bio subject) are very good encyclopedic style. Opinion? LotLE×talk 19:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The epigraphs for the LGBT and marijuana sections are fairly accurate summaries. The quote in the financial section is to also provide a fair summary to help mitigate what seems, IMHO, POV content. That is, sourced but somewhat misleading content that suggest Frank is to blame for the housing crisis - and ergo the worldwide financial meltdown - which by any fair assessment he inherited at worst and by a NPOV likely has worked to address over many years. Frankly he has been in Congress for many years and a broader overview of his work would more cleanly address this but as a relatively quick fix without furthering any battles I saw adding the subjects own - and arguably, neutral-ish - statements seemed to be a constructive route. For similar reasons - NPOV, mainly - as the editor who added these, I also support the style. We have those quote templates for just sucha situation and I looked for shorter and more concise quotes. -- Banjeboi 19:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Where these belong is at Wikiquotes, and we can link there appropriately. They are nice quotes, and indeed accurately reflect Frank's opinions. But this is the wrong place for them. Takoplow (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikiquotes is a Sister but separate project. We include quotes - just like these - in articles all the time. There's no reason they can't also be at wikiquotes but that does the readers of this article little good. -- Banjeboi 20:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I have never seen epigraph quotes of this style ever used in a biographical article other than this one, at least not in the few hundred I have read. Can you point to any other example? LotLE×talk 00:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
So some five hours later you're deleting this content, that you like? I'm not seeing any guideline that discourages epigraphs, if they exist please let me know. -- Banjeboi 03:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi: While I know you added some interesting quotes as a well-meaning attempt to "spice up" the article, the style simply does not match that of an encyclopedic biography. You have edit warred over this addition without finding any support for the novel style from any other editor; nor have you managed to identify any other article on Wikipedia that is written this way. Obviously, WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, and it is conceivable that such novelty would be warranted in this article... but you need to come up with a better reason than WP:ILIKEIT to motivate the unusual (and to my eye, jarring) use of "thematic section quotes." Specifically, find someone else on WP who agrees with you. That absense of either precedent or support by other editors should be a clue to you. LotLE×talk 08:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Btw. I've added the quotes you found to Wikiquote. They are nice resources for readers to be able to find, they just don't match the style of an encyclopedic bio: here we use quotes only where they can minimally characterize some biographical matter, and generally even there prefer paraphrase to direct quotation. "Witty" and "erudite" show something interesting about a bio subject (as Frank is), but are strong demerits for encyclopedia content. LotLE×talk 08:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I find your actions towards this content speak for themselves. I've restored these sourced quotes in a style that you prefer. -- Banjeboi 00:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
They definitely read better integrated into the text. I think they still occupy too many words for the flow, but at least it's more clear that they're meant as elaborations of the general descriptions rather than "quirky" and "catchy" side bars. I think over time the direct quotes will still need to be summarized or abridged, but I don't see that as so urgent without the funny typographic/stylistic usage. LotLE×talk 08:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Frank Rule

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Frank_Rule Redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank#The_Frank_Rule This is appropriate as the rule is not significant enough to have it's own page. However, the redirect is broken in that there is no internal anchor #The_Frank_Rule I suggest we move "The Frank Rule" into it's own sub heading, so that someone looking to answer the question "What is the Frank Rule" will get an appropriate answer quickly and easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.219.27.24 (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Frank Rule" just doesn't seem terribly notable, at all, but his comments on outing are OK in the context of his LGBT or political activities where it is. I'll fix the redirect to simply point at the article. If you have some sources that indicate this is a noteworthy topic perhaps post here so we can sort out how to improve the content with due weight.
Also that's a very low-traffic link with no pages linked to it. The only reason to keep it, I guess, is that some non-Wikipedia pages link to it but hardly anyone uses it. -- Banjeboi 20:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
How do you get traffic statistics for individual pages? Thanks --71.171.118.196 (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This link shows traffic for The Frank Rule for October 2008. You can input other articles or, at the bottom (where it says 200810) switch to different months. -- Banjeboi 01:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have semi-protected this article for a short time, due to a sudden increase again in IP vandalism. Bearian (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's tied to Frank's being the Chair of the committee which is sorting out the $700 billion bailout issues. I wouldn't expect this to let up soon. -- Banjeboi 01:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I may have to semi-protect again. An IP inserted a long diatribe the other day. Any thoughts? Bearian (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Same thing new week, but I've only semi-protected for 3 days. Is there a consensus to extend this, or open it up again? Bearian (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP vandalism doesn't seem high as compared to some I've seen, and at least one IP edit was constructive, so I would suggest we leave it for now and see what happens when this pp expires. I've watchlisted this as well. I think Benji is correct as to cause. — Becksguy (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
O.K. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the US economy tanking and taking the rest of the world down the sinkhole leaves some folks with more time on their hands and looking for someone to blame. At least give them credit for knowing who Frank is! -- Banjeboi 21:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity

This article sounds like a campaign ad for Mr. Frank. It skews over at least 2 things that I can think of.

First of all, Mr. Frank had made repeated statements about the solvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to the subprime crisis coming to a head. "These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Frank said. He added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Spoken in 2003)

Secondly, it is well-known here in Massachusetts, that Mr. Frank came out of the closet only when his scandal with Mr. Gobie was about to become public. He did it not out of principle but to head off and lessen the impact of the scandal.Bostoner (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve Gobie

Someone anonymously deleted a large section for Steve Gobie which describes the male prostitution in Frank's apartment. The article now reads that Frank was reprimanded for fixing Gobie's parking tickets, and doesn't mention the sexual aspect of the scandal. It later says that Larry Craig had a sex scandal of his own, implying that Frank had a sex scandal, but it's inconsistent, because the article doesn't talk about Frank's sex scandal. Since much of it has been rewritten since then (it's like 7 edits ago or so), I was unsure about how to put the info back.--Mister Magotchi (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide some good references to this scandal? Fatrb38 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Abortion section

This seems awfully POV. NARAL as the lede statement? Is there any evidence this is a big issue with Frank or, more likely, is this just heading the positions section to in some way paint Frank in some way. -- Banjeboi 21:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to add to that section but he is a United States Representative, so long as we have reliable sources why wouldn't we document his position/votes on an issue like abortion? - Schrandit (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:Undue we should give it due weight only. Is this really the most important legislative topic to Frank or as the majority of reliable sources think regarding Frank or is it instead really important to someone who disagrees with Frank's position on abortion. -- Banjeboi 22:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems reasonable to document a representative's positions on a variety of issues, whether or not an issue is the most important one in their legislative agenda. I might agree that it was WP:UNDUE if this was some obscure and wonky topic that few people understand or care about. I don't want a section on Frank's vote on tariff exemptions for Peruvian cocoa (unless he's actually made a public stand of that), but abortion laws are broadly enough debated that no candidate get elected to the House without making public statements of position. The article does not claim that this is Frank's "main issue", it just neutrally gives his policy ranking by a well-known organization associated with the issue (I would have no objection if we also cited the fact—assuming it is one—that the National Right to Life folks gave him a 0%, or whatever). LotLE×talk 22:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This issue isn't that abortion is a fringe aspect of legislation - it isn't - it's that this section has been plopped at the top of this section indicating it's the most important and worded in a POV manner, cherry-picking to present an incomplete and POV take on the subject's views. Throw out NARAL and just present the facts so teh reader can decide, no need to promote NARAL on a BLP. For instance, Frank co-sponsored, with Senator Clinton, a bill regarding Emergency contraception for rape victims at all hospitals and a separate bill to provide emergency contraception at military facilities. He also co-sponsored protecting the reproductive rights of women. Simply present this information which is a NPOV, and more accurate depiction of his legislative record. -- Banjeboi 23:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The political positions discussed in the article are listed in alphabetical order. "Abortion" starts with an "A". I think it would be wrong to read a priority ranking into the lexicographic one. That said, there is no special requirement that they be ordered in this manner, but someone seems to have thought that was a good choice. If you have an idea on how better to order the issue, please suggest it (or just be WP:BOLD).
In terms of NARAL, I would definitely oppose throwing out their ranking of Frank. That's one of the handful of most well-known political groups that lobby around abortion legislation. How they evaluate a given politician is a very useful way to understand the general shape of a politicians positions. Like I said above, from the opposite side, so would be the ratings by Right-to-Life. LotLE×talk 00:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Again though, is there any evidence that anyone but the editor who inserted this thinks this is terribly important to Frank's biography. Do reliable sources cite his record on abortion as being the most noteworthy of his extensive career? Wikipedia isn't a soapbox and we have plenty of articles about abortion if one needs to associate Frank with this hot-button issue. -- Banjeboi 02:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I confess that the point by Benjiboi is becoming weirdly contorted. It gives me the idea that s/he's trying to push some sort of agenda here (though not sure what, really). Including political positions is just what articles on Representatives do.

Having lived in Massachusetts for many years (though not right now), though not in Frank's district, I thought its Reps would be a good illustration. All the delegation is pretty much pro-choice, though none really have that as their "main issue".

  • John Olver: Article includes NARAL rating.
  • Richard Neal: No mention of abortion position, but pretty thin on any positions at all.
  • Jim McGovern: No mention of abortion, nor really of any domestic position.
  • Barney Frank: this article.
  • Niki Tsongas: No mention of any positions.
  • John F. Tierney: Very brief mention of positions, including NARAL rating.
  • Ed Markey: Very little mention of positions, none on abortion (which is kind of bad, given how long Markey has served).
  • Mike Capuano: Basically nothing on positions, including abortion.
  • Stephen Lynch (politician): Very little on positions, with notable exception of giving NARAL rating (because Lynch is rare in Massachusetts as anti-abortion).
  • Bill Delahunt: Basically nothing on positions, including abortion.

In other words, every time an article contains just about anything on political positions, abortion laws make the list. Given that Frank's article is much longer than these others, with much more detail on positions, it would be very, very strange to omit this position. LotLE×talk 07:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the bad faith accusation but no, as you will notice, I never stated the content had to go or shouldn't be discussed. That abortion issues have found there way onto other articles is a form of WP:Other stuff exists which is a terrible editing policy. We should include information with due weight that is relative to the subject not because it has been migrated onto a lot of articles so why not this one. The converse rationale would be that it should either be included or disincluded on all politicians articles when instead our policies are to to stick to due weight and RS policies. Perhaps we should look at what reliable sources state about his legislative record rather than primary sources and a obviously POV group. I'm also opposed to balancing out NARAL with a POV group that opposes them, let's just look for NPOV without any soapboxing groups. -- Banjeboi 03:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I doubt medical marijuana and online gambling are really big concerns for him but we've got verifiable sources on his stances and voting record for those topics. NARAL is a POV group but we're not taking rhetoric from them, just the rating they gave the Congressman and we're framing that rating in neutral language. - Schrandit (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, online gambling is big for him. On the abortion question, he's one more pro-choice legislator, but when it comes to online gambling, he's the most important person on his side of the issue. JamesMLane t c 07:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. This looks like an opportunity to look at a variety of legislative issues and what weight they deserve at this time. I think we can all agrees that abortion remains a contentious issue, leading off Frank's record in this way suggests this is the most important issue when that seems unlikely, at least presently. If anyone has some reliable sources that overview his career on various issues let's start to sort out what his work record is and perhaps what weight various issues should be given. Maybe abortion is the most important issue, maybe we're missing something else and need to fill in the blanks. -- Banjeboi 23:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It is extremely frustrating that editors seem to think that ALPHABETICAL order expresses some deep sentiment about priority of issue. I have no objection to reordering the presentation of Frank's positions, but the fact some past editor chose alphabetically order really, really , really doesn't in any way suggest that Abortion (note the A) is Frank's "most important" policy position. LotLE×talk 07:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
How would we go about deciding which issues were the most important for ever politician? This article puts them in alphabetical order, just like the article on Kucinich and similar articles for other politicians. I say we keep it this way. - Schrandit (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Alphabetical would be perfect if this were a list article or a dictionary. I think Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters put it in order of content volume which seems a more reasonable stop-gap measure. Really his career is rather extensive so going over several biographies and seeing what weight they apply would sem to make more sense. To me the abortion content is rather pointy but until it is put into a broader context it looks like it will have to stay. -- Banjeboi 21:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Frank was not the first openly gay Representative

Resolved
 – Content sussed out and reorganized per WP:Undue, good work. -- Banjeboi 12:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The first openly gay representative was Gerry Studds, yet someone has now yet again edited the Frank article to ascribe that status to Frank.

In a previous discussion (now at Talk:Barney Frank/Archive 2#Anon repeatedly adding duplicative information), an anon was keen to add Frank's sexual orientation to the introductory section, on the basis that being the first was notable. I responded that being the first was notable and that's why it belonged in the introductory section in the Gerry Studds article, but not here.

I still believe that. The problem is that the misidentification of Frank as the first is apparently quite common. People keep coming along and asserting it. Therefore, I now think that the best way to maintain a stable and informative article is to include Frank's sexual orientation in the introductory section, but to mention that Studds preceded him in coming out. It doesn't really warrant such prominent placement on its own, but the value of dispelling the popular misconception justifies moving it up. JamesMLane t c 05:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is explained in the note and the end of that sentence and had been previously been worked on. There is a difference between being outed (someone outs you) and coming out (you out yourself). Studds is the former, Frank is the later. We don't have to hit people over the head with Studds' info in the lede just to appease drive-by folks who fail to get further down in the article. Studds's info is given due weight - very little - on this article in relation to the subject of the article. -- Banjeboi 08:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I missed that because the distinction between "Notes" and "References" is an unusual one in Wikipedia, where content footnotes are seen from time to time in the "References" section. I think this is a dubious way of presenting the information. More important, though, is that the information itself is dubious. I note that "Note 1" cites no sources. IIRC, some people contend that Frank was effectively outed, i.e., he publicly confirmed his sexual orientation when (and only because) it was about to be revealed anyway. A further point that's dubious about the current text is that it asserts that Frank has been the most prominent gay politician ever since his coming out, which probably isn't true (I think Studds was still more prominent in the late 1980s).
Here's a possible alternative: Leave in the introductory section something like "Frank, who has been openly gay since 1987, became the most prominent openly gay politician in the United States." (This leaves open the question of when he became the most prominent, a date we can't fix exactly anyway.) Then, in the "Personal life" section, note that he came out at a time when one member of Congress (Studds) was already openly gay, having been outed in the scandal. It probably wouldn't be amiss to augment that section with information about how and why Frank decided to come out, if we can find a good source for it. If there's a notable POV to the effect that he was to some extent pushed (somewhere between being outed and a completely voluntary coming out), then we could include that, too, provided it can be sourced.
For now, though, the idea would be to move some of this level of detail out of the introductory section and out of the footnote to that section, but simply to address it in text in the appropriate section. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I seem to recall we had sourced it but that may have been corrupted over time. A brief mention of Studds in the personal life section might work and we could use the opportunity to add Tammy Baldwin, not sure if there are any others. I would prefer to leave the footnote intact regardless of what we put further down. This one of those quibbly things that should be included but footnotes handle well. The lede needs to serve as a stand-alone, which it is coming closer to doing, without getting tabloidy. The note helps toward that end. Let's see what the sources say and work on improving the information in the Studds article as well. -- Banjeboi 09:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
It's precisely because I think the introductory section should stand alone that I think the note does not work. First, the whole subject isn't a hugely important aspect of Frank's bio, so it doesn't need such emphasis. All that's really important for his bio is that he's a prominent national-level gay politician. The rest can be in the body of the article. Second, if a topic is included in the introductory section, it should be in summary form, and having this level of detail as a footnote to that section is a bad idea. A reader who reads only that section won't know that the footnote covers comparative trivia until he or she has read it. Thus the reader who's looking for a thirty-second precis on Barney Frank will spend part of the time on an excursion into historical minutiae in lieu of more important information about Frank. If the subject is addressed in the "Personal life" section, I could live with the footnote, although I think text is better. For the introductory section, though, the footnote is especially out of place. JamesMLane t c 10:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
We may have to agree to disagree on some of this then. Frank's notability is tied to being one of the first and most prominent out politicians in addition to his legislative record. We should lean on what sources state as well. -- Banjeboi 10:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
These days, in light of the combination of the Democratic takeover of the House (giving Frank his chairship) and the financial crisis (making his committee much more important than before), I'd say he's primarily notable as one of the key players in the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars. His sexual orientation is less important, comparatively, than it was before the 2006 election.
I previously opposed putting his sexual orientation in the introductory section at all. I've expressed willingness to compromise on that point, but even if you think that the topic is of such importance, surely the distinction you drew between being outed and coming out is less important. If what you see as important is that he's "one of the first and most prominent out politicians", how about we say just that much up front: "Frank, who in 1987 became the second openly gay member of the House of Representatives, has become one of the most prominent openly gay politician in the United States." Then Studds would get, as you said, a brief mention in the "Personal life" section, which is where the distinction between coming out and being outed would be noted. How does that sound?
You mention Baldwin and the possibility of others -- the third openly gay current Representative is Jared Polis. Those two aren't relevant to Frank as a trailblazer the way Studds is, because Studds relates to Frank's status as the first. Perhaps we should mention Baldwin and Polis in the LGBT section. That there are only three openly gay members shows the context in which Frank is working on those issues in Congress. JamesMLane t c 11:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I see the logic in that, excellent suggestion. Let's take the current lede sentence and the note. Push those into the personal life section and go with your proposed sentence in the lede. Add Polis and Baldwin to the note as well. If we have reason to discuss them outside of that we certainly could. -- Banjeboi 13:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I've rewritten the "openly gay" passages as per the above. Baldwin and Polis are already mentioned in the article, in the context of LGBT issues, which I think makes more sense than including them in the section on Frank's personal life. JamesMLane t c 09:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What does mentioning how a former gay guy came out had anything to do with Barney Frank's sexual orientation? If you felt that you must include that information, you can leave out the part where the guy was found out with a page. The fact that the page was added goes back to the homophobic belief that gays are child molestors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.204.75 (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible sources

  • A former aide has written a biography called Barney Frank: The Story of America's Only Left-Handed, Gay, Jewish Congressman. It will be published later this year.
  • Frank was active in the Mississippi Freedom Summer of 1964 - in support of voter registration for blacks.

A few sources that may help. -- Banjeboi 13:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Your sources also don't do much for me. The first doesn't address the issues raised, the second is unpublished so it's useless, the third isn't that important (a lot of ppl did), the fourth is a blog (not a WP:RS) and the last one isn't the opinion of the Guardian. You're left with nothing. Soxwon (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • comment: i would very much like to try to include material from those US News And World Report articles for three reasons: 1)WP:V awesome. 2)WP:RS they do the fact-checking expected of a high-circulation news magazine. 3) US News & World Report is known to be a mouthpiece of the right-wing pro-business pro-big-money interests in America, and their editorial staff has been comprised mainly of right-wing people with traditional American Christian affiliations (e.g. Steve Waldman). This means we can't be accused of using only left-wing sources, if we use the USN&WR material we will be seen as editing more fairly by including WP:RS which are known for their criticism of liberal politicians and their stance against progressive movements supported by gays, atheists, and non-christians. So it will give the whole biography more Neutral style by using some of the USN&WR references. This is most excellent, i usually can't stand to read USN&WR because of their right-wing propaganda, but here we find they are actually very useful for our biography of Barney Frank. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 21:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
See, that's not justification for the inclusion, and the fact that it's a BLOG means it's not a WP:RS. Soxwon (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Soxwon you are mistaken here as well, some blogs are indeed fine. It depends on the context and usage. Teledildonix314, I haven't any strong opinions as of yet but given the tenditiousness of ChildofMidnight and Soxwon, I'm convinced that simply finding more sources was the best help I could do until they are blocked or banned from editing here. -- Banjeboi 03:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
No I am not mistaken from WP:VERIFIABILITY:

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Soxwon (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is why you are misreading that. Frank would be a first-person source, not a third-person source - Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, again people are considered experts on themselves. The one caveat that I've encountered is when a person contradicts information form other reliable sources we have to compare the two - exactly as we have done in the article. We state what the Republicans/critics are asserting then address those issues with Frank's own statements on that issue. -- Banjeboi 22:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent: Plz try to follow Benji, I was talking about the blog with that statement, not the interview. As for the interview, ok, then how come the critics view isn't allowed in the lead, but the POV cheerleader's is? Soxwon (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You can stop using antagonistic loaded phrases like but the POV cheerleader's is that is rather uncivil and detracts from any point you're trying to make. There been so much circular arguing about things that should be in the article, which already are; things that shouldn't, which aren't and bickering about possible sources I really don't know what blog you're referring and frankly am caring less and less. Despite repeated attempts to get you to produce any reliable sourcing that contradicts what we have nothing has been presented by you so I'm leaninng on the theory that you are really just here to try to remove the positive info we do have and replace it with compromised and negative info exactly as CoM has attempted to do. This remains unacceptable and unproductive. This entire thread is basically been a big drain of energy and produced no benefits for the article or other editors who have shown great patience with your pointy postings. I suggest we close this thread and move on. -- Banjeboi 09:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

:Just throwing my own in: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0407gayapr07,0,3951559.story. And in this case I believe a professor of law is more qualified than a newspaper reporter to commentate. Your sources also don't do much for me. The first doesn't address the issues raised, the second is unpublished so it's useless, the third isn't that important (a lot of ppl did), the fourth is a blog (not a WP:RS) and the last one isn't the opinion of the Guardian. You're left with nothing. Soxwon (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we're trying to avoid opinion peices but thank you for looking for potential sources. -- Banjeboi 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Changes to the Template:Infobox Officeholder‎ have resulted in the infobox becoming corrupted. It currently reads, in part: Massachusetts House of Representatives of Massachusetts In office 1973 – 1981 Governor Michael S. Dukakis

It obviously needs correcting and, I think, the name of the governor needs removing. State legislators' infoboxes do not customarily contain the names of the governors alongside whom they served. After all, state legislators (a) do not serve at the pleasure of the governor but are elected separately and (b) often serve during the tenures of many different governors. No one is suggesting that John Dingell's infobox should contain the name of every president he has served alongside, for example. The same should apply to the state legislatures. — Lincolnite (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree and that change - when did it happen? - has been in effect for at least a few months. In any case I think the concern should be addressed at the template level instead of here so all the templates remain standardized. -- Banjeboi 10:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barney_Frank/Archive_3&oldid=1136549710"