Jump to content

Talk:Dana Rohrabacher/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Experience at The Register

Questions regarding Rohrabacher's tenure at The Register

  1. When did he work there? Right after college graduation? or did he do other work before working at The Register?
  2. Did the job there provide him the connections and/or give him the experience to get into the Reagen White House?

There is currently not enough information to put this work experience in the main body of the article. If nobody knows the answers, I will put this one sentence back in the Misc section. --Asbl 18:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the work at The Register was part of it, but he had been an anarcho-capitalist activist, and had been supported by libertarian billionare Charles Koch. Koch decided to change from spending his financial influence on the radical extreme of libertarianism for a more mainstream approach of attempting to move the existing political right towards libertarianism instead of the radical Murray Rothbard type approach. When Koch took his Cato Institute towards the mainstream, Rohrabacher went with him. Koch funded Rohrabacher's first two failed congressional campains. From there he went on to be a Reagan speechwriter. Though without hard proof, I'd be pretty certain, that Koch and his money was the important factor. See http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=rr_main&Number=1352628&page=&view=&sb=&o= and also contact Jeff Riggenbach and some other famous libertarians for more of Rohrabacher's early political history from his friends of that time. He might be compared to Alan Greenspan as a former libertarian turned establishment leader, or oppositely to Karl Hess as a former Nixon and Goldwater speechwriter turned into a Black Panther supporting radical under watch of the FBI. Carltonh 17:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
One more thing. Per this 1976 Journal of Libertarian Studies, http://64.233.167.104/u/Mises?q=cache:uY5EThP4-3MJ:www.mises.org/journals/lf/1976/1976_10.pdf+Dana+Rohrabacher+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8, Rohrabacher was already calling himself a "anarcho-pragmatist" and supporting Reagan in California politics long before there was a Reagan White House, so the Koch funding might not be the primary cause, though still likely a precursor. Carltonh 19:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Eagle Scout

Here is a reference stating that Rohrabacher is both an Eagle Scout and a Distinguished Eagle Scout:

  • "The Congress and Scouting". Fact sheet. Boy Scouts of America. Retrieved 2006-09-06. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Since my addition of the reference and the categories was reverted, I leave it to any interested party to do with this as they desire. I have no other interest in this and I have no further interest in discussing the issue. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies - my error. I've added back the categories. John Broughton 21:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Taliban Support?"

Was the purported support of the Taliban really support, or was he simply supporting the mujahadin? The two need to be separated, and I'm not sure the original author of that section notes that properly. That said, perhaps he did support the Taliban specifically, but there needs to be precision in the way this is worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawnLee (talk • contribs)

I changed the wording before (I agree that the original author used too-sweeping language). I've revised it again so that it is (hopefully) clearer and more accurate. (For example, there were certainly groups fighting the Soviet Union who ended up fighting the Taliban rather than becoming part of that government/regime; the U.S. allied with such groups when U.S. troops entered Afganistan after 9/11.) John Broughton 16:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The Taliban was created in large part within Pakistan and in the aftermath of the Afghan-Soviet War, not during its inception.
The phrasing is still inaccurate, especially when you say he supported fighters under the command of Osama Bin-Laden.
Osama Bin-Laden was not known as a visible entity and major figure during the Soviet-Afghan War.
At least, not by United States authorities, who didn't really begin to track him until 1996, at the very earliest. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence you refer to; it wasn't particularly useful or necessary. John Broughton | Talk 15:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrongdoing of aide

Mattfiller - The section I just deleted,which you had added, included the following sentence: "The OC Weekly article implies that Rohrabacher and/or the District attorney have contributed to the delay of this trial for political reasons." If the "and/or" means "and", then the sentence is FALSE; the article does not, as far as I can tell, mention Rohrabacher in any way delaying the case. If the "and/or means" "or", then the sentence is true (the article implies the DA has delayed, mentioning the aide was once an intern in the DA's office) in the same way that the sentence "George W. Bush and/or Jimmy Carter and/or someone else assassinated John F. Kennedy" - yet such a sentence would be instantly removed from the Bush or Carter articles as a violation of WP:BLP and probably other policies. So in either case, the sentence does NOT justify having this section in the article.

The edit summary, Rohrabacher has not denied public charges by the OCWeekly that he contributed to delaying of prosecution of Nielsen, seems even less supported by the news article than the text added to wikipedia: the OCWeekly article in no way "charged" that Rohrabacher "contributed" to the delay.

Anything added to this wikipedia article needs to fully comply with WP:BLP. What I've been doing is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material. If the aide's wrongdoing is NOT connected to Rohrabacher, except for the fact that the aide worked for him, it's irrelevant; if Rohrabacher covered up or otherwise obstructed the legal process of prosecuting the aide, or even knew about it and failed to report it, then the description of what Rohrabacher did wrong needs to be QUOTED in order to justify having this section in the article at all. John Broughton | Talk 22:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Global Warming / Dinosaur Flatulence: Misquote.

That section reads like he said the current global warming was caused by "dinosaur flatulence". In fact, he was referring to previous rises in CO2 levels:

"We don’t know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows? We do know the CO2 in the past had its time when it was greater as well. And what happened when the CO2 was greater since then and now? There have been many cycles of up and down warming." [1]

No matter how far-fetched all that may be, we should at least give him the honest treatment and not deliberately misquote in order to make him look like a total idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.231.29.73 (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree. Having seen the video in the link, it's obvious that he's joking. I suggest we change "theorized" to "joked". IgorW 08:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Former anarchists

The other night, I added Dana Rohrabacher to the category former anarchists, given that he was at one time a LeFevrian anarchist. This is confirmed in the book Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement by Brian Doherty.

A wikipedian by the screen name Alanraywiki undid my edit. I plan to re-do my edit, but I wanted to address this here in case there is any reason why Dana Rohrabacher does not belong in that category.

The only reason I can think for not including him is if it turned out that he was still an anarchist. But, it appears that he is not. For one thing, he's voted for a variety of big-government policies while in office. For another, he all but told Doherty in an interview that he'd given up on those views, no longer believing them to be practical.

It indeed seems that he is no longer an anarchist, thus making him a perfect candidate for inclusion in the former anarchists category.

If anyone has any objection, please make your case here. Thanks! :)

Allixpeeke (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information. Frankly, when I saw the word anarchist in connection with a current politician and no explanation in the edit summary, I just reverted. Now that you've pointed out this background with the source, I will not revert your category addition again. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

combining the iraq war with vietnam era injury is argumentation, not history

As usual on Wikipedia, someone has decided to introduce argument (from the left). Write an editorial if you want that. I will fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 19:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New Foreign Policy Section

I was thinking of combining some of Rohrabacher's scattered foreign policy views and causes （and surrounding controversies) into a single section. I thought I'd throw it out here first to see what people think, and hope for people's friendly collaboration, not to mention disagreements, though I hope people can refrain from being excessively partisan!Ocedits (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ossetia

A section about SO has been added by a user who appears from his talk page to have a history of rather politically motivated views (anti-semetic, plus the idea that there's a Jewish conspiracy). DR is supposed to have said "USA is wrong, Russia is right!" and this story is plastered all over the Russia news sites...and no-where else. I can't find what DR is supposed to have said on a non-Russian site. Russian media is state controlled - it's as reliable as a Trabant. I've added a comment to the SO section about Russian media reliability issues (with a cite to the Fox video that was manipulated and then broadcast as real inside Russia) and left it at that for now. Toby Douglass (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I note with interest we have an anon IP address (84.51.85.202) who for his first and only edit has removed the comment and citation regarding Russian media. I have reverted on the basis this is NPOV.
I have however discovered the International Herald Tribune has an article which confirms what was said. I will be adding this in to the section shortly. (It's lunchtime right now :-) Toby Douglass (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The section on Iran has a very tendentious summary of Rohrabacher's statements on Iran and on the Berlin Wall (It claims that Rohrabacher said "Gorbachev tore down the Berlin Wall because Reagan told him to" -- if there is a verifiable quote from Rohrabacher saying something so stupid, it should be listed, but I am skeptical: this sounds like an opponent of Rohrabacher's distorted summary of something the man said.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.224.87 (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Second War in Iraq

Rohrabacher has a pro-war stance. THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING ROHRABACHER'S PERSONAL EXPERIENCE REGARDING WAR AND PERSONAL SACRIFICE HAVE BEEN INSERTED HERE NUMEROUS TIMES AND REMOVED EACH TIME BY ROHRABACHER THOUGHT POLICE: In a February 13, 2003 interview with Toby Eckert of Copley News Service published in the South Bay (Torrance, Calif.) Daily Breeze, Rohrabacher revealed that he showed up to his draft physical during the Vietnam War with an X-ray of a hip he claimed had been injured in high school football. "They looked at it and they said my hip wasn't good enough," he told Eckert. "When I look back on that, sometimes I wonder if I should have taken that X-ray with me or not." http://copleydc.com/copleydc_staff/Eckert/eckert_1-13-03.htm


They were removed, because it's an implicit argument ABOUT Rohrbacher. I don't know if it's a valid one or not. But Wiki is not the place for that sort of thing. If you wnt to talk about his non-service in the VN war, do it in a section over there! And I did my time in the service. And I'm not part of the thought police.


On the August 15, 2003 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, Rohrabacher said "85% of the Iraqi people threw flowers at our troops in celebration but the media just wouldn't report it," which drew criticism from Bill Maher. He also said in a later episode "John Kerry would have to ask the French and the Germans before he invaded Iraq." It was reported online that he claimed in 2003 before the war that Iraqis would be "throwing flowers on us and waving American flags," but I cannot find the source for the last one. I think his comments to the Iraqi Council of Representatives, whereupon he criticized Iraqis for not thanking America, should be included. Article from The Nation BrotherSulayman (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This article reads like an attack piece.

I'm not a fan of Rohrabacher, but this article is just completely one-sided. If someone with a greater interest in the topic doesn't clean it up within a short time, I'm going to take a chainsaw too it, and remove entirely the inappropriate "controversies" section, as well as some other things. Wikipedia does not exist as a dumping ground for negative information about living people. LHM 14:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow

The "political positions page" gives several points out of 22 YEAR voting record to create a almost entirely negative article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.146.100 (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe

Maybe do a little research and add something of substance before just undo my blanking my sections. Wikipedia is supposed to be about neutrality. The vast majority of this stuff would not be in a biography. This is why wikipedia couldn't hold the jock strap of encyclopedia brittanica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.146.100 (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, which inclludes rohrabacher's praising of the taliban, is considered a WP:RS, as are most of the sources in this article, which are from media news organizations.

We are neutral. Thats why Rohrabacher's praise of the Taliban is put into quotes, and not interpreted into some warped conclusion. Straight from the horses's mouth- "In contrast, the Taliban leaders have already shown that they intend to establish a disciplined, moral society."Markhoos (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And nice try in your attempt to delete massive, sourced portions of the article while simultaneously inserting the voting record. You have not given a legitamate explanation for your deletions, nor explained why the sources were unreliable or inadequate.Markhoos (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: After the above, 69.250.146.100 was blocked (for evading an earlier block) for one month (block expires June 3), but has actually applauded Markhoos' subsequent edits to this article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

An IP editor has been blanking large sections of the article, with edit summaries that at least make a claim to justification. I haven't reverted because there might be BLP issues, but I've tagged the article with POV to draw attention to the edits and the dispute. PT 02:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I read this article before when i edited as an anon ip, I just signed up now when I noticed the massive deletions

And I strongly disagree. This ip 69.250.146.100 has edited Republican related articles before, looking at his contribution history, and may be biased for pro Republican viewpoints.

And its not just about suspected bias, on one of his edits he is straight out lying that the "cited sources do not back content"

look at this -"Edited for neutral viewpoint. Cited sources do not back content"

He also deleted pro taliban statements rohrabacher made here, making it seems as though he was always anti taliban

Yet the sources he deleted along with the info, like this Washington Report on Middle East Affairs makes it clear that Rohrabacher did make positive statements about the Taliban.

in addition, this news report from the Orange county weekly here says clearly that even while Dana critized the Taliban after his intial praise supporting them, he still illegally met with a Taliban representative and even discussed proving financial aid to them, and mispreseted this meeting by claiming he was at another conference

That news article was one of the items the ip deleted.

And another one of the sources, a news article, says Dana received funding from numerous Islamist groups, some linked to al qaeda, and jewish groups did raise concern about it

And he did mention womens panties numerous times in an interview

It was all deleted by the ip.Markhoos (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I will restore parts, after I check if the sources do indeed back up what was said in the article, I will not restore material that we cannot access like a book source or anything, and I will keep the neutrality disputed tag up.Markhoos (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right to criticize unjustified removal of cited information. However, there are still serious NPOV issues with the article, particularly regarding foreign policy. For instance, instead of putting incidents like the Taliban history and Mohiuddin Ahmed in context within Dana_Rohrabacher#Foreign_policy, they are cherry-picked into their own sections. These sections themselves are slanted. For instance, after the article indicates that Rohrabacher is now anti-Taliban, it cites a quote calling him a "fraud." However, the evidence that he has provided at least mixed support for the war in Afghanistan is not included. The section on Kosovo over-emphasizes criminal allegations against the KLA. These are discussed in the KLA article in an appropriate manner. However, there is no evidence that Rohrabacher was connected to those elements of the group. There are two sections on torture, again showing the way individual remarks are cherry-picked into their own sections.
Finally, this should be clear, but appropriate books are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Thus, information from book sources should not be excluded solely because a particular editor doesn't have the book. This obviously applies to both favorable and unfavorable information. Superm401 - Talk 16:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File:090128 rorhabacher.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:090128 rorhabacher.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Rohrabacher surfing.tiff Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rohrabacher surfing.tiff, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Rohrabacher with Reagan.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rohrabacher with Reagan.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Rohrabacher1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rohrabacher1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 5 June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

aide convicted of child molestation

the vandalism tag was a false positive. It detected the word "sex" or "molestation", and automatically tagged it since it was probably a keyword. The edit itself was not vandalism, but factual, sourced information.

The reason I added this was because this was on the article a few months ago when I read it, but I looked into the history and apparently an ip address removed it on the false premise that "this has nothing to do with Rohrabacher other than aide once worked for him".

It very much has something to do with Rohrabacher. The source specifically stated "An anonymous flier was distributed that accused Rohrabacher of abusing his powers by shielding Nielson from prosecution during the trial", which did happen- there was controversy over his involvement in protecting Nielson.

The second way Rohrabacher was involved was that a molestation took place while he was working for Rohrabacher himself.Heinrich Klaus-Hans (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Nielsen, a lawyer and former aide to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, was arrested by Westminster police in May 2003 after authorities found thousands of images of pornography on both his work and personal computers. He was also accused of molesting a second boy, a 13-year-old Virginia resident, while he worked in Rohrabacher's Washington office in 1994.

"Rohrabacher fumes over flier" "Prosecutors also have been working to expand their case to include mention of another molestation they allege occurred in Virginia in the mid-1990s when Nielsen, now working as an attorney in Orange County, was a legislative aide to Rohrabacher."

37-year-old Jeffrey Ray Nielsen, who has worked previously for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), as well the Republican chair of California's Orange County, agreed to two felony counts of lewd acts upon a child

I admit the following sources to be not suitible since they are editorials, however, that does not negate the news sources above-

http://www.ocweekly.com/2006-10-05/news/accused-gop-pedophile-ties-da-to-blackmail-plot/

http://www.ocweekly.com/2005-10-06/features/nambla-fantasy

http://www.ocweekly.com/2007-02-22/news/imaginary-teen-sex/

Neilsen worked for Dana for a few months after college. The real story is that the anonymous flier was distributed on the eve of election and used a fake website. C'mon. None of this is encyclopedic. Removing as a violation of WP:BLP. – Lionel (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

I deleted a section this page from the Environment section. One, the support to include this in the bio is shaky at best and 2, the source, a book entitled The Man Who Sold the World: Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Main Street America, clearly is looking to portray Rohrabacher in a negative light. It is for that reason I have deleted it. I welcome anyone elses insight on the matter.

All the best,

--Andy0093 (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Mohiuddin Ahmed

I see no evidence that this man is or was an Islamist in the references, so I have changed the page to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastexpofan (talk • contribs) 05:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Rohrabacher’s Plan to Partition Iran

see: https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/rohrabachers-plan-to-partition-iran/ Don;'t want to start a new section but if updated, this topic seems worth mentioning {I like aletho but concede it can be attacked as unreliable} 50.136.54.23 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)jek

Yeah, no.

This type of games on article contents are disruptive and disrespectful to our encyclopedic nature, our core value of neutrality, our core value and policy to edit in a collegial and constructive value, and WP:BLP biographical article concerns.
The article is full protected for 72 hrs. Editors are being examined. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm waiting on a BLPN ruling, so I won't be changing the page until that comes in. In other words, this was not necessary or helpful. MilesMoney (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons noticeboard

FYI, there is a discussion at BLPN here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Murdering children

He said this at a congressional hearing, so it's on the public record and we have CSPAN videos confirming it. The citation is to http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/04/26/1928321/rohrabacher-boston-islam/, which includes both of these original sources while defending us from the appearance of WP:OR. There is no WP:BLP issue here as there is absolutely no question that he said these things and that it was notable. MilesMoney (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if he said it in my own living room, if you don't have a RS to support it, it stays out of a BLP. That's policy and you know better than to do what you just did. Roccodrift (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The time to discuss this issue here would have been before you panicked and went to WP:ANI. My source is perfectly reliable. MilesMoney (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There is RS to support it. Proposal: Speaking of radical Islam, "That's what we're up against, people who will murder children, intentionally murder children," said Rohrabacher in an interview with Newsmax.com.[2] QuackGuru (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
There's no reason to think TP made up the quote, especially since they helpfully linked to the primary source. MilesMoney (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
It was silly to think there was a BLP violation when he obviously said it. QuackGuru (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Quack's proposal... there's nothing wrong with that sentence, per se, but as I said on the noticeboard, it needs some context and/or supporting material to make it useful to the reader, and it needs to be in an appropriate section of the article. Creating a section on Islam merely so that statement can be added doesn't abide by NPOV. I would suggest using what you've come up with something like this:

Terrorism

In 2006, Rohrabacher chaired the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. House Committee on International Relations, which investigated whether the Oklahoma City bombers had assistance from foreign sources.[1] In the 113th Congress, Rohrabacher is chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats.

Rohrabacher has stated that he sees radical Islam as the source of a major terrorist threat to the U.S.[2] Speaking of radical Islam, "That's what we're up against, people who will murder children, intentionally murder children," said Rohrabacher in an interview with Newsmax.com.[2]

  1. ^ Rohrabacher, Dana. "The Oklahoma City Bombing: Was There A Foreign Connection?" (PDF). Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee. Retrieved March 25, 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ a b "Rohrabacher: US and Russia Must Unite to Fight Islamic Threat".
Adding some relevant context is crucial to avoid making it look like Rohrabacher says that all Muslims are baby killers, which is what Thinkprogress tried to do. Roccodrift (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
In the 113th Congress, Rohrabacher is chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats.[citation needed]
Here are two references to choose from.[3][4] QuackGuru (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Pick:
"In 2006, Rohrabacher chaired the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. House Committee on International Relations, which investigated whether the Oklahoma City bombers had assistance from foreign sources and concluded they did."
"In 2006, Rohrabacher chaired the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. House Committee on International Relations, which investigated whether the Oklahoma City bombers had assistance from foreign sources and concluded they did not."
Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's go with "In 2006, Rohrabacher chaired the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. House Committee on International Relations, which investigated whether the Oklahoma City bombers had assistance from foreign sources and determined there was no conclusive evidence of a foreign connection." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/24/AR2006122400571.html Roccodrift (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I decided it would be better to add a more recent comment. QuackGuru (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Voting Record

There are three problems with the voting record section, and I suggest deleting the entire section.

  1. Voting records are not part of other Rep's pages (neither Boehner or Pelosi have such a section). As an encyclopedia the Reps' pages ought to be consistent (but that is another topic).
  2. The voting record shown is a small percentage of the overall votes cast and have been picked and chosen so as to cast this Rep in a favorable light to his "base". This is not encyclopedic and is better left to a personal page or his official House Rep page.
  3. As of this writing 24 line items under this "voting record" are not votes but merely statements, ratings and memberships.

Shortly (after some time for comment) I will eliminate the line items that are not votes at all - this much, as it is, represents a factual error. At some later time still, if there is no suffiecient support for leaving this voting record in place, I will eliminate the rest of it. Arbalest Mike (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It is unref'd original research. I will remove. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Taliban

I'm concerned about the section on his views about the Taliban. A variety of quotes are given, but I checked the source [5], and none of the quotes were actually direct quotes from him. They are from the article. It's a pretty touchy topic, and I think we need better sourcing to be including this type of material, per WP:BLP. Champaign Supernova (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Circling back: I went ahead and removed this content. The given sourcing is highly insufficient for the gravity of the claims made, and it violates our WP:BLP policy. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dana Rohrabacher. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 21:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit Deletions/Blocking

Three times now, I have attempted to edit "Tenure" to in regards to constituent complaints about their inability to contact or communicate with Rohrabacher. The language in the edit was neutral and sourced. Still, it was deleted and I was initially blocked for 3 MONTHS, before the blocking was overturned. Please explain how this edit does not meet criteria? Are these deletions and blocking (by the same editor, btw) politically motivated? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.226.21.220 (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies posted on your talk page. I suggest that you do not make any edits until you understand the policies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Is "Dana Rohrabacher on Twitter" an acceptable source? Seems like his short career as a folk singer isn't that important - who in California asn't has a short career as a folk singr? -- and using his own tweet as a source doesn't rally enhanceits relevance. --JackBnimble10 (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Need updating, too many missing facts

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/russian-anti-sanctions-campaign-turned-to-california-congressman/534102/ Wikipietime (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"The one race where Trump’s Putin problem might hurt the GOP" from http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article162242828.html

"Dana Rohrabacher's California district— the increasingly competitive Orange County seat held by a man who can't stop defending the Kremlin." --Wikipietime (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

How rich he is?

I assume I man with so many dirty things in his curriculum might be very rich. Or am I missing something? Thank you. 201.19.211.225 14:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Your assumptions are (a) unsourced and (b) WP:PROPAGANDA. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. loupgarous (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Lede paragraphs

The current lede paragraphs in this version really don't do a good job of summarizing the article; it should be that within a paragraph or two, a reader can quickly grasp what Rohrabacher is about (his positions) and it should de-emphasize lesser important information, such as what towns are in his district, etc. Plus I think it does a severe disservice to readers that information **redacted** is buried in the article -- this one supposedly little fact may be what causes this guy to resign, and it should not be buried.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I readacted a BLP violation above. Not sure if this "material" belongs in the lead. --Malerooster (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The basic idea is that the lede section should summarize the main points of the article; a related way of thinking about things is to ask ourselves, what would readers of this article want to know -- the main points, the highlights. So it should cover: who he is, what district, what his major positions are (domestic & foreign policy), and yes the Russia stuff belongs with only a sentence since it is receiving national attention and Rohrabacher is unusual in having strong pro-Russia positions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Tom, you're making a WP:POV issue in this article. Quoting you:

"Plus I think it does a severe disservice to readers that information **redacted** is buried in the article -- this one supposedly little fact may be what causes this guy to resign, and it should not be buried."

You're accusing Malerooster of burying the lede when you yourself are trying to make this article a political screed against Dana Rorabacher by putting what you view as damning information in the lede. That is problematic under WP:UNDUE, WP:PROPAGANDA and possibly WP:BLP. loupgarous (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm really trying to be fair and approaching this article from a nonpartisan perspective. If we cut out the section about Rohrabacher's positions (ie denies global warming etc) cut out the questions about his support of Putin/Russia, and replace that with how he's been a big supporter of the space program, well that seems to me like it's turning this article into a GOP-advertisement for Rohrabacher. Instead, cover what the sources say; include both sides.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
You misrepresented my position, and it's hard to see a benign reason for that. I nowhere said "cut out the section about Rohrabacher's positions (ie denies global warming etc) cut out the questions about his support of Putin/Russia, and replace that with how he's been a big supporter of the space program". If Rorabacher did say those things, they belong in the article - with proper weight.
By reverting my changes, you restored undue weight to one question Rorabacher asked during several years' tenure on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology while discussing his space-related activity in the House. That is still WP:UNDUE, and done in a way that creates a misleading impression of his activity on that subcommittee. If you're going to provide direct quotes on that one question, you need to do it for all the other hearings he's been on when his language was less controversial, and that isn't practical or encyclopedic. Wikipedia's WP:NOTPROPAGANDA, but by saying "this one supposedly little fact may be what causes this guy to resign, and it should not be buried" you basically show your intention to turn an encyclopedia article into a propaganda piece. loupgarous (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I've referred this dispute to the Biographies_of_living_persons Noticeboard, since we're now about to go to an editwar. Please continue this discussion there. loupgarous (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Martian Civilizations

This need a major coverage due to the unprecedented nature of such a question and the timing of it. --Wikipietime (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it probably has more coverage than it deserves already and this does not deserve its own section heading. Putting so much emphasis on one question asked in a House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology hearing while glancingly describing Rorabacher's advocacy for deep-space human exploration and acquiring the capacity to redirect dangerous asteroids from the Earth in that same subcommittee is problematic. Right now, we're weighting the parts of this article unduly which some of us want to use to put the subject in a bad light. Read WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP.
I took the initiative to consolidate the "Space" and "Question on ancient civilization on Mars" sections into a single section. The problem I alluded to above still exists. If we're going to devote that much space in an over-long article just to establish something bad about the article's subject, that's against WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. loupgarous (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Since User:Tomwsulcer reverted the change I described above, inexplicably mentioning the lede paragraph discussion here in his edit summary, I've referred this dispute to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard.
I did this we're now about to go to an editwar over questionable undue weighting of some of the subject's activity as a member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (presenting the source material verbatim - with white space - instead of summarizing it encyclopedically).
I've also placed the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard discussion tag at the beginning of this talk page. Please continue this discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Dana_Rohrabacher. loupgarous (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dana Rohrabacher. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Misleading? Out of context?

The article currently says "In February 2017, Rohrabacher faced criticism for refusing to meet with constituents that showed up at his local Huntington Beach office. The constituents were upset with his support of President Donald Trump. Police were called to remove the constituents".

That's a bit misleading, given the background of the same thing happening all over the country.

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

How about adding a phrase to indicate that a similar pattern of protests of congresspersons for not holding meetings, was occurring throughout the nation? I think the information is important -- after all, congresspersons are supposed to be working for us (the people), are supposed to listen to our concerns, and when this is not happening, even around the country, and the news media reports it in multiple sources, it belongs in the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree. There are three kinds of bias we want to avoid:
  • Implying that the incident was about something unique to Rohrabacher or something specific that that Rohrabacher had done.
  • Implying that because the incident was part of an organized campaign that this somehow makes it less legitimate.
  • Implying that because multiple congresspersons refused to play along and hold meetings with protesters that somehow doing that was wrong.
It sort of looks like you are implying that third thing in your comment above.
--Guy Macon (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC) I mean we should try to avoid these biases and stick with what the sources say.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

" politically biased conspiracy theory website" for InfoWars vs. "fake news website"

@Volunteer Marek: and @Guy Macon:: In the challenge of "politically biased conspiracy theory website" for InfoWars vs. "fake news website", I am OK with either, as both are cited on Alex Jones (radio host). X1\ (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Russia

One might consider (or at least imagine) what readers (if any) will be looking for in this article 10-20 years from now. At that point I'd guess most readers (if any) will be looking for side-lights on what will by then, be the history (in whatever form it takes) of the Trump-Russia issue. The minutia of R's positions on current issues (as currently emphasized in article) will be of almost no interest or significance.

Doubtless as the next election looms, the page will get plenty of attention. But in the not-too-distant future, the guy will die or enter a nursing home, and become an historical footnote. Within a few years, this article will enter a kind of stasis.

As of late November 2017, what is most broadly significant and notable about Rohrabacher, and what it appears he will be most remembered for, will be questions about his Russia ties. A New York Times story (presently current) attempts to sum up the at-the-moment mainline view of this issue [1]

I would suggest that editors who wish to present a realistic and balanced account of the topic at hand, should at minimum create a separate section to summarize these ties as they are currently understood.

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/us/politics/dana-rohrabacher-putin-trump-kremlin-under-fire.html

Badiacrushed (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Where is the most famous quote about Rohrabacher being on the payroll of Putin?

Kevin McCarthy said he and Trump were both on PUTINS PAYROLL. Gee,how could Wiki not have that in the main article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4101:4167:4571:A64F:EB00:A540 (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That could be a construed as a partisan attack, but the FBI reporting that the Kremlin gave Rohrabacher a code name is more solid.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

YAF

Article does not say what YAF is. Ileanadu (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Mueller time in the barrell

Gates fingered Manafort and crumbs to Dana. Feb 2018 Wikipietime (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-23/meeting-that-gates-admits-lying-about-matches-rohrabacher-dinner Wikipietime (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

His female name and family history

Why does he have a female name? What were his parents like? Where did he go to school and what do his schoolmates say? When did he come to America? Did he/she exist before or did he replace a dead person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.2.61 (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

See wikt:Dana; it's apparently another instance of the practice of using surnames as first names. -sche (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
female name hunh? The only Dana I have known was the son of a friend of my mother. Checking about I easily found that Dana is used as a unisex first name in the US and Iran but as a female first name in Israel, Rumania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Germany.

Assange meeting

Unless there are any genuine policy-based objections I will restore this important, reliably sourced text:

In April 2018, Rohrabacher met with Julian Assange and left the meeting believing Assange had physical proof that Russia did not supply emails to WikiLeaks.[1]

  1. ^ Blake, Andrew (April 19, 2018). "Assange had 'physical proof' Russians didn't hack DNC, Rohrabacher says". Washington Times. Retrieved 24 April 2018.}}

– Lionel(talk) 08:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

My deletion was part of a patrolling of the contributions history of ApolloCarmb, a SPA sockpuppet of Apollo The Logician, a user which in turn has more than 20 confirmed blocked sockpuppets, also recently blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia for POV pushing and made some edits disregarding the Russian involvement in the leak. Here's the sockpuppet investigation. As I mentioned in the edit summary, the edit was also included and reverted in the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, Democratic National Committee cyber attacks and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections articles ([6][7][8], and as user Geogene put it, "Rorhbacher claimed that Assange claimed something, in an interview with Breitbart Radio, subsequently reported on by the Washington Times. None of these sources carry weight". I can't object that the quote is added here again, specially since I'm not involved in the article, but I think it's important for users here to know the background. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, this page is not on my watchlist. I reverted the addition in (I believe) three articles that I do watch due to WP:Weight, as Jamez42 quotes me above. I continue to oppose inclusion in those articles on the same grounds, but this article I consider less prominent, with a much lower Weight threshold for inclusion. I'm indifferent to inclusion here and will leave that to the local editors. It's also my understanding that the policy and normal procedure is to revert block evasion once it's detected, but if editors in good standing see fit to restore it on a case by case basis, that's okay too. Geogene (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that the point is somewhat illogical -- how can anyone have proof that something didn't happen? What would proof -- that Russia didn't supply emails to Wikileaks -- what physical proof would that be? So my sense is to leave the information out, or else give it greater context.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Allegations August 2018 of Russian hacking opponent.

Major coverage. Coverage? Wikipietime (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

attempt to support widely debunked conspiracy theory regarding Seth Rich, add?

From Talk:Murder of Seth Rich;

In a phone interview with Yahoo News, Rohrabacher said his goal during the meeting was to find proof for a widely debunked conspiracy theory: that WikiLeaks’ real source for the DNC emails was not Russian intelligence agents, as U.S. officials have since concluded, but former DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was murdered on the streets of Washington in July 2016 in what police believe was a botched robbery.

per Rohrabacher confirms he offered Trump pardon to Assange for proof Russia didn't hack DNC email by Michael Isikoff Yahoo News February 20, 2020 X1\ (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose on grounds of WP:UNDUE, which declares Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views, and WP:PROPORTION, which says discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. NedFausa (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dana_Rohrabacher/Archive_1&oldid=1136648475"