Talk:Harry Reid/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Misc.

We need some information about the 2004 vote against Roe V. Wade. I feel like I follow politics about as closely as anyone who has a 'normal' job, and I never heard about any vote that was simply against Roe V. Wade.

Is this perhaps referring to the Partial-Birth Abortion ban?

--

No. Tom Harkin introduced an amendment to the PBA ban that endorsed the ruling in Roe v. Wade. It narrowly passed, with the help of many moderate Republicans, but Reid voted against it.

--

This may be a reference to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which Reid voted in favor of in 2004. The act was viewed in some quarters as hostile to Roe v. Wade because of language in the bill that defined life as beginning at conception.

" Reid is currently also the only Democratic Mormon Senator. Four other members in the Senate are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but they are all Republican."

Is the fact that the others are Republican relevant?

Yes! Or more to the point, that Reid is a Morman and Democrat! Khirad 07:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Is there any actual evidence that Harry Reid ever boxed? My family has been around the Southern Nevada boxing scene and noone ever heard of him --

Under the "Opinions, beliefs and personal traits" section, it says "Reid... is the leading opponent of a national asbestos liability trust fund." To me, that's implying that he's against compensating asbestos victims. According to his site, he opposes the legislation because it "does not do enough to adequately provide for asbestos victims. The amount of money set aside to pay off claims is insufficient, the means of its funding are ill defined, and which companies will pay to fund the program is unclear." I think that since according to his website, he actually supports compensating asbestos victims, just not this particular way of doing so, and since the bill isn't even that big or important of an issue relative to national politics as a whole, I'm just going to delete the bit 'is the leading opponent of a national asbestos liability trust fund'. --Adoubleplusgood 04:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Walter Olson quote

I returned the Walter Olson quote; it doesn't strike me as that speculative in terms of a hypothesis of what was motivating Reid's highly unusual endorsement of Martinez while simultaneously rejecting Cornyn. The fact that Reid was willing to propose several anti-Roe justices to the Court is relevant to his view on Roe, and it was printed in the Wall Street Journal, so it's not like it's an out-of-left-field suggestion by an anonymous blogger on Daily Kos or Freep. It's NPOV, because it's stated as Walter Olson's opinion and links to the op-ed. -- FRCP11 08:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how it being from the WSJ (out of right field, so to speak) gives it any more encyclopedic notability than if it came from somewhere else. You've sourced it correctly and neutrally, of course, but the statement itself is still fundamentally the unfounded speculation of one person regarding a relatively minor incident in Reid's career. I don't think that this meets the bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia entry. Gamaliel 18:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Closing the Senate

I hope others are following the closure of the senate on Nov. 1, 2005 by Reid by invoking Rule XXI. I'm deciding not to add anything at this point in time as we do not know what, if anything is, happening behind doors. But I do think it is a significant point, - though posterity may not later agree; certainly something to mention in a living encyclopædia nontheless. Khirad 07:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Reid's Relationship to Abramoff

Why is that several Republicans have Jack Abramoff mentioned but no one bothered to mention Harry Reid's ties?

"On the Senate side, Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), now the Senate minority leader, also wrote Ms. Norton in opposition to the casino. The letter was dated March 5, 2002. On March 6, 2002, one of Mr. Abramoff's tribal clients wrote a $5,000 check to Mr. Reid's Searchlight Leadership Fund. "There is absolutely no connection between the letter and the fundraising," said Mr. Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley. Another coincidence! Mr. Reid's Abramoff-related total: $66,000 between 2001 and 2004." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701469.html

Could someone add this? I don't know how to word it.

I was going to, Reid is going to go down with Abramoff, but I'm not a regular Reid writer so I didn't want to step on anyone's toes --M4bwav 17:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference between Reid and the Republican congressmen who received money from Jack Abramoff is that Reid received no money directly from Abramoff. Like some other members of congress, Reid received money from an entity that also gave money to Abramoff. In fact, Reid may not even have received did not receive any money indirectly from Abramoff. There's a big difference between the two. NatusRoma 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

While I am antirepublican, I don't think Reid is out from under the cloud of suspicion. Check this little gem out "A former top aide to Reid, Edward Ayoob, held fundraisers for the senator while working under Abramoff. Abramoff’s clients gave Reid’s campaigns more than $60,000." [1], January 26, 2006. If I can pull some sources together it will make a strong case that it should at least be mentioned.--M4bwav 23:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That quotation doesn't make it clear whether these fundraisers were in the course of Ayoob's work under Abramoff, or happened independently but simultaneously. What Ayoob did on his own time was his own business. I doubt that you'll find much that will merit a mention in the article, but I would be interested to see what you find just the same. NatusRoma 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the popular ones

"Senate Democratic Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002, also signed by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev). The next day, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana issued a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second Abramoff tribe also sent $5,000 to Reid's group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations from 2001 to 2004". Abramoff Witness Frustrates Panel E-Mails Suggest She Was Lobbyist's Connection to Interior Officialwashingtonpost.comNovember 182005 Gale Norton is about as corrupt as they come.--M4bwav 00:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's cold as ice, more on same

"Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) sent a letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton on March 5, 2002, asking her to veto an agreement between the state of Louisiana and the Jena tribe of Choctaw Indians that would have allowed the tribe to open a casino in Louisiana.

The day after Reid sent the letter, according to the Associated Press, Louisiana’s Coushatta tribe, which already operated a casino, and which was a client of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, but which did not want competition from the Jena tribe, sent a $5,000 contribution to Reid’s tax-exempt Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff, the AP reported, also sent Reid’s group a $5,000 contribution. Ultimately, according to the AP, Reid collected more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related contributions." Harry Reid Takes Gambling Money, Protects Gambling Interests Human Events, January 17, 2006--M4bwav 00:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This article sums it up Reid says his 'conscience is clear' despite GOP Abramoff attacks ASSOCIATED PRESS, January 18, 2006

Basically there are two indirect connections between Abramoff and Reid, Gale Norton, and Edward Ayoob. While it may not mean there is definitely a bribery connection between Abramoff and Reid, when he was confronted on the floor of the senate about it, it does make it relevant and as such I will make a small note of it (including his defense).--M4bwav 01:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

THere is now a detailed article describing Reids ties to Abramoff. I have added it along with the citation. Tbeatty 02:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice job, sorry if my tone was slightly annoying.--M4bwav 03:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the wording is from the article. It is as neutral as possible. No accusations. Just facts. Tbeatty 04:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, as it should be, like I said I have no anti-Reid agenda, I've just studied almost every aspect of Abramoff. --M4bwav 04:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually now that I read the changes you made, I kind of get the feeling that you may not be acting in good faith, some of the accusations are relevant because they create the impression of corruption. The fact that he acting in ways favorable to the tribes after receiving money should probably be mentioned. --M4bwav 04:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the accusation, now that i reread it again is seems allright. Could use a slight rewording.--M4bwav 04:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the defense. Tbeatty 04:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You were right to take away the "Republicans" part. Though Republicans have in recent weeks suggested ties between Reid and Abramoff, on another reading, this new story is clearly based entirely on the AP's reporting. I've restored some of the details I had, and I didn't appreciate being reverted. I also removed the scandals category, because this alleged minor involvement is not big enough to warrant the moniker of "scandal". NatusRoma 06:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the Abramoff scandal is current enough and generates enough interest to be called out for easy access. I think it should be a subheading at least. Also, the AP was documenting, not accusing. There is no need for "allegedly" to be used. It creates the appearance that either a) a crime was committed or b) the facts might somehow be false. In this case, since AP hasn't used the term, putting it in the article creates an appearance of guilt either on the actions of Reid or impropriety by AP. IF the statement was "Reid took bribes", allegedely would be appropriate. But AP just outlined persons, places, dates and dollars Tbeatty 06:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC).

One might ask what this news story does other than create the appearance of guilt. The story has hardly broken, and it's not yet significant enough to merit a subheading. If there's more to the story, a subheading might be in order. NatusRoma 07:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a heading or a sub-heading in other politician pages. Also, the line starts "According to AP" but then you proceed to change the wording. He helped Abramoffs clients, not just constituents. For example, the article clearly says he opposed a Casino because it conflicted with an Abramoff client but you could argue that his constituents who wanted the Casiono were not helped at all. Why do you change to less accurate verions. Other politicians ties to Abramoff have the "American poltical scandals" category. To be neutral, either all the other politicians need to be dropped or Reid has to be added. Tbeatty 16:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Abramoff is the biggest thing to happen in Washington in over a decade, whether in his defense or not there is a unbiased news item about their relationship every week now. It's got to be put in there.--M4bwav 19:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Such hyperbole is risible. Have you ever heard of Monica Lewinsky? Other politicians have received money directly from Abramoff, while Reid received money from Abramoff's clients. No one is suggesting wrongdoing here. We're documenting, not accusing, so why should this be called a scandal? NatusRoma 20:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Because Abramoff plead guilty to a felony relating to how he rewarded politicians, not with direct contributions, but with contributions of clients. It is generally regarded as a scandal in Washington when someone close the political establishment commits a felony. Direct contributions are not the scandal. The scandal is the use of Native American money to pay politicians. We are documenting that Reid received money from Abramoff clients. We are documenting that Reid helped Abramoff clients. Abramoff plead guilty to defrauding his Native American clients. The charge is that Abramoff lobbied for competing Native American interests (i.e. urging a politician to thwart one casino so that it wouldn't compete with another while representing himself as serving each interest). Abramoff represented multiple tribes and used money and influence to drive up his fees. That's the scandal. The fact that Reid, perhaps unwittingly, helped Abramoff accomplish this fraud is relevant, a scandal, and worthy of documentation. What is really irrelevant to the scandal is Abramoff's personal contributions. Tbeatty 23:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you don't understand the extent of Abramoff's connections, and the implications of receiving money from Abramoff. This scandal has barely begun to unfold, it's going to take down probably more elected officials since McCarthy, and maybe even before that. The situation is clearly considered a scandal by the American media, and to be connect to it, is to be part of the scandal, regardless of guilt or innocence.--M4bwav 00:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Restarting the indentation: this section should be a level three heading. A single AP story does not justify a level two heading. NatusRoma 00:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have removed this article from Category:American political scandals. No accusation of corruption has been leveled against him. Except for crystal ball predictions, there is nothing to justify placing Reid in that category. NatusRoma 00:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you try reading before you change things? We've already had a long discussion about this and whether you like it or not, Abramoff IS a scandal. Harry Reid is connected to that. Therefore, he is connected to a scandal. It's a very simple concept.--Hbutterfly 01:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Listen I know you like Reid NatusRoma, but he's involved, and it's relevant and documented. I'm as big a Bush hater as they come, but Reid is clearly involved in the scandal. I could find a dozen articles on it, you got no case. Republicans have constantly leveled accusations at him about it, the RNC chairmen just did so on C-SPAN, you can see and hear it with your own eyes. I'm adding a reference to it, as well and changing it back.--M4bwav 01:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

NatusRoma you are clearly in the wrong on this one, there is a relationship between Jack Abramoff, the man, and Harry Reid, the man. All relationships are not direct, I think that you are more interested in winning some kind of petty spat, then looking at this NPOV. Their is a relationship between abramoff's activities and Reid's, and it goes beyond simple donations. You are clearly acting in a POV fashion, take a step back and read the articles, and realize that there is relationship. --M4bwav 07:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please make an argument, and don't just say, "your edits are POV". The notion that the connection between Abramoff's clients and Sen. Reid goes beyond donations is not supported by any news article, but by opinion.

On the subject of the minimum wage, neither AP article makes no mention of Reid ever supporting Kennedy's compromise. In fact, even the blogger who accused Reid of hypocrisy in this matter did not accuse him of being both publicly for and privately against the minimum wage increase in the Marianas. I reproduce a quotation from the site:

While Reid and other Democrats were fighting to increase the minimum hourly wage for Americans, he was secretly working with Abramoff's firm to stagnate the minimum wage for those working on the islands.

As you can no doubt see, there is nothing to support the contention that Reid was making false statements about his position regarding the minimum wage in the Marianas. NatusRoma 08:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the minimum wage statement... the 'reference' listed no longer works. Finding another copy of the AP article (http://www.cqservices.com/MyCQ/News/Default.asp?V=25032), it in no way talks about Reid 'privately working against it'. I'm going to edit out that part, and delete that reference (although maybe it's still relevant to the article as a whole? I dunno, I'm gonna let someone more experienced make that call). --Adoubleplusgood 04:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

An addendum: By my count, each one of us has now made three reversions of greater or lesser amounts of text in the past 24 hours. Can we let this sit for a bit, and not break the 3RR policy? NatusRoma 08:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are adding information and sources, it's not a revert. I've added both the accusation and defense for the islands-wage bill, that didn't pass by the way.--M4bwav 08:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

By my count, I have only done two reverts, but if you are dead set, I won't edit war for a third revert.--M4bwav 08:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice Edit Tbeatty - it added good clarity Bachs 05:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a lot of the Abramoff stuff, and rightly so since it's important information, but it's likely that Reid would have voted the same way regardless of the donations. Does writing letters to the president constitute official action for donations, quid pro quo? Probably not, unless Abramoff is talking to prosecutors about something that hasn't been revealed yet, it's likely no charges will be filed. That said he was a little to close for comfort with lobbyists, then again the vast majority of politicans in Washington are probably to close for comfort with lobbyists, they just happened to be lobbyists who aren't Jack Abramoff. I wonder what will happen.--M4bwav 05:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - it is no crime to take donations from a lobbiest. Even though Abramoff gave donations to hundreds of congressman either by himself or through clients it is likely that there was a quid pro quo in only a handfull of circumstances. Bachs 05:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no offense Amgine , but you just removed a lot of factual referenced information, unless there is objection, I'm going to put some of it back, since it's better to error on the side of not deleting--M4bwav 21:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Senate committees, legislation authored

I'm completely unable to locate the senate resolutions for committees for the 107th congress.

Could someone please work on a list of the legislation Senator Reid authored/co-authored? - Amgine 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing References

Hey I don't mind if you remove references, but I think most of those references are being used, and have some factual data, I know the guy at talking points memo interviewed several prominent people, and thus is not specualation.--M4bwav 20:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As you will. I was asked to review the article, not to edit war with you. - Amgine 21:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you believe "reviewing" means removing NPOV sourced content that enlightens readers about the subjects involvement in an important current event? I "reviewed" it as well and we had consensus on a NPOV description.

At least read the references before you make edits, you will find all the comments that you removed, are based on accepted fact. I would revert again, but you have gotten someone else to join in and protect and now I am over the 3RR. Frankly what you did is very disturbing.--M4bwav 21:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why did all the sourced material get removed? The Abramoff section looks like it has been "sanitized" to minimize it. THis is not the way Abramoff is treated on other bio's that have had contact with him. Pleaes put the referenced material back. It was a neutral account of the facts. Tbeatty 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Are any disputes going to be resolved here, or is this page just going to be locked until Reid's people stop threatening legal action? NatusRoma 01:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Reid's people threatened legal action? About what? Tbeatty 03:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was my conjecture for the reason why Danny stepped in to protect the page, citing the authority that Jimbo has given him as part of WP:OFFICE. NatusRoma 04:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The page is protected again. Reid's people did not threaten legal action. I will not go into the reasons here. Danny 13:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I ask again, what could the objection to AP reports be that it isn't an AP problem as opposed to a Wikipedia problem? This smells of Big Brother. Tbeatty 17:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

How can we address the problems they had with this page when it is unprotected if you don't tell us what they are? Gamaliel 17:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please relax, ok? Temporary protection to work on a problem is not intended to shortcut or remove the normal processes. Danny has been travelling and there has been no time just yet to have a big discussion about this. Geez, the level of paranoia in this discussion is really disappointing to me. Have you no respect at all? --Jimbo Wales 00:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

More openness would help with the paranoia problem. Did we learn nothing from the attempt to hush up the Cheney shooting incident? It just led to more speculation. Just tell us what your reasons are, protecting a page with no explanation is anti-Wikipedian. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I do not agree with the actions that have occurred in this matter, please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. NatusRoma 08:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It does seem a little ridiculous. I don't think people are demanding "a big discussion" right away, they just want some basic reason. People were assuming it was a legal issue, but now Danny seems to be saying it's not. Can't the basic reason be identified without getting into details? Such as: "there is a legal reason". You don't even necessarily need to say who it involves. Everyking 10:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no dispute about Harry Reid. Someone external to Wikipedia (Harry Reid's staff?) has complained to Wikipedia about this page. Apparently those people do not like the AP articles that were cited about Reid's involvement with Abramoff. There is nothing to resolve on this page and there is no information about the complaint. There is no time given as to when the lock will be remove. Big Brother is alive and well. --Tbeatty 16:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You know the irony is I would have expected this from the republican party with their emphasis on propaganda, but this is kind of outrageous. There isn't even a debate here (not that I'm not open to debate here), I guess Jimbo doesn't like seeing Harry Reid cast in a negative light. It kind of discourages me from particpating in wikipedia, due the fact that articles can be whitewashed and then protected by people who don't even know the issue.--M4bwav 16:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"I guess Jimbo doesn't like seeing Harry Reid cast in a negative light"??? You owe me an apology, that's an absurd accusation. I never heard of this article until today.--Jimbo Wales 00:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with the accusation but I think it's important to know the reason for the lock. Why is it locked? Who requested the lock? When will it be unlocked? Accusations distract from the substance. The reality is that a page that is linked to current events is not able to have factual data added to it. Tbeatty 02:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh, why exactly do I owe you an apology everyone here was acting in good faith, then out of nowhere we are told to quit writing about Harry Reid with no explanation of why we cannot write about him. The little we are told is that Jimbo has said that he has given one of his lieutenant's power to prevent any criticism of his involvment with Jack Abramoff. Why should your inaccurate opinion be held above those who know more about the subject matter?--M4bwav 05:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You accused him of trying to whitewash a politican's article when you have no idea what is going on and no evidence to back up your accusation. Now Jimbo and/or Danny should provide an explaination of what's going on, but their faltering in this matter should not mean you should immediately leap to the most improbable and outrageous conclusion. Gamaliel 17:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the nature of the editing and locking, and vague explanation, I would hardly call the accusation improbable.--M4bwav 00:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

So if it isn't improbable, where is your evidence? Let's see it. Gamaliel 03:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I just think it's highly irresponsible. Look at what Jimbo wrote above. It would have taken considerably fewer words to tell us there was a legal situation pertaining to the article. But no, he tells us there isn't time to get into a "big discussion" yet, when in fact people aren't calling for a big discussion, just a succinct explanation. Everyking 05:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, there is no legal issue at stake here. Yes, we have been contacted by Harry Reid's office. They have raised certain issues, which we are investigating. Both Jimbo and I were away for a few days on Wikipedia business. It is now the weekend. I will be contacting Reid's office on Tuesday (Monday being a holiday). WP:OFFICE protection is intended as a temporary measure until things can be settled. Settled means to the satisfaction of all parties involved, and not just to the satisfaction of certain editors. As a reminder to everyone, Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a political blog. It is an encyclopedia. Editing does not mean dumping information but presenting the information in a suitable manner too. The Abramoff issue, which seems to be the prevalent concern here, is just one aspect of Reid's career. It will be included in the article, but it will be included with the proper perspective, so that someone reading the article about Harry Reid 100 years from now will get a comprehensive overview of the man's life and career, and not just speculation or the headlines of February 2006. For what its worth, I have asked a small number of highly trusted neutral (i.e., non-American) editors of Wikipedia to look at the article, and they also felt that the quality of the article was questionable. Let's use this time constructively to figure out ways to make the article as comprehensive, accurate, and unbiased as possible, so that is acceptable to everyone involved, including the editors and even including Harry Reid himself. That is what an NPOV article should be. Danny 06:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should there be such an extreme measure if there isn't a legal issue? Just let things get worked out through normal editing and discussion. Normally that works well. Don't worry about one thing getting disproportionate coverage right now; it will all be balanced out and turned into a much better product over time. That's the kind of thinking we rely on to build articles, isn't it? If you're going to take a measure here, I think you should just remove the offending info and let a consensus on it be reached here on talk. That way the whole article doesn't need to be off-limits, even if one aspect is too sensitive to work on right now. Everyking 07:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Protecting it for half-a-week (until such time as we can get back in contact with the complianants and get their opinion of the changes made) is not an "extreme measure"; nor is saying "it'll get better with time" a good way to go about responding to specific complaints. Raul654 07:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see how protection is supposed to achieve anything, and besides, what I'm seeing here suggests to me that article content is going to be decided through phone calls between offices and such, which definitely isn't something we are used to having. Why can't the specific complaints be dealt with here? Harry Reid's office doesn't have any particular say in the content of this article, the way I see it; we operate on the basis of editorial consensus guided by our policies, and someone from his office can edit here or we can have someone who knows their viewpoint represent their perspective. And you took my "it'll get better with time" argument out of context completely; it was a reply to Danny's argument about what the article content will look like in 100 years. Everyking 07:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an admirable goal. But it certainly isn't the case with other people currently associated with Abramoff or other current event figures. The reality is that current events get disproportionate coverage across this entire encyclopedia. Rather than push down the current event, I think that sections need to be maintained over the life of the project. In 6 months it might be appropriate to scale down this section, but today it is a raging current event. Tbeatty 17:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a "raging" current event. A LexisNexis search for {"Harry Reid" Abramoff} yields no results since February 13, and Yahoo! News yields no meaningful results since February 11, two days after the story originally broke. The only result since then is a February 15 story in which Reid and Abramoff are mentioned separately in the same article. NatusRoma 02:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There are no meaningful results when you search for Tom DeLay and Abramoff (or anyone else). Nothing has recently happened in the Plame affair either. But both of those are ongoing scandals that deserve mention in their respective biographical entries. Unless we are willing to remove all current events, Harry Reid shouldn't be getting a pass. After the scandal is over, it can be reviewed and scaled to it's appropriate place. In time it will fade to a proper perspective, whether that's a defining moment in his career, the lynchpin on a felony conviction or a sidenote in an illustrious career is for posterity to decide. Meanwhile, this is a current event and Harry Reid should be treated as fair as everyone else is treated. As for "raging", the press can only overcover one story at a time. Last week it was the Cheney shooting and you will notice that Cheney had his opening paragraph updated because of it. Who knows what next week will bring, but Abramoff is not going away anytime soon. Tbeatty 22:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Danny and Jimbo, you guys are clearly folding under political pressure, shouldn't you recuse yourselfs due to your POV involvement with Harry Reid. I mean your taking a stance that is entirely colored by your invovlement with the subject, you two are probably the last two that should be deciding what is fair or not, seeing as how you have an alterior motive in editing and controlling the article.--M4bwav 18:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If you had read Danny's statement, you'd see that he isn't doing any of the editing himself, but getting "a small number of highly trusted neutral (i.e., non-American) editors of Wikipedia" to do the editing instead. Raul654 18:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

They are POV, and they are controlling the editing. Before Danny locked it, he set someone to edit out the Abramoff stuff, when he saw people reverting the lost content, he locked the new deletions in. Simply because the bias is being orchestrated rather than directly typed, just makes it a more organized meat-puppetry. The information that was removed before the lock, was crossreferenced and fair-game, by that act of removing that information and locking is proof enough of a lack of 'good faith'.--M4bwav 18:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Being contacted by someone from Harry Reid's office does not in itself make Danny or Jimbo's edits biased, nor is there any evidence to suggest that there is political pressure here. Saying that Danny and Jimbo are caving to political pressure just because Harry Reid is a politician is akin to saying that protecting the Earl of Shrewsbury's page during a dispute means caving to peer pressure. NatusRoma 02:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

One does not have to be a politican to be controlled by strong political pressure. As can we seen by the Bush administration, many politicans will seek to hurt or damage opponents in anyway possible. Harry Reid votes on legislation that can effect the very future of the internet, and thus wikipedia, he is an extremely powerful. On the flip side, courting Reid by whitewashing his article provides it's own motive, a powerful politican can make things happen for a relatively unpowerful citizen, funding, legislation. Furthermore, there is the political motivation, may one have a desire to do Reid's will merely in an effort to further ones own agenda. Finally there is an ego motive, to be on Reid's good side, would make one feel as if they wheel and deal with the most powerful in Washington. Probably some combination of these reasons is why Jimbo and Danny are betraying the spirit if not the letter of wikipedia (POV).--M4bwav 04:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that your accusations against Danny and Jimbo are based entirely on conjecture. NatusRoma 06:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's only if you ignore the evidence of the removal of information immediately before a protect. After a variety of editors reverted, edits made by people other than those made on behalf of Jimbo and Danny were reverted. Since the edits they were removed we crossed referenced by reputable sources and relevant to the topic, can one really call that conjecture? Perhaps since it is easy to call any interpration of any events conjecture, but there is a clear link between the phone calls, the lack of Good Faith POV edits made, and the protection of the articles. Jimbo has edited his own article in the past removing various information, so there is a prior history. Wikipedia seems based on "Do as I say, not as I do"--M4bwav 13:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I saw Danny on the grassy knoll. Gamaliel 18:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't a statement like that fall under baiting, aren't admins supposed to explemify the wikipedia philosophies rather than violating them openly. I guess all but a few humans fall short of lofty goals.--M4bwav 18:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's funny you should complain about Wikipedia philosophies when you have completely abandoned a key one, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, based on nothing except your imagination. Your "evidence" is nothing but conjecture and your personal interpretation of Danny and Jimbo's actions. As has been pointed out to you, what matters is what the article looks like at the end of this process, not what it looks like right now. While Danny and Jimbo have temporarily locked articles like this before in response to complaints, they have never interfered with content in a permanent way. Your "evidence" takes no notice of that and your paranoia makes everyone who has a legitimate complaint about what happened here look like a crank. Gamaliel 18:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose page protection

Having this page protected for anything other than heavy vandalism is highly damaging to Wikipedia. Harry Reid is one of the most important political figures in the United States (Senate Minority Leader isn't an insignificant post). For what it's worth, I think most of the Abramoff allegations regarding Reid are overblown, but that's beside the point. We have POV pushing on hundreds, if not thousands, of articles. Why do we believe that the normal Wiki editing process won't work here? I'm also disturbed by the implication that the normal editors can't be trusted, and that it's necessary to restrict editing to an elite at this time. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You only have to look at Bill Frist or Dick Cheney to see the overblown nature of current events. Why Reid would get a pass is unknown. Bill Frist has a whole section on the SEC investigation. Dick Cheney mentions the shooting in his introduction. The editors should be able to come to consensus without interference from the staff of Senators. There is a reason why Wikipedia banned congressional IPs. Tbeatty 22:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with both of the above. Protection is inappropriate, especially when there is no explanation and people just walking away and leaving it like that. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What excludes staff of Senators from being Wikipedians? That seems to be a pretty closedminded attitude. As long as they participate like everyone else, there should be no reason to exclude their voices. It's certainly not a scalable policy. Much better for us to figure out how to deal with interested parties editing Wikipedia reasonably than by trying to block every such party. --The Cunctator 23:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems it would be fine for a staff member to edit wikipedia, but to edit an article of someone they were involved, would probably be too POV to be trustworthy, at the least their edits should be regarded with higher level of suspicion.--M4bwav 23:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing a priori wrong with a staff member editing his or her Member's article. However, you're right that we should be very careful about not allowing such staff members to due things like give undue weight to successes or failures. NatusRoma 05:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's polite to listen to the concerns of those featured in an article. Being polite isn't a problem - it helps us all to work together more productively. Even if it means that we have the usual slow progress of improvement taking an extra few days of slowness. Jamesday 05:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What concerns? Where were they voiced? What did they say? User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have little idea. The people they have been talking to have not yet told us. Like yu, I do wish they would, as quickly as practical. Jamesday 04:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be ideal if they did so in a public manner. Behind-the-scenes dealing is not the way Wikipedia got to be the resource it is. --Delirium 23:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that protection is temporary

Please remember that page protecton is temporary while the people at the Foundation find out what is bothersome to the party involved and attempt to explain our process to them. I fully expect that the clarifications being sought will then be discussed here, so lets givee them a little time to get that done. Plenty of time to object once we know what the problem they see are. Jamesday 04:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone expects that. But before this, I think everyone would have expected the page to stay unlocked while this unfolded. Certainly, no one expects a thrid party edit and immediate locking outside of the normal editing process. Finally, I think this typ of pressure being wielded by Reid should be a part of his Wiki entry. If nothing else, it should a disclaimed. "This page was protested by Reid's staff and as a result it was rewritten to satisfy their concerns." Imagine that tag on every entry. Tbeatty 05:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Temporary or not, some minor explanation as to why is warranted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zoe that some explanation should be given. In response to Danny's comments above; the nature of Wikipedia is that people write about what interests them at the moment. Things get blown out of proportion when they are on the top of peoples minds, then get pruned back when calmer heads prevail, and when it's easier to see the issue in context. Surely the Pokemon universe is far less important than the Culture of Italy, but since a bunch of prepubescent kids choose to use their time and energy to write about every aspect of Pokemon, we have far more about it than the culture of Italy. This is one of the inherent differences between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias, where size of article is relative to its importance, as decided by professional overseer editors. This disparity is present in every area of Wikipedia, and will continue to be so unless deletion criteria become far far far far more strict. So yes, probably the whole Abramoff thing was disproportionately represented. That's wikipedia. If it's sourced, neutral POV,and a number of respected regular old editors agree that it is so, the material should stay. I find it very troubling that it was locked with very little effort at other routes of mediation. Remember, Jimbo, There is no cabal, and there shouldn't be one, whether it be Jimbo and Danny, or a group of deletion happy-admins. Also, in the world of current events, five days is a very long time. Respectfully, Makemi 19:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, hold your horses people. If this isn't sorted out over the next few weeks, more people will start to get itchy for answers. But a couple days? Here are a few helpful suggestions. I suspect, by the way, that the subject of an article, who happens to be a sitting congressman, complains about his article, and the Foundation doesn't have time to look at it and sort it out right then, that a temporary protection is a way of getting enough breathing room to make a good decision. That's all. No, powerful people don't get to dictate Wikipedia policy. But yes, the subject of an article can ask questions and complain, and if the complaints are serious, the Foundation will want to look at it to see if everythings libel-free. If they protect the page for a few days while they look over it, how are you hurt? If the inability to edit the Harry Reid article on Wikipedia for a few days is the worst of your problems, then I really envy your life. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The protection was frivilious, but it's over, this is old news. It wouldn't have been a big deal if they hadn't tried to whitewash the article of information that was cross-referenced from reputable sources, but I guess they figured that out. Oh well, 'alls well that ends well'.--M4bwav 18:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You a) are very late to the chorus and b) totally missed the point. What was missing was the complaint itself. Harry Reid, a Senator, reached out to Wikipedia and had his page sanitized and locked. I don't dispute that it was the proper action. What should have happened, though, in an open environment is to have Reid's complaint noted and posted. Locking the page was the least of the concerns. What did Reid say that locked the page? What was his concern? We still don't know. I for one, think it's important that when people flex political power, that it be open to scrutiny. It might even deserve a subsection on his page. --Tbeatty 23:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Not so much this article, but the precedent is troubling - there are 72,000 bios of living people I hear, and many more people with touchy heirs, not to mention lots of companies and governments who would like certain "improvements". Won't be good for our reputation if everybody thinks they just have to make an accusatory phone call; WMF doesn't have enough staff to answer the phone once the word on this gets around. Stan 05:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

TIA

There was some controversy as to the delay in reporting the TSA. It's why the question about the delay occured. --Tbeatty 05:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It deserves mention. One sentence is not excessive. Considering the amount of attention that has been spent on an 18 hour delay on the Cheney shooting, it seems warranted to have one sentence here. --Tbeatty 02:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur that it does deserve mention, perhaps there is a way to reword it for mutual satisfaction?--M4bwav 02:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The main difference between the delay in reporting Cheney's hunting incident and the delay in reporting Reid's TIA is that there was a lot of controversy over the former, while there was next to zero controversy over the latter. From the source in the article, it seems that the closest Reid's delay came to controversy was the reporter asking the question. NatusRoma | Talk 20:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a source for the "controversy". The provided source indicates that a reporter asked him a question. It doesn't document a controversy. Anyone got a reference for that? Derex 02:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The controversy is implied by the question but it was temporally an issue. [2]. But I think I will change the wording to "questions". --Tbeatty 06:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Boxing Tickets

Regardless of whether Redi voted for or against a particular interest, he accepted gifts from a party that had legislation pending. Other senators saw it as a conflict of interest and ethics experts say he should have repaid the money. He chose not to. If he voted against the legislation, that is what the gaming commission wanted. --Tbeatty 17:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Commission did not have "legislation pending"; they took a position opposing a bill which Reid was advocating. He then voted for the legislation, against the wishes of the Commission, as did every other Senator. McCain didn't necessarily see it as a conflict; maybe he's just wary of hit pieces like this, since he's running for President. The Commission also offered tickets to Nevada's other Senator, who had already stated he wasn't going to vote, because of a family tie. He also accepted them. Teapot, meet tempest. Derex 18:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No source states that other Senators did not see Reid's action as a conflict of interest; the WaPo AP article only says that McCain thought that if he himself had accepted the tickets, it would have been a conflict of interest. In fact, Reid did the opposite of what the Nevada State Boxing Commission wanted. NatusRoma | Talk 04:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the highlights of this ammendment was to allow tribal lands to conduct boxing matches. This is why it was opposed by Nevada State commission and this is why Abramoff stuff is mentioned in the article (although they have muddled up the whole thing so it isn't clear). Reid's whole problem is that he is trying to represent Nevada tribes AND Nevada gaming industry. Abramoff's clients who had already given money to Reid wanted this ammendment. Reid took both tribal donations and commission donations. This is the shakedown scheme that Abramoff himself used and was convicted. Since Reid isn't a lobbyist, he isn't held to the "high" lobbyist ethical standards that would prevent him from accepting free gifts from both sides of the aisle. Or rather, Reids constituents are diametrically opposed and he is using this to garner campaign contributions and freebies. It's a little smelly. --Tbeatty 06:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2005 - (Sec. 3) Amends the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 to: (1) authorize a tribal organization to establish a boxing commission to regulate professional boxing matches held on Indian land; and (2) provide that its provisions shall apply to professional boxing matches held on tribal lands to the same extent and in the same way as they apply to such matches held in any State. Requires health and safety standards and licensing requirements for matches to be at least as restrictive as: (1) standards and requirements in the State in which the Indian land is located; or (2) the guidelines established by the United States Boxing Commission (USBC) (established in this Act) .--Tbeatty 06:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This whole section needs a re-write. They weren't even tickets. They had no face value. They were credentials, which by law cannot be sold. Section is, as such, totally screwed up. Derex 23:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I submit that John Solomon's writing for the Associated Press can no longer be considered a reliable source for this article. This series of articles, like the series of articles about donations from clients of Jack Abramoff, contains numerous factual errors and consists of nothing but poorly reasoned innuendo.

After reading [3], I'm going to rewrite that section and cut a lot of it.NatusRoma | Talk 05:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Derex 05:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The latest article I read had Reid admintting it was an ethical misinterpretation and he should have not accepted the tickets. AP is a reliable source and I think his reporting was factual. Rewriting it because a reliable source doesn't fit your POV is not acceptable. You may add other sources that have alternate interpretations. But AP is one of the most reliable sources in the news.--143.182.124.4 19:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really? Derex 19:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I took it out, not because it didn't fit my POV, or was POV. But because it was confusingly written, if you are going to quote somebody, quote that person. But to attribute a quote to the set of all news agencies doesn't work, I thought about rewriting it myself, but I didn't want to step on anyones toes in that regard.--M4bwav 19:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The second article pretty much demonstrates a clear bias on the part of Solomon. Apparently the AP are now seeing that Solomon's lede gives a totally misleading impression that Reid agrees that he broke the rules when in fact his error was the other way. I don't think it is appropriate to cite TPM on this at this stage, better to see how things pan out over the next few days. Yep this is a stinky story but the stink seems to come from the reporter not the subject of the report. --Gorgonzilla 22:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I read that McCain also attended boxing, but donated the value of the credentials/tickets to charity. Neutral arbiter 06:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Not quite right. McCain sent a check for the tickets to the commission, and they didn't know what to do with it — couldn't legally accept it. So, they sent it on to a charity. Derex 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

New York Times (web safe URL) - Here is an interesting article from NYT: "Senator Reid Admits Erring on Ethics Rule". - Neutral arbiter 06:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't its the same Solomon/AP story that is already cited and has been dismissed as misdirection. -- 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

According to WAPO, there is NO PROOF that Harty Reid "owned" any stake in the LLC

Please read this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101200129_pf.html

It says: "They also said they have no documents proving Reid's stake in the company because it was an informal understanding between friends."

However, our Wiki article says: "Reid continued to report to Congress that he still owned the land for 3 years after he sold it to the LLC he partially owned."

This is WRONG - there is NO PROOF that Reid "owned" any of the LLC.

216.32.81.2 06:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to read it again. It is Reid;s aides (i.e. Reid) who is claiming he has ownership in the company but no money changed hands. It is a matter of public record that the land was sold to the LLC. --Tbeatty 07:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

216 - It's a matter of public record that Reid paid $400,000 for the land. If he didn't own any of the LLC, how exactly did the LLC get the land from Reid (the land that the LLC sold) - as a donation? Because clearly he never got any cash until the LLC sold the land. John Broughton | Talk 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless the public records for the LLC clearly show a Reid ownership interest, the Reid staffer's statement of "have no documents proving Reid's stake in the company" is determinative. The simple fact is that there is NO PROOF that Reid "owned" part of the LLC. Also the news reports say Reid "sold" his land to the LLC. They DO NOT say that Reid "exchanged" his land for an ownership interest in the LLC. Boy, some people are really missing the point here. Based on the KNOWN ADMITTED FACTS, here's what happened: 1) Reid owned land with less than optimal zoning 2) Reid sold that land to an LLC for the same $400,000 he paid for it. 3) It's been reported that one party with a stake in the LLC is a businessman (and friend of Reid's) with a shady background 4) AFTER the sale to the LLC, Reid's name was used at an appeals hearing to get the land rezoned - thereby increasing it's value. 5) After the land was sold, Reid got paid $1.1 million. These facts are not in dispute.

Now then, why is this bad? Because Reid shifted all the risk of the potential failure to re-zone onto the LLC. At the time of the rezoning battle Reid ALREADY HAD is $400,000 back! This also means that Reid's $1.1 million was PURE PROFIT - a "bribe" if you will. What did Reid actually DO for that $1.1 million? Nothing - other than let the developers representatives DROP HIS NAME during the rezoning hearing, so as to PRESSURE local officials into rezoning.

Reid DID NOT have an ownership interest in the LLC - Reid's $1.1 million is pure profit. Reid DID NOT have any money at risk in the LLC. If that $1.1 is not a "bribe", then what is it? Reid had NO MONEY AT RISK and the LLC rep's USED REID's NAME to PRESSURE LOCAL OFFICIALS!

This entire transaction SMELLS to high heavens! Also, if the LLC borrowed any $ from a bank, while failing to disclose to that bank it's obligations to Reid, the LLC (which Reid claims to partial "own") COMMITTED FRAUD on the bank.

Here's what we have:

1) Reid hid this arrangement from the public eye - Reid failed to properly disclose

2) Reid's LLC pal has a shady past

3) The LLC committed FRAUD against its lenders

4) Reid had NO $$$ at risk - the $1.1 million is an unethical gratuity

5) Reid's name was used by the LLC (and as a so-called owner, Reid should have known this) to pressure local officials - so as to unjustly enrich Reid.

$1.1 Million for ZERO financial risk - where can the rest of us get a deal like that?

216.32.81.2 18:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You didn't really answer my question. Let me rephrase: you said Reid sold that land to an LLC for the same $400,000 he paid for it. When exactly did he sell it and GET HIS $400,000 back in cash? (Please provide a newspaper cite and the exact words in the newspaper article to support your answer.) Or are you saying he "sold" it but was not paid by the LLC? (If he didn't get paid, in what way was this a "sale"?) John Broughton | Talk 19:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not getting answers, because your premise is erroneous. You are presuming that the scuttlebutt you rely on is accurate. Reid is a LAWYER. He KNOWS the difference between a "sale" and an "investment" into an LLC. If Reid did in fact deed over the land to the LLC as he says he did, then the records he filed a the Clark County Deed Recorders Office are FRAUDULENT.

Please see this link: http://recorder.co.clark.nv.us/extreal/Navigate.asp?AdvancedSearch.x=105&AdvancedSearch.y=4

Do a search for Reid, Harry and check all the Harry Reid's which have no middle initial or M for middle initial. This will bring up all pertinant records. On the results page, you will see one of the records which says this:

Instrument: 20010720-02259 Book/Instr: 20010720 / 2259

Document Type: Deed Recorded: 07/20/2001 14:57:36 Pgs: 2

ReRecorded: Y Remarks: rerecord

Requestor: PATRICK LANE LLC

1st Party: REID, HARRY M - EE

REID, LANDRA J - EE

REID FAMILY TRUST AGREEMENT

BROWN, SHARYN

2nd Party: PATRICK LANE LLC

Legal Description: ParcelNum: 16331601015

References:

Tot Value: $0.00 Encumbrance: $0.00

RPTT: $0.00 Exmpt Code: 003 Percent: 100% ATag:

This is the 2001 "sale" in question. It's pretty clear that Reid is LYING somewhere. Who is "BROWN, SHARYN"? Doesn't sound to me like Reid even fully owned the property. Also, why does it say "Tot Value: $0.00"? Look at some of the other records - they show values. Where's the public record of the supposed $400,000 "sale" price?

Reid is pulling a scam here and if you don't see it, that's your issue - not mine.

216.32.81.2 21:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you go to the Nevada Secretary of State's Office and look up the "Patrick Lane LLC" here:

https://esos.state.nv.us/SOSServices/AnonymousAccess/CorpSearch/CorpSearch.aspx

The only name which shows up is "JAY H. BROWN". Where is Harry Reid's Name? When did he resign from the LLC? Where is the proof he was ever a member of the LLC? And if he was never a member, where is the proof he was an owner? Was he ever a manager of the LLC? I'd like to see a copy of the "Articles of Organization". Interestingly enough, unlike many other states, the Nevada web site does not seem to have those on line. Also, according the Nevada Sec. State web site "JAY H. BROWN" is the resident agent for a total of 124 companies. How many of those would Harry Reid prefer we not know that his business partner is involved in? Is this why Reid failed to disclose the Patrick Lane LLC? To hide that he's in bed with the many tentacled Brown? 216.32.81.2 22:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's good to see this form of discussion here; it's a textbook case of the use of innuendo, and exacty the sort of thing the AP article was designed to promote. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Minority/Majority

I presume Reid is still technically Senate Minority Leader. At what point does he officially become Majority leader?

• Well, the new Senate term starts in January; I don't know if the new members will caucus with the old ones before that to select the new leader, or if it's the first order of business when the Senate reconvenes. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Article seems a bit non-neutral

Perhaps it is the tone, but it feels like this article has a negative slant with regard to this politician. 192.195.66.45 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)jpeg

Abortion Confusion

The article states: Harry Reid is pro-life and was a co-sponsor of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, which set new rules and restrictions on abortion rights protesters

However, according to the link, the act restricted ANTI-abortion protestors, which considering the name makes much more sense. However, this does not bolster his "pro-life" title which the sentence leads off with, someone more familiar with Reid and his views ought to fix this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Iraq war section 5.6

two things about this last part of the section (Iraq war, section 5.6 [[4]]) -->

(1)"The stated approval rating was incorrect, and ironically, Cheney's approval rating is actually higher than that of Reid's.

(2)In an April 26, 2007 column in the Washington Post, the "dean" of the Capitol Hill press corps, David S. Broder, suggested Reid resign his post as Majority Leader over the controversy.[51]

for the first one, this is not correct. See here (Cheney) and here (Reid). There are some polls showing reid with a much higher approval, and the Harris poll is statistically a tie (though it does not talk in terms of 'approval' and confuses the issue somewhat by equating 'only fair' and 'poor'.)

For (2) there should at least include the response of the entire senate delagation, which appeared in the WP shortly thereafter.

This article is not my usual haunt, I'm just sayin' R. Baley 09:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence stating the Washington Post said that MoveOn had wanted Reid to do more to bring anti-war Republicans to his point of view. The article doesn't say that. 216.49.214.3 (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

All but one of the criticisms listed were initiated by partisan groups and played-out in the American media. Reid was never admonished by the Senate Ethics Committee, and he has never been under investigation by the FBI or any other agency. These criticisms seem petty, especially when there are far more substantive criticisms of Reid and his pork allocations.

If they were played out in the media, that is good. Wikipedia reports on things that actually cause controversy and writing because there are sources for them and others apparently think they're relevant. If you have more stuff on Reid & pork that would fit the article, go for it and add 'em. SnowFire 02:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am failing to see your logic. All of the controversies under the "Controversies initiated by partisan groups" were initiated by the Republican party and leaked to John Solomon of the AP. I have noted in the wiki article that Solomon left key facts about Reid out of his articles, and was criticized by other parts of the media for doing so.

The differentiation between the partisan and non-partisan categories is meant to help readers see understand the context of these controversies. They can see for themselves which controversies reflect Reid's character. Bremskraft 02:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they may have been initiated by the Republican party doesn't mean that they're automatically illegitimate, just as scandals brought up by the Democratic Congress about the Bush Administration aren't automatically invalid. To put it in the header strongly implies that this is a relevant fact and that all these controversies are in fact all smoke and no fire. This a reasonable opinion to take from it, but I wouldn't say it's so established as to be the "neutral point of view," so why not let the reader judge for themselves?

Moreover, if anything, it casts doubt on the whole section to play it up in this fashion. Which would you trust more? A neutral source's take on a scandal, or something from the Democratic Party? The Democratic Party (or any party) has an agenda and can't entirely be trusted. By trussing the section up like that, you make it look like the Democratic party has written the article (again, unless you have an absolutely ironclad case that these were all illusionary scandals), which casts doubt on everything else. SnowFire 05:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Response

Snowfire, thank you for your response. I completely agree with you that, "The fact that they may have been initiated by the Republican party doesn't [necessarily] mean that they're automatically invalid." You are correct - partisan criticism is not necessarily invalid. In the case of these "controversies," however, the fact that they came from partisan sources is relevant. Let me break down each controversy listed under "partisan":

1) The Reid is associated with associates of Jack Abramoff scandal: In logic, we call this the fallacy of guilt by association, or the "Bad Company Fallacy." In other words, we are supposed to believe Reid has implied guilt because of his association with people associated with Abramoff (namely the other people who work in Abramoff's firm). This doesn't make sense. Either Reid accepted bribes or didn't. And there is no proof that Reid accepted bribes.

With regard to Reid accepting campaign donations from Indian interests around the time he was voting on off-reservation gambling, according to our own wikipedia article, "Ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in collecting contributions around the times they take official acts benefiting donors." Therefore, Reid didn't commit an ethics violation because Reid has opposed off-reservation gambling for over a decade. Both senators from Nevada, Reid and John Ensign, oppose off-reservation gambling (for the obvious reasons) and accepted donations from Indian interests. Ensign was given donations at the same time Reid was. I fail to see the true "controversy" here.

2)Boxing credentials: Senate ethics rules permit gifts from governmental agencies. After an investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee concluded that Reid had not broken Senate ethics rules. John McCain also accepted boxing credentials, yet these credentials are not listed in McCain's "controversy" section.

3) Las Vegas Land deal: This is an incredibly obscure issue, and it is not clear to me where the "controversy" lies. Reid was never reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee over this. It appears that Reid did not disclose that he transfered the title of land from ownership his as an individual to ownership in an LLC with himself at the head and in partnership with Jay Brown. When the land was sold, Reid reported it as a personal land sale. Most politicians in Nevada own land. This includes John Ensign(Senate), Jim Gibbons(Governor), Shelley Berkley(Congress), Jon Porter(Congress), and Dean Heller(Congress). That's the entire congressional delegation from Nevada plus one governor. Anyone who bought land before 2000 made a huge profit (that would include all those politicians just listed). The fact that the land had a zoning change granted by the Clark County Commission is not noteworthy. Most of the business of the Clark County Commission is approving zoning changes (particularly prior to the elction of Chris Giunchigliani to the Commission). Reid supported her candidacy.

4) Condo gifts: Reid was never admonished by the Ethics Committee, and there is a case to be made that Reid didn't actually do anything wrong, but simply appeared to have done a bad. Reid said he believed the expenses were permissible but he reimbursed his campaign so that he wouldn't appear to have done something wrong. Reid said, "These donations were made to thank the men and women who work in the building for the extra work they do as a result of my political activities, and for helping the security officers assigned to me because of my Senate position." Larry Noble, the Federal Election Commission's former chief enforcement lawyer, said this is a "legal gray area." Senator Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va, has disclosed he also spent money on gifts out of his campaign fund. Mollohan was not reprimanded by the Ethics Committee, nor do his gifts appear in a "controversy" section on his wikipedia page. Bremskraft

Whatever portions of the criticism section wind up making their way into the article at a later date does not give any editor carte blanch to apply such grossly POV labels to them in the current active version. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You aren't providing evidence for your conclusion Bremskraft June 29, 2007 4:35 p.m. (PST)

Labeling an entire section as "Criticism Initiated by Partisan Groups" is a POV, I really should not have to explain this. There are multiple sources for each one of the sections, and they have all be discussed at length in the press. Had these criticisms initiated from the RNC, you might have a point about the naming of the subsection, but they aren’t, so you don’t. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this UTC. John Solomon, the author of all the articles cited under the partisan criticism section, has been criticized thoroughly for taking "leads" from Republican consultants and bloggers, as well as failing to be thorough in his research of Reid.

The following lists articles that are critical of Solomon's work: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Critical_stories_on_Harry_Reid_by_the_AP's_John_Solomon

And this article gives detailed facts: http://mediamatters.org/items/200606020002

The AP themselves decided to backtrack on the boxing tickets story. AP writer Erica Warner (who took over for Solomon at AP) now calls them "Boxing Credentials": http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/12/12/national/w132156S57.DTL&type=printable

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Dec12/0,4670,ReidEthics,00.html

http://www.hannity.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-217461.html

(Bremskraft July 2)

Solomon's critics are from hyper-partisan organizations, and do not belong here. Mediamatters is not a WP:RS. If the thing about the Boxing Tickets in non-notable, then I have no problem with that being removed from the article. The Abramoff issue has been all over, and is indeed notable. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters is a perfectly acceptable source. The issue of John Solomon should be discussed in the article, but putting a conclusion like that in the header is unacceptable. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Media Matter is an acceptable source for things pertaining to media matters and their opinion. It does not trump non-partisan sources such as the AP. Media Matters dislike of John Solomon is not relevant to this article. Published exculpatory information about Reid is acceptable. Disparaging Poisoning the Well attacks on John Solomon is not. Either the AP is reliable or not and that battle should not be fought on Reid's bio. --Tbeatty 03:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. The fact that the criticism comes from Media Matters necessarily means that their arguments are not good ones? This is a logical fallacy called the Association fallacy or Bad Company Fallacy. Likewise, are we to believe that because AP is "non-partisan," their reporters cannot initiate stories from partisan sources? The answer is "no, we should not believe this" because Solomon was initially told that Reid was also "guilty by association" by the National Republican Senatorial Committee on Feb. 03, 2006 (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Feb-03-Fri-2006/news/5696811.html). This was six days before he wrote the article cited. According to this LVRJ article, "The National Republican Senatorial Committee this week revived a charge that Reid received more than $50,000 from four tribes with gaming interests between 2001 and 2004 after they hired Abramoff. The Nevadan had received no money from those tribes before then, Republicans said." (Not only did the charge come out of the NRSC the week before Solomon wrote his article, the NRSC had claimed Reid was guilty by association in previous months.)

Please, let us also keep in mind that Solomon's article also employs the Bad Company Fallacy because Solomon implies that because Reid received donations from the same group that Abramoff worked for, that Reid is guilty by association. In other words, Solomon implies that we are supposed to believe Reid may be guilty because of Reid's association with people associated with Abramoff. This doesn't make sense. Either Reid accepted bribes or he didn't. And there is no proof that Reid accepted bribes, or was in any way involved in that Abramoff scandal. I think we do a service to people by pointing out in the header (so as to not mince words) that the Abramoff "criticism" is not exactly well-thought out, logical, or factual, and originally came from partisan sources. Bremskraft July 2, 2007 | 11:52 p.m. (pst)

I don't advocate any of those. Pointing out that John Solomon reported on Harry Reid is an ad hominem fallacy. Using Media Matters to attack John Solomon is also an Ad Hominem fallacy. Quoting election law verbatim to show guilt is both Original research, false light BLP issues and an association fallacy. The reality is that without contradicting evidence we can tak an AP news report as factual. If Media Matters has something relevant to say about a specific reporter that has a bio on wikipeida, take it there. But using this page to attack the messenger is not appropriate. The message is either reliable and it should be stated as simple fact, or it is not and it should be removed. Poisoning the well as the method to neutralize inofrmation is not the correct method. --Tbeatty 07:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Woah. No one is "attacking" Solomon. Criticizing is not the same as an ad hominem attack. It is clear (through verified sources) that Solomon got his initial push from the National Republican Senatorial Committee. It is also clear (through several verified sources) that Solomon left out important information in his articles. This may seem to some that Solomon is attacking Reid. I have found no evidence for this, and I don't believe that Solomon was attacking Reid. It is the case, however, that these articles are not Solomon's best work. It's just shoddy journalism. Solomon (or possibly his editors) implies Reid's guilt, by leaving out (unwittingly) key facts, and by employing (probably unwittingly also) the guilt by association fallacy.Bremskraft July 3, 2007

Look, the controversies are notable, but you can also include criticism of the reporting as well (the idea that including such criticism is an "attack" is ludicrous and should be ignored). But to put a conclusion in the header like that is not the way to go about things. You provide context in the article text, you don't put your conclusion in big letters above the article text. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

IN this context, Media Matters is "attacking" the credibility of John Solomon. In this context, perhaps "questioning" is a clearer word. Disputing content based on who is reporting it is the definition of ad hominem argument. Refutation through ad hominem should be avoided. If MediaMatters has the missing information about Harry Reid, include it as factual information about Harry Reid. If it's just about impugning Solomon then it doesn't belong here. Otherwise, the next step would be to impugn MediaMatters and so on and so on. --Tbeatty 19:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If MM doesn't like John Solomon, that's a matter for the John Solomon page, because as you said, we'd just get into a vicious circle of criticism. If they have specific criticism of the news stories of Solomon covering the issues discussed in this article, then it would be directly relevant and belong here. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly any new facts can be added. And refuted facts can be removed. --Tbeatty 20:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your post, Gamaliel. I'm struggling a little - how is "Criticism initiated by partisan groups" a conclusion rather than a statement of fact? This is an earnest question, not a refutation.

Also, Tbeaty, an argumentum ad hominem is to reply to an argument by attacking the person making the claim, rather than addressing the arguments for the claim or producing evidence against the claim. Therefore, if I or anyone else were to say "John Solomon is a bad, stinky, partisan, baby killer and therefore we shouldn't believe what he writes," that would be an ad hominem attack. Rather, I and others have provided evidence that shows important facts have been left out of Solomon's work, making Solomon's work bad (not Solomon). Bremskraft July 3, 2007

It's best to err on the side of caution, to make headers as short and neutral as possible. The article text is where connections to partisan groups can be discussed. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Gamaliel Bremskraft July 3, 2007

An Ad Hominem fallacy is broader than your description. Discrediting facts based on who said them is an ad hominem fallacy. In this case, saying "John Solomon said X but he left out Y therefore Solomon's work is bad." and then starting each paragraph off with "John Solomon reported..." continues the ad hominem. The better approach is to report X, citing Solomon. report Y, citing it's source and moving on. If Solomon becomes so disrputable, he simply shouldn't be used as a source, but I don't think that is the case yet. refuting his reports simply because he is John Solomon and not on the facts of the report is classic ad hominem logic. Here's an example of the ad hominem fallacy being employed here--Tbeatty 08:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

TBeaty, thank you for your explanation. Here is what your fallacy example/link states about ad hominem attacks - "Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a person." No one is attacking Solomon's bias or even implying he has one. By showing the reader that Solomon wrote a series of articles that examine National Repubican Senatorial Committee criticisms of Reid is simply to show that Solomon followed-up on the NRSC allegations. To list the facts that Solomon left out is to do nothing more than give the reader as much information as possible in order to create an informed opinion. Your argument that I am attacking Solomon in an ad hominem circumstantial manner, therefore, doesn't quite apply. Bremskraft July 4, 2007 1:40 a.m. (PST)

Adding the facts is acceptable. Using the device that solomon left them out and therefore should bias the reader, is ad hominem. Ad hominem doesn't mean you have to attack solomon. It means you are using arguments about the person to invalidate a claim. It's a logical fallacy. Read the entire article on ad hominem. This is the basic style that is being employed in the article. POinting out htat John Solomon left out something is not relevant to the claims he makes. WHAT he left out is relevant to the article and should be included. Pointing out htat the person who left out a piece of information is also reporting on other aspects is also ad hominem. Ad hominem doesn't mean name calling. You seem to find his omission of a key fact as relevant to whether he should be believed about other facts. That is ad hominem fallacious logic.

“ A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Person A makes claim X There is something objectionable about Person A Therefore claim X is false

”

--Tbeatty 08:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I went back and looked at what is written. The passage I am assume you object to is this one: "Solomon did not disclose that Reid was a co-sponsor of the bill that would have raised the minimum wage in the NMI, a bill Abramoff's clients opposed." This statement would be an ad hominem argument in the form you posted above if it were to say "Solomon clearly has a Republican bias and, therefore, purposefully did not disclose that Reid was a co-sponsor of the bill that would have raise the minimum wage in the NMI, a bill Abramoff's clients opposed."

Would this be more acceptable to you? "It was later pointed out that by liberal watchdog group Media Matters that Solomon may not have known or did not disclose that Reid was a co-sponsor of the bill that would have raised the minimum wage in the NMI, a bill Abramoff's clients opposed."

Bremskraft July 4, 2007 2:04 a.m. (PST)

It's ad hominem as it is. Pointing out a percieved flaw in Solomon's report. And then repeatedley identifying Solomon as the the reporter isad hominem. "Solomon reports X. Media Matters objects that Solomon didn't do Y, implying X is questionable and anyhting Solomon says is questionable. Solomon reports A, B, C." This is classic ad hominem logic. What is relevant to the story is X. Media Matters didn't refute X. Media Matters added more factual information that should be included. But the fact that it was Solomon who reported it or Media Matters that added additional facts is irrrelevant. --Tbeatty 17:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out a flaw in the report is not the same as discrediting Solomon, and is not the same as discrediting everything Solomon writes because of an omission. The writer was careful not to do that. Consequently, is is not an ad hominem attack. The writer points out that Solomon wrote a series of articles based on Republican Committee criticisms. This is relevant.

pointing out a flaw is okay. Correcting the flaw is even better. POinting out John Solomon made the mistake and then introducing all the rest of the criticism as "John Solomon reported ..." is not okay. It is ad hominem fallacy. See Poisoning the well as it is a form of ad hominem fallacy. --Tbeatty 06:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The writer is presenting a criticism, not a fallacy. Please accept a second opinion, Tbeatty

pointing out a flaw is okay. Correcting the flaw is even better. POinting out John Solomon made the mistake and then introducing all the rest of the criticism as "John Solomon reported ..." is not okay. It is ad hominem fallacy. See Poisoning the well as it is a form of ad hominem fallacy. --Tbeatty 15:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You are attempting to force into being an ad hominem fallacy where there just isn't one. Please stop.

I am not forcing anything nor am I removing facts or sources. It is clearly evident that POinting out John Solomon made the mistake and then introducing all the rest of the criticism as "John Solomon reported ..." is not okay. It is not relevant that John Solomon reported it. The only reason to raise his name each time is to sow the seeds of doubt. If this weren't the case, you wouldn't be so adamant about the wording since the facts are the same. I don't really care about what's reported as long as it's sourced, but the ad hominem "poisoning the well" attempt that you are using will not stand. media matters found relevant factual information taht was added to the article. that is really all that needed to happen. You are truning the article into a battleground between Media Matters and John Solomon and it simply isn't relevant. --Tbeatty 23:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a handy template:

None of the Above and earlier elections

The Clerk's office lists "Other" as receiving a bunch of the vote in some of Reid's earlier elections. This is really vague, but it's in the results table anyway because that's what the source says. I'm pretty sure that "Other" is really "None of the above candidates," but does anyone know for sure, or have a source saying that's so? SnowFire 02:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Biography

"Although many have questioned how Reid can function as a Democrat in what many perceive to be an overwhelmingly Republican religion,"- the phrasing "questioned how Reid can function" is mean-spirited; "many have" "many perceive" are weasel words without any sourcing. I know, party-line Democrats tend to be either hostile or indifferant to people of faith. Nevertheless, as far as actual policy goes, the only areas of conflict between Mormonism and American liberalism is gay issues and abortion. It's certianly possible to be a loyal Democrat and an uncompromising conservative just on those two specific issues.

In any rate, Reid disagrees with his church on those issues. Reid has said "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman" and voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. However, he voted against the recent constitutional amendment, voted against "prohibiting same-sex basic training", voted for "prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation", and voted for "adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes". He also calls himself "pro-life", but he voted to "expand embryonic stem cell research". [5]

"Reid has defended his faith and politics" From whom? "Reid defended himself, saying" makes more sense. "Reid went on to say that Democrats' emphasis on assisting others, as opposed to what Reid considers Republican dogma to the contrary, as reasons he is a Democrat. If this is not a paraphrase of a direct quote, it would make more sense to say "Reid emphasised the Democrats' focus on helping others as the reason he is a Democrat.". Revolutionaryluddite 02:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The article now reads:

'Background and family life'

Reid was born in the small mining town of Searchlight, Nevada to Inez and Harry V. Reid. His nickname since childhood was "Pinky." Reid attended Basic High School in Henderson, where he had a history teacher Mike O'Callaghan, who would play a prominent role in his future. Reid received his A.S. from Southern Utah State College in 1959 and in 1961 earned his B.S. from Utah State University. He moved to Washington, D.C. and worked as an officer for the U.S. Capitol Police while attending George Washington University for his law degree.

Reid graduated in 1964 and returned to Nevada to work as a lawyer before entering politics. Reid is married to Landra Gould, a Mormon convert from Judaism. Her father, whose name was originally Israel Goldfarb, emigrated from his native Novograd, Ukraine in the early 1900s. Reid and his wife have five children, one of whom, Rory Reid, is an elected Commissioner for Clark County, Nevada, and another who recently ran for municipal office in Cottonwood Heights, Utah.

Reid is a converted member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He stated in an interview with Brigham Young University's Daily Universe that "I think it is much easier to be a good member of the Church and a Democrat than a good member of the Church and a Republican". He went on to say that the Democrats' emphasis on helping others, as opposed to what he considers Republican dogma to the contrary, as the reason he's a Democrat.

Revolutionaryluddite 05:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Senate Election

"There have been unconfirmed rumors that the two have a gentleman's agreement not to actively campaign against each other."- If it's unconfirmed, why is the sentence there? Revolutionaryluddite 02:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. Revolutionaryluddite 05:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Position on abortion

Reid has voted several times to ban the intact dilation and extraction or partial-birth abortion procedure. In 2003, he supported alternate language than the act that eventually passed that would have banned all late-term abortions, while allowing exceptions for the life and health of the mother. He voted in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, in favor of parental notification in the case of minors undergoing out-of-state abortions, and in favor of maintaining the ban on abortions on US military bases.[32] He supports stem cell research involving the destruction of human embryos-- referring to the research as "the next generation of medical breakthroughs". He has stated that "Democrats will not give up the fight for stem cell research. It is a fight America must win.[33]

For some reason, the sourcing for the first two sentences has been removed. Otherwise, the paragraph is fine as is. It notes that 'intact dilation and extraction' means the exact same thing as the term 'partial-birth abortion'. It notes that he supports stem cell research that destroys human embryos and gives his specific rationale for his support: The research is "the next generation of medical breakthroughs". Revolutionaryluddite 18:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete "Response to Reid" in Iraq War section?

It seems that the "Response to Reid" in the Iraq War section would be better on the Iraq War page. This page is supposed to just list Reid's positions.

I'll delete the section tomorrow if no one objects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justine4all (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, I meant to sign the above. --Justine4all 19:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I object. Other wikipedia about living persons include reliabily sourced criticism given due weight. Revolutionaryluddite 20:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please cite --Justine4all 22:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There's only one statement in the current 'response to Reid on Iraq section that doesn't have a source. See [6] and [7] and [8] and [9]. Revolutionaryluddite 18:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the sources to the article. Revolutionaryluddite 01:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The use of the tagging label "conservative" seems unnecessary to me, and it's also somewhat misleading. The Weekly Standard is neoconservative. National Review and the Creators syndicate publish articles from neoconservative, paleoconservative, and mainstream conservative perspectives. I don't feel strongly about this one way or another, though. Revolutionaryluddite 19:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

what Republicans call "partial birth abortion" It is "partial birth abortion". The term is an exact synoymn for "intact dilation and extraction" the same way "terminated" is an exact synoymn for "killed". Also, "Partial birth abortion" is widely used by people who happen to not be pro-choice-- see Nat Hentoff-- and not just Republicans specifically. Revolutionaryluddite 18:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree. What is written is medically and politically accurate. (Please see the citation.) Physicians specifically refer to the procedure as "intact dilation and extraction," but Republicans call the procedure "partial birth abortion." By deleting information about who expresses what kind of terminology, we are actually creating a POV issue, not ameliorating it.--Justine4all 20:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Physicians refer to it as "intact dilation and extraction", physicians and ordinary people who are pro-life use "partial-birth abortion". The FAIR source you cited says "reporters use 'partial-birth abortion' because it is instantly recognizable". The USA today article says "critics of the procedure call a "partial-birth" abortion". The Yale Herald article is an op-ed in a student-run journal. The MSNBC article is about the Supreme Court and Roe vs Wade in general as well as how they both related to the "2008 presidential election, which is almost certain to pit an abortion-rights Democrat against an anti-abortion Republican." Look, most Americans in general oppose 'partial birth abortion'. If the sentence must say "what ____ calls 'partial birth abortion'" than for NPOV sake it has to say "what pro-lifers 'partial birth abortion'". Revolutionaryluddite 23:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think using "pro-life" supporters instead of "Republicans" is an excellent edit. --Justine4all 00:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Some references to terminology debate:

• USA Today
• Fair.org - Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
• The Yale Herald

--Justine4all 00:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To be specifically consistent with the sources, the wording "what abortion opponents 'partial birth abortion'" might be better. Revolutionaryluddite 01:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I made the change.Revolutionaryluddite 19:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

FAIR is pretty darned biased on this issue. If it's used as a source, then the Media Research Center and/or the National Right to Life Committee should be referenced as well for balance. As for the Yale Herald article, it's an Op-Ed from a journal with a small, selective distibutition. I don't think it should be included. Revolutionaryluddite 01:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the section should mention that a significant percentage of Democrats are pro-life-- see Democrats for Life of America-- and that Reid is far from being alone. The fact that over two thirds of Americans support the banning partial birth abortion [10] [11] should also be mentioned. Revolutionaryluddite 01:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Reid's votes do not comform to the Republican Where does the phrase "comform to" come from? It's not mentioned in the source. [12] Revolutionaryluddite 01:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I edited the wording. Revolutionaryluddite 19:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back because otherwise it makes it seem as though the Republican caucus has a monopoly on what it means to be pro-life. --Justine4all 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How does the sentence Reid's votes differ from Republican caucus pro-life votes imply that the "Republican caucus has a monopoly on what it means to be pro-life"? It means exactly what it says: Reid's votes on the abortion issue are not identical to that of the Republican Party. The wording "does not conform to" is not supported by the source. Revolutionaryluddite 01:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Abortion section

The section is currently in "thematic order", which I personally find confusing since there is no logical flow to the sentences, after being in "chronological order". Revolutionaryluddite 03:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

References

[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] All of these references specifically mention Reid. This is crazy. Revolutionaryluddite 04:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The constant removal of these without a logical explanation is approaching vandalism. Revolutionaryluddite 16:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I opened those references quickly (as a result of all the quick changes being made to the page), and did a browser "find," but I had a "match case" setting and thus my browser didn't find "harry reid" on those pages.

In fact, most of them are opinion pieces directed toward Reid with the exception of the article by Frederick Kagen. He is not specifically critical of Reid, but rather he is critical of a belief he attributes to Reid having (without producing evidence that this is the case). Therefore, I think that this reference should probably be removed. --IronAngelAlice 18:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The Frederick W. Kagan article argues against "The notion that the war is already lost, articulated most recently by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid"; it was written partly as a response to what Reid has said. Revolutionaryluddite 01:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing Criticism Section

Some of the criticisms sections are rambling and not coherent. I propose to make changes to this section"

According to an article in the Las Vegas Review Journal on Feb. 03, 2006, "The National Republican Senatorial Committee this week revived a charge that Reid received more than $50,000 from four tribes with gaming interests between 2001 and 2004 after they hired Abramoff. The Nevadan had received no money from those tribes before then, Republicans said." John Solomon, a reporter for the Associated Press, examined this charge as well as other charges against Reid in a series of articles for the Associated Press.

Reid had contact with some clients and lobbying partners of Abramoff, and Reid's campaign received over $60,000 in contributions from Native American Gaming interests that also hired Abramoff's firm. These Native American gaming interests gave Reid more than $50,000. Native American tribes that were clients of Jack Abramoff donated money to Reid after Reid's votes produced favorable results for the tribes. However, Reid's votes were also consistent with protecting Nevada's gaming interests. John Solomon and Sharon Theimer of the Associated Press reported that Reid collected donations around the time of each action. Ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in collecting contributions around the times they take official acts benefiting donors." Reid opposed off-reservation gambling for over a decade before any donations were received. Native American interests also gave campaign donations to John Ensign, the Republican junior senator from Nevada, at the same time these interests gave money to Reid. Both Reid and Ensign oppose off-reservation gambling in an effort to protect Nevada gaming interests. Neither Reid nor Ensign were reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee.

John Solomon also reported that among dozens of contacts between Abramoff's lobbying team and Reid's office, were several discussions about a bill to raise the minimum wage of the Northern Mariana Islands. Solomon did not report that Reid was a co-sponsor of the bill that would have raised the minimum wage in the NMI, a bill Abramoff's clients opposed.

Reid was never investigated for ethics violations in the Republican controlled U.S. Senate. Reid described the Abramoff affair as "a Republican scandal," referring to Abramoff's felony conviction for making illegal contributions to Republican Congressman Bob Ney and Abramoff's close affiliation with the former House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay's Republican K Street Project. A spokesman said that Reid had never met Abramoff personally, that neither Reid nor his campaign has ever received money directly from Abramoff, and that his legislative work was done on behalf of his Nevadan constituents, and the large gaming interests in Nevada.

Jim Manley, Reid's spokesperson, told the Associated Press "All the actions that Senator Reid took were consistent with his long- held beliefs, such as not letting tribal casinos expand beyond reservations, and were taken to defend the interests of Nevada constituents."

Replace with:

According to an article in the Las Vegas Review Journal on Feb. 03, 2006, "The National Republican Senatorial Committee this week revived a charge that Reid received more than $50,000 from four tribes with gaming interests between 2001 and 2004 after they hired Abramoff. The Nevadan had received no money from those tribes before then, Republicans said." John Solomon, a reporter for the Associated Press, examined this charge as well as other Republican charges against Reid in a series of articles for the Associated Press.

While it is true that Reid received money from Native American tribes, it is not true that Jack Abramoff gave donations to Reid. Abramoff never donated to Democrats. Native American tribes that were clients of Jack Abramoff donated money to Reid because he has always opposed off-reservation gambling. John Solomon and Sharon Theimer of the Associated Press reported that Reid collected donations from Native American Gambling interests around the time of each vote Reid caste opposing off-reservation gambling. Ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in collecting contributions around the times they take official acts benefiting donors." However, both Reid and John Ensign, the Junior Senator from Nevada, received gaming interest money from Native American tribes. Neither Reid nor Ensign were considered to have committed Senate ethics violations.

John Solomon also reported that among dozens of contacts between Abramoff's Democratic lobbying team and Reid's office, were several discussions about a bill to raise the minimum wage of the Northern Mariana Islands. Solomon did not report that Reid was a co-sponsor of the bill that would have raised the minimum wage in the NMI, a bill Abramoff's clients opposed. No Democrats were ever investigated for ethics violations in the Republican controlled U.S. Senate. Reid described the Abramoff affair as "a Republican scandal," referring to Abramoff's felony conviction for making illegal contributions to Republican Congressman Bob Ney and Abramoff's close affiliation with the former House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay's Republican K Street Project. A spokesman said that Reid had never met Abramoff personally, that neither Reid nor his campaign has ever received money directly from Abramoff, and that his legislative work was done on behalf of his Nevadan constituents, and the large gaming interests in Nevada. Jim Manley, Reid's spokesperson, told the Associated Press "All the actions that Senator Reid took were consistent with his long- held beliefs, such as not letting tribal casinos expand beyond reservations, and were taken to defend the interests of Nevada constituents."

--Justine4all 18:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The revised version seems a bit non-NPOV. (I'm not accusing you of pushing your own POV or anything like that, I'm just saying that I think the revised version reads a certain way.) No Democrats were ever investigated for ethics violations in the Republican controlled U.S. Senate. This is true, but why is it relevant? The fact that Democrats were not investigated does not, by itself, imply that the Democrats never did anything wrong. I agree that the current version is incoherent, especially given that none of the information is in chronological order. Revolutionaryluddite 00:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC) (You might want to post on the talk pages of the users at Talk:Harry_Reid#Criticism_Section and see what they think.)

The section currently states: A spokesperson said that Reid had never met Abramoff personally, that neither Reid nor his campaign has ever received money directly from Abramoff, and that his legislative work was done on behalf of his Nevadan constituents, and the large gaming interests in Nevada. No Democrats were ever investigated for ethics violations in the Republican controlled U.S. Senate. A spokesman said that Reid had never met Abramoff personally, that neither Reid nor his campaign has ever received money directly from Abramoff, and that his legislative work was done on behalf of his Nevadan constituents, and the large gaming interests in Nevada.

The exact same sentence is repeated twice. The second sentence also, inexplicably, swaps the normal term 'spokesperson' for the sexist term 'spokesman'.

Unless "No Democrats were ever investigated for ethics violations in the Republican controlled U.S. Senate" is a quote from someone (in which case it should be given context and a counter-point), the sentence should be removed. The fact that someone is not investigated does not imply that he or she is innocent the same way being investigated does imply he or she is guilty. The article already mentions that Reid personally was not investigated without implying that Reid is therefore innocent, which this sentence does. Revolutionaryluddite 20:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section out of control

An encyclopedia article is not an appropriate place to put all the partisan criticisms of a politician. The section needs to be cut to size. --Justine4all 18:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The following has been proposed to be added to the criticism section by Revolutionaryluddite:

After the Supreme Court decided Gonzales v. Carhart in April 2007, Reid said in a press conference, "I would only say that this isn't the only decision a lot of us wish that Alito weren't there and O'Connor were there." Some pro-life groups strongly criticised his comments. Jim Manley, a spokesman for the Senator, later said "Senator Reid opposes abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of a mother is at risk" and "Consistent with this position, Senator Reid supported the [ban] and supports the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday." Seventeen Democratic Senators voted for the act, which passed by 64 to 34, upheld by the Court's decision.

The conservative magazine National Review stated that Reid "votes on the pro-life side precisely when it makes no difference". Commentator Fred Barnes wrote in the neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard "I think the only fair verdict on Reid as a pro-life spokesman is that he isn't one." National Right to Life lobbyist Douglas Johnson has said that "The news media has labeled Reid as pro-life, but for years he has usually voted against the pro-life side on the most important votes" and that "in recent years Reid has played a key role in obstructing both pro-life legislation and judicial nominees, and I expect he will attempt to continue doing so."

LitPAC activist and poltical columnist Stephen Elliott wrote for the Huffington Post and The Progressive "Reid's positions on abortion, guns, and Iraq should make him anathema to many in the progressive community." President of NARAL Nancy Keenan has said, "We have worked with Senator Reid on improving women's access to birth control and other health options. He has also shown tremendous leadership blocking extreme judicial nominations. We will continue to work with him on these and other issues on which we find common ground."

Reid has recieved criticism by some pro-lifers for supposedly misreprenting himself as pro-life. The criticisms are notable and well-sourced. Revolutionaryluddite 19:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you object to the section's inclusion? What makes this criticism of Reid any different than any of the other criticisms mentioned in the article? If you think that all the discussion of Reid's political positions should have their own page, than I'm open to that- as long as that does not mean gutting the content. Revolutionaryluddite 00:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the section. It is neutral in wording, sourcing, and content. The only objection is that the entire 'Political Positions/Criticis' part is too long. I agree; I think that Political positions of Harry Reid should be created. Revolutionaryluddite 02:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this page is supposed to be an encyclopedia page. By attempting to 1) listing every possible criticism (criticisms that aren't even notable or prescient), and 2) by listing every criticism along the conservative/liberal (and sometimes partisan) divide, you are turning the page more into an on-line blog than an encyclopedia page. We should be providing notable information in a neutral manner. --IronAngelAlice 07:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The article did not list every possible criticism. It listed notable, precident, and well sourced criticism over central tenets of Reid's political philosophy. This article is not supposed to read like a resume or a Democratic Party press release. As far as "partisanship" goes, Media Matters for America is every little bit as biased as Robert Novak or CAGW. Revolutionaryluddite 01:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking back at it, the paragraph: LitPAC activist and poltical columnist Stephen Elliott wrote for the Huffington Post and The Progressive "Reid's positions on abortion, guns, and Iraq should make him anathema to many in the progressive community." President of NARAL Nancy Keenan has said, "We have worked with Senator Reid on improving women's access to birth control and other health options. He has also shown tremendous leadership blocking extreme judicial nominations. We will continue to work with him on these and other issues on which we find common ground." shouldn't be mentioned since it is not really 'criticism' per se. Revolutionaryluddite 03:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Political Positions

Looking at Political positions of Rudy Giuliani, Political positions of Barack Obama, Political positions of John Edwards, Political positions of Joe Lieberman, and so on, I think that the section should be made into its own article-- with the 'criticisms' section attached. Revolutionaryluddite 21:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's interesting to note that all of the you've people listed are running or have run for President, and that it is generally not the case that Senators have their own position pages. With that said, however, I do not object if it can be done in a neutral way, and if we can make a page for criticisms of Reid. But, before we go transferring everything over, let's make sure we have a consensus on what is appropriately neutral/non-partisan, and what isn't. --Justine4all 00:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

it is generally not the case that Senators have their own position pages. Yes it is, but most Senators are not as famous and well-known as Reid. He's the current Senate Majority Leader and has appeared in two popular Hollywood films (Traffic as himself and Casino, with a role based on him played by Dick Smothers). Revolutionaryluddite 02:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Gag Rule

The amendment overturns the Mexico City Policy, also called the "global gag rule." Only pro-choice activists call it the "global gag rule". If the article is going to apply Wikipedia rules in the strictest sense and put the widespread term "partial birth abortion" used by the media and pro-lifers alike in specific quotes, then it can't then go on to pretend that the pejorative term "gag rule" is unbiased.

The gag rule has been criticized for cutting off funding to the crucial and sometimes sole health agencies in many regions. This is very hotly disputed. The wording of this sentence implies that the pro-choice arguement is true; it must be rewritten or removed. Revolutionaryluddite 01:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Abortion section

I think that dividing the section into two parts for clarity is a good idea. The title "Pregnancy prevention and clinic safety", though, should be changed since the information below it describes more than just those two things. Revolutionaryluddite 20:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is his church affiliation his biggest characteristic?

Why is that mentioned first? Do we mention the religion of other politicians? This guy is a Jew, this guy is a Catholic? Why don't we look at them for who they are personally?

This is so lame, that I shouldn't have to be pointing it out. Wikipedia is not a very good source of information, if this is the best we can do. We might as well all work for the National Enquirer.

A politician's religious and/or personal world belief system is definitely an important characteristic that should be openly discussed. To hide this information is to be less that truthful about a political figure because it often does say a great deal about their character and positions on political issues.

Las Vegas Land Deal

A recent revert to remove information about Reid's Las Vegas land deal was said to be based on the need for a source, though the source was already provided and referenced at the end of the paragraph. If the AP is not a credible source, then there is an enormous amount of editing work pending to remove such citations. Before removing the relevant and credibly sourced information about who sold the land to Reid, please discuss here.

Ethics reform

Earmarks are indeed normal Senate business, which is one of the reasons why the Senate's approval rating is as low (or lower) than President Bush's. If the fact that Reid has campaigned in favor of earmark reforms is notable, than the criticism section is also notable. If Reid supports earmarking and opposes anti-earmarking measures (including those advocated by his fellow Democrats), than the wording of the article must make that clear. Revolutionaryluddite 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the mentioning of 'earmarks' in the earlier part of the article. Revolutionaryluddite 20:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

POV Title

"Equal Rights for Gay and Lesbian Americans"- This is extremely biased. Revolutionaryluddite 01:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How so?--IronAngelAlice 06:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The wording of the title assumes that conservatives want to deny gays "equal rights", which is very hotly disputed. Conservatives say that they believe that gays should be allowed to vote, hold public office, work the same jobs, recieve the same pay, and have the same rights of freedom of speech- and of religion, press, association, et cetera- as all Americans. They oppose measures such as giving federal recognition and benefits to gay marriages because they believe that those measures are 'special rights'. [19] [20] [21] Your or I may believe that the conservatives are wrong, but our own POV's are irrelevant. The article must be neutral. The article must not use the terminology and political frames of one side of an ongoing political debate. Revolutionaryluddite 16:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

See the polls at [22], [23], [24], and [25]. Revolutionaryluddite 16:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Still, I know that Wikipedia as an institution has an upfront, systematic bias on this issue. I know I'm channeling Sisyphus here. I can live with the slanted title. I am curious, though, why "Equal Rights for Gay and Lesbian Americans" and not ""Equal Rights for Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian, and Transgender Americans"? Revolutionaryluddite 16:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First, the references you just cited are all from extremely conservative, partisan, right-wing websites, and their polling methods are therefore suspect. I mean, common. You are citing "Focus on the Family," "Concerned Women for America," and the "Family Research Council" - all prototypical, religious-right, activist organizations.

Second, Reid's page isn't a platform for religious-right terminology. Reid's page is about Reid. Clearly, Reid's position is a conservative one, so changing the title doesn't help Reid one bit. (Which I would think you would be happy about).

Thirdly and most importantly, within the aticle we are referencing for this section, the title used is actually "Civil Rights." I am comfortable with changing the section from "Equal rights for gay Americans" to "Civil Rights," but simply labeling the section "Gay rights" is accepting the rhetoric of the Religious Right.

Last, why not call it "Equal Rights for Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian, and Transgender Americans"? It's too darn long.--Justine4all 17:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Equal rights for Gay Americans" is a framed term used by extremely liberal, partisan, left-wing activists websites in the exact same way as "Special Rights" is used by the other side. Media Matters, [26], and other pro-gay websites have the exact same kind of ideological bias as Focus on the Family. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Ideally, it shouldn't use any slanted frames. If it must use one slanted frame, it should place it in context and balance it out. Wikipedia is a place for neither secular-left anti-religious terminology or religious-right terminology. Wikipedia is supposed to a balanced and neutral encyclopedia. Revolutionaryluddite 18:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the polls I cited without dismissing them out of hand. They are by fair, unbiased, and well-respected polling organizations- such as Pew Research Center- saying that the American people are split deeply on gay rights. Revolutionaryluddite 18:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, Reid's position is a conservative one Actually, the 'ontheissues' article that we're using as a source says Reid "Strongly Favors" "Same-sex domestic partnership benefits". It gives him a rating of about 70 on a "social issues" scale of 0-100 with 100 being the most liberal. Revolutionaryluddite 18:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Pro-gay"? huh? What does "pro-gay" mean? This is what OnTheIssues says:

Harry Reid on Civil Rights

   * Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
   * Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
   * Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
   * Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
   * Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
   * Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
   * Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
   * Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
   * Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
   * Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
   * Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
   * Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
   * Rated 40% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

and Strongly favors

   * More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes: Strongly Favors topic 3
   * YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage: Strongly Opposes topic 3
   * YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation: Strongly Favors topic 3
   * YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation: Favors topic 3
   * YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes: Strongly Favors topic 3
   * NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage: Strongly Favors topic 3

--Justine4all 18:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, just as a point of clarification, the Pew Research Centers et al don't ask poll respondents, "Do you favor the terminology 'Gay Rights' or 'Equal rights for gay Americans'?" So the point is moot. --Justine4all 18:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I cited the polls because they show that opposition to gay marriage and other gay-rights measures are not just held by "extremely conservative" people. Revolutionaryluddite 18:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the section title to "Civil Rights" to be consistent with the source. Revolutionaryluddite 18:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that's a good compromise.--Justine4all 20:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved the 'Civil Rights' section upwards to put the titles in order. Revolutionaryluddite 23:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless more typical "civil rights" content is given in this section, this heading is worse than "Equal Rights for Gay and Lesbian Americans" Civil Rights is generally associated more often with other things (at least in people's minds), namely: equal rights for all races and sometimes genders. So it's kind of a misleading title, also, I think it's just as POV as the original title (because of the implied comparison to equal rights for blacks).

Also, (to Justine4All) please explain how "labeling the section 'Gay rights' is accepting the rhetoric of the Religious Right." That makes as much sense to me as saying that "pro-choice" is a rhetoric term used by the religious right. To me "gay rights" as a title even has a slight pro-gay-marriage slant because such a title gives a slight (but generally unintended) connotation that all issues under that title are in fact rights (of the inherent type), which if actually stated instead of connoted, would be blatant POV when applied to the marriage issue. As has already been established in this talk section, a very sizable portion of the US population does not believe that same-gender marriage is a right. However, the connotation is only minor, and I don't see anyone on either side of the issues (except Justine4All maybe) complaining too much about a title like "Gay and Lesbian Rights". In fact, a very similar title is on most articles I've seen which explain positions of politicians. Xsadar 22:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of the terms "Gay rights" or "Civil rights" implies through framing that American gays are having their inalienable human rights violated. Both term are biased, albiet not nearly as biased as the POV chant "Equal rights for Gay and Lesbian Americans". Many Americans feel that people who disagree with homosexuality should be able to exercise freedom of speech and freedom of religion-- beliving that liberty is more important than equality.

I guess 'Civil Rights', since it's what the source says, is an okay title as long as we expand the section to include Reid's position on the Patriot act and the NSA debate. Revolutionaryluddite 02:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "Civil Rights" is ok as long as the section covers other issues which could fall into that category. It would be good to expand this section anyway since it's so ridiculously small. But until then, the title is completely wrong. Yes, the source uses the term "civil rights", but that covers other issues as well. When people hear civil rights the first thing they think is equal rights for blacks and women, which, although they contain some obvious similarities, are quite different subjects from "gay rights", and so the title is misleading.

Also, due to how the term "civil rights" is commonly used, it strongly implies that their rights are in fact being denied. The title ideally should not imply that they are or are not, as this is a controversial issue. The term "gay rights" does not imply quite as strongly that their rights are being denied, and it has the advantage of not being misleading about the subject matter of the section. If there were a completely NPOV title, that would be best, but I can't think of anything better than "Gay and Lesbian Rights". I've thought about using the word "issues" instead of "rights", but people could interpret that wrongly as meaning "problems" (specifically that gays and lesbians were problems), which we would not want, of course. I just can't think of a better word or phrase than "Gay and Lesbian Rights". Xsadar 08:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The expanded section now covers other "civil rights"-related positions. I disagree that the title "Gay and Lesbian Issues" is POV; the term implies something that all sides agree is true-- that there is a dispute going on. Still though, the title seems fine as of right now. Revolutionaryluddite 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. That's a little better. I can live with that. Xsadar 18:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mexico City Policy

Reid voted in favor of an amendment that would over turn the Mexico City Policy. The policy bans U.S. aid to overseas health organizations that provide men and women birth control or condoms, provide information about the abortion procedure, or that perform the abortion procedure. Opponents of the policy argue that the ban on non-governmental organizations from distributing condoms and USAID-donated birth control or condoms has resulted in an increase in unwanted pregnancies, and thus an increase in the rate of abortion. Opponents also argue that the ban promotes restrictions on free speech as well as restrictions on accurate medical information. Supporters of the policy have argued, using the example of the Philippines, that the ban prevents overseas health organizations from using US government funds to disobey the abortion and birth control laws of their own countries. Pro-life Democratic Senator Ben Nelson voted against the amendment, while pro-life Democratic Senator Robert Casey, Jr. voted for it. It passed by 53-41. President Bush has vowed to veto any legislation eliminating the Mexico City Policy.

The wording of this paragraph falsely implies that pro-lifers support the Mexico City Policy because it provides prevents birth control and supplies medical information. Pro-lifers support the policy becuase it prevent U.S. taxpayer dollars from being used to conduct abortions. [27] [28] [29] Opponents of the policy are given undue weight in content as well as referances. Revolutionaryluddite 04:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC) [Error revised Revolutionaryluddite 00:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)]

As I noted in my edit summary, the Mexico City Policy already has its own extensive article. There is no reason to re-hash the debate over the policy on the Harry Reid page. So I've changed this to the simple, indisputably NPOV statement that he voted against the policy. Dlabtot 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The article for the Mexico City Policy is a textbook example of the pro-choice bias on Wikipedia, but I agree that there's no need to summarize the debate on this article. I readded the three brief sentences that give the vote tallies and mention that the act will be vetoed since that information is relevant to this article. Revolutionaryluddite 00:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT in regards to the Mexico City Policy article. I don't really agree that what you've kept is relevant - I don't see what it adds to our understanding of Harry Reid, or the issue - but I don't care enough to dispute it. Cheers. Dlabtot 01:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The unbiased version of the paragraph has been reverted without explanation. Again, this article must be neutral. The arguements of one side of the debate should not be given undue weight in content as well as references. The paragraph should note that pro-choicers consider abortion to be a method of birth control, but pro-lifers do not. The article should not decide one way or the other. Revolutionaryluddite 00:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that Wikpedia consensus considers abortion to be a method of birth control. I'm a bit sidetracked here. My point is that the paragraph should not imply that the policy prevents foriegn aid from supporting all types of birth control. The policy only prevents aid from supporting some types of birth control. Revolutionaryluddite 00:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Mexico City Policy offically prevents funds from supporting or promoting abortion. Whether or not the policy effectly prevents funds from supporting other kinds of birth control as a side effect is disputed. Revolutionaryluddite 17:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Compromise Wording

"The policy bans U.S. aid to overseas health organizations that give men and women birth control, provide information about abortion procedures, or that perform abortion procedures." Again, the actual text of the policy does not forbid agencies from giving oral contraceptives and whether or not the policy has, as a side effect, kept agencies from doing that is disputed. I can live with this compromise wording since abortion is, according to Wikipedia, a method of birth control. Revolutionaryluddite 20:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Mormon

The word "Mormon" is carefully avoided in this article. Why? Kidshare 03:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason. 'Mormon' is a nickname term for a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the same way 'Quaker' is nickname for a member of the Religious Society of Friends. Really, it doesn't matter whether the article uses the nicknames or uses the full names as long as it picks one term and uses it consistently. Revolutionaryluddite 03:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Phony Soldiers"

This whole special-interest/media manufacted story is completely unfit for an encylcopedia article, especially a biography page about a living person. If it must be included, where are the sources? Revolutionaryluddite 17:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, this is a non-story. So Democrats have labeled Rush as "un-American and unpatrotic" in pure McCarthyite fashion because he dared to talk about anti-war veterans who have deliberately falsified their pasts. So what? Meanwhile, Democratic Represenative Fortney Stark has accused our troops currently deployed in Iraq of slaughtering innocent children. Revolutionaryluddite 19:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The article says that

Right-wing blog Newsbusters criticised the Senator's statements.

Which statements? Calling Limbaugh unpatriotic? Or Reid's statement that "he was proud to be a party to this donation"?

In any case, there is some context missing here. It happens all the time that right wing blogs criticise some Democrat, and that left wing blogs criticise Republicans. What is the point really? What was the content of the criticism? What makes it notable, or even interesting?

Perhaps it went like this:

• Reid: Limbaugh is unpatriotic.
• Blog, criticising Reed: Wrong, he is patriotic!
• Dean, criticising Blog: Is not!
• O'Reilly, criticising Dean: Is too!
• etc

Do we want to read all this in an encyclopedia??

(Btw, is it "Senator" or "senator"? Our article says "The members or legislators of a senate are called senators".) The very model of a minor general (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Republican criticisms

There are a series of criticisms in this article that clearly come from Republican sources. These should be delineated. There should be a section for "Republican criticisms," "Neutral criticisms" and "Liberal criticisms."--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral criticisms? What would be in that category? 129.120.176.71 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Landra Reid as "ethnically Jewish"

First, see the following (and cite it in article if you'd like):

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/30956/edition_id/580/format/html/displaystory.html

Obviously, having converted to Mormonism, she is no longer Jewish by religion; however, she would remain Jewish by ethnicity. --Midnite Critic (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to say exactly by calling her "ethnically Jewish"? Why not simply say that she was Jewish? Are you using that phrasing because she did not actually practice Judaism at the time of her conversion? If so, then you are essentially trying to say (in a roundabout way) that her parents were Jewish. The relevance of such a detail is highly debatable.

Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity. Many different ethnicities practice Judaism. Yes, there is a maternal line, but that is not at all the same thing as ethnicity at all. Are you claiming that, say, Eastern European Jews and Ethiopian Jews are of the same ethnicity? --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion is moot, unless you object to the current wording, noting that she was "born of Jewish parents". However, quite simply, there are both religious and ethnic aspects to Jewish identity, and one does not simply shed the latter if one changes the former, so the phrase "ethnically Jewish" is not inappropriate. --Midnite Critic (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

True, as outlined here and from the opening line of the article: ...Jewish identity can include characteristics of an ethnicity and of a religion. TastyCakes (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul

I reorganized the article to mirror WP:FA Barack Obama et al. in hopes of getting this to GA status. Per other FAs, I outsourced the electoral history to the already existent Electoral history of Harry Reid; the Criticism and Political position sections also need to be summarized and outsourced to the links I've inserted—this article going into too much detail. Any help appreciated. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversy with Las Vegas Review

I have removed the addition (and poorly formated citations) related to an opinion editorial by the Las Vegas Review Journal that Reid told them he wishes "they'd go out of business." The original source for the addition was a Glenn Thrush blog post on Politico.com that discussed the alleged comments by citing an opinion editorial in the Las Vegas Review Journal. The only source we have for these comments is the Las Vegas Review Journal editorial. No independent comfirmation from Politico or other news sources that the exchange occured. Thrush even states "this may have been a joke." I am ambivalent as to whether this belongs in the criticism section, but I think WP:BLP requires better sourcing than an opinion editiorial and a blog editiorizlizing about the editorial.

Other sources on the exchange:

• The New York Times quotes a Reid spokesman saying "clearly he wasn't serious." August 30, 2009.
• CNN Reid camp reacts to highly critical op-ed, August 31, 2009

So is this a nonissue looking for controversy, or does it need to be included, with appropriate WP:NPOV inclusion of the official Reid response that the comment was in jest. Please discuss the matter here before adding the deleted passage back to the article.DCmacnut<> 21:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

GOP = Slave Owners?

Really, no mention of the recent comment he made that the members of the GOP "blocking" health care reform (even tho they are the minority and cant block anything) are the same as the people that were trying to block abolition? Please, dont give me some BS hypocritical response like you guys usually do. just put it in there, please. its important for americans to know that the majority leader of our congress, whom we elect, feels this way about the majority of americans who dont favor their version of reform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We're not a news feed; you can find all you want about that elsewhere. And, since the polls quite clearly show the majority of Americans actually do favor that version of reform, we've no need to insert opinionated lies. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

On December 9, 2009 you wrote the following in response to a comment on Harry Reid's talk page: "We're not a news feed; you can find all you want about that elsewhere. And, since the polls quite clearly show the majority of Americans actually do favor that version of reform, we've no need to insert opinionated lies."

I'm very much offended by your statements. First of all, the polls did not "quite clearly show the majority of Americans" favored that version of reform. I looked up old polls and the first 5 I found stated that more Americans opposed it than supported it, while one was a dead heat. (None of those polls I found were from conservative-biased sources like Fox News either). You should really refrain from being so biased in how you deal with Wiki editing. He/she didn't insert any "opinionated lies". In fact he was very much correct (about the polls, nothing else). I don't even know why you had to put that last sentence in. Saying, "We're not a news feed; you can find all you want about that elsewhere." The thing is I know you know this from looking at your talk page. You've done tons of edits. I've only been doing this for a couple of weeks really, and I know better than that.

That guy/gal you were responding to was very wrong as well. Now that it has been a couple of months since Reid's comments and they haven't come up in the news since, it appears his comments blew over and should definitely. He was most definitely unfamiliar with recentism issues and he was not assuming any sort of good faith. However, I don't think this excuses you from lashing out and making accusations.

Kgromann (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia strives for neutrality on all subjects. If you are to include mention of things in the article, it must be done in a way that makes it as objective as possible. If you feel you can present the issue in a neutral, balanced way, then by all means give it a try. However, Wikipedia also has problems with recentism: things that happen recently end up getting an unfair amount of space in a subject's article, and this is particularly the case with political issues and people. If it's a comment that defines how Reid is viewed and helps describe him as a politician, that's one thing. But if it's the kind of flash in the pan, offhand comment that politicians make every day and are swiftly forgotten, it is best to leave it out: if we didn't, articles on politicians would keep accumulating useless tidbits until they were not particularly useful as a whole. On a broader matter, Wikipedia is not the place to insert your own opinions on something, no matter how well founded they are. You should provide verifiable evidence from notable sources on anything you put in, and that evidence must come from a reliable source. This is especially the case for controversial, political issues such as this. If you don't, your changes will almost certainly be undone very quickly.

My gut feeling is that this is not a particularly important comment on Reid's part, and that the space would be better spent describing his positions and the counter-positions of his detractors. I urge you to view your additions to the article in view of "what would make the article better", rather than "what would make the article better serve my own agenda". I have a feeling your wish to include this statement in the article has more to do with the latter than the former, but again, feel free to try and prove me wrong. TastyCakes (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent Whitewash of Reid's Racist Comments!

I tip my hat to the liberal ideologues who control Wikipedia! Love the way you introduced Reid's "Negro" slur by way of his apology, sandwiched in criticism from the RNC to make it look like a purely partisan squabble, and then closed with some Democratic praise. Keith Olberma couldn't have done a better job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.6.171 (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Very typical disgusting and blaitant hiding of the facts. It's a shame that Administrators let this sort of thing go. 216.136.4.136 (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He spoke the truth. He could have chosen his words better, but he spoke the truth. Nothing racist about it. Reid simply spoke the truth. --Midnite Critic (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Harry Reid's activity in Church?

Is Harry Reid active in Church?96.248.226.196 (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the Salt Lake Tribune article from October 26, 2009 (five months ago): "The Temple-recommend-carrying Reid is very active in his church, say fellow members in the Washington area." Better read it soon since the Tribune likes to take their articles offline after a few months. In fact, I think I'll add its useful information now, before I lose my chance. ——Rich jj (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Temple-recommend-carrying Reid" ? What the bibulent-stoat-canister does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.205.92 (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

To keep it simple, this "recommend" requires frequent activity in the church and following its rules. Spalds (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we need to mention his wife's wreck?

Seems to be a current event. Will anyone care in a month?

That was my first reaction when I saw the edit. But the early description of her injuries sounds like they could be serious, which if true could have longer term implications, so I trimmed it a bit but left it. Similarly, my first reaction was to delete the sentence about the other driver, but given the nature of politics in 2010, eliminating those facts is almost sure to result in someone screaming "political coverup". But I would have no objection if the consensus is to remove. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "Criticism" section

If it doesn't belong in the Nancy Pelosi entry, as one esteemed Wikipedia editor seems to think, why is it okay for Harry Reid? The point was made that the existing separate "Criticism" sections should be removed and that criticisms should be contained within the larger body of these articles. Therefore, I see no reason why this one should remain unless Wikipedians want to have their cake and eat it too.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nancy_Pelosi#Really.2C_no_criticism.3F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.176.235 (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Racist hispanic comments

In his criticism section can we add his recent racist comments about how no hispanics could be republicans? - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that claim? Spalds (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not racist, it's anti-Republican, and it's being drummed up as "racist" out of pure bullshittery on the part of the opposition. Not worth even the slightest bit of weight, especially in the form given here (with Angle's soundbite, which is itself of no value; of course she'll say something negative about any utterance of Reid's.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction neutrality

This article's introduction seems pretty negative :

His ultimate goal is to have most people under the heel of the Government in the guise of a helping hand, but it is just a subsidy to keep them enslaved. Like all collectivists.

That's not a neutral POV! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.178.89 (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it all happened in one edit. Someone used this article to trumpet his or her opinions. I'll roll it back to the revision before he's called a Marxist. 173.77.144.96 (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Error in the bar on the right hand side

The bar on the right hand side with all the various offices he's held doesn't actually include U.S. Senator. I'm not sure how to fix this but if someone who does could do so it'd be appreciated. 67.160.106.237 (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked it a bit. Better? Fat&Happy (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wife having cancer

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2011/sep/30/reids-wife-diagnosed-stage-2-breast-cancer/

How should this be addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegasthornton (talk • contribs) 18:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Longevity

I think a sentence should be added noting that he is a relatively long-serving Majority Leader. He will tied for third if he serves out his current term and if the Democrats win in 2012 and he serves through 2013 he will be third (alone) behind Mike Mansfield and Alben Barkely. I am going to add a sentence to this affect because I don't think this is a controversial statement but if people think it is insignificant I am open to that sentiment. (Fshoutofdawater (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)).

Harry Reid and Mitt Romney: Another Distraction?

It seems as though, once again, Mr. Romney is taking heat from the Democratic Party, but this time it's from Harry Reid. This just doesn't seem right, and is inappropriate from a man highly regarded for being an experienced senator who knows from common sense not to make false accusations about Romney when he has no sources to back up his accusations. His comments about Romney not paying taxes for ten years is ridiculous. If anything, it should be called into question whether or not Mr. Reid has paid his taxes.AceDoctor123 (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)AceDoctor123, August 4, 2012

ENN Mojave Energy LLC

In recent reports from KCET & the Las Vegas Review Journal it has been stated that the subject of this BLP has pressured NV Energy to purchase energy from a planned Chinese backed solar plant to be built near Laughlin, Nevada that presently hires the subject's son.

Here are the references:

• Steve Tetreault (30 July 2012). "Reid pressures NV Energy to back Laughlin solar project". Las Vegas Review Journal. Retrieved 5 August 2012.
• Chris Clarke (31 July 2012). "California to Western States: Keep Your Renewables". KCET. Retrieved 5 August 2012.
• Steve Sebelius (3 August 2012). "Costs, conflicts arise in Reid push for green power". Las Vegas Review Journal. Retrieved 5 August 2012.
• "Power play: Buy that solar - or else?". Las Vegas Review Journal. 3 August 2012. Retrieved 5 August 2012.

Please include a neutral statement regarding the article subject's involvement, and also the possible conflict of interest in the subject's advocacy of the proposed power plant.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Reid says Romney paid $0.00 taxes

This was deleted today:

“ During the summer of 2012, Reid said during an interview with the Huffington Post that he had received information from an unidentified investor in Bain Capital that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney did not pay any taxes for 10 years.[1] The accusation was repeated on the Senate floor by Reid on August 2, 2012.[2] On the following Sunday's political morning talk shows, the allegation was characterized by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican, South Carolina, as unfounded and made up. Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee characterized Reid as a "dirty liar."[3] According to CBS News, Romney stated, "Let me also say, categorically, I have paid taxes every year -- and a lot of taxes. So Harry is simply wrong." PolitiFact.com's Truth-O-Meter rated the accusation as "Pants on Fire!"[4] CBS also reported that Romney had submitted 23 years of tax returns to the John McCain campaign in 2008, when he was being vetted for the vice presidential nomination. Although McCain did not review all the tax returns himself, he stated "Nothing in these tax returns showed that he did not pay taxes."[5] ”

[1]<ref name=HP73112>{{cite news|title=Harry Reid: Bain Investor Told Me That Mitt Romney 'Didn't Pay Any Taxes For 10 Years' |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/harry-reid-romney-taxes_n_1724027.html|accessdate=August 6, 2012|newspaper=Huffington Post|date=July 31, 2012|author=Sam Stein|author2=Ryan Grim|format=blog}}</ref>

[2]<ref name=LAT8212>{{cite news|title=Harry Reid takes Romney tax-accusation campaign to Senate floor|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-harry-reid-takes-romneybashing-campaign-to-senate-floor-20120802,0,2126108.story|accessdate=August 6, 2012|newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]]|date=August 2, 2012|format=blog}}</ref>

[3]<ref name=NYT8512>{{cite news|title=Republicans Step Up Attacks Against Reid|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/republicans-step-up-attacks-against-reid/|accessdate=August 6, 2012|newspaper=The New York Times|date=August 5, 2012|author=Emmarie Huetteman|format=blog}} </ref>

[4]<ref name="Pants on Fire!">{{cite web|title=Harry Reid says anonymous source told him Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years|url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/06/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-anonymous-source-told-him-mitt-rom/|work=Politifact.Com|publisher=The Tampa Bay Times|accessdate=August 7, 2012|quote=Reid has made an extreme claim with nothing solid to back it up. Pants on Fire!}}</ref>

[5]<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57492649-503544/mccain-reid-is-wrong-about-romneys-tax-returns/ McCain: Reid is wrong about Romney's tax returns], CBS News, August 14, 2012, accessed August 17, 2012.</ref>

This is well-referenced, and extremely relevant to Mr. Reid.108.18.174.123 (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, per bold-revert-discuss, the bold edit you made needs to stay off the page until it's been discussed and consensus is reached. As to the content, all you're doing with this addition is adding Reid's allegation so that you can use the Republicans criticisms of him in an undue manner. It's not handled in a neutral way and so it cannot stay on the page as it is. We can include this information if it's handled in a more appropriate manner. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You're not entitled to revert more than you say is necessary. You have given no reason to completely remove the material entirely, and you have made no attempt to fix what you say is wrong with it. See WP:Preserve. Don't delete material that you admit belongs in the article, such as the several very reliable footnotes. "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense."108.18.174.123 (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Criticisms" section should be merged out and article weighting should be improved

This article has two big problems. First is the separate "Criticisms" section. Having separate "Criticisms" or "Controversies" sections is a poor practice that usually results in accumulation of marginal material and is considered a violation of WP:NPOV and multiple other guidelines. In particular, back in 2007 a special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' biographical articles of such treatment — see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 1#Status of "controversies" pages for the history of that effort. The same thing was done for all the 2012 contenders. So you won't find a section like this in the Barack Obama article, or in Joe Biden or John McCain or Mitt Romney or any others from those campaigns. And if they don't belong for presidential candidates, they don't belong for Congressional leaders either. Controversial matters should be discussed in chronology with everything else, where the proper context and weighting and balance and understanding can be maintained.

Second is the weighting. Currently this article has 88 words on his Senate leadership, 578 words on his political positions (a little of which covers his leadership as well), and 828 words under 'criticism'. This ratio of leadership to criticisms is upside down. Where is the material on how he rose in the Senate ranks? What abilities does he have that got him to the top level? How has he stayed on top? How effective is his leadership? What is his relationship with Obama like? What role did he play in major legislation getting through? (There's one terse mention of ACA that gives no details of 'how'). Which did he not succeed on and why? What about his several initiatives to change the Senate rules to limit filibusters? All of this and more is missing. Instead we get long-winded treatments of things like the 'racially tinged comments' that have had no lasting effect and could be handled with one succinct sentence. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)