Talk:Charlie Wilson (Texas politician)

Wilson on Jalaluddin Haqqani, the founder and leader of the Haqqani network

This Charlie Wilson was the same guy who, like an infatuation-smitten schoolgirl, lovingly called Haqqani as "goodness personified". What an Einstein douchebag, ha! Sadly, even all that public sucking of Haqqani's d*** by the moron Wilson could not convince Haqqani to refrain from killing a couple of American soldiers every other day in Afghanistan. I wonder if Wilson sleeps in peace in his grave.

Frankly, this article is way too soft on the alcoholic (did I mention short-sighted, foolish, a tool and the father of Islamic Terrorism?) playboy that Wilson was. No mention of his reactions / life after 9/11 (or even anything about 9/11), no mention of his calling his buddy Haqqani as "goodness personified". I also wonder, given the disproportionately large UNDUE credit he gets for victory over the Soviets in Afghanistan, why he is not also equally given DUE credit for being one of the most important financiers and founding fathers of Islamic terrorism?

Chasing Russian submarines

The wording there was odd, so I took out the references to diesel and nuclear submarines. If someone wants to restore them, they should explain when he stopped chasing diesel subs and started going after nuclear ones- did he change ships, was his ship reassigned, did the Russians phase out diesel subs, etc. Stilgar135 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Charlie was a staunch supporter of Ronald Reagan's efforts to defeat communism, particularly insofar as thwarting Russia's submarine efforts was concerned. As the Washington representative of a towed sonar array manufacturer I had the occasion to visit his office in 1982. As a member of the House Approrpiations Committee as well as a fellow alumnus of the Naval Academy Charlie was most interested in learning more about this new destroyer sensor. The highlight of our talk was when he asked me, "Will it defeat the Communists?" I replied that towed arrays would play a significant role in protecting our carrier task forces from the submarine threat. It was rewarding to see the 1983 Navy budget funding the initial procurement of towed sonar arrays.

After seeing "Charlie Wilson's War" I exchanged letters with Charlie in 2008, telling him how much I enjoyed the movie. The last line of his response to me was, "Long live the heavily armed Doves". May he rest in peace. Tcgfa (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

After speaking informally with quite a few Russians, I believe the families of slain and wounded Soviet conscripts blown to bits with Stinger missiles that he funded would disagree with your "may he rest in peace" assessment. To this day they're...not too happy with his most famous of Congressional appropriations activities. With all due respect, that had to be said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.236.185 (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Them's the breaks when you invade a country, massacre its citizens, and act like barbarians to the women of the country. Are we supposed to feel sympathy with invaders that had no purpose other than to occupy and suppress a whole nation? Have you spoken "informally" to the parents of murdered or maimed Afghani kids who were devastated by these Soviet conscripts? Anyway, Wiki's not a forum (yeah, I'm a hypocrite here) and you'd need to cite some reliable secondary sources to make your point. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic speculations

I am the only one who finds the following assertion ridiculous: "Without Charlie Wilson, Communist Russia would have most likely crushed the Afghan resistance. Although most people are not aware of it, Charlie Wilson, with the help of many others, helped bring down the communist government by supplying millions of dollars to the Afghan Mujahideen to beat the soviets in Afghanistan". --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

-- Read the non-fiction book Charlie Wilson's War. "Without Charlie Wilson, Communist Russia would have most likely crushed the Afghan resistance." is quite factual.

-- Charlie Wilson had a significant influence on the level of support the Afghan Mujahideen received from the United States. Whether or not the Muj would have been crushed without Charlie is conjecture.

Hind sight is 20/20 that may be the reason to praise Mr.Wilson. He also taught Muslims of that region how to become Taliban. In reality, he created modern Jehadi terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.247.53 (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Too patriotic

This article is way too patriotic. It needs to be revised to reflect a more neutral stance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.196.181.132 (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Has the subject expressed any remorse for what was clearly a totally harebrained policy? What are his views about his own responsibility for transforming Afghanistan into an Al Qaeda paradise? People like Wilson continue to insist that America's biggest problem is Russia, but the real problem is them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.200.12 (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum on Wilson or America (though comment is masked as a complaint about NPOV. Above two comments should be removed.Profhum (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

While you are right about WP not being a forum on Wilson/America, it is our policy not to delete forum posts.Drewson99 (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That is true, generally speaking. However, per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments: Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: . . . Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How to use article talk pages). . . . --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

How can God send ANY of us to Hell? For Fuck's sake some of the shit I read out here is more sinister than the average guy can even dream of. No wonder nobody cares anymore. I can't wait for all this shit to blow up in all of your faces.

Wow, he was hot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.15.38 (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Evil incarnate. Support for terrorists, opposition to tax exemptions for the bleedin *elderly*, AND a lobbyist?! Aadieu (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This userbox says it all:

This user knows that replacing one bias with another is not cleanup.

Sf46 (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Somoza Support

I feel this page would be a lot more complete with a section concerning Wilson's support of the Somoza regime of Nicaragua in the late 1970s, fighting to increase American military aid to Nicaragua, in spite of the fact that the Somoza's were notorious human rights violators. However, it's an area I'm rather ignorant in, and I really only have one source (Cynthia J. Arnson, 'Crossroads: Congress, The President, and Central America, 1976-1993.' Pantheon Books: 1993). Any opinions on whether this subject should be added? (134.153.101.102 06:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

If you can provide coverage of the support in a balanced way, then go ahead. 1ne 23:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Entry into Politics

I removed the line stating that Wilson staffed his Congressional Office with tall, attractive women as there is no citation for this employment pattern.--Mhundley1962 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That line - and many of the others where citation is being requested - are almost directly from the book Charlie Wilson's War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.144.110 (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

nothing about the scandals?

what about the reports by Sy Hersh about him flying around with beauty queens?

References needed

The article states: "some now credit it with being a contributing factor to the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union". This reference to the speculations of unknown individuals should require references. Who gives it credit? How was it a contributing factor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.171.153 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation (modifier) move

Currently, the article on this Charles "Charlie" Wilson is disambiguated as Charles Wilson (politician). However, there's another "Charlie Wilson" politician, disambiguated as Charlie Wilson (Ohio politician). Additionally, there exist: Charles Wilson (Canadian politician), Charles Wilson (New Zealand) (also a politician). It would seem to me that this article should be moved to Charles Wilson (Texas politician), to disambiguate him from the other Charles/Charlie Wilson politicians. ENeville 22:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The new film might make this Charles Wilson the most notable of the politicians, but if the page is moved it should probably be "Texan politician" rather than "Texas politician". —MJBurrage • TALK • 04:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, with states as a modifier for a noun, the state name is used, not the residential form. For the other Charlie Wilson, we don't say "Ohioan politician"; nor would we say "New Yorker politician" and so forth. "Texas politician" is correct. Softlavender (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The renaming was probably a good idea, but I think it would have been better if the person who did the rename had followed up by changing all of the links. I've changed a couple, but there are probably many more that need to be fixed. Must admit that I don't really feel motivated to do this myself right now. Maybe later... --RenniePet (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is he today?

Seems to be a basic question this article doesn't answer. I'll look into it, but this article will need some extra meat given the movie.Lord of the Ping (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You can get some details from this [[1]].

- Retired to Lufkin in 1997

- Heart transplant in 2006

Since he left congress, the short summary is that he has been trying to drink or snort himself to death. And he can't even do that right. I really don't know why anyone thought he was worth making a film about.

The problem I have with the article is that there is a whole lot missing. The film in my opinion is a joke because it makes a really awful guy into something he never was. He was a coke-headed drunk who went out of his way to offend anyone around him and most especially women. There is about 20 years about bad material about him thats missing. The article should add more about the hit-and-run incident, his drug use, his ties to a whole bunch of scandals around 1979. There is the whole thing where his whore fought with Somoza's whore that time in Miami. His whore is still in the witness protection program. I'll try to help add things (with cites) if I get time. The pointer to the DMN article should help I hope. 172.132.87.193 (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The film does not disguise his being a "bad guy". All it points out is that the policy he made was much more important to society than his personal life. It doesn't matter whether he had fun in the off time if during duty he was one of the most powerful congressmen. He deliberately exaggerated his bad boy persona. If you read the book you will start to notice some of this.

Yes, it seems you missed the point of the movie, 172. As they say during the scandal, as long as prosecutors are asking about sex and drugs, you could drive a tank right up beside them and they wouldn't know (not a direct quote). You'd be one of those people that busies themselves with judgments based on personal scandals while ignoring their actual job performance -- ie. how they run the country.Equazcion •✗/C • 17:25, 5 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Congressional Committees

Is there a way to include Congressman Wilson's membership in Congressional Committees and Subcommittees? Thanks, (74.134.124.3 (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

The woman in the background portrayed by Julia Roberts???

Was there actually a Texas married woman like the one portrayed in the movie? If so, I'd like to know more about her. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.3.187 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the History Channel documentary (and a Wikipedia article), Joanne Herring was an actual person. She appeared in the interviews. Her marital status may be a different matter. Sf46 (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In the book Charlie Wilson's war, she is a widow, and her and Wilson apparently had a romantic relationship with a lot more depth than depicted in the film. Tsaraleksi (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The woman was also interviewed as part of the bonus material on the DVD. ThetaSax (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Plagarism

Just a note, this: "For the next 12 years, Wilson made his reputation in the Texas legislature as the "liberal from Lufkin", viewed with suspicion by business interests. He battled for the regulation of utilities, fought for Medicaid, tax exemptions for the elderly, the Equal Rights Amendment, and a minimum wage bill," is copied directly from Crile's book on Wilson. I'm not sure what the policies on that kind of thing are, so I'll not change it, but I figured it's important enough to note.

Tsaraleksi (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this too. It doesn't even mention the source, so it might be best to paraphrase and recite it. 147.9.230.117 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

USNA Reference

The #2 footnote links to an Annapolis Capital article on Charlie Wilson about the time the film premeired. The reference to Wilson having the second most demerits in Academy history is based on a joke he told. This reference is not accurate. Besides, if a Midshipman accumulates 300 demerits, they are seperated, so it is not a running contest. Sharrw (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

charlie wilsons head is big —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.62.134 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Which Wilson's girlfriend did Somoza hit on?

Just a suggestion: Since two Wilsons (Charlie and Ed) appear in the paragraph about Somoza, it might be good to clarify which of them had the girlfriend fondled by Somoza.Beachdogz (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Why no reference to '9/11'?

Why is there no reference to '9/11' in the article? The Mujahideen gave rise to the Taliban who gave rise to al-Qaeda who ..... well, 9/11.

Case closed.

So why no mention?

Scared?

Hmmmm...
--Atikokan (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Where is your Reliable Source for your claims? 2. Bin Laden and his little group of terrorist thugs originated in Saudi - they were Arabs and basically foreigners when they went to Afghanistan. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"The Mujahideen gave rise to the Taliban"

Taliban (student fundamentalists) originated in Pakistan, 'round the same time the mujahideen were battling the Soviet army, so I'm not sure how the preceding statement is possible, much less factual. Civil war among Afghani factions went on for another 7 yr post-Soviets. Taliban filled a void 'round September 1996, & in fact the U.S. Central Asia watchers were glad someone moved in to stem the bloodshed.

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda was formed by bin Laden & some mujahideen vets, & it's only 'round 1998 that Taliban allowed bin Laden & his money into Afghanistan. Altho Taliban was hot to invade Iran (S. Coll, Ghost Wars), it had no designs on the US of A & even offered up bin Laden to us (for a price) after the embassy bombings in Africa, but our boys declined. 15:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BubbleDine (talk • contribs)

Why are you deleting our revisions?

We are working on a class project for a Public History course at Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX in conjunction with the Charlie Wilson Oral History Project. Editors have taken down our edits about Wilson's drug/alcohol use as well as his retirement. Please stop deleting our edits. All facts are from credible sources and we do not understand why our edits continue to be deleted. Although you should not delete our edits, because they are completely factual and have references, if you must delete our edits I ask that you please wait until Tuesday because the project is due Monday. Thank you. I would also like to know why our edits are being deleted. What criticisms do you have that justify you to delete our edits? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcadamsjr (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Wilson Posing With Gun.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Wilson Posing With Gun.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

How many demerits?

Article states Wilson got the most demerits in the history of Annapolis. In the movie, Hanks, as Wilson, says he got the second most, in response to which the young lady asks, "Who got the most? I wanna sleep with him."

Thus, which one is correct? Did the writers of the movie change it so they could get her line in there?

--Mfwills (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Bias towards Wilson in this Article

"As for domestic policy, Wilson ceaselessly championed for the individual's rights, especially women and minority rights. He continuously voted pro-choice and fought voting discrimination against African Americans, two of his largest constituent bases. Wilson respected his district's female vote so much that in 1974 he used the League of Women Voters to pass the Safe Drinking Water Act.[14] In addition to supporting women's rights legislation, Wilson broke Washington tradition and hired female staffers. Although Wilson never had a female chief of staff, his office was filled with gorgeous women who tirelessly helped the congressman. "Charlie's Angels," as they were commonly referred to, handled constituent problems for Wilson to ensure none of his constituents lacked in aid and support. All of Wilson's "Angels" were brilliant and were dedicated in their service for the congressman.[15] Wilson's staff quickly drew the attention of his colleagues and media. Although rumors of scandals surrounded Wilson's office, Wilson emphatically insisted that his staff should be respected and their diligent work for the representative enabled them to have freedom to work independently of Wilson.[15]

Wilson worked on improving Americans' lives, especially those of the underprivileged. Wilson lobbied against business interests to maintain a $3.35 per hour minimum wage.[16] Wilson also continuously sought to increase Medicare and Medicaid funding for the elderly and underprivileged and Veterans' Affairs funding for veterans. His efforts in these regards gained him the reputation of “taking care of the home folks” and gained funding to open the Veterans Affairs Hospital in Lufkin, Texas.[17]

Wilson avidly supported the Second Amendment and the individual's rights to own firearms. His Second Amendment support created tension between Wilson and his sister Sharon Allison, but the siblings reached an agreement that Allison would leave Wilson alone about his second amendment support, and Wilson would support Allison's pro-choice agenda.[18]"

There is some clear bias in this article. There is also some revisionist history regarding his scandalous history. Somebody must work to change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.0.163 (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

External links sharply pruned back + cleanup tag added

This article has been tagged for excessive use of external links since February of 2010, very justifiably so. I pruned them back to just include the Congressional links, the IMDB information about the movie, and the link to his congressional papers collection (although I was hesitant about leaving that one, even; much of the information is not available except to researchers).

The remaining links mostly fell into several categories: a) interviews with Wilson, b) information about the movie Charlie Wilson's War, c) obituaries of Wilson from various and sundry, and d) biographical articles written about Wilson, with the bulk of them being obits. I think at most there should be one link from each of those categories, and would argue that they could all probably go.

The links removed were:

• Charlie Wilson biography at biography.com (accessed 2007-12-23).
• Conversation with Charlie Wilson on The Charlie Rose Show
• News, photos and a blog about Charlie Wilson and the movie from Charlie Wilson's hometown newspaper, The Lufkin Daily News.
• "Charlie Wilson's War Was Really America's War," article by former White House speechwriter Michael Johns on Charlie Wilson, January 19, 2008.
• "Afghanistan's New Militant Alliances," BBC article on Afghan military history referencing Wilson's involvement, April 17, 2006.
• "Charlie Did It," by Paul Wolf, June 7, 2003.
• Movie
• Looking Back: An Interview with Charlie Wilson Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 2008 interview
• Obituaries in Aljazeera, Austin American-Statesman, Dawn (Pakistan), Financial Times, Lufkin Daily News, Houston Chronicle, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post
• Charlie Wilson - Daily Telegraph obituary
• Wallach, Dan. "Charlie Wilson 'loved East Texas first'". (February 10, 2010) The Beaumont Enterprise. Retrieved February 11, 2010.
• Leopold, Todd. "Former congressman Charlie Wilson dead at 76". (February 11, 2010) CNN. Retrieved February 11, 2010.
• Arnold, Laurence; Greiff, James; Henry, David. "Charlie Wilson, Congressman Who Armed Afghan Rebels, Dies at 76". (February 10, 2010) BusinessWeek". Retrieved February 11, 2010.
• [2] Biography
• [3] Biography at Texas State Handbook Online

The cleanup tag I added, meanwhile, was because large portions of this article are written in a puffery-biographical style, rather than an encyclopediac style, particularly in the "Congressional Politics" section. As written, that section is a hagiography, not an encyclopedia article. The beginning of the "Good Time Charlie" section is encyclopediac, but the tone shifts at "Wilson was also a lifelong rogue..." and likewise slips into puffery. --rahaeli (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Article point of view possibly biased?

I read Wikipedia a lot, but I have only a vague understanding of all it's policies. I was reading this article after it was submitted to Reddit, and the lines "Although Wilson never had a female chief of staff, his office was filled with gorgeous women who tirelessly helped the congressman. "Charlie's Angels," as they were commonly referred to, handled constituent problems for Wilson to ensure none of his constituents lacked in aid and support. All of Wilson's "Angels" were brilliant and were dedicated in their service for the congressman." feel a little...off to me.

The article claims that Wilson's office was 'filled' with gorgeous women (a subjective statement) who tirelessly helped him. Then claims that they were all brilliant. That just...seems to be a bit much. Like the article is trying to sell Charlie Wilson to me. Sorry if it's a non-problem. 50.142.220.252 (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.lufkindailynews.com/hp/content/region/ETtoday/cww/stories/book_signing.html to http://www.lufkindailynews.com/hp/content/region/ETtoday/cww/stories/book_signing.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlie Wilson (Texas politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19700101000000/http://www.lufkindailynews.com/hp/content/region/ETtoday/cww/stories/book_signing.html to http://www.lufkindailynews.com/hp/content/region/ETtoday/cww/stories/book_signing.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/tom-hanks--charlie-wilsons-war/article50630-3.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

hit and run accident 'never convicted'?

From the article: 'Wilson's drunkenness also led to a scandal in 1980 when an eyewitness reported that Wilson's Lincoln Continental hit a Mazda in a hit-and-run accident on the Key Bridge in Washington, D.C., the night before his first trip to Pakistan. Although he was never convicted, this accident illustrates Wilson's recklessness with alcohol.'

Well, but here, we’re left with the question of why Wilson was never prosecuted given the presence of eyewitnesses who identified his car as the offending vehicle. Technically, the claim isn't being made here that he was indicted. Nor is this claim made in the reference. I gather that Wilson was driving drunk. And, crashed his Lincoln Continental. And, sped off into the night. And was inebriated. I gather something of his reckless irresponsibility. But I hesitate over the statement that he was 'never convicted' of something for which he was never indicted. I could change this word 'convicted' to 'indicted', and also, the reference given here has Wilson recounting that he “barely” got out of a DUI, but that was in Texas. Wilson was arrested for driving under the influence in 1969. And actually, where do we get 'a scandal in 1980', here? The Washington Post has this on August 13, 1983 with the title: 'Congressman's Car Involved in Hit-Run Crash':

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1983/08/13/congressmans-car-involved-in-hit-run-crash/afb85df7-474b-4766-9710-952e79424c6d/

DanLanglois (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Charles Hazard Dog Murder Story

There's an entire paragraph about how 13 year-old Charlie Wilson's dog was brutally murdered by evil politician Charles Hazard, so underage Charlie drove black people to the polls to defeat that politician. The only source for this dramatic story was Charlie Wilson quotes from Crile's fluff-book, Charlie Wilson's War. This paragraph should be removed unless a second source can be found to verify any of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.55.12 (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The reference to snopes disproving the veracity of this claim is incorrect - the linked source talks about glass not being effective as a murder weapon because people wouldn't be stupid enough to eat it. A dog would be though. 144.139.243.88 (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Here are some secondary sources I've found [4][5]. I think the story has enough merit to remain. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Wife

The widow of the Congressman is worthy of mention, and so has been re-inserted. It is improper to remove this. BlauGraf (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Blaugraf

This article isn't about Charlie Wilson's widow. It makes no difference at all to Charlie Wilson's life or legacy if she remarried after he died. Mo Billings (talk) 15:40, 22 March

2021 (UTC) The fact that she is his wife deserves mention. It is one line, and there is no reason for deleting it. Please stop. BlauGraf (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)blaugraf

You have been asked to stop removing something that is a factual statement, yet you continue to edit the article. Please stop. BlauGraf (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)blaugraf

@BlauGraf: Per WP:ONUS, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Mo Billings has very patiently explained why this content does not belong here, and on your talk page discospinster clearly stated why Wilson's widow's current husband is not notable per WP:GNG and WP:NBIO [6]. Please respect the bold-revert-discuss process, do the work of actually reading the policies and guidelines which other editors hyperlink when discussing with you, and refrain from edit warring anywhere on Wikipedia. Generalrelative (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I have asked you repeatedly to stop edit-warring, and yet you continue to harass me. Secondly, his opinion is not the only one that matters. Why does Mobillings matter, and my opinion does not? There is no reason to remove the edit I emplaced, since it is an interesting foot note into history. The relatives of deceased men matter, and your contention that they do not is an insult, quite frankly. I am trying to enrich the content here, and I am being stymied repeatedly. This is how wiki perseveres, why editing away the people who come here and try to add information??? BlauGraf (talk)Blaugraf — Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@BlauGraf: Are you accusing me of edit warring on a page which I have only edited once? That's not what the term means, per WP:EW. And as both Robert McClenon and Nil Einne have explained to you [7] [8], you are not being harassed. I am watching your edits because of related problems on multiple articles (an acceptable use of contribution history per WP:HOUNDING), and frankly I am increasingly concerned about a persistent pattern of disruption and WP:IDHT behavior. Please take a step back and reflect on what others are saying to you (including actually reading the policy links we leave for you), rather than continually reacting with anger when things don't go your way. Generalrelative (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I am accusing you of stalking me - by your own admission, "monitoring your edits." Now I asking you to cease and desist. Your conduct is making me feel most unwelcome in what is supposed to be a collaborative endeavor. The fact that you continue to engage others in trying to stifle me is equally concerning, as it is indicative of a growing pattern of attempting to eradicate points of view that you do not agree with. I have read the links posted, and I have comported myself professionally. You however are continually tracking me down. And I grow tired of it. Is this how you hound people out of this community whose edits you don't like, even if based in fact? Perhaps strikingly, every time I am accused to failing to meet some consensus, that has been a self serving comment, without any reference to vote (consensus being a majority view), thus failing to leave me with any evidence that your point is valid, or merely conclusory. BlauGraf (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)blaugraf

It's clearly inappropriate under WP:BLP to discuss post death personal details about his non-notable wife on this article, especially not when relying on primary sources. Even details about his wife when he was alive need to be limited to those necessary to an understanding of Charlie Wilson, which is what this article is about. If her current husband is WP:notable, it may be okay to mention her name in the article on him, especially if secondary sources are available which mention her. Under rare circumstances it may even be okay to mention her previous marriage to Charlie Wilson. But that seems to be a big "if". Despite the WP:red link, I see no reason to think he is notable. If there's any doubt about this which isn't satisfied by this discussion and a reading of the policy, feel free to ask at WP:BLP/N. Also WP:Consensus is explicitly not a majority view, and we never vote to assess consensus. I suggest anyone confused check out our relevant policies and guidelines like the earlier one and WP:RfC to learn why such processes are explicitly not votes. Nil Einne (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Please advise where I can find the "consensus" for this page. Because every reference thus far made thereto does not send me to a vote, or to a decision made by an empaneled body to make that determination. I could as easily say "there is consensus that she stay" and would have as much as proof therefor as has been adduced to the contrary! The continual attacks on my additions to this supposedly open and welcoming encyclopedia give lie to the marketing slogan that "anyone can contribute." BlauGraf (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)blaugraf

Yes, it is a marketing slogan. Red Bull doesn't actually give you wings either. A more honest description would say that "anyone capable of understanding the purpose of an encyclopaedia can contribute, provided they do so in accordance with the way policies and guidelines suggest, and provided they are willing to do so in a spirit of cooperative endeavour". AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)