Talk:Rick Keene

Pre-primary election edit warring

Greetings Pypr, Cliff, and whoever else is engaging in the edit warring. Wikipedia has a policy against repeated reversion. We should discuss here what is to be in and out. The problem is that with all of these numerous revisions, the format has gone astray. People are not being very careful, and do not seem to know the WP:MOS. For instance, titles of sections are always sentence case, i.e. only the first word is capitalized. It also seems that Pypr is being heavily deletionist, in that only slight changes are needed to correct something, but he rather deletes the whole section or paragraph. Please do not do this. Instead, take control by formulating the most neutral language about any uncomfortable truths which arise. This may be difficult for you if you are working on a campaign, and perhaps you should try to be more accepting of inclusive edits. Don't bother trying to hide something, as it may become an issue unto itself.

Issue 1: ::"and specialized in criminal defense, DUI, workers' compensation, and personal injury law." To be included -- What type of lawyer Rick Keene is is a notable fact, and apparently it is a issue.

Issue 2: Voting record: Should be complete as possible, and any vote which has previously been listed should be replaced and edited so as to be neutral.

Issue 3: Any proposals which did not become enacted "would have" permitted ... blah blah ...

Issue 4: Neutral language: things like "...attempt to change the US Constitution without a constitutional amendment" is an interpretation. Obviously there is no way to change the constitution without an amendment, even if it seems to you as if that is what is happening. Please be mindful of rhetoric.

Greg Bard 22:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User:WagnerCliff is an imposer not Cliff Wagner. He keeps posting that Keene voted for abortion funding but it never happened. They are using "facts" from an website set up by Doug LaMalfa's campaign to distort and lie about Rick Keene's record "keene fact.com. I have given the links to the budget trailer bill that funded MediCal and family planning services and Keene voted no. Without that bill needed to make the changes in the law no money referenced in the budget could be spent.

There is an instance in not only including a bill that never had a hearing but declaring that it appropriated $250 million. Only when a bill becomes law can it be said to appropriate any money.

If you go to Keene Facts. com you will see that they are using a old phone book ad from another lawyer to support the claim that Keene specialized in DUI cases, he did not. These are not disputes of fact or capable of being put in neutral terms. They are outright lies being told to support a political campaign. One of the editors making the changes was electioneering from the State Capital and that's a felony.

This will be over soon. Pypr (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to your concerns pypr. Certainly that website does not qualify as WP:RS. CLiff (or whoever) please find third party sources to support your claims, and the same goes for you pypr. If we don't have consensus to include a fact, then it needs actual refs. Period. If there is some unflattering fact, please don't just delete it, but rather find a way to respond to it by making a neutral formulation. "Keene has been criticized for ... blah blah, however ... yada yada." We may very well get to the bottom of things this way. However that will require both sides to be honest with themselves about what is just heightened rhetoric, and what is a real criticism. Greg Bard 21:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Protected

This article has been fully protected for two weeks due to blatant violation of the WP:Biographies of living persons policy. See the complaint at WP:AN3#User:24.113.255.64, User:Pypr, and User:WagnerCliff reported by User:Gregbard (Result: Protected). Our articles on politicians are not to be turned into attack pages. Further change in the article will require consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to get the attention of an administrator. Editors who engage in crude political POV-pushing may be blocked for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It might seem fair to leave some of the political opinion regarding "In 2007, Keene authored AB 735 to permit undocumented immigrants in California to have valid in-state work permits. The act appropriated $250,000,000 to give undocumented immigrants ID cards and included a tax increase of 8% on workers to pay for the program." Except the bill never had a hearing so it could not, it did not appropriate anything. Leaving up the outright lie without any cite or reference "Supported and voted for a $33 million dollar subsidy to pay for abortions in the 2008 health budget trailer bill." even though you left up the cite to the actual bill AB 1183 proving that the entry is a lie is justified how? To a conservative republican such a lie is libel. It is a lie meant to defame Rick Keene's life long commitment to the pro-life position held even before he entered politics. And the DUI bit? That from a old phone book ad of another attorney not Keene. The only relationship to that specialty is they both were in the phone book.

Thank you for removing the rest including the libel site keenefact.com In this case of political campaign editing unreferenced entries should always be suspect. Pypr (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If you believe the article should be further updated, say what change you have in mind, and try to get consensus for your version. Please be cautious in using the term 'libel' in Wikipedia discussions since it may get people alarmed. If you can supply reliable sources for what you believe is correct, you may find it unnecessary to use the word 'lie' so much. Please keep the political rhetoric off our talk pages, since Wikipedia is not a soapbox. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well if you actually read the entries including the cite of not just a "reliable" source but the perfect indisputable source for Keene's vote on AB 1183 2008 health budget trailer bill and bother to click the link that shows the official CA Assembly record of the vote on AB 1183 which shows that Keene voted no Then you might answer the my question. How do you are you justifying leaving up the entry that says he voted for that bill? You removed the source for the lie but not the lie. It not political rhetoric to say a bill in the CA legislature that never had a hearing can not have appropriated any money. It is a basic statement of how government works. It the same in Sac as DC, bill AB 735 died at the ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT without ever even have a vote of that committee dead bills have no effect on anything. Bills can only appropriate money if they become law. We don't need to get into a discussion of how the bill if it had made it through the process would have been eventually funded or that the $250,000,000 is a leg council number drawn out of their imagination. Pypr (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)