Talk:Joe Wilson (American politician)/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Joe Wilson (American politician). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Preferences re an unnecessary photo
Before I seek a deletion of this temporary composite image for discussion (note: we're discussing, aren't we?:), the possibilities of getting specific permission for low-res versions of these two images (sometimes granted it appears from, e.g., Tank Man) are perhaps not high, but ...
... how many editors feel this dual image would be desirable? (with permissions)
NOTE: The close-up finger-point shout recently deleted is owned by Getty Images (and I didn't get any indication from a chat with a rep there there was any likelihood of permission from them) ... BUT these two photos are (top) Washington Post and (bottom) AP ... and since AP gave permission for Tank Man and the Washington Post is, um, the Washington Post, it might be doable to get little permission notes for Wikipedia ... if anybody cares. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Preferences
- (no opinion) Proofreader77 (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think it would be nice to have it included in the article. Pics are always good. Reliefappearance (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've contacted the permissions department of the Washington Post requesting permission to use a low-resolution cropped version of the Melina Mara photo, indicating that in order to fulfill WP's inclusion criteria it would need at least a limited free license (e.g. share-alike with attribution for this low resolution version only). They've made explicit that they do not grant such free licenses. So, if it's to be used at all, it will need to be on other grounds. Personally I'd recommend dropping the issue unless new information is brought forward.
..... As to the screen shot of the reaction to Wilson's outburst, such screenshots tend to be more readily accepted in WP. The main underlying reason is that the publisher of the video from which the screenshot is taken derives value from the video itself, from which one low-resolution frame is typically commercially worthless to the copyright holder of the video. So, I'd support the use of the screenshot but not of the Melina Mara/Washington Post photo. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)- Many thanks for checking with the Washington Post, and other illumination. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedControversy section
Why is there now a Controversies section? Why on Earth to people insist on this? I believe it is a Wikipedia guildeline to avoid Controversy sections. Also, somewhere in the talk page archive we came to consensus that the Controversy section should be removed. Therefore I think the Controversies section should be removed and the section on Wilson's Outburst should go where it belongs, in the section on his career as a House member. Reliefappearance (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 98.183.229.197 (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Other controversies
Why was the "Other controversies" section deleted? [1] This is the second time the material has been deleted without discussion.[2] It appears well sourced. Will Beback talk 12:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree and have restored the text. No grounds have been offered for removing this section, outside of the one above. And that complaint regards the use of the word "controversy", rather than the information that is in the section. Whitewashing an article is a violation of NPOV, and one of particular concern in light of the Congressional staff scandal a few years back. Owen (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Seeing no further comments, I'll restore that last edit. Will Beback talk 20:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Controversies section
I deleted the section with a comment not to put it back in without discussion. I note that the section was put into this article without discussion in the first place. I vote that the section is deleted immediately, and that any editor who wants the information in that section back in this article put it in properly. WP articles should not have controversies sections.Jarhed (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Jarhed, can you give us a link to that policy. 018 (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- There was a discussion. See above. There is no policy against "controversy" sections. Wikipedia articles should report significant events and views. The material in question is well-sourced. If there are specific problems then we should correc those rather than deleting the material outright. Will Beback talk 19:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- The policy is that they should be avoided and that they are evidence that the article is not well-written. I don't necessarily think that the controversies should be deleted, merely that they should be deleted until written properly.Jarhed (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- What's the problem that you think needs to be fixed? We're not mindreaders. Will Beback talk 04:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- The controversies section was properly written into this article years ago. After Wilson became more notable a few months ago, the controversy section was reconsolidated. I don't think this should have been done, and I think the article should be restored to the properly written form it was in before. To do that, I think that the section should be immediately deleted until it can be written properly. Is that clear?Jarhed (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not really. Could you provide a link to the version of the article that you think had proper coverage of these incidents? As for deleting them in the meantime, they appear properly sourced so I don't think deletion is warranted. Will Beback talk 09:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Jarhed, generally, if there is a section that needs improving the answer is to improve it not to delete it. That said, BLPs are different and there may be some BLP policy that overrides this (I'm not really a BLP editor, I don't know). 018 (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- The controversies section was properly written into this article years ago. After Wilson became more notable a few months ago, the controversy section was reconsolidated. I don't think this should have been done, and I think the article should be restored to the properly written form it was in before. To do that, I think that the section should be immediately deleted until it can be written properly. Is that clear?Jarhed (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know how to provide a link to an old version, but here's the number: 309290220. If you check that version, you will see that there was no 'controversies' section, it was added after that version. Once again, I have no problem with properly sourced controversial material in this article. My problem is that the section appears to have been slapped in this article haphazardly, and if this data is to be in here, it should be put in properly.Jarhed (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I presume you mean this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Wilson_(U.S._politician)&oldid=309290220 I don't see this material in there, so I don't see how that would an acceptable version to restore. If the problem is the heading title, I'm sure there are other terms we could use. Or we could simply move them under the heading for his career in the House, because they're all related to that. Will Beback talk 07:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- If the controversies section is to be put back in, my main concern is with undue weight. All of these seem trivial and none of them was notable enough to rank inclusion in this article until the person's notable event. After that event, this article shouldn't be 50% devoted to controversies that nobody cared about before. If someone disagrees, I believe they should rewrite them so that they are properly woven into the text of the article.Jarhed (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- the "other controversies" take up 10% of the text, not 50%. That seems proportional. The simple fact of history and life is that much of what people do is obscure, and it is often brief incidents which get the attention. Will Beback talk 07:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- If the controversies section is to be put back in, my main concern is with undue weight. All of these seem trivial and none of them was notable enough to rank inclusion in this article until the person's notable event. After that event, this article shouldn't be 50% devoted to controversies that nobody cared about before. If someone disagrees, I believe they should rewrite them so that they are properly woven into the text of the article.Jarhed (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am absolutely not trying to be contentious, but it appears that you agree with me. The subject of the article was involved in a notable event, after which some editors slapped a controversies section in his bio with a bunch of trivial events. Now, it may be my own POV for wanting the section out, but surely we can agree that the POV editors who want it in should have to make an effort to write it properly.Jarhed (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what we're agreeing on. I don't see where you've ever pointed to specific problems with the text. I thinks it's OK as it is. I think that calling other people "POV editors" is unhelpful unless you can be more specific. Will Beback talk 12:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am absolutely not trying to be contentious, but it appears that you agree with me. The subject of the article was involved in a notable event, after which some editors slapped a controversies section in his bio with a bunch of trivial events. Now, it may be my own POV for wanting the section out, but surely we can agree that the POV editors who want it in should have to make an effort to write it properly.Jarhed (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I think you and I agree that the incidents in the controversy section are obscure and were only put into this article because of a brief incident. I said that other people were POV editors but I also said that I am one too, and I think that is just obvious and not really an issue. I will take a stab at fixing it myself.Jarhed (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, I don't agree that "the incidents in the controversy section are obscure and were only put into this article because of a brief incident". Those individual incidents are also notable, even without the State of the Union incident. My point is that people are often notable for the controversies that surround them more than for the routine work they do. I don't understand what you're intended fix is, since you never said that the problem is. But if it results in a less neutral or complete article then it won't be an improvement. Will Beback talk 22:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- I know that, thanks.Jarhed (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, I don't agree that "the incidents in the controversy section are obscure and were only put into this article because of a brief incident". Those individual incidents are also notable, even without the State of the Union incident. My point is that people are often notable for the controversies that surround them more than for the routine work they do. I don't understand what you're intended fix is, since you never said that the problem is. But if it results in a less neutral or complete article then it won't be an improvement. Will Beback talk 22:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I think you and I agree that the incidents in the controversy section are obscure and were only put into this article because of a brief incident. I said that other people were POV editors but I also said that I am one too, and I think that is just obvious and not really an issue. I will take a stab at fixing it myself.Jarhed (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Member of the Tea Party movement?
Wilson is mentioned in the Tea Party movement as a member of that movement, because he spoke at a few rallies in 2009. There is a discussion on the talk page over whether to delete him from that article. Talk:Tea Party movement#Joe Wilson (U.S. politician) If anyone has an opinion either way please post it there. Will Beback talk 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Leave Preston Brooks out of this article
I am glad to see that certain editors had the common sense to remove allusions to Preston Brooks from this article. Wikipedia users are intelligent enough to see the obvious similarities between Joe Wilson and Preston Brooks without having to have it spelled out for them.TruthSleuth14 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Outburst during 2009 Presidential address
I propose trimming this section down greatly. If you will recall, this was a modest news event 2 years ago that most people would be hard pressed to remember, yet it takes up more 20% of the article. I do not suggest removing it entirely, but knocking it back to 2-3 short paragraphs would be appropriate. I think the best way we could do that would be to remove most of the commentary from others (Rahm Emmanuel, Jimmy Carter etc...) about the event since they are not directly involved in the incident and as such their comments really are no more relevant then if Ben Afleck or Roger Clemens had been published by the press on the matter. Googlemeister (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- I sincerely disagree. The outburst is by far the most significant event that happened in Wilson's political career. AND in itself a significant event. It was highly unusual for such event to happen during a joined session and such significant event deserves significant amount of description detailing the course, and the reactions afterwards.
- Some of this commentary is an important part of the story. Carter's remarks, for example, were widely commented upon. And I disagree that some of what is removed can be accurately classified as "commentary", such as FactCheck's examination of the accuracy of Wilson's remarks and Wilson's statements on the matter. We can collaboratively work on condensing this material if you like, but wholesale gutting is inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Very good, so what is the justification for using 20%+ of the article? Other reps who have been censured have it mentioned in one sentance or so in their article, if at all, (Barney Frank, George Hansen and Charles Wilson for example) so why the emphasis here? Googlemeister (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Because of the emphasis on the incident in the coverage in the world, not the mere fact of his censure. The widespread coverage and notability of this incident justify the emphasis here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well if every media frenzy is going to swamp articles, so be it. I just think that short term loud noise from the media does not make for good article content. Googlemeister (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- It was an unprecedented event and generated a level of coverage appropriate to the nature of the event. I think we've documented it well and appropriately here. However, I am open to condensing, but not to ripping out large chunks of the story. Gamaliel (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Unprecedented? Hardly. http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3755593 Apparently, it is (or rather was) traditional. Googlemeister (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wilson didn't just boo the president. Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Heckle, boo, kind of splitting hairs. Googlemeister (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but the sources cited in the article appear to disagree with you. Gamaliel (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Heckle, boo, kind of splitting hairs. Googlemeister (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wilson didn't just boo the president. Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Unprecedented? Hardly. http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3755593 Apparently, it is (or rather was) traditional. Googlemeister (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- It was an unprecedented event and generated a level of coverage appropriate to the nature of the event. I think we've documented it well and appropriately here. However, I am open to condensing, but not to ripping out large chunks of the story. Gamaliel (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well if every media frenzy is going to swamp articles, so be it. I just think that short term loud noise from the media does not make for good article content. Googlemeister (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Because of the emphasis on the incident in the coverage in the world, not the mere fact of his censure. The widespread coverage and notability of this incident justify the emphasis here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Very good, so what is the justification for using 20%+ of the article? Other reps who have been censured have it mentioned in one sentance or so in their article, if at all, (Barney Frank, George Hansen and Charles Wilson for example) so why the emphasis here? Googlemeister (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is unlikely that anybody would know who this politician is without his notable incident. Coverage of the incident and commentary taking up 20% *of this particular article* is not unreasonable.Jarhed (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Considering the US Census documents illegals collecting Medicaid as listed here by the Center for Immigration Studies http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011 Should you at least either not list the factcheckers or at least point out there is evidence they are wrong. As an RN working in a hospital and with parts of the ACA in effect we still provide Medical out here in Cali for illegals. It's painting a false picture giving evidence that he was wrong when that is not the case. "But the ACA says this...yada, yada, yada"... but Medicaid is managed by the States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quisp65 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- 2014 Study by the same group reiterates that point (see http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-42-percent-of-new-medicaid-signups-are-immigrants-their-children/article/2556114). Added section in the "Outburst during 2009 Presidential address" section to reflect. JoelDick (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- The article does not mention Wilson so incorporating this would be synthesis. Gamaliel (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- 2014 Study by the same group reiterates that point (see http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-42-percent-of-new-medicaid-signups-are-immigrants-their-children/article/2556114). Added section in the "Outburst during 2009 Presidential address" section to reflect. JoelDick (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)