Talk:Steve Chabot

Untitled

Here's a better link for the term-limit claim: [1]. Is this a reliable source? -- Jeandré, 2006-07-03t21:05z

Appears to be. I'll add it to the article. Thank you. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait, that's the same source as is already listed. Nonetheless, the article appears to be legitimate. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Tone of article

It's all well and good that this fellow has an article, but the tone of it needs to be seriously cleaned up. It reads like an advertisement or a campaign statement. Remember in editing the article to keep it encyclopedic. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it reads fine. There's nothing wrong with citing the accomplishments of a person in there own biography. There was an earlier version of this article that read like a political attack ad - no one said anything. - obiwanda

I don't really care either way - I just thought if you are going to have a bio about a guy you might want to list some of his accomplishments. Biographies don't always have to be contraversial and negative. - obiwanda

It's fine but point noted > FiremanStan

I disagree. When I put the advert tag on the page, it basically read like a campaign statement, lauding all of his mighty accomplishments and singing his praises to heaven. I have managed to further tone down the exultatory language, bringing it closer to being neutral. Remember that Wikipedia must conform to a Neutral Point of View, according to one of the three keystone policies of the encyclopedia. --Kuzaar^-T-C-

You know what Kuzaar, I read the bio last week and it read like a political attack on Chabot. I mean, it listed a few general points about him, then made him look like a lier with this term limit attack, then hyped his opponent. Give me a break! This is so absurd. This is supposed to be a biography about a Member of Congress and the work he does as it relates to Congress. I'm fine with getting rid of the glowing rhetoric but I am not fine with defaming Chabot, or anyone else on listed this site. -- JediFacts

Note that this is not supposd to be a biography about a member of congress, it is an encyclopedic article detailing what it is that makes him notable and other interesting facts. Including information about his voting record, etc., except in the broadest sense, is inappropriate. I note that administrators have protected this page due to politically influenced wrangling, and I agree with their decision. You did a fair job of bringing the article to NPOV, but in retrospect I think that controversy is appropriate to mention in the article of a controversial politician. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 17:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit Requests

Please add Category:Current members of the United States House of Representatives|Chabot, Steve to this page.

Unprotecting

There has been no discussion in over a week. I'm unprotecting to see if normal editing can proceed. --Tony Sidaway 08:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Removals

I removed a political-attack paragraph, inserted several days ago, which cited as authority John Cranley's web site. Kardreader 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have come back to remove three additional items:

A section entitled "Controversy and criticism" indicated that a third-party organization ran a TV ad, intended to support the candidate, that mis-stated the Congressman's vote on the Medicare prescription program. First of all, this would seem to fall into the category of political trivia, not encyclopedic content. Furthermore, since the ad was a third-party ad, what has it got to do with the candidate anyway?

At two places in the article, it was alleged that the Congressman reneged on a term-limits campaign pledge he made prior to 1994. However, we apparently could not come up with any substantive support for the allegation. The link that was provided was to an internet page written by some guy of unknown pedigree, with Mr. Chabot's name included in a list of politicians at the bottom of the article. There was no authority at all regarding anything the Congressman actually did or did not do or say. It seems to me that if we wanted to make this kind of allegation in Wikipedia, we need to nail down some sources that are more substantial than that. If we could nail it down, then . . ., well, it still doesn't seem like it belongs in Wikipedia. Is this an encyclopedia or a political blog? There are lots of political blogs available if we've got an agenda we want to pursue. Kardreader 05:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As the discussion above shows, the controversies were in dispute- I'd fully support rewording them if you believe their inclusion to not conform to NPOV. However, as with all public figures, controversy is part of their notability, and cited claims (unless from an unreliable source) should not be deleted, but made to conform to NPOV. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything to be gained by rehashing the discussion that I typed in above. But let me add that the controlling Wikipedia policy seems to me to be the following:

Articles about living persons must adhere strictly to NPOV and verifiability policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. [2]

Kardreader 03:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not intended to be used to sweep under the rug controversies surrounding public figures, particularly when the controversy is a primary issue in what their opposition is accusing them of. As the policy you quoted said, as long as it's not libelous (it's not) and is properly attributed to a verifiable source (many of the sources you removed were), it is appropriate for inclusion, as long as the narrative voice does not make a value judgement for the reader. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 03:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Kuzaar, I understand that term-limits pledges are one of the issues being used in campaigns. If Chabot did make such a pledge (of which I have no idea) there should be some quality source available to that effect. The only source that was cited was an internet page, apparently written several years ago, which did not address Chabot in any detail; his name was included once within a list at the bottom of the page. That source did not appear to be part of a news outlet. The author of that page did imply that Chabot had made a pledge, but it really seems way too thin for WP to be basing our reputation on. When, where, what, who - the source had none of that. Our article also stated something like "Chabot denies that he did", but we had no citation at all for that. If there really is an issue, some quality source must have reported it. Or maybe the guy who wrote that page was simply mistaken.

With the TV-ad paragraph, the links that we had included to the sources at Yahoo news had apparently expired, at least they did not work when I tried them, so we had no backup. However, as I originally proposed, the whole jist of the "issue", that a third-party had put an ad on TV but got their facts wrong, seems trivial and irrelevant to the candidate, since it was not even his ad. The Cincinnati Enquirer does have a mention of the event on its web site, dated 07/28, so that would serve as a source if there were any reason to include it. [3] But where's the controversy? It was a 200-word news item in the Enquirer one day, and that's that. And it wasn't even Chabot's ad. There is no disagreement by anybody as to what happened, and nobody is criticizing Chabot for it. It wasn't his ad.

That TV-ad paragraph did mention that he voted against the Medicare prescription plan. It was not and is not my intent to suggest that there is any reason not to include that information in the Congressman's voting record, if you or anybody else considers it to be an important fact. Kardreader 05:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand. My first reaction was to revert your changes because too often on politicians' articles in Wikipedia one finds people who come along and delete any criticism, sourced or otherwise, in the article in an effort to sweep things under the rug. In an effort to make the article frame the controversies surrounding Chabot (without advocating either side, naturally, per NPOV and BLP), I'll be looking into this this evening and trying to find some reliable sources. The last few months I've been busying myself trying to make the best out of articles regarding political/other controversy, so finding citations is one of my strong points. Happy editing. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the recently added section titled “Use of Congressional Property and Employees for Electioneering” due to its speculative tone, unsubstantiated evidence and lack of citations. This was added to Wikipedia as a political attack and therefore will be removed. HawkinsTwins (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nose Picking On CSPAN Issue

I would just like to note that I added this only after seeing the internet hype surrounding it and, while it does have a potential amusement quality (let's be realistic here), I did not add it to subject everyone to silly humor, and definitely not with malicious intent. If you don't believe the hype, feel free to Google anything related to "congressman picks nose" and look at all the specifically related links it generates. Again, I'm not trying to be funny or mean-spirited, and I'm up for debate on the matter. Aceholiday 07:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are not being funny or mean-spiritied, state how this is encyclopedic. The "link" you provided goes to a spamming site. Mfields1 11:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The original link to the video went to a posting of it on youtube, which was pulled down due to "violation of terms." Since youtube has pulled down practically everything since being bought out by Google, this comes as no surprise. Either way, I found another posting of the video on youtube and corrected the reference link to redirect from Entensity to youtube. I felt that this is encyclopedic because there has been much hype surrounding it, especially on the internet. There have been a number of blogs and stories regarding this unique situation and, while it can be interpreted as unflattering and childishly comical, it has still generated enough buzz to warrant a footnote on Wikipedia. Aceholiday 18:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This does not look like Chabot, and Chabot does not sit on the Democrat side of the aisle. I added a dubious tag until the credibility is established. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mfields1 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

yeah I was busy picking...LOLMfields1 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The article only states that "it was reported on Wonkette" that he was the subject depicted in the video, not necessarily that it is, indeed, him. 24.99.25.164 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I touched the section up a bit, to give the added emphasis on the reporting and speculation surrounding the issues. Aceholiday 18:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So is that dubious tag just gonna stay there forever...? Aceholiday 07:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the paragraph given the severity of the potential harm to his reputation until a more reputable outfit such as a major newspaper or TV network covers the incident and identifies the nose picker as Chabot. WP:BLP for more. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 15:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Camera Ban issue

Edits that reference the camera ban that happened at a town hall meeting have been removed citing they were vandalism. I believe my edit adhered to current policies by being properly sourced and neutral in tone. I would have included it in an existing section since but a relevant section did not exist. Is there any reason my edit should not be reinstated, possibly with less emphasis by not being a separate section? - Crazyredwizard (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with including it, but it needs to have a reliable source backing it up. Since Wikipedia policy prohibits using "original research" the YouTube link doesn't cut it. Try checking the local newspaper to see if they covered the incident -- that would be a much better source. Arbor8 (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added the information back but did not make it a separate section this time. Neither of the sources are links to YouTube though they do include the YouTube videos in addition to the original research that provided information about the response from Chabot's representative. Crazyredwizard (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost, I'm no shill as previously stated in the edit comments, as a matter of fact I do not live in this Congressman's district nor am I connected. Anyways, the town hall incident bares no significance to the Congressman's tenure - I understand that people are upset at what took place and they want to get the word out, but the decision to ban cameras has been in effect for several town hall meetings and was not at the request of the Congressman. The decision was made by the Congressman's staff and therefore belongs on their biography. For additional guidance on this subject, there have been dozens of incidents at other congressional town halls during the last 2-3 years - on both sides of the isle - and none of these incidents have been documented in Wikipedia biographies because they are irrelevant to tenure. Check the bios for Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Paul Ryan - all had significant issues at recent town halls and there is nothing about the incidents in their bios. Even more interesting, since his last town hall incident was politicized, Harry Reid hasn't conducted a 'live' town hall meeting, resorting to telephone town halls - is that in his biography? In conclusion, including the camera incident on Congressman Steve Chabot's biography is purely political and negates the neutrality of Wikipedia standards. Minotducks (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the policies and restrictions at Rep. Chabot's town hall meetings do not belong on Rep. Chabot's Wiki article? I think you're reaching a bit, there. Additionally, whether other incidents have happened at other Members' events is immaterial to whether this particular section belongs in this particular article. SeE WP:OTHERSTUFF. Arbor8 (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Steve Chabot. 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/20110516101148/http://nationaljournal.com/pubs/almanac/2006/people/oh/rep_oh01.htm to http://nationaljournal.com/pubs/almanac/2006/people/oh/rep_oh01.htm

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} 22:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Steve Chabot. 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/20070615183627/http://www.rep.org/2006_scorecard.pdf to http://www.rep.org/2006_scorecard.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061101211219/http://www.lcv.org/images/client/pdfs/LCV_2006_Scorecard_final.pdf to http://www.lcv.org/images/client/pdfs/LCV_2006_Scorecard_final.pdf

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) 20:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)