Talk:Maxine Waters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial comment

whoever posted the link to the Ziegler interview, God bless you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.60.253 (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Source

"In keeping with her denunciations of McCaffrey and King, Waters slandered another Irish-American politician, calling former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan "a plantation owner."[8]

Not only does this statement employ weasel words, the source is a very brief letter to the editor in the North Carolina Times. I suggest removal. And since this discussion pages is rather desolate, I'll probably delete the entire thing. If a source is found, feel free to re-post. 128.103.14.47 01:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

John Fogerty

She is linked as a backup singer on John Fogerty's CD "Revival"...is this the same person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.50.216 (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Superdelegate

Clinton supporters and/or Waters supporters keep deleting the fact that Waters is placing her superdelegate vote for Clinton even though her district went to Obama. One user said that this fact is "irrelevant to the process", which is blatantly false. It is in fact the most newsworthy and controversial aspect of the superdelegate process. I've edited the pages of other congressmen who are contradicting the will of the voters by siding with Obama when their districts went for Clinton. Frankly, every superdelegate's page should mention who they've endorsed, and whether or not their endorsement matches that of their constituents. It's an incredibly important, incredibly relevant issue. Also somebody should track the IP of the most recent deleter, and see if they came from Waters' office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.78.77 (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion of Waters intended vote as a Superdelegate in contrast with how her district voted is being deleted because, per the official rules of the Democratic Party, there is no correlation between a Superdelegates' vote and that of the Presidential Primary conducted in that persons district. Some Superdelegates aren't even elected officials and thus don't represent districts where primary elections are held. If you'd like to dispute the Superdelegate process as instituted by the Democratic Party then I suggest you take that up with that institution. Your discussion of "Superdelegates contradicting the will of the voters" implies that the Superdelegate process is somehow beholden to the "will of the voters." It's not. And, no amount of editing Wikipedia (or threatening to expose someone for correcting a factual error) is going to change the rules of the Democratic Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.143.161 (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

See "Superdelegate" Wikipedia article for the following,

"Superdelegate" is an informal term commonly used for some of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the presidential nominating convention of the United States Democratic Party. Unlike most convention delegates, the superdelegates are not selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination. Instead, most of the superdelegates are seated automatically, based solely on their status as current or former party leaders and elected officials ("PLEOs"). Others are chosen during the primary season. All the superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination." —Preceding

--Smart Ways (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this: (cur) (last) 16:13, 4 April 2008 Sarcasticidealist (Talk | contribs) (8,633 bytes) (I don't doubt that it can be sourced, but I'm not really convinced that it's relevant. If the aim is to imply controversy, find a source for the controversy. Otherwise, I don't see why it's there.) (undo) (cur) (last) 15:59, 4 April 2008 Jossi (Talk | contribs) (8,683 bytes) (→2008 Election: I am sure a source can be found for this) (undo)

I don't believe it to be relevant. I've raised the issue on here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard --Smart Ways (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Quoting from the web site of the San Diego Union-Tribune:

"Superdelegates can vote for whomever they choose at the party's convention this August in Denver, regardless of the results in primaries and caucuses. In all, there will be nearly 800 superdelegates, including the 76 extras."

Though the quoted sentence does not say "Democratic", the article is about Democratic party superdelegates. Here is the URL: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20080404-0929-super-sizeddelegates.html

Based on this, it seems an endorsement by a superdelegate is very "relevant". Wanderer57 (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No doubt an endorsement is "relevant" to one campaign or another but there's already a Wikipedia list of endorsers for each candidate. The issue seems to be that folks would like to try to make it relevant when a Superdelegate announces an intention to cast their vote at the Convention for someone other than the person who won the primary vote in their state or congressional district. As these two processes are not related (Superdelegates are "unpledged), implying a link between them serves no purpose. Smart Ways (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm indifferent as to whether we mention she's a superdelegate. I'm not convinced that it's necessary, because all congresspeople are superdelegates (a fact which is in the linked article, I presume). We could add that fact to all individual congressfolk's pages, but I don't think it's necessary. Along the same vein, it's relevant that the Democratic nominee will be selected at a delegated convention, but I don't think we should include that here, either; it's a question of how much info should be in this article and how much people should have to click through to get. As I say, though, I really could go either way on this question (although I'm opposed to mentioning that her district went to Obama, because I really don't see the relevance of that to an article about Waters). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also indifferent. But based on the discussion I have seen, some people have VERY strong opinions on this matter. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the strong opinions are politically motivated and I include both "sides" in this. Sens. Kennedy and Kerry represent a state that was won by Sen. Clinton but have both said they will cast their Superdelegate votes for Sen. Obama which, according to Democratic Party rules, they are completely entitled to do so just as Rep. Waters, et. al. are allowed under the rules to vote for Sen. Clinton regardless of any primary vote. Smart Ways (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not a superdelegate's vote is procedurally relevant to the vote of their district, the national media has been paying attention to contradictions when they occur, because it's an easy argument to make that true democracy is being subverted. It is ABSOLUTELY relevant to include this information in an NPOV way in all superdelegates' wikipedia articles. Kerry should be identified as contradicting his constituents as much as Waters should. Superdelegates who vote with their constituents should also have that fact noted. If Bill Richardson had to face this fact in a question on Meet the Press last week, HOW ON EARTH can anyone say that the controversy is irrelevant?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.78.77 (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert asking Bill Richardson a question on Meet the Press does not somehow change the rules of the Democratic Party thereby creating a correlation between how a Super Delegate votes and how his/her district/state/precinct/block/city/people with last names that start with "L" vote or any other mechanism by which those who wish to blur the lines chose to define things. If you're going to start citing Russert's questions as some kind of evidence then watch out Wikipedia because Russert asks some off the wall questions. Smart Ways (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence of coverage of this controversy as it pertains to Waters? If this is a controversy about superdelegates, it should go in that article. If it's a controversy about Waters it should go here. If it's a controversy about Waters, it needs to be sourced as being a controversy about Waters. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider helping me develop the article I just created (my first so bear with me) here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Democratic_Primaray_Superdelegate_Controversies_2008 I am open to suggestions, name changes for the article, etc.

Weasel Words Template

I added this, because there are several issues with the content of this article.

"considered by some" who?
"makes her a favorite" what exactly is it that makes her a "favorite"?
"long been considered" who?

--24.255.142.152 05:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Prior to the election of Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois), Waters was considered the United States' most prominent African-American legislator." - Similarly, who said Waters was the most prominent AA legislator? What about Rangel, among others? I agree, this article needs some cleaning.--RexRex84 18:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, who said that Barack Obama was the most prominent African-American legislator? --Revaaron

Clearly you didn't get the memo. Smart Ways (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP / NPOV issues among controversies

Recently editors - one in particular - have added a series of material that disparages Waters on a variety of fronts.

• "one of the biggest losers" [1] - I reverted as poorly sourced and POV. Source doesn't support statement but if it did it's a derogatory editorial comment, not encyclopedic
• two more - some allegation of corruption (apparently)[2]. I haven't attended to the radio license part yet but the "crack epidemic" investigation was problematic - see above talk section
• "most corrupt"[3] - poorly sourced allegations of criminality, a clear BLP vio. The whole section should probably go. Designating politicians as "the most corrupt" based on any policy group ("Citizens For...") is rather iffy.

I'm concerned that we may need to go to a BLP report, or find some way to deal, if this article continues to be a forum for disparaging Waters. If she is a controversial legislator that can be fairly described here. But piling on accusations and derogatory criticism is not appropriate. Wikidemo (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Note I've asked for outside review of this on WP:BLP/N#Maxine Waters. Wikidemo (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming I'm the editor to whom you make reference, I'd like to respond. First, I agree that the entire "most corrupt" section should go. CREW might be bi-partisan, but the inclusion of its non-notable list opens the door for the inclusion of countless other third-party lists. (CREW's contribution is not, after all, acknowledged as having anything near the cultural ubiquity of even Blackwell's "best dressed" list.) That said, some mention of the allegations surrounding possible nepotism should remain, just probably not in a separate section. (Multiple papers have reported about concerns regarding this aspect of her public life , and she has publicly addressed these concerns several times.) The FCC section, however, should, I believe, remain. The Times has been critical of Rep. Waters at times, and it is a highly unusual move fore a public official to personally petition the FCC for denial of renewal. (Usually it's left up to party surrogates. President Nixon's operatives actually gave little mini-instructional courses to those willing to challenge the Washington Post-owned stations' licenses.) So it's notable. Finally, I have no firm opinion one way or the other on Rep. Waters, but simply wish to see a more fully written article. I included notation of her involvement in the CIA-crack issue because the location of her district and her involvement with the CBC (one of the organizations calling for investigation) makes it germane to her political career. The fact that the Mercury shied away from the reporter or that the DOJ announced it had no evidence of the involvement does not necessarily mean that such involvement did not occur or that Rep. Waters should not have asked about it. As well, I would propose that there are multiple readings of much of the material that appears to concern you. Noting that Rep. Waters is one of only five of her years' twenty-seven "most corrupt" politicians to remain serving in Congress and to not have been the focus of a formal federal investigation in no way implies that she has done anything wrong; if anything, it notes that she has been the target of a massive amount of public scrutiny and no need for formal steps has been discovered. In no way does this "accuse" or pile on "derogatory criticism." The purpose of such articles is to fairly provide all of the verifiable information to the reader. Excluding material because you feel it might be "piling on," either to Rep. Waters' benefit or detriment, does not, I believe, serve this project. Thanks for all your work and thoughts on this. --Patchyreynolds (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Fleshing out vs. immediate pruning and calls for mediation

I've spent some time fleshing out her political background and re-arranging some sections, and wanted to say something about the evolution of pages such as this. One of the many parts of the genius of Wikipedia is its immediacy: within seconds of one person writing or editing, another may respond. Yet every article also needs to a little bit of time to grow and develop. Yes, the "controversies" section of the article had a larger weight than it ultimately should have had in a more completely written article. But to address weight alone without generating new text and performing new research only grants WP articles that have been hewn into unhelpful brevity; ultimately, we would be faced with nothing more than a sea of vague haiku. So yes, for a few hours the "controversies" section grew at a disproportionate rate to the rest of the piece. That might have signaled three things: 1) someone with an axe to grind against Rep. Waters was wiki-whacking her; 2) someone had started work on one section of the article, but hadn't yet got to [or wasn't interested in writing about] other sections; or 3) the community needed to have a conversation about precisely what constituted a "controversy." As it turned out, it was #2 and #3 together. The solution to that now seems clear: address what seems to be the controversy about what constitutes a "controversy", and also write more, not just pare away. Complete renderings of living persons gain fidelity and objectivity by being fully wrought, not by limiting everything to unproblematic bullet points. Yesterday the controversies section, at one point, occupied 66% of the total article. Now, after we've moved some sections but also added 23% more text, it occupies only 33%, a percentage almost sure to shrink further as the article grows more complete. More importantly, we have better treatment of her views on Iraq, he involvement with divestment, her endorsement in the current election, and yes, a previously unmentioned "controversy" (i.e., challenging the TV license). (This last, of course, might ultimately reside in a section on Rep. Waters and her interaction with the press.) I guess what I'm saying is that more discussion and more writing--rather than a quick leap to already overburdened "outside help"--almost always seems preferable. Sure, we might have to go there eventually, but why so quickly and with so little actual text generation first? --Patchyreynolds (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section

After watching this edit/reversal of edit thing going on (thanks be to those who edit/reverse edit under their User IDs and not just the "drive byIP" edits) I reread this article and I feel like this list of controversies ascribed to Rep. Waters is a bit excessive. If she was named by this group as being "one of the most corrupt" and that article is linked to, do we really need to list out what the group charged her with? I think doing so (in the absence of an equally significant section of her positive accomplishments) makes the article seem a bit POV. I don't know what Rep. Waters did to legitimately deserve so much animosity directed toward her but I'm sure that, if someone had the time and energy, they could find criticisms of every person with a BLP and post it all on their pages and that just seems unnecessary. I think that WP:BLPSTYLE provides some guidence we should consider with regard to the Controversy section of this article. Smart Ways (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no issue with this. If sourcing is negative then so be it. If you can find other positive material to add then you are of course welcome to add that also. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The above comment doesn't reflect WP:NPOV policy, particularly WP:WEIGHT. I've reverted some persistent editors' attempts to portray her as a socialist after a heated exchange involving an oil industry executive. Most congresspeople get into heated exchanges with some people in congressional testimony at some point. Repeating these without context, and repeating their detractors comments (e.g. Fox News), is a weight concern and does not establish that there is any legitimate controversy over the statements. It's just part of the game-playing that goes on in politics where peoples' statements are stretched to use as evidence of improbable things. There's no credible claim that she is proposing to nationalize the oil industry, or that anyone seriously thinks she would, just partisan sniping.Wikidemo (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I initially heard her comments from several sources and went to hear the comments on youtube. I then came to her wikipedia page to see what had been said here. I found it wasn't in the controversies section, so I added it. As I was going to get the reference for the quotes, my addition was deleted. So I re-added it with the citation, then it was deleted, suggesting it was not NPOV. Now I have read the above statements - which, granted, I should have read first, but her comments are controversial and my addition was facutal and NPOV quoting. If it's the "Socializing" the oil industry title that seems non-NPOV, we can change that. Rcronk (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial" and "controversy" are two different things. Calling something controversial is a matter of analysis. Saying a controversy has arisen is a matter of fact that, if significant in view of a person's overall career and notability, may be worth including. Do you have any demonstration that there is a controversy here and that, if so, it is significant to Waters' overall notability? It seems to be simply a brief exchange on video, from hours of testimony at a hearing, used in a pundits' roundtable to stir discussion. The pundits themselves didn't seem take the comments seriously or believe there was a controversy involving the Congresswoman because their (very brief) discussion was about the oil industry, not about her. Under the circumstances using this quote as a source to describe the Congresswoman's policies, or to ascribe a controversy to them, is unbalanced and of very marginal relevance. If she's truly a socialist or has stirred the ire of the oil industry, surely there is a more substantive series of events and a stronger source. Wikidemo (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been hearing her quotes from many sources (google it) who are upset at her wanting to nationalize or socialize the entire oil industry. This seems at least as controversial as the 1992 L.A. riots comments she made that are included in the controversy section. The source for the 1992 quotes she made doesn't seem significantly different in nature than the comments in question. Yes I think taking over the oil industry is not only not marginal, but is in fact controversial (A controversy or dispute is a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate). I think this issue matches that definition at least as well, if not better than, the 1992 comments she made. I think it's notable that she wants to take over the oil industry in the U.S. Rcronk (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source that says her comments caused a controversy? If not, interpreting her comments as controversial or reporting people's criticism of them as a "controversy" (or that criticism as notable) is a matter of original research, opinion, etc. That's addressed in WP:BLP#Criticism and praise, which cites the essay Wikipedia:Coatrack on the subject. Wikipedia:Criticism is a useful essay about a similar issue, the role of "criticism" sections. As an example, consider the issue with Obama's statement that some people "cling to guns or religion..." If he said it and nobody cared, it would not be relevant to him or the campaign, and would not belong in Wikipedia. Lots of people say that sort of thing everyday. If he said it and nobody but Rush Limbaugh jumped on it, it wouldn't belong either. Limbaugh doesn't have a free pass for everything he says to get put into Wikipedia as a "controversy." Or the Huffington Post, where the comments first appeared. Things don't get in the encyclopedia any faster because a liberal reports them. What gets that into Wikipedia is that a lot of people took issue with it and it started a debate. How do we know? Not by reading the debate - that's original research. We have to source the claim, like all claims, with a reliable source. In the guns-and-religion case there are lots of reliable sources to say this was a real debacle for Obama and an issue notable to the campaign. For example, the Washington post says in this article that a "controversy erupted just as Obama has appeared to gain ground on Clinton in Pennsylvania", and devotes an entire article not to the comments themselves but the controversy. Is there any coverage that says what came of Waters' remarks? Wikidemo (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points - and a civil tone too - thanks! So according to what you've said, it seems the rule is that some form of the word "controversy" needs to be in the reliable source's article for it to go into a controversy section? (ETA:Where is this rule documented?) The 1992 and "most corrupt" sources don't have that word in them. Can you comment on why the 1992 and "most corrupt" sections are controversies and then once we've settled the difference between the 1992, the "most corrupt", and the socializing controversies, we can decide what to do. Thanks again. Rcronk (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought her statements on nationalizing oil was a notable enough position to be on this page. An attempt to nationalize any industry in the USA would be highly controversial so I figured it belonged in the controversy section.SolarWind (talk)

I agree. ETA:And let's not make edits to this section until we get this resolved. Rcronk (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thinking that it is controversial, and showing that there is truly a controversy, are two different things though - the first being original research / opinion. On the other hand some things are so obvious they really don't need a source. Where I would draw the line is that if she repeats her comments and she really does have a platform of nationalizing an industry, that's a notable / relevant fact about her politics and belongs in the article. Notable as in, anyone who wants to know who she is and what she stands for would consider it an important piece of information (that's just my own reasoning, not an attempt to state any policy). Maybe under a "platforms" or policies section, not even as a controversy. On the other hand if she just flew off at the handle or misspoke because she was upset with the witness, it's just not that important...it would only *become* important if some reliable sources start the incident as a controversy. I won't edit the main page either way though, better to discuss. Interesting stuff. Wikidemo (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a subsequent post in this section talking about how afterward, she confirmed and restated the same position, which would qualify as a non-flew-off-the-handle comment. That addition was edited back out as we've been discussing this. I propose we re-add the subsequent comment where Waters reiterates and reconfirms her same position (with a source, of course) to make sure it is known that this is her true position and not just a "fly-off-the-handle" comment. I would also reiterate and agree that to me, as a citizen of the U.S., nationalizing (or socializing) any industry (especially one as big as oil) in the U.S. would be a controversial comment with much debate and argument on both sides of such a comment. Again, the "1992" and "most corrupt" subsections don't have any form of the word "controversy" in their sources either, so I'm not sure that having a form of the word "controversy" in the source is a real requirement. The proposal is now out there, what say ye? Rcronk (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what the heck is going on here? We have agreed to discuss and come to a conclusion before getting into another revert war. Not only did a rewrite of the "socializing" section occur, but the reference was deleted as well. Let's have some respect. I will wait for discussion here for one or two days and if nothing else is said, I'm going to revert it back to what it said when I proposed the change above and we can continue from there. Rcronk (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See the edit history[4] and the discussion below. The editor who started changing things not a party to the discussion and can't reasonably be bound to it. However, the changes were improper as I described below. The Fox News reference is okay but the youtube one is a copyvio. Per guidelines the incident and/or Waters' position on the oil industry should be summarized, not put on the page in the form of a transcript. That's all. Wikidemo (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo - I just figured since you were part of this discussion that you'd put forth your proposal here before making more changes. The Foxnews reference was deleted by you. I have re-added it. The point of quoting her statements had to do with the use of the word "socializing" and so I think that word should be used in the summary paragraph. Rcronk (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. I was responding to what looked like an improper addition (the copyvio and the pauses noted in the transcript) and thought I'd improve things in the meanwhile. You've convinced me that it's appropriate to mention. I don't mind if there's some quote of a phrase or sentence, just not a long one. My main thing is that I don't like long quotations, reprints, transcripts, etc., and I think our style guidelines suggest we avoid them. A link to a video would be fine, just not a copyrighted video from a news source. We still ought to have some link, source, or material that suggests that wanting to nationalize industries is a real position or at least repeated issue with her, beyond just a random outburst. Wikidemo (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll come up with a very short quote from her key sentence that will express what she said without it being a full transcript. I will also dig around again for reliable sources that establish this stance more fully. Thanks again for working through this in a civil manner. Rcronk (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

socializing oil

Not long ago I condensed this raw transcript of congressional testimony, with edit summary "per weight, PSTS, copyvio, etc., summarize isue and remove link rather than include transcript)."[5] A brand new, WP:SPA (so far) editor who had earlier modified the section[6] reverted my changes without comment[7] and I restored, inviting the user to the talk page. The weight problem is that a in a bio of a famous congresswoman, a single brief exchange occurring in subcommittee testimony does not deserve an extended treatment that amounts to about 1/8 to 1/6 of the entire article, particularly when there's no reliable sourcing to suggest that this is a significant controversy or event, or has come to define her career. It's simply an example of her being outspoken and liberal. The "controvery" section already takes up the majority of article content. The PSTS issue is that quoting the transcript, without context or summary, is merely repeating a primary source. An encyclopedia reports the state of knowledge in the world; it is not not a repository of raw content. So quoting transcripts at any length is unencyclopedic. The copyvio is the link to a youtube video of a Fox News broadcast. There's no indication that Fox News licensed the content to Youtube, and they probably did not. I'm not sure whether a transcript itself is copyrightable but adding the "pause" notations may be, and in any event is somewhere between a BLP issue and simply unencyclopedic. People pause and make random errors when they speak. Very few people note that in a transcript, and it is often done to make people look bad or slant things. There may or may not be a style guideline on this point, but it is far more encyclopedic when quoting people to quote the unadorned, completed version of what they say than to try to convey their manner of speech. Wikidemo (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether the controversy section outweighs the remainder of the biographical information or not is not relevant to the merit of including comments made during a televised subcommittee hearing undertaken in the United States House of Representatives. An "outburst" from any member of the House of Representatives is, by definition, controversial. Furthermore, the fact that the member openly stated a future intent to "socialize" one of the largest industries in the United States is, in and of itself, controversial. The fact that few mainstream press outlets or news organizations have elected to reproduce the controversial statements sufficiently to generate what, in your view, would be adequate editorializing to constitute full blown political blow-back speaks not to the degree to which her comments raise the hackles of mainstream Americans but, rather, to the extent to which this particular member's track record has already established that nothing the member says, regardless of how outrageous, is capable at this point of generating editorial scrutiny of any kind. In short, she isn't taken seriously by any "reliable sources" at all. To tie this all up neatly, that is precisely why the controversy section outweighs the rest of her biographical outline: she is noteworthy precisely and merely because of what little controversy she has managed, and manages, to stir up; and she is a US Congresswoman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtraywi (talk • contribs) 03:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, weight is a signifigant issue in articles - see WP:WEIGHT. I disagree that every televised argument is inherently controversial or notable - if that were the case we might as well just import the congressional record. But anyway, we cover controversies (if notable/relevant and reliably sourced). We do not simply cover the controversial. If her notability is for a track record of outrageous statements and nobody listens to her anyway, then (1) each statement by itself is not notable, and (2) certainly there is a reliable source to establish that she is outspoken and controversial, and we can cite that for the proposition. Wikidemo (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This may be a lost cause, but will those who are blanking this section please take the time to read this? I objected in the past to the material but it's pretty clear that Waters did say it, and repeated it or defended it later. It could probably use some more sourcing than a Fox News video to show that it's a real position of hers and not just a careless remark (in which case we should be reporting on her as someone who makes careless remarks, not someone who wants to nationalize the oil industry). So it could use some more sourcing... but I don't think it should be deleted. If you do, could you please state your reasons rather than just deleting sourced content that has broad-based support for inclusion? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - thanks for restating it. Rcronk (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this is a "controversy." It is a policy statement she made. Just because you (or other people) may disagree with it, does not make it a "controversy." FCYTravis (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We have decided in this discussion that this is a controversial policy position. I have added a few more references to make this more clear. Please make your case here that it is not before modifying this section again. Rcronk (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, "we" have decided nothing. She made a policy statement. It may be a "controversial" policy statement, but that does not make it a "controversy." Your citing of a single right-wing attack rag (WorldNutDaily) is unconvincing, to say the least. I note that you have only made one edit outside Maxine Waters in the last month - this seems to me to make you dangerously close to a single-purpose account devoted to making Waters appear in the most negative possible light.

Any "policy position" can be construed as "controversial" because anything any politician says will draw opposition. We do not list every single position a politician has taken as a "controversy." We list them as what they are - policy positions. See George W. Bush - there isn't a "Controversy" section filled with... well, everything from the Iraq War to the PATRIOT Act and Gitmo. Instead, there are sections for domestic and foreign policy. FCYTravis (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The "we" I referred to is the group of people discussing this issue here on the talk page before you got here. Currently, more people in this discussion agree that this belongs in the controversy section than don't. Controversy occurs between people of differing opinions, so of course the controversy in this case is going to come from "right wing" sources - those who argue against socialist positions expressed here by Waters. I added two sources, not just one - I can add more. Are WorldNetDaily and Colfax Record not sources that can be used on Wikipedia? Yes, we don't just put any policy position she has in the controversy section, but as has been mentioned earlier in this discussion, the nationalization of the largest industry in the U.S. is far more controversial than most policy positions. I think it also drew a lot more attention because she used the word "socializing" (by accident) when socialism and communism have had very controversial pasts in the U.S. Please discuss this here until we all have come to a conclusion before reverting yet again? I will put it back to what has already been agreed upon and once we've reached a conclusion, we can change it if necessary. Thanks. P.S. As for this being a single purpose account, I really only made one edit to Maxine Waters, and that was to add this controversial issue - every other edit has been me reverting and discussing this issue. I have made many edits to many kinds of articles with this account so please stop the ad hominem attacks. Rcronk (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Waters' remark about socializing the oil industry should not be considered particularly controversial, but rather a policy position, albeit a bit one farther afield than others. I agree that the use of "socializing" (i.e., nationalizing) vis a vis socialism is hanging us up right now. And yes, one could similarly list nearly every decision/statement/action taken by President Bush in the lead up to and pursuit of the war as "controversial" based on the criteria mentioned. --Patchyreynolds (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "Controversy" sections in BLPs are usually the result of shoddy editing to begin with. Her position on the energy industry is certainly worthy of inclusion, but should be within a section on policy positions. If there's well-sourced controversy surrounding the position, that too can be included in the policy position section. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel very strongly but I would tend to agree that a policy position that happens to create a controversy is best treated in a policy section. The article is relatively short. This would be a bigger organizational issue, but probably more obvious to to sort out, if we were dealing with 20 policies + 20 controversies. Regarding "socializing" or "nationalizing" is it clear whether she actually means a government take-over in terms of ownership, or simply heavy regulation? One problem with taking it seriously as a policy (editorializing here) is that I'm not sure she herself would have a clear position on that if pressed...it seems to be rhetoric and it's never going to happen. Wikidemo (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I give up. I have just been warned (with a "cheers" on the end :) by Sarcasticidealist that if I revert anything in this section again, I'll be in violation of the 3 revert rule (I don't know if others who have done the same have also been warned or not). I have just been trying to keep the section unchanged until we reach another consensus. We ALREADY reached a consensus and everything was resolved and then others have come along and edited and move it around and I have invited them to come discuss the issue instead of continually editing it, and now that it's in a state that these people want it, without consensus, I have been warned not to edit it again. This issue is not important in and of itself to me, I'm only driven by wanting to work through disagreement the right way through discussion instead of the above people continuously reverting my edits before discussing things here. If I'm being warned, I must have done something wrong - how should I have done this instead? Rcronk (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't give up! Yes, it's a good idea to avoid a 3RR violation, or any sort of edit warring, however much you're convinced of your own position....except in the case of obvious vandalism, obvious BLP violations, copyright violations, personal attacks and the like, and even there it's best to wait for other attentive editors or administrators (that's a combination of policy and experience, not an exact rule). When a whole group of people start edit warring on one side or another they all need to step back or the article gets protected. You're right that this is a minor issue, definitely not worth raising anyone's blood pressure. I mean, oil prices and socialism, yes. But not the exact wording of things here on this page. Sometimes you have to live with the fact that "the wrong version" is the one you've left on the page....then you can say something like "I think the revert was improper and it should be set back, but I don't want to edit war" and people will respect that. I sometimes warn people, on my side and the other side alike, that they're getting close to a 3RR violation. And if they're obviously good faith editors, it's best to do it in a collegial way. I think Sarcasticidealist was very courteous about the "friendly reminder". Cheers (X2), Wikidemo (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm just frustrated that I'm trying to resolve disagreements through consensus and discussion and after all that effort, someone who wasn't involved in the effort and discussion, throws it all away and when I put it back and invite them to discuss it, they keep doing it and then I get a warning. Also, what's the normal way this kind of thing is prevented - i.e. effort is put in to getting consensus and someone else comes along a week later and reverts it and pretends to have as much voice as the group who came to a consensus. There must be a better way - and you've alluded to it in your reply - just commenting on the discussion page rather than reverting - but what if the person doesn't know there's even a discussion going on and never checks the discussion page. I know this is how things go here, but there must be a better way. Rcronk (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it didn't feel (from my perspective, at least) that an honest attempt to engage discussion through consensus occurred in all this. (And I agree with Wikidemo that this appears to be a too-big debate about a fairly off-the-cuff remark.) One unsigned editor (later identified as Detraywi) asserted that it was controversial. Much of the following discussion occurred around the topic of the weight of the controversy section, a separate topic from whether Rep. Waters statement was actually a controversy. (Wikidemo argued that mention of it should remain asked for a cessation of quick deletes, but did not engage the question about controversy vs. non-controversy.) When FCYTravis asserted it was not a controversy--only the second actual address of this matter--Rcronk told that editor that "we have decided that it is a 'controversy,'" a summation I'm hard pressed to support from the preceding argument. Mostly, I don't know that we're particularly well served by the tone of "We decided this before you got here." As to the combination of a warning with a friendly "cheers," well, SarcasticIdealist was delightfully up front about those proclivities when choosing a name. --Patchyreynolds (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually thought the "cheers" was funny. I understand that people (myself included) make edits before checking the talk page - I'm ok with that. I just wish that after I had changed it back and invited these people into the discussion, they reverted it right back. A lot of conversation about the "oil" issue occurred above the "oil" title here - up in the controversy section. I'm done with the issue what I really want to know now is how could I have acted in a more proper way? One thing wikidemo suggested was to invite into discussion without undoing the revert - I guess that could be done on the person's talk page? Help me understand a better way to work through such issues. Thanks in advance. Rcronk (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "cheers", there was no sarcasm intended - I wasn't trying to say "You're misbehaving, and you'll be blocked if you keep it up." I was trying to say "There's a rule that you may or may not be aware of, and that you're in danger of breaking, so I wanted to make sure that you were aware of it." I really hate seeing people blocked for 3RR when they didn't even know about the rule, so if there's any doubt I try to warn people before they break it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stone 10 Top Worst Congressfolk =

Not sure who got this idea and from where they got it, but she isn't on that particular list: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12054520/the_10_worst_congressmen --Revaaron

Aside from William Jefferson (La.), all of the members of the list were Republicans. 76.21.8.213 (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What does political party have to do with anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.223.221.106 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reveals an all-too-obvious (not to say predictable) bias on the part of Rolling Stone Magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How could there be a "worst ten" list without Sheila Jackson Lee? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.0.187 (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Waters and international matters

Rep. Waters has been very vocal and somewhat legislatively active in regard to international matters (e.g., the U.S. embargo of Cuba, divestment in 1980s South Africa, genocide in Darfur, AIDS work in Africa, etc.). Anyone with some chops in these areas want to work up a section? It might even grow to include some of the Iraq/Pakistan/Turkey/Iran connections for which she's arguing. --Patchyreynolds (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Maxine is a bit of a mud thrower international issues and doesn't push forward legislation in a meaningful way. If it involves contracts to minority businesses on the other hand she is in the cookie jar asking for special treatment. --[User:christopherwhull|ChristopherWHull] Christopherwhull (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

One global/financial issue is the role of the so-called "vulture funds" in the over-all problem or emerging nation indebtedness. Waters has taken a very clear stand on this, right or wrong (I think her wrong, but nobody needs to care what I think) and it should be covered here. --Christofurio (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Cardozo donation

I'm eliminating the Cardozo donation section for a few reasons. First, far from being a notable "controversy"--the reason for this section--the small Cardozo donation has stirred up almost no public comment by anyone except for a couple of one-line mentions in larger stories by partisan Haitian groups. Second, a single $500 contribution in a multi-million dollar congressional race is not a particularly groundbreaking sum. Third, the two provided cites were not particularly helpful. One, from an activist reporter, referred to the former Haitian ruler as "hell-sent" in its headline, not a notably objective source. The second was a broken link. --Vaudedoc (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to L.A. riots and confrontation with Obey on earmarks

Should both be restored (although the latter needed some trimming and tightening). These were notable events that were covered on in reliable sources. Drmies main objection to the L.A. riots comments seems to be that he disagrees with her description. But he's welcome to blog his own views on the events that took place in L.A. as he sees fit. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• BS. I have no quarrel with her description or anyone else's, and it would behoove you to assume a bit of good faith. And please don't use sexist language. You still seem unable to grasp the point that her remark on a notable event was itself not a notable event. I made remarks on the riots too, and those aren't notable either. Where was the controversy over her remark? where was the outcry? where's the secondary coverage? And why did you put it in her "Political career"? Can you prove that her remark was notable in her political career? (Don't answer--it's a rhetorical question.)

  One more example of you playing fast and loose with facts and sources, and of being unable to distinguish between "is known for" and "I think that etc.": in this edit you add "Waters is known for being outspoken" to the factual statement that she was called out for making inappropriate remarks. The source, C-SPAN, says nothing of the kind. User:Anthonyhcole rightly removed that section with some to the point commentary, and what was that section? A rather trivial outburst larded with your personal observation that "she is known for being outspoken." BTW, I'm not denying that she is known for being outspoken, but I wouldn't put such a claim in the article unless I could prove it, and I certainly wouldn't conjure it up from a C-SPAN summary.

  As long as you are can't grasp the crucial difference between a (notable) event and a remark thereon, as long as you violate WP:UNDUE (and I'm not the only one who has pointed this out to you, [8] and [9]), perhaps you should stay away from contentious articles involving living people. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have no quarrel with her description then why do you say it is "obviously intended to incriminate the subject"? You seem awfully confused.

First of all, I came to this article and found that it needed a lot of fixing up. I brought it to Jimbo's attention on his talk page, and after another editor suggested it was okay the way it was I attempted to fix it up myself. I integrated notable bits, trimmed others, and repeatedly suggested an expansion of her career and life's work with reliable sources.

Removing appropriate context and content, like that she is outspoken, isn't helpful. If you want a citation you should should add the tag or find one yourself. You seem to have a lot of complaints but have so far been unwilling to do any of the heavy lifting.

I'm glad to see that you're now willing to work in her comments on the L.A. riots. Numerous sources cover that issue, although archives are generally not free. Here's a New York Times story [10] that says "Mrs. Waters seemed to be all over the airwaves, acting as a voice of the disenfranchised after the unrest broke out. She scared some people and angered others by focusing on justifying rather than condemning the violent reaction to the verdict." the New York Post had a less approving tone in its coverage of her comments [11].

I have no idea what you're talking about with your allegations of sexist language. Are you a woman? If so I apologize for referring to you as a he. Based on your belligerence I assumed you were suffering from an oversupply of testosterone. As I noted to you previously on your talkpage (in a comment offering you the stage to implement your changes and offering my help) the section on the riots needs to be reworked so it isn't full of redundancies and uses proper grammar.  Done

Which section of the article would you put her comments and work in other than the career section?

I propose splitting her career into early and late sections and expanding it appropriately. Maybe you can help? Do you know how to find sources? Freakshownerd (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If you remember, I also stated on Jimbo's page that I thought the section on the riots should be removed, as it isn't really all that important. Silverseren^C 18:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

position on Big Oil

I have removed this again. I have a number of concerns.

1. You tube is not a reliable source
2. No doubt she said these things, but unless the text explains why they are a significant part of a her biography (and it doesn't). All we've got is a quote of something she said apparently randomly chosen by Wikipedians. That breaches NPOV and WP:UNDUE. If this section is restored, it can only be on the grounds that her remarks have an objective significance above the doubtless hundreds of other policy remarks she's made. If that can be done fairly, I suggest someone write a suggestion on the talk page, that we can discuss.
3. When prejudicial material is removed, it is not reinstated without consensus. I see none as yet.

I'm neutral on whether this incident/remark should be included, but those who think it should be need to do more work to convince us.--Scott Mac 09:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I (lazily) didn't follow any of those citations. Certainly Youtube is not an appropriate source. I believe it is important to include her position on who's boss: The People or Big Oil. First, it is a radical and ballsy stance. Second it is the right stance from my POV. Third, it puts the "porker" appellation from the Big-Oil-funded shill into context. I understand this particular quote isn't appropriate if a reliable, copyright-compliant source can't be found. But the section on her policy positions needs to show she's willing to stare down Big Oil. The Tea Party folk won't like it but, so what? Anthony (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, please can you leave your POV at the door. The fact that you see it as "ballsy" or "right" isn't relevant. The question is do the sources suggest that this utterance is particularly significant to the reader who is trying to get a fair and balanced view of Waters. We don't do "Wikipedians' favourite quotes". You'll need to show strong secondary sourcing showing this is important - and some text indicating this to the reader by showing some particular impact of the remarks she made (and not just the importance of the issue in general).--Scott Mac 10:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, Scott. I thought that if she was on the record (WP:RS of course), with that stance, it belonged in the policy position section. I'm probably assuming things about Americans. But I'm not that interested. It's your article. Write what you think is important – you'd have a much better grasp of that than me. Good luck! P.S. I mentioned that I thought it was "right", not as an argument for inclusion, but because you called the segment "prejudicial", which I think is very weird. I was making the point that calling it "prejudicial" betrays an odd point of view. Probably an American thing. Cheerio! Anthony (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not American and have no dog in this fight. If I'm wrong about "prejudicial", it just shows how little I know about the subject. Nevertheless, nothing in the section explained its significance, or evidenced any particularly notable impact. It may well be that the remarks should be included, but without such an explanation, there certainly don't.--Scott Mac 11:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Three things, Scott Mac. First, you know full well that YouTube was not the only source for this. When you raised this concern previously, striking her quote for this reason alone, I went back through Congressional Record and [the transcript of her remark]. Then you again [cut it for a new reason. So let's not pretend we've not provided unassailable references before that you've reverted, though as I've previously pointed out, [you tend not to provide text so much as you revert it]. Second, yes, Anthony is correct in that your finding a simple policy statement "prejudicial" betrays that you feel Rep. Waters' position has some intrinsic semantic weight, that others may share this judgment, and that you find this position potentially injurious to her reputation. In other words, you fear that Rep Waters' words may do her reputation some harm. Others, however, could well argue that a national take-over of petroleum production, particularly in light of the BP spill, might have salubrious effects. There is a great deal more room for reasoned and widespread adoption of different views than would be true had she, say, used a [a racial slur]. Speak the verifiable facts and let the reader develop her own opinion. Finally, I believe you're misreading WP:UNDUE. Nowhere does the policy state that a gross weight of secondary sources find an utterance notable, only that such statements not come to be "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic...." Two sentences is hardly overwhelming Rep. Waters' entry. They do, however, provide relevant information to the reader. Toward precisely what view are you concerned about this reader being "prejudiced?" What we do clearly need to do, however, is integrate them better into a more cohesively written article. The piece reads like ass right now because 1) many editors, often those opposed to Rep. Waters, I think, frequently cruised by to drop little chunks into her article, giving it it's previous appearance as an assemblage of big non-integrated blocks; and then 2) other editors, rather than taking the time to generate readable encyclopedic prose, simply cut, sliced, diced, and pasted until the entry has strange snippets of former block sections floating around in the body. It reads like crap right now because it's easier, and fr some more satisfying, to skip around dozens of articles reverting (as addition or subtraction) than to write. Eventually someone has to actually build the wall, not just inspect bricks.ThtrWrtr (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. First of all, I don't have an opinion on the content. I may have been wrong in calling it prejudicial, so can we leave that out. There's no doubt she made these remarks and they can be sourced. But, I'm guessing she's made thousands of political statements - all of which can be sourced. What you need is some indication why this issue is particularly important to an understanding of Waters, and (using sourced statements) tell the reader why. Otherwise all you have is a quote that some Wikipedians found interesting.--Scott Mac 12:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I just typed "Maxine Waters " into Google and the suggested searches that appeared below the box were:

1. school
2. employment preparation center
3. socialism
4. nationalize oil
5. quotes
6. wiki
7. socialize
8. comcast
9. socializing
10. youtube

It is the 2nd and 3rd YouTube result when you search for "Maxine Waters." But it looks like it didn't get picked up by any newspapers, so I'm sure that fails WP:BLP. Shame. It's pretty important context. Maybe it'll get discussed in the papers in the lead-up to her hearing. Anthony (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It is only "pretty important context" if the sources make it such, if they don't it isn't (even if we think it should be). We are not journalists.--Scott Mac 13:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We do need more than statements from Waters herself (whether on YouTube, the congressional record, or somewhere else) to establish that the comments are noteworthy, put them in context, and explain them. The sources should be more than political opinion pieces, or various Fox News attack pages masquerading as news. As I argued above, we'll probably find two things if we can find such sources: (1) nobody seriously reviewing this, and probably not Waters, takes her comments to be a serious policy proposal for the government to take over the oil industry; (2) she is simply engaging in confrontational rhetoric, of a sort that may be a recurring thing for her - if it is then a source should say that about her political tactics, in which case this is not particularly about oil; if this is a one time flare-up then without more it is not a significant enough part of her biography to include; (3) there was probably no bona fide controversy here, in the sense of two parties arguing two sides of an issue. Most of those google hits are going to be from conservative blogs and pundits, which establishes only that it is a creature of that microcosm. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't know about any of that. But no way does it pass WP:BLP, and if anybody puts it back I'll revert it. Anthony (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Expect more controversy on this page.

If she takes over Barney Franks' old position on Finance. Alatari (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Assata Shakur

Funny there's no mention of Rep. Waters' support for convicted cop killer Assata Shakur? Rep. Waters has time and time again fought extradition of Shakur (who has been labeled a terrorist by the F.B.I.) from Cuba. No mention of this on her Wikipedia article? Odd. 70.146.66.123 (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2008

WP:BOLD Be bold and add it yourself, as long as you have reliable references. I noticed that quotes she made during the L.A. riots were missing and added them the other day. So feel free to do it yourself. I also find it 'odd' that more criticism isn't found in this article, considering how controversial she has been.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Shakur is in Cuba, and Waters has also pressed for the US to extradite mass-murderer and narcoterrorist Luis Posada Carriles to Cuba where many of his victims were from -- short of extraditing him, the US isn't in much of a position to demand the extradition of Shakur (whose trial was very shady anyhow -- the NJ state police, filled with racists at the time, was out for blood). I'm just saying, opposing Shakur's extradition in this context hardly amounts to "support for a convicted cop killer" so to the original poster, please don't taint the article with such bias. 68.193.166.17 (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfair bias in article's lead paragraph

In the opening paragraph of this article, we're informed that Waters is "listed among the Congress's most corrupt members." I followed the link and took a look at the site of the group (called CREW) that makes this claim. If you follow the link to CREW, you'll see numerous other Congress people listed (mostly Republicans, by the way). The interesting thing is, if you look at the Wikipedia articles for these other Congress members, the CREW "corruption" claim is either not mentioned at all, or is buried very deep in the article. The Wikipedia article on Darrell Issa, for example, doesn't even appear to mention the CREW corruption allegation (much less play it up in the article's lead paragraph). By contrast, it's in the OPENING paragraph in the Waters Wikipedia article. I'm just curious: does the GOP own Wikipedia these days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.119.173 (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Just changed this—moved CREW accusation down to the section on ethics violations. groupuscule (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

CIA and crack =

Care for the truth. You will defend your idelogical side, regardless...All I do is try. http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/13285-nicaragua-leader-made-deal-with-pablo-escobar-us-diplomat.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martola (talk • contribs) 05:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the fuller section on Rep. Waters involvement in the alleged CIA-crack epidemic discussion. The fuller quotes importantly make it clear that Rep. Waters involvement came about partly through her concern about mandatory minimums and their effect upon inner-city communities. As well. the congressperson's pursuit of the matter past the date at which the department of justice had formally closed its own investigation certainly speak to Rep. Waters's diligence and/or doggedness, an important aspect of one's public service. The newer edits so truncated the piece that making sense of either it or her involvement proved difficult. Finally, The Los Angeles Times conclusion was no more "argumentative" than the original San Jose Mercury reportage, but was instead an evaluation of the material that, by the congressperson's own attribution, had first led Rep. Water's to formally enter the issue. As such, an independent journalistic evaluation of the original series of articles is germane to Rep. Waters own subsequent involvement. --Patchyreynolds (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting. Please see WP:BRD. When you insert controversial information that is reverted, you're expected to justify it rather than edit war. Definitely a weight problem. The "Controversies" section is 75-80% of all the material here. This is the longest one by far, with way too much detail that doesn't actually add anything. I'll go down each edit one by one.

• heading - it's an allegation of CIA complicity, not a "question"
• "wondered if" - that's an editorial comment, no source to say she was wondering or not. Uncencyclopedic tone. She simply made the allegation.
• "portions of this country may have been exposed, indeed introduced, to the horror of crack cocaine because certain" - that Water quote is a rhetorical flourish that adds nothing to the article. In general we summarize quotes. Again, she simply made the allegation. This is the flowery language that she apparently used in one utterance of that allegation. Nothing encyclopedic about it, and it adds length unnecessrily
• "Expressing a concern for the"....again, editorializing. Tone, etc. She simply said it.
• "thousands of young men being sent to jail for five, ten, twenty years, with no hope of parole or another chance," - same as above, rhetorical quote, no encyclopedic content
• "Waters called for "as much information" as the Department of Justice would be willing to give her on "this seedy enterprise." - similar issues to above. DOJ willingness to give isn't the issue, nor is calling for information. She simply asked for an investigation. Simple.
• "Following its own investigation into the Mercury's assertions," The Los Angeles Times stated that" -- too wordy. The LA times investigated the claims independently, and...
• "the available evidence, based on an extensive review of court documents and more than 100 interviews in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington and Managua, fails to support any of those allegations." - irrelevant to Waters' biography, self-serving praise of its own journalistic effort by LA times is not correctly sourced. It's fair enough to call it an "extensive" investigation.
• [http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9712/ch01p1.htm] - you restored a weak reference format too here. In addition to reverting I'm also making all of these into footnote references. They should use the "cite" or some similar format.
• "Ultimately, the Department of Justice failed to find any evidence to support the Mercury's original piece." - that's assuming. We don't know what the DOJ found. All we know is that they announced they had investigated and found no support.

I'm also thinking we should take out the part about the journalist being fired and committing suicide. What does that have to do with Maxine Waters? If this is a notable issue it may deserve its own article. It may have one already. Have you looked? If so it should be linked here. Wikidemo (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts and work on this. I agree with some of your edits (particularly regarding compactness of my own language), but must take issue with others. First, the language used by Rep. Waters (e.g., referring to the alleged CIA-crack connection as "a seedy enterprise") is quite germane to an encyclopedic understanding of Rep. Waters, her opinions, and a rhetorical style that also helps limn the figure the article seeks to address. It adds to our understanding of Winston Churchill, for example, to have the subject's own wording to "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, sweat, and tears," rather than the more explicit but less historically evocative "Churchill promised effort and sacrifice." The former increases our understanding of Churchill, the latter diminishes it. The fact that Rep. Waters frames the crack epidemic as a "horror" that might have been "introduced" to the community by outsiders gives us a better understanding of her own involvement and opinion when one reflects that she did not instead discuss "the challenges" of crack as something that "grew up within" her district. The former rhetorically impugns an outside force--rather her point--while the latter does not. Her language, while perhaps a bit more flowery than your own tastes for strictly relating events and data, therefore is important and deserving of mention, no less so than President Bush's "axis of evil" or "wanted: dead or alive." As well, much of what you excised lays out Rep. Water's public motives for her efforts. Throughout the letter she raises the issue of incarcerated, young (primarily African American) men as a galvanizing concern. This says something far different about her call for information than if she had mentioned dismay about mothers who had already buried one child too many. The reader of the previous incarnation of the article, provided with Rep. Waters' brief but illustrative quote, might have investigated other issues about mandatory minimums, California's "three strikes" law, the average age of third-time offenders, etc. This is impossible when you remove the stated motive behind her actions. Next, much of what you reverted was intentional and accurate. I attributed "expressing concern" to Rep. Waters in beginning a sentence because within the body of her letter she wrote, "You know I am deeply concerned about this problem;" "I am writing on an issue of utmost concern to me....;" and "The information contained in the newspaper articles ... raises concerns on many different levels." The aforementioned independent clause was thus accurate, not editorial. Similarly, the congressperson's own stated "keen desire to get answers" (her letter) was fairly (if, in retrospect, too weakly) represented by my use of "wondering." In your otherwise laudable desire to hew text down to digestible length, I believe, you appear to eliminate important information. Finally, Rep. Waters did not level an allegation in her letter to the DOJ, something you repeat several times in your preceding post. She did, in fact, scrupulously avoid providing anything that might be used as an incendiary, accusatory pull-quote by political opponents, particularly, one imagines, because no formal investigation had yet been completed. Webb, the original reporter, and the San Jose Mercury made "allegations;" Rep. Waters asked for information about those allegations. Other than that, thanks for putting your meticulous editor's eye on some less accurate phrasing. Yes, what a governmental agency "found" and what it "announced it found" are, as we have learned of late, often radically different things. And yup, the suicide of the reporter should go. But I'm leaning toward restoring much of the rest tomorrow. As a former chairperson of the CBC she's an important figure about which to have a fuller understanding. Thoughts? --Patchyreynolds (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, published in 2004, Perkins says, ""U.S. interests" does not equal CIA; it is a common error to conflate the two (as Maxine Waters did with the crack cocaine scandal in Los Angeles.)" This is the value of accountability. Anarchangel (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Big Oil

I've restored this section because it clearly depicts her stance vis a vis the oil companies. Only in America is socialize a dirty word. Does it really need 5 references? Anthony (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The world has awakened to the realities of socialism. Your own personal opinion about socialism does not equate to fact.Bjoh249 (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Maxine Waters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090301092115/http://www.house.gov:80/waters/bio/ to http://www.house.gov/waters/bio/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509093009/http://www.c-span.org/questions/week155.asp to http://www.c-span.org/questions/week155.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090623023939/http://www.cagw.org:80/site/PageServer?pagename=news_porkerofthemonth_2009_June to http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_porkerofthemonth_2009_June

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Maxine Waters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119131742/http://pacifica.org/programs/dn/040315.html to http://www.pacifica.org/programs/dn/040315.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040910214409/http://www.csun.edu/coms/ben/news/cia/7May98/waters2.html to http://www.csun.edu/coms/ben/news/cia/7May98/waters2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080531123531/http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/ca35_waters/FS071022_iraqwar.html to http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/ca35_waters/FS071022_iraqwar.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080531123707/http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/ca35_waters/FS071106_iraq.html to http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/ca35_waters/FS071106_iraq.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Maxine Waters and Russian pranksters

Pranksters seek US congresswoman’s support amid ‘Russian hacking’ of elections in fictitious land. No comment. — Fobemipa (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

RT is just about as reliable a source as the Daily Mail. No indication that that was actually Waters on the phone call, and it is too trivial to include anyhow. Vovan and Lexus do have articles on the Russian wiki though: Вован and Лексус. gobonobo ^{+ c} 02:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a media reliability rating or is it just your opinion? I've noticed – to my surprise, I must admit – that RT's popularity in the US and UK has been growing recently. Here's an article in a major Russian media outlet stating that it was Maxine who the pranksters talked to. I thought the fact that the US Representative didn't ascertain whether she was really talking to the Ukrainian prime minister is somewhat telling. But maybe you're right and it's too trivial. – Fobemipa (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Ethics charges and trial

I'm restoring a brief mention of Rep. Waters being charged by the House ethics committee for violating the House's ethic rules to the lead. I've provided sources for this notation now. (Thanks to the previous editor for reminding me of this.) Such brief mention of an important (albeit ongoing) part of her career mention is, I think, well weighted within WP:UNDUE call that such mentions be proportionate "to their overall significance to the article topic." The lead for Sen. David Vitter's entry, for example, contains a brief mention of his having been implicated in use of a prostitute; former Rep. Dan Rostenkowski's entry contains a sentence noting his mail fraud; and in a closely related example from ongoing news, Rep. Charlie Rangel's WP entry contains mention of his own current ethics charges in it's lead. As with my restoration to the Waters entry, all of these notations are brief, sourced, and contained in the article lead. Can anyone make an argument why structure and style for these other American politicians should not apply to Rep. Waters? Why her seniority amongst African American female Representatives--currently mentioned in the lead--is more noteworthy than her ethics charges? Certainly, the Rangel example demonstrates that one of the chief merits of a wiki encyclopedia is its ability to judiciously integrate significant current events into an article's body and lead. ThtrWrtr 22:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchyreynolds (talk • contribs)

• In looking for some sources to flesh out the article, I saw that her grandson was mentioned in relation to the OneUnited Bank issues. This might be something worth noting as it seems significant and relates to the accusations of nepotism leveled against her. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The ethics section lists the House Ethics Committee as being "Democratic-controlled" but the source does not indicate the makeup of the committee. The House Ethics Committee is typically 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Ethics Other reports at the time indicate that the decision came from the Republican chairman and Democratic ranking member: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/09/report-details-waters-ethics-case-debacle-081665 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.253.10 (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Maxine Waters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717121528/http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20040321/news/news3.html to http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20040321/news/news3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101009212702/http://maxinewaters.org/ to http://maxinewaters.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060325001405/http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/93_columns/051693.htm to http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/93_columns/051693.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060529180544/http://www.topblacks.com/government/maxine-waters.htm to http://www.topblacks.com/government/maxine-waters.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.streetgangs.com/magazine/maxinewaters011803int.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060220200359/http://www.sfbayview.com/101905/haitiregime101905.shtml to http://www.sfbayview.com/101905/haitiregime101905.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060624101059/http://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/waters.php to http://www.beyonddelay.org/summaries/waters.php

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of President Bush

In July 1992, Waters called President George W. Bush "a racist" who has "polarized the races in this country." Previously, Waters has suggested that Bush has used race to advance his policies. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

proposed new content that was somehow missed in 1992. seems fitting, considering the recent cataloging of Criticism of President Trump... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of President Obama

In August 2011, Waters criticized Obama for not supporting the black constituency in America stating, the unemployment rate "is unconscionable." The unemployment rate for African-Americans in July 2011 was 15.9 percent, which she indicated was the highest since the Great Depression. Waters also stated that black Democrats in Congress don’t criticize Obama due to fear of a backlash from their constituents and that they “love” Obama. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

proposed new content that was somehow missed in 2011. seems fitting, considering the recent cataloging of Criticism of President Trump... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

because "y'all love the president". Let us eat lettuce (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2017

I am writing about the line that says: "In regards to the looting of Korean-owned stores by local black residents, she said: “There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes ... They are not crooks.”[28]

The citation links to a 1992 article in Ebony Magazine, but when I read the original article, that quote wasn't in it. I'm trying to find out whether this quote is true, and if so, what source it really comes from. Various conservative sites have repeated it but I can't find an original source. 73.165.226.117 (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: I have marked the citation with a maintenance tag. Hopefully, someone answers the tag. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maxine Waters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303061254/http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/ca35_waters/CS061101_fcc.html to http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/ca35_waters/CS061101_fcc.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120518200728/http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/mostcorrupt/entry/maxine-waters to http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/mostcorrupt/entry/maxine-waters

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019235405/http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225118/castros-corner/flashback to http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225118/castros-corner/flashback

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

College Degree

The following excerpt from the background is uninformative: "Waters graduated from Vashon High School in St. Louis and attended Los Angeles State College (now California State University, Los Angeles)." Did she graduate? If so, with a degree in what?

"Other Achievements" -- the Mace of the House of Representatives brandished.

Is this really an "achievement"?

how about beating Omar navvaro who plans on running against her again in 2020, anyone care to see a page on this guy? --Moredps (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

What Rep. Maxine Waters really said in Brooklyn Center

WHAT WATERS TOLD REPORTERSBy DAVE ORRICK | Pioneer Press PUBLISHED: April 20, 2021 at 12:08 p.m. | UPDATED: April 20, 2021 at 12:09 p.m.

Shortly after her comments to the crowd, Waters addressed a gaggle of mostly reporters for about 6 minutes and 15 seconds, including fielding questions.

She emphasized that “We’re looking for a guilty verdict … for murder,” referring to the trial of Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer who is charged with second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the death of George Floyd in May. The trial was in full swing when Wright was shot. The case went to the jury Monday.

Maxine Waters

Maxine Moore Waters (née Carr; August 15, 1938) is a far left socialist politician and aggressive racial divisionist serving as the U.S. Representative for California's 43rd congressional district since 1991. Her policies and rhetoric come out under the guise of "Racial/Social Justice" and "Equity/Equality" but are actually rooted and division, control, personal gain and hate for God and country as seen in numerous videos without editing or taking her statements out of context. As seen here at Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and here at a rally in Los Angeles. She repeatedly attempts to undermined the true nature of the American people by spewing hateful, violent and untruthful commands and demands at her events, on the house floor and on national television trying to further the divide in this country for personal and party gain.XxTruthBringerxX (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2021

2600:100C:B210:D7D6:2D05:E90:A01E:7BB2 (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

She is a racist.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Talk 23:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)