Talk:Steve Stockman

Is this article written by one of Stockman's staffers?

This is an unabashed propaganda piece which brings shame upon wikipedia.65.7.0.129 (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is clearly maintained by Stockman proxy

Stockman is clearly a fringe member of the GOP, described by reputable and responsible publications as a nut case. There's gotta be a better way to encapsulate his position relative to the main stream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.22.32.123 (talk • contribs)

Reversion due to political bias

So, due to clear bias of including the OKC bombing information, I reverted the article back to its original state, sans the prejudicial information.

OKC bombing

this page is ridiculously biased. Good job wikipedians for cleaning up clear political bias. You make "wikipedia" synonymous with "bullshit" Benwetmore 21:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Receiving a fax erroneously isn't noteworthy, so I think the OKC bombing reference ought to be deleted. Benwetmore (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The fax section isn't even referenced, it ought to be deleted. Benwetmore (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Megan's Law

Stockman did not co-author the Megan's Law. Ex-Cong. Dick Zimmer wrote it.

unsigned comment above, so this isn't really worth debating, but the bill was sponsored by Zimmer and had 27 cosponsors, of which Stockman was one. Why isn't Megan's law listed along with the bills? Here's a link to the cosponsors Benwetmore (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Runoff

Stockman did not win his first race against Lampson. He lost both the November election and the court ordered December election.

69.39.172.127 07:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he did win.

Bias

This page is ridiculously one-sided and loaded with inflammatory language. The admins should clean it up. 69.143.125.221 04:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Someone has spent the night converting it into a campaign ad for Stockman's opponent in this election. They have removed his interviews, the bills he sponsored and his positions.

Restored

I've restored the previous posts. I've deleted the OK Bombing Fax reference because the details that were included were probably erroneous. I'll repost it again when I've researched it properly. All other details restored are accurate.

Obvious Campaign Edits

This is ridiculous that this page can't be objective about Stockman and keeps adding irrelevant or inane details about him. Whether some random group called him a hero to taxpayers or the best Congressman of the century isn't quite relevant. Whoever keeps posting that Stockman is a Hero to the Taxpayer obviously never paid many taxes since Stockman tried to cut taxes, but kept getting knocked around by his fellow Republicans. He didn't cut taxes though, so how can he be a hero?

NPOV

There are multiple instances of NPOV violations in this article, such as quotations around phrases like "terrorized his wife" and other things I am going to cleanup. Benwetmore 03:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV again

This page reads like a campaign website. Seriously, "to define and protect the institution of marriage"? How in the world is that not biased language. That whole section should be tagged. 166.250.101.207 (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal re: Stockman's new staff hire

Stockman has hired a spokesperson who is currently taking considerable legal heat for alleged major campaign contribution violations in numerous states, most particularly Montana. It would certainly seem worthy of mention. However, an undo of the edit was accomplished by an editor who appears to have a long history of unexplained and controversial removals of properly sourced and germane materials. If there is believed to be a legitimate reason for the edit, please post any such reason before undoing this or other posts. The hire or appointment of an aide or manager with a history of questionable behavior is certainly notable. For instance, the appointment of Elliott Abrams by G.W. Bush after his Iran-Contra Affair conviction has been found to be worthy of mention on the relevant pages.

Opinion request

Stockman has been on the faculty of the Leadership Institute, which was hilariously described on the Stockman page as "non-partisan." In fact it boasts of its conservative credentials almost to the exclusion of anything else. I've deleted my "hyper-conservative" and substituted "very conservative." I noticed a moment ago that the page for Terence Hallinan describes his father as a "leftist attorney." I think that's very accurate. Similarly, Leadership should be described with its own terms. "Conservative" doesn't begin to express their positions and operations, to wit from Wikipedia: The Institute was founded in 1979 by conservative activist Morton C. Blackwell. Its mission is to "increase the number and effectiveness of conservative activists" and to "identify, train, recruit and place conservatives in politics, government, and media." Notable alumni include Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, (Jack Abramoff money laundering associate) Ralph Reed, (male prostitute James Dale Guckert, a.k.a.) Jeff Gannon, Congressman and Indiana Governor-elect Mike Pence, (and convicted criminal) James O'Keefe,. Activist (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Leadership Institute is non-partisan and conservative. The terms are not mutually exclusive. It is appropriate to describe the organization as conservative, though very conservative would be inappropriate given what is current mainstream conservative ideology. The Leadership Institute, on their web page describes themselves thus "© 2012 The Leadership Institute is a non-partisan educational organization approved by the Internal Revenue Service as a public foundation operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. The Leadership Institute does not endorse, support, or oppose candidates or proposed legislation. The Institute has an open admissions policy; all programs are open to the public. Contributions to the Leadership Institute by individuals, corporations, and foundations are tax deductible". Partisan organizations cannot operate under 501(c)(3) of the IRC. I am editing this text to reflect this. I find your points describing the Leadership Institute as hyper-conservative, or that "'Conservative' doesn't begin to express ..." unconvincing and your comments regarding perceived negative characteristics of some of their alumni irrelevant- unless you are arguing that the organization is very Conservative because it supports money laundering, male prostitution and criminal activity? If you have reasons to support that the Leadership Institute is in fact not non-partisan, or should have an intensifying adjective before "conservative", please present them so that the article can be further improved. Packetmonger (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WTF is "computer sales and lab researcher division of IBM" ?

IBM does not have this "division". This section claim should be verified or removed; it is clearly false as it stands now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.168.139 (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

FEC investigation into casino contributions

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/fec-looking-donations-tea-partier ... the AP reported, noting that the donors cited Stockman’s support of the gaming bill and the casino opening. The donations totaled about $10,000 in all.

Well sourced enough yet? Hcobb (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Public relations campaign?

I notice that over the past few days, a relatively large amount of material has been added to the article that appears in my view to be "cheerleading" or public relations material on behalf of Steve Stockman, the subject of the article. Also, material not so complimentary of Stockman from the Houston Chronicle has been removed. Stockman is currently involved in a campaign for a U.S. Senate seat from Texas, and I'm not sure about some of the material that had been added, in terms of whether it would be considered soapboxing on behalf of Stockman, or just tendentious editing in the form of a public relations effort that tends to promote Stockman's political career.

Thoughts, anyone? Famspear (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This page had many spiteful malicious unsubstantiated comments using some half truths published or agenda driven stories by some media outlets. It has been cleaned up and citations with everything. Unlike other politicians there are no grey areas on Stockman you can either love him or hate him for his positions. His clear cut positions on different issues defines him and will either lose him the vote or get him the vote. There is no need to put absurd malicious lies or untruths about anyone as Wikepedia is supposed to be unbiased and neutral. 1houstonin

Dear 1houstonian: It appears to me that some of your edits removed well-sourced material from reliable sources. The fact that you feel such material consists of "spiteful malicious unsubstantiated comments using some half truths published or agenda driven stories by some media outlets" is not a valid reason for deleting material from reliable sources.

For example, the Houston Chronicle is considered to be a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia. It is one of the largest newspapers in the United States. It is not your place as a Wikipedia editor to second-guess a major newspaper in the nation's fourth largest city -- no matter how strongly you feel that the material might contain lies, etc.

Here is the rule:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.....

from WP:RS (bolding added).

The Houston Chronicle is a reliable source. I don't want to hurt your feelings 1houstonian, but you and I as Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. The Houston Chronicle has editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. You and I as Wikipedia editors cannot credibly make that same claim about ourselves. As Wikipedia editors, it is not our place to delete material from a reliable source merely because we strongly believe the material to be incorrect, or full of lies, or biased, etc. Please keep this in mind when editing. Famspear (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear 1houstonian: Here is an example of what I contend is some tendentious, non-neutral editing. This was a contribution you made on January 17, 2014:

Contrary to what is being reported and used in negative AD's in election campaign by opponent Steve has NEVER been charged with a felony. What they refer to took place 40 years ago when he was pulled over for misdemeanor traffic violations as a teenager. The record was expunged, and disclosing expunged records is a crime. Opponent's super PAC may now face criminal charges for that and opponent himself may be deposed in that case

See [1]. Your material was removed by another editor.

Your first-name basis reference to "Steve" in this material might be interpreted by your fellow editors as an indication that you may be using Wikipedia to support Steve Stockman's current candidacy for the U.S Senate.

You claimed that Steve Stockman was never charged with a felony -- yet we now have a reliable source (Texas Monthly magazine, Feb. 1996) from nearly seventeen years ago that says he WAS so charged, but that the charge was dropped.

You also stated -- without any source to back you up -- that "disclosing expunged records is a crime." That may or may not be the case, but it is not your place to make that determination and put that statement in a Wikipedia article without proper sourcing.

You also stated that a super PAC (political action committee) for one of Stockman's opponents "may" now face criminal charges for disclosing "that" -- meaning, apparently, disclosing the supposedly expunged record. Who told you that? What is your source? Which opponent? Which political action committee? That statement by you was completely unsourced conjecture on your part. Were you saying in the article, without any sourcing, that a political action committee for one of Stockman's opponents may now face criminal charges for disclosing expunged records to Texas Monthly some seventeen years ago? It's not clear. Is that what you were saying? Without any sourcing to back you up?

Please tone down the rhetoric and stick to what reliable sources have actually reported -- and don't try to remove material from reliable sources under the pretext that the sources are "biased" or are "lying", etc., etc. Yours, Famspear (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit correction: The Texas Monthly article was over seventeen years ago, not "nearly" seventeen years ago. I guess my math skill isn't very good this late at night! Famspear (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, you may notice that I myself removed the reference to the "felony" charge here: [2]. Although the Texas Monthly article did use the word "felony," I feel that because the charge was dropped, it's better in this particular case to leave it out. Anyone can be "charged" with a felony and yet not be guilty of a felony. Also, it's unclear whether the "charge" was merely an accusation by police or, alternatively, whether a district attorney actually accepted the charge. In any case, according to the magazine article, the felony charge was eventually dropped. Famspear (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

PS: Dear 1houstonian: I now see that the material you deleted had, as its source, the Washington Post -- and the Post material did not actually include the word "felony." Therefore, I want to apologize, because I now see that your removal of the material could have been based on a determination that the Post material did not properly back up the use of the word "felony." The fact that I found the Texas Monthly material that does include the word "felony" does not change the fact that you were correct in deleting material that was, at the time you made the deletion, not properly sourced. In any case, as noted above, I removed the word "felony" from the article, for the reason I cited. Famspear (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Stockman unlike other politicians has strong positions on issues like guns, abortion, drilling, jobs, small government which some newspaper may not like. Just because they are the only newspaper they do not have the right to engage in name calling congressman clueless or weird etc. The half truths published by this newspaper I am referring is for example they published a headline that he failed to declare income from his company in Virgin Island without mentioning the fact that the companies were closed several years before he ran for Congress and there was no reason to report and other self serving low level journalism.

The edits on this page have citations added that indicate what Stockman has done during his tenure ie sponsoring bills or supporting them or his work on the issues. The edits provide facts and are not cheering him as there are a lot of people like this so called journalists writing against who do not like these positions and will go vote against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

they do not have the right -- You're wrong, they operate in the U.S. and the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives them that right. OTOH, you as a Wikipedia editor do not have the right to remove material from reliable sources or to base your editing on your own judgment of what is true or half-true. You wear your bias on your sleeve and clearly have no understanding of Wikipedia policies; I suggest that you familiarize yourself with them and avoid editing pages on subjects that you are personally close to. -- Jibal (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've added the neutrality and advertisement tags to this article. There are some clear cases where the article is non-neutral in tone:GabrielF (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• I am answering you below each one of your example— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs)

Some examples:

1. Stockman has consistently chased the EPA to expedite permits for new plant construction
   • His District is the largest Petrochemical District of US. His active has been the most active in expediting the building permits with EPA for companies working in his district and I have added citations and press releases. On the contrary there are many environmentalists who will not like this positions and be turned off by it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs)
     • The issue with this sentence is that it isn't neutral to describe Stockman's efforts as "chas[ing] the EPA". There's also the question of secondary sources.GabrielF (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Stockman is a believer in small government and considers government intrusion into healthcare Obamacare, as being tantamount to socialism.
   • There are people who love Obamacare and wont vote for it. He is a small government believer and those against it will hate him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs)
     • I think you're not comprehending the problem with this statement. As an encyclopedia, we cannot describe Obamacare as a "government intrusion into healthcare". That's an opinion, not a fact and including it violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. We can state that Stockman believes that Obamacare is a government intrusion into healthcare but we cannot state that as a fact. GabrielF (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
3. In February 2013, Stockman voted against the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act which allowed gays and transgender the same rights as those to biological women.
   • We can state that this was Stockman's objection to the bill, but the current text implies that this is the only significant fact about the bill, which is non-neutral.
   • Aside from the biased content that springs from 1houstonian's own mind rather than actual statements by Stockman or other sources, there is the awful illiterate incoherent language that at best misleads the reader. -- Jibal (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
     • He voted against reauthorizations because he did not believe transgender has the same rights as biological— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs)
       • You haven't addressed my rationale for changing this text. GabrielF (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Senator John Cornyn voted for the Wall Street Bailout T.A.R.P.,[40] Medicare Part D, Fiscal Cliff Tax Hike, and other spending and tax increase programs and his refusal to defund Obamacare was the breaking point where Stockman decided not to seek reelection on his safe congressional seat and on December 9, 2013, Stockman filed for the Republican nomination of U.S. Senate for Texas against incumbent U.S. Senator John Cornyn.[3][4]
   • The tone here is more appropriate for campaign literature than an encyclopedia
     • Stockman is a public figure and when Cornyn voted to fund Obamacare he decided to give up his safe seat to run against Cornyn— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs)
       • So what? Again, you're not addressing the rationale for removing this text, namely that it violates Wikipedia's policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE.GabrielF (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I intend to remove or modify all of these claims and make additional modifications as well. GabrielF (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

1houstonian: Please don't shout, and don't interleave your comments with existing text. --Alexbook (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry I did not mean to offend anyone but am getting frustrated with the vandalism to a public figures page

I have refactored 1houstonian's text for readability. I've numbered my examples of problems I see with the article and I've moved 1houstonian's replies below.GabrielF (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

1. FACT and I have put citations
2. FACT and I have put citations
3. you have interjected here say, just put the fact he voted against
4. FACT Stockman put a resolution to defund Obamacare and Cornyn voted to fund Obamacare, and this is not campaign literature.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs)

We should not be using press releases or a representative's website as sources for an encyclopedia article. Instead, we should be relying on reliable secondary sources such as newspaper articles, research reports or academic journal articles. See WP:SECONDARY. In addition to concerns about sourcing, I have concerns about tone. Stating that a representative "chased" the EPA is considerably less neutral than saying that he requested that the agency expedited its permitting process. The section on Stockman's primary challenge to Cornyn should not begin by describing votes that Stockman objected to. That's not neutral.GabrielF (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikepedia is a non-profit neutral organization committed to neutrality. There is a Election for US Senate Senator John Cornyn vs Congressman Steve Stockman and 4 others and Wikepedia cannot and should not become a campaign vehicle for either Senator John Cornyn or Congressman Steve Stockman. Some biased editors have added malicious quips to describe Congressman Steve Stockman's term should either be removed or quips be added to describe Senator John Cornyns term. Wikepedia has allowed Senator Cornyn's Policy issues to be shown on his page and same way they should be allowed for Congressman Steve Stockman. If Wikepedia does not allow for Congressman Stockman than the ones on Senator Cornyn's page also need to be removed. Thank you again in advance for your fairness. 1houstonian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs) 06:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your charges are false, and you are in no position to talk about bias when you're busy here campaigning for Stockman. The reasons that your material has been removed has been explained to you and is not because Stockman's policy positions aren't allowed, it's because your text is filled with biased POV characterizations. I would also note that it is woefully ungrammatical, generally awful illiterate writing that doesn't belong in WP articles. -- Jibal (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Can we avoid an all-out edit war, involving accusations of POV editing?

User:1houstonian complains that other editors are trying to turn this into an anti-Stockman article. Some other editors are accusing 1houstonian of cheerleading. Edits are being reverted. We need some grown-ups in the room. --Alexbook (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

We have grownups in the room, with the exception of one person who makes false charges, repeatedly violates WP policy, writes badly, and by his own admission is campaigning for Stockman. -- Jibal (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please try to stop people from vandalizing Congressman Steve Stockman's page, this is election season and there are lawsuits for libel already on this subject http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/bay_area/opinion/stockman-sues-cornyn-super-pac-for-false-statements/article_d51b4716-797d-5f97-ad18-195fb3e95ebf.html and we do not want this vandalism to enter Wikepedia which is supposed to be neutral

Thank you 1houstonian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs) 04:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already warned you about labeling good-faith edits as vandalism. My removal of content that was non-neutral, undue weight or cited only to press releases falls well within acceptable editing practice, see WP:BRD. By your statement "this is election season and there are lawsuits for libel already on this subject", are you implying that my edits are legally actionable?GabrielF (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone has been busy vandalising the page for Congressman Stockman and removed his interview in Horizon Magazine, a publication of Platts, the global Energy Publication and twisted this page with their own agenda. The portion of the congressman's tenure on fighting EPA for building permits for new plants, hydraulic fracking and keeping power costs low has been removed. Reference to the newspaper article referring to his libel lawsuit against Senator Cornyn's PAC has been removed. Wikepedia is supposed to be neutral and this is outrageous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achtungberlin (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Actungberlin: Again, we need to issue a warning about characterizing good faith edits as "vandalism." The fact that you don't agree with an edit does not make it "vandalism". None of the edits you have described constitute "vandalism". Please review Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Famspear (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is neutral, which is a good reason for people campaigning for Stockman to stay off his page. It's in your own interests to avoid the bans that you and your co-campaigner have experienced. -- Jibal (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hearsay?

Regarding this edit. How is it "hearsay," and why should it not be in the article?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The answer, of course, is that it's not "hearsay." I think 1houstonian is simply using what is really a technical legal term (dealing with "out of court" statements being offered as evidence in court) in an inappropriate way, to support a change he wants to make to the article. Wikipedia is not a court of law, and Wikipedia articles are not court hearings, with special rules about "hearsay". Calling something "hearsay" in this context is pretty meaningless. Famspear (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are some non-technical definitions of "hearsay":

hearsay: "something heard from another". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 528, G&C Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976).

hearsay evidence: "evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but [instead] on matters told him by another". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 528, G&C Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976).

Here is the technical legal definition used in U.S. Federal courts:

(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:

(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and

(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:

(1) A Declarant-Witness’s Prior Statement. The declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement:

(A) is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition;

(B) is consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying; or

(C) identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier.

(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:

(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;

(B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true;

(C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject;

(D) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or

(E) was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The statement must be considered but does not by itself establish the declarant’s authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E).

--from Rule 801, Federal Rules of Evidence, as of December 1, 2013. Famspear (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: Contrary to what many non-lawyers might believe (from watching television and movies), many kinds of hearsay actually are admissible in a court of law. The Federal Rules of Evidence (and corresponding rules in state courts) provide the guidelines for which kinds of hearsay are admissible. Famspear (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Public Figure

He is a public figure please do not remove his positions shown with citations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs) 05:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Can you please try to read up on how we decide what goes in an article? Not every factoid from a bill the guy introduces is important enough to put in here. We like secondary sources rather than the texts of bills because they show that someone other than the subject himself thinks that the material is important.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately in this case the bills and the persons public positions are the only thing to go by in this case. In a large city like Houston we have only 1 newspapers who has always endorsed Stockman's opponent in any political race and has been engaged in twisting facts to write their own agenda driven stories. If you want me to write examples I will be happy to do that. They may also be one of the parties in the libel lawsuit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs) 05:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

So the newspaper won't write about his bills? That seems really implausible. Can you please consider undoing your own last few edits while we're talking about the material, because you're in violation of WP:3RR.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

1houstonian, that's not how wikipedia works. We base our content on reliable secondary sources. If you have a particular concern about the Houston Chronicle or another source, you're welcome to discuss it here or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard, but all articles and particularly biographies of living persons must be based on reliable secondary sources. In addition, I find it highly dubious that no secondary sources can be found to describe a controversial figure such as Stockman.GabrielF (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that there are reliable secondary sources to describe Stockman -- such as the Houston Chronicle -- but 1houstonian doesn't like what the Houston Chronicle reports about Stockman. Famspear (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Once I manage to translate that paragraph into English, it appears to severely twist facts. who has always endorsed Stockman's opponent in any political race -- perhaps Stockman is an awful candidate and so they had good reason to do so. Regardless, it is irrelevant here; your opinion or anyone's opinion of the paper's agenda or motivation doesn't count at Wikipedia. You have been told this many times but you appear never to have taken it into account or to have responded to it. As long as you fail to follow WP policy, responsible editors will be forced to revert your edits. -- Jibal (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This highlights something I have tried to explain to 1houstonian before: Sources such as the New York Times or the Houston Chronicle report things all the time. Sometimes, those things turn out to be true. Other times, some things turn out to be not true. Sometimes, a report is true in part, but somewhat misleading in some other part. However, these sources are major American newspapers. For purposes of Wikipedia, they are considered reliable sources. Despite the fact that they have made errors in the past, they have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial supervision. As Wikipedia editors, we cannot simply delete a report from one of these sources based on our own conclusion that the source story is incorrect. We also cannot delete one of these reports even if the source is biased. The Houston Chronicle for example may or may not be biased against Steve Stockman. But even if the Chronicle is biased against Stockman, that is not a valid ground for deleting the material from Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, sources are allowed to be biased. Neutral Point of View does not mean eliminating sources that have bias or eliminating biased points of view. Neutral Point of View means showing what reliable sources say -- even if they are biased -- without Wikipedia presenting the material in a way that constitutes Wikipedia "taking sides" -- but also by taking into account that Wikipedia is not required to afford equal weight to all sources (e.g., in an article on the composition of dust and rocks on The Moon, we don't give equal weight to the theories of NASA scientists and the theory that The Moon is made of green cheese). Famspear (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone has spent the night converting it into a campaign ad for Stockman's opponent in this election. They have removed his interviews, the bills he sponsored and his positions. achtungberlin

"Someone"? Check the article's history if you want to know who made the changes. It's not as if it was done in secret. (Also, please sign your posts by putting ~~~~ at the end. That helps keep the discussion orderly.) --Alexbook (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Which of these versions is better?

Grade X just changed this:

Stockman's first run for Congress was in 1990. He faced [[Beaumont, Texas|Beaumont]], Texas mayor Maury Meyers in the Republican Primary in March of that year.<ref name=brookswins>{{cite news|title=Primaries '90 - Rep. Brooks wins Dem contest; Meyers leads GOP opponent|publisher=Houston Chronicle|date=March 15, 1990|author=Richard Stewart}}</ref> [[Oliver North]] made appearances at two of Stockman's fundraisers, for which he was paid $25,000.<ref>{{cite news|title=Iran-contra figure North appears at Hance fund-raisers|publisher=The Dallas Morning News|date=February 3, 1990|author=Sam Attlesey|quote=In addition to the fee he received for appearing with Mr. Hance, Mr. North also will receive $25,000 for joining Republican congressional candidate Steve Stockman on Saturday in Beaumont and Houston.}}</ref> Meyers got 44.3% of the primary vote while Stockman got 41%.<ref name=brookswins/> Since no candidate had a majority, there was a runoff election and, with the support of third place finisher Steve Clifford,<ref name=loser>{{cite news|title=Loser backs Meyers in runoff|publisher=Houston Chronicle|date=March 16, 1990|page=A25}}</ref> Meyers beat Stockman to win the Republican nomination.<ref>{{cite news|title=Shine gets GOP nod in race for Congress|publisher=Austin American-Statesman|date=April 11, 1990|author1=Mike Ward|author2=Drew Parma|page=A9}}</ref>

back to this:

He first ran for the [[United States House of Representatives|U.S. House of Representatives]] in 1990 against Democratic U.S. Representative [[Jack Brooks (politician)|Jack Brooks]]. [[Beaumont, Texas|Beaumont]], Texas mayor Maury Meyers ranked first in the Republican primary with 45% of the vote, but failed to reach the 50% threshold. Stockman, who earned 41% of the vote, faced Meyers in a run-off.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=749081 |title=TX District 9 - R Primary Race - Mar 13, 1990 |publisher=Our Campaigns |accessdate=January 16, 2013}}</ref> Meyers defeated Stockman 61%-39%.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=749082 |title=TX District 9 - R Runoff Race - Apr 10, 1990 |publisher=Our Campaigns |accessdate=January 16, 2013}}</ref> In the general election, Meyers lost to Brooks, 58%-42%.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=34489 |title=TX District 9 Race - Nov 6, 1990 |publisher=Our Campaigns |accessdate=January 16, 2013}}</ref>

with the edit summary rv npov. How does this make any sense whatsoever? First, I have actual RS, like newspapers. Furthermore the paragraph replaced has an actual factual error in it. Stockman did not in fact run against Brooks. He lost in the GOP primary and some other guy ran against Brooks. This doesn't seem like a reasonable revert. Please identify exactly what violates NPOV in the material I added.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Political Positions

Let us discuss each of these subsections independently here. My main problem with all this material is that it's self-sourced, so there's no independent verification of its notability. Reps introduce legislation all the time. Most of it's not important. Secondly a lot of it hasn't even made it to the house floor. Who's to say it ever will? My feeling is that we should just have stuff that has been discussed in reliable sources in here. Perhaps we can discuss by subsection?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• A general suggestion to Stockman's defenders: Try searching the Washington Times and Fox News web sites for Stockman and/or Cornyn. There's some good stuff out there (along with some stuff you might not like, e.g., Stockman going MIA last month). --Alexbook (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we can try not to frame this as something between defenders and others and remember that our mutual goal is to have an encyclopedic, useful article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Energy Independence

Congressman Stockman is a supporter of American Energy Independence and has used his position on the technology committee to question the EPA's technological criteria for evaluating applications on hydraulic fracking.<ref name="stockman.house.gov">[http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/blog-posts/science-committee-questions-scientific-integrity-of-epa-hydraulic-fracturing].</ref> He has worked on improving the current technologies being used<ref name="stockman.house.gov"/> on shale oil and gas production. He is a member of the carbon caucus, supports the keystone pipeline, use of coal, opening up federal lands for drilling as well as hydraulic fracking for shale oil and gas production.

• Here everything's sourced to Stockman's blog posts. If his positions on energy independence mean anything to anyone it will be in secondary sources. I think this material should remain out.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Again he supports the keystone pipeline, use of coal, opening up federal lands for drilling as well as hydraulic fracking for shale oil and gas production. These are is Public Postions on these issues. The election is Cornyn vs Stockman, if we allow one candidate to post the Policy Positions the other candidate should also be allowed to preserve Wikepedia neutrality AchtungBerlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achtungberlin (talk • contribs) 22:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Achtungberlin, you seem to be ignoring the problems that have been raised with this text. I don't think anyone objects to including some information about Stockman's positions on energy, but the text needs to be sourced to reliable secondary sources (see WP:SECONDARY and it needs to be neutral in tone (see WP:NPOV). As a first step I would recommend that you draft a version of the text here on the talkpage and we can comment on it. GabrielF (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Economy and Jobs

In his term representing District 36, Stockman has been a major proponent of job growth [http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/3dcf1362#/3dcf1362/28]. The District includes Baytown, Pasadena, Deer Park, Mount Bellvieu and is the largest Petrochemical Industrial District of United States.[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/TX/36] With the advent of production of shale gas, over 100 billion dollars are expected to be invested in the U.S. petrochemical sector over the next few years (most of it in Texas), and over 40 billion dollars in Stockman’s district which will create thousands of new jobs [http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/3dcf1362#/3dcf1362/28]. These plants include Ethylene Crackers, PDH Plants, Methanol manufacturing facilities and others. Stockman as consistently chased the EPA [http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stockman-gets-promise-from-epa-to-unclog-texas-jobs-pipeline-offers-to] to expedite permits for new plant construction. Stockman has called on Vice-President [[Biden]] to obtain a lifting of what he argues is an EPA [http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stockman-challenges-biden-to-lift-epa-blockade-on-port-jobs] blockade on American jobs. In a statement, Stockman has said that unless the EPA is reformed by streamlining permits and studies and approving the REINS Act, the United States will cease to be an economic power. The "Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny," or REINS, Act would require that any proposed federal regulation costing more than $100 million be approved by Congress and signed by the President.

At 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour, Texas industrial facilities enjoy one of the cheapest power costs in the world which Stockman argues is conducive to investment and job growth and encourages employment. Stockman has favored keeping power costs low [http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/Letters/121913_mccarthy.pdf][http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/blog-posts/scalise-anti-carbon-tax-amendment-passed-by-house].

• Here everything's sourced to Stockman's blog posts except for some basic stats about his district that are kind of non-sequiturs (e.g. "is the largest Petrochemical Industrial District of United States"). If his positions on the economy mean anything to anyone it will be in secondary sources. I think this material should remain out.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• The first source is an interview in Platts Horizon, not exactly an independent source but not primary either. --Alexbook (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, I saw that, but is it actually notable to say that a Rep is "in favor of job growth"? The main stuff is primary-sourced.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Calling Stockman a "major proponent of job growth" is promotional rather than encyclopedic. Are there politicians who want fewer jobs? GabrielF (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There is enough citations presented to show he is a proponent of job growh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achtungberlin (talk • contribs) 22:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Everybody believes that he's in favor of job growth. The question is whether it's worth including in the article. The way we tell whether information is worth including in the article is if it's discussed in secondary sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Protecting Our Constitution

Working with Rand Paul, Stockman introduced “Restore The Constitution Act.” That provision is the House companion to Sen. Rand Paul’s “Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act.” Stockman and Paul are working together on the effort.[http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stockman-introduces-bill-to-stop-obama-s-executive-orders]

• I think this should stay out without significant coverage in reliable sources. Introducing a bill is usually not a notable act for a representative. Also, one would like to see some independent confirmation of this potentially self-serving statement: "Stockman and Paul are working together on the effort."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Protect the Constitution has been a major agenda of Congressman Stockman in both those terms and it should remain.Congressman Stockman and Senator Cornyn are both running for US Senate seat so if you are allowing policy positions for Senator Cornyn we need to allow for Congressman Stockman to show Wikepedia neutrality. I am going to revert to original and request dispute resolution and protection of this page. Achtungberlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achtungberlin (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please try to take some time to figure out how Wikipedia works. What's in Coryn's article is not relevant to what goes into this article. If you think there's stuff there that doesn't belong, go to that article and take it out. If you think there is a sound reason why this material should remain in this article, say what it is in terms of Wikipedia policies. In particular if you want this in, try to explain why in terms that are intrinsic to the material, which you ought to do by WP:BURDEN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Senator Cornyn's page is like a campaign page and frankly I am not interested ingoing to make a list of fact check ie in his fiscal policy does not mention his Wall Street Bail out or his vote to fund Obamacare http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jwithrow/senator-john-cornyns-top-ten-bad-votes and the list goes on 1houstonian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.195.222.21 (talk • contribs)

Well, that's fine, but don't keep bringing it up here as a reason to retain or delete information in this article. It's just not relevant.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's an example of the soapboxing that keeps popping up in the article (in this case, from user 1houstonian): "Congressman Stockman is a constitutionalist and has been a strong defender of our second amendment rights...." This is political posturing. This is campaigning on behalf of Steve Stockman, the subject of this article. Notice the reference to Stockman being a "constitutionalist". As opposed to what? Are there politicians out there who bill themselves as being "anti-contitutionalists"? Give me a break. Notice the reference to "our second amendment rights." That's the kind of language that politicians use to try to identify themselves with supporters and potential new voters. It's not encyclopedic. Famspear (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The section heading "Protecting our constitution" in the current version of the article is also problematic for the same reasons. GabrielF (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That makes three of us that think the section should be deleted. Assuming that 1houstonian and 108.195.222.21 are the same and that Achtungberlin is different, there are two that want it in. Neither has made a policy based argument, so I'm not inclined to give their opinions much weight.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with 1houstonian and Achtungberlin that protecting our Constitution should be put back on this page. Al — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.187.17 (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 71.164.187.17: And, what would be your reason for that agreement, in terms of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Famspear (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Stockman, Ron Paul and Rand Paul are 3 of the most outspoken elected constitutionalists in US legislature. Whn biased editors can put out of context quips to describe the tenure Protecting our Constitution is the best way to describ them. Additionally bear in mind US Senat elections is Stockman vs Cornyn, Wikepedia is a non-profit neutral ground if we allow on candidate to put his Policy Position it is not writ to write the othr persons policy positions AchtungBerlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achtungberlin (talk • contribs) 22:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It's just not true that what's on Coryn's page matters with regard to what's on this one. If you want to put stuff about Stockman's law in here, there has to be an independent reason to do it. What is that? The guy introduced a bill. Why is the bill important? What do neutral sources say about the bill? That's what we want to put in here. Please try to give policy based reasons for including material.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Biased Editing

too many people on wikepedia do not seem to agree with the biased editing including removal of quotes, citations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs) 22:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC) it seems there is a consensus here to revert the biased editing being done by laylah and his partners and we would appreciate if this page is protected to stop it from becoming a campaign ad for his political oponent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs) 22:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Obamacare comment from 1houstonian moved here

I moved this to its own section because 1houstonian slapped it in the middle of a long passage about something else and it was unreadable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Congressman Stockman introduced a bill to defund ObamaCare [[3]] and the whole paragraph concerning that is removed. Instead editors have been using out of context quips to define the congressman's tenure. It appears someone is using this page as a campaign commercial against the congressman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs) 01:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There was still a sentence in there about his opposition to Obamacare. The problem with the material you keep reinserting is that it is not neutrally stated, it's only sourced to a primary source so there's no independent way to tell if his bill was important or not, and it's at best semi-literate. Do you have any actual policy-based reasons why it should be in there or any secondary sources that will let us gauge the importance of his bill? It's up to you, as the editor who wants to insert the material, to provide these. Accusing other editors of ulterior motives is not going to help us move forward.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a election Cornyn vs Stockman and seems Stockmans position on issues is being deleted instead of being edited thereby removing the neutrality of Wikepedia and non issues being introduced as his policy position ie him not voting for the violence against women act when it applies to non biologically women has been changed by you into a quip taken out of context to describe his tenure. If that is not bias I do not have the definition of bias. 1houstonian

What are you talking about? I didn't add or subtract anything to that paragraph on the Violence Against Women act. Take it out for all I care. Can you stop accusing me of bias and explain why you think the material you added ought to be in the article? That's what we do here. We discuss what goes in the article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Support or opposition to Obamacare has been a defining moment in American politics as it will increase the size of our government. Most entrenched ranking Republican Senators like Senator McConnel, Senator Cornyn who voted to fund Obamacare are facing primary challenges from within the party and you deleted it. And you put in a out of context quip Steve may not have even have made about the violence against women bill giving transgeder or homosexual same rights as biological women or as one of the most important thing in his tenure. You also delete all the references to Congressman Stockmans position and his exchanges with EPA about expediting Building Permits for new plants in his district that will create jobs and you consider the out of context quip about transgender that he may not even have made more important. You insert in his past tenure an article taht his office has denied he wrote as the most defining moment of his past term. You do not want to show any reference to Senator Cornyn's vote for to fund Obamacare on Senator Cornyn's page that got him a challenge from Congressman Stockman. If you want to use Senator Cornyns page as his campaign commercial that's ok with me but then you are trying to convert Congressman Stockmans page also into Senator Cornyns campaign webpage which I have issue with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, can you stick to the actual topic? I don't care one way or another about the outcome of this election. Obamacare might be a defining moment in American government, but if Stockman's actual anti-Obamacare bill is a defining anything, there ought to be secondary sources for it. Please stop bringing Coryn's page into it. We're not editing Coryn's page.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an example of the Stockman campaigning that 1houstonian has inserted or re-inserted into the article:

Stockman is a vehement believer in small government and considers government intrusion into healthcare Obamacare, as being tantamount to socialism. He has been a strong opponent of Obamacare in the U.S. Congress, and has sponsored a bill to defund it. [footnotes omitted] He felt led down by fellow Republicans such as John Cornyn who voted to fund Obamacare and other spending programs which is the main reason he decided to run for US Senate.

Yet, 1houstonian does not cite any such "bill." Instead, he cites to a proposed House of Representatives resolution - H. Res. 333, August 2, 2013. This resolution would not in and of itself have defunded Obamacare, even if it had been approved by the full House of Representatives. Why? Because it would never have been sent to the Senate for passage by the Senate. This proposed resolution, H. Res. 333, is what is called a "simple resolution." To enact a statute to defund Obamacare, you would need a "bill" or a "joint resolution", not a simple resolution. Bills and joint resolutions can be passed by both the House and Senate and sent to the President for signature. A simple resolution does not serve that purpose. And who says that the votes to fund Obamacare and other spending programs are "the main reason" that Stockman "decided to run for US Senate"? Is 1houstonian a Stockman mind reader? Why doesn't the material include proper citations? I don't necessarily doubt that Steve Stockman opposes Obamacare, and I wouldn't doubt that he may have also sponsored one or more bills or joint resolutions to try to do that. I also don't necessarily doubt that 1houstonian's characterizations of Stockman's "feelings" and "reasons" are accurate (I don't care, actually) -- but Wikipedia is not the proper place for our own mini-essays about Stockman's feelings and motives. Let's have proper sourcing.

Next, let's look at the language "vehement believer in small government" -- again, this sounds like a Stockman press release. Next, the material asserts, without any sourcing, that Stockman "felt let down by fellow Republicans such as John Cornyn", etc. Really? Who says so? The source material does not say so, as far as I see. What is the source for this information about how Stockman "felt" -- and why is this material encyclopedic anyway? I don't see Stockman's "feeling" mentioned in the New American article cited by 1houstonian. Again, this comes across to me as barely disguised political campaigning -- in favor of Stockman and against Cornyn. (The two are currently contending, with other candidates as well, for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Cornyn.) This is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Yet, 1houstonian has repeatedly attacked other editors as being biased for removing blatant campaign-style material like this.

Dear 1houstonian: We understand that you may strongly support Steve Stockman's political campaign. However, you have to understand that Wikipedia is not the proper place for this. Further, the fact that other editors are removing your material does not necessarily mean that they support Cornyn and oppose Stockman. The problem is not that other editors are using this article as a "campaign commercial against the congressman" (i.e., Stockman). The problem is that some of your edits do not conform to Wikipedia's rules. Please read the Wikipedia rules and guidelines, assume good faith, refrain from personal attacks, and respond to the concerns of other editors. Famspear (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Famspear: Thank you for your message it is not a question of who I support or not support it is a question of neutrality in election season and usually both candidates getting equal time or opportunity on any non profit neutral forum. Rather than outright deleting you can say whats objectionable or edit it to show neutrality. I am confused because everything with links to Bills Steve has sponsored or interviews or articles, links to his press releases are being deleted on his page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs) 03:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Famspear: Thanks for explaining that in much more detail than I would have had the heart to do. Dear 1houstonian: You seem to be super-confused about "usually both candidates getting equal time or opportunity." What's that about and what does it have to do with Wikipedia?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikepdia is a nonprofit organization and has to show neutrality especially on elections 1houstonian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs) 04:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear 1houstonian: Again, the article is not about an election. This is not about the rivalry between Steve Stockman and John Cornyn. Wikipedia articles are not properly used as battlegrounds for battles between political candidates. Please stop. Famspear (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 State of the Union

Stockman got some press last week for walking out during the President's State of the Union address.[4][5][6] I think this is probably worth a mention, if somebody can find an NPOV way to describe it. --Alexbook (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree he walked out with threat to impeach because of the impeding implementation thru executive order without congressional approval which Congressman Stockman considers unconstitutional, this is probably more worthy of mention than the out of context quips that laylah and his team keep putting to convert Steve Stockmans page into Senator Cornyns campaign page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs) 04:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, friend, learn to read a page history. I didn't add any of that stuff you're so concerned about. Mostly what I've done is take out semiliterate unsourced crapola and also rewrite and add high quality sources to the parts about his previous campaigns and one term in the House. Why don't you engage with the actual discussion about what should be in the article rather than flinging accusations about my "team"?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

And as to the actual content proposed by Alexbook, it doesn't seem as if there's good sourcing for it; even the Houston Chronicle only put it in its blog. If it meant much it seems as if there'd be an actual newspaper story about it. Just my feeling about that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Laylah and GabrielF even this maybe more newsworthy than the out of context quips you put in to describe the congressmans tenure http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/196779-stockman-walks-out-of-state-of-the-union 1houstonian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1houstonian (talk • contribs) 05:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

the impeding implementation -- what the heck does that mean? One reason that 1houstonian's edits are being reverted is because they aren't written in English. As for Stockman walking out of the SOTU, it should probably be mentioned, with the article from thehill or elsewhere cited, with a single short direct quote from Stockman as to why he walked out. But his reasons should not be stated as a facts (especially since they aren't factual), as 1houstonian has done in the past. -- Jibal (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

GabrielF and Laylah please stop trying to convert this into a campaign ad page for Stockmans opponent George — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.197.34 (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with George and request someone to block GabrielF and Laylah from vandalizing this page AchtungBerlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achtungberlin (talk • contribs) 15:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Achtungberlin: You need to read WP:VANDAL to get a handle on "vandalism" on Wikipedia. I don't think it means what you think it means. --Alexbook (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"George" is likely to be yet another sock of 1houstonian ... same nonsensical bogus claims and unWP behavior. -- Jibal (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOVN

I don't know if it's actually likely to do any good, but I've started yet another discussion about this page on the Neutral point of view noticeboard. --Alexbook (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem isn't the page, it's with the editor who has been repeatedly banned but continues with the exact same behavior and is now apparently spawning socks. -- Jibal (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The laziest statewide campaign to date

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/tea-partiers-are-over-steve-stockman

Are the JoAnn Fleming dozen notable? Hcobb (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Negative Campaign AD

This page is written as a negative campaign AD for the opponent. There are several instances this page needs to be cleaned up. If the charge is misdemeanor it cannot be called felony. We need it done with NPOV. Kroger952 (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the Houston Chronicle, Stockman himself described it as a felony: "In a 1995 interview with the Houston Chronicle, Stockman admitted to a 1977 felony charge when he was 20 years old. He was charged with possession of Valium after his girlfriend stuck three tablets in his pocket just before he reported to jail to serve a two-day sentence for a traffic violation, Stockman had said."[7].

I'm not opposed to changing the wording. Right now we discuss this in two sections of the article and that seems redundant. However, your version is unacceptable. You wrote: "The media has only produced only one readily confirmable story about some teenage kid with a similar name charged for misdemeanor more than 40 years ago and charges dropped. On the basis of this story from 40 years ago his opponents PAC has run negative AD's several weeks before the 2014 Senate Primary alleging felony and jail time even though there is no felony when the charge is a misdemeanor." There are a number of problems with this text.

• First, by saying "some teenage kid with a similar name", you're implying that this person was not Stockman when, in fact, sources indicate that it was Stockman and he himself admitted it in the Houston Chronicle interview quoted above.
• Second, the phrasing strikes me as original research (see WP:NOR). In other words, you're making judgments that the sources are not making. Examples: "The media has only produced...", "On the basis of this story from 40 years ago..." These are your opinions, they are not what the source is saying. You're welcome to quote a reliable source that makes these points but you can't write them in the voice of the encyclopedia.
• Third, its not clear to me that your text is accurate. "alleging felony and jail time even though there is no felony when the charge is a misdemeanor" - the source indicates that he was initially charged with a felony but pled guilty to a misdemeanor. Strictly speaking, the claim that he was charged with a felony appears to be true. GabrielF (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You cannot use the word Felony when the charge is a misdemeanor and dropped. Please read Houston Chronicle article carefully at best it is referring to some article from twenty years, as Congressman riding in front of Cop car. He joked like many people after they attain success they try to exaggerate their humble beginnings and he joked about riding in back seat instead of front seat of a cop car.Kroger952 (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Kroger952: I agree with you in part and disagree with you in part. For purposes of Wikipedia, I believe that you can indeed say that someone was charged with a felony IF reliable sources say that the person was charged with a felony -- even if the felony charge was reduced to a misdemeanor and the individual was therefore not convicted of a felony.

There is a reasonable argument to be made, however, that the reference to the felony charge should not be mentioned in the article anyway -- but not for the reason you are indicating. I believe there is a reasonable argument to omit the reference to a felony charge where the charge was later dropped -- simply because many people are incorrectly charged with felonies that they did not commit. Often, such charges are later dropped.

I think it's a close call in this particular case, and if the Wikipedia consensus is that the dropped felony charge is properly sourced and that it should be mentioned, then that will be what we have to go with.

Comments, anyone? Famspear (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Kroger952: There is another factor to consider. Stockman has reportedly filed a lawsuit regarding the issue about the "felony" charge. So, the material regarding the alleged felony charge might be suitable for Wikipedia purposes, for that reason alone.

Also, you changed the article to say -- incorrectly -- that the source material was saying that Stockman was charged with a misdemeanor charge that was dropped. That is incorrect. The source article says that Stockman was charged with a felony charge that was dropped. Whether the felony charge was replaced with a misdemeanor charge is a separate issue. But you as a Wikipedia editor cannot change what the actual source is saying. Let's stick with summarizing what the sources say. Famspear (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Cornyn vs Stockman

There is a primary going on in Texas. Cornyns PAC and Cornyn are spending millions of dollars in mostly negative AD's against Stockman and it seems to be playing out in Wikepedia. Some biased editors are turning Stockman page into a negative AD page for Cornyn and also keep removing sourced material from Cornyn page to make it look like Senator Cornyn's reelection AD.George125 (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

How does Wikepedia monitor undisclosed paid editions going on during political season? When a politican like Senator Cornyn is spending millions of dollars in negative AD's, how do we know this is not being done on Wikepedia to make the Congressman Stockman page look bad and Senator Cornyn's great?George125 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't care about Cornyn versus Stockman one way or the other, it appears to me to be just the opposite: Stockman supporters have been coming here and trying to delete material critical of Stockman, and to insert material that seems to be campaigning on behalf of Stockman.

The answer to your question is that you don't need to bother yourself with worrying about whether Cornyn supporters are trying to use Wikipedia to make Stockman look bad -- or vice versa. Just learn Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, and follow them. Famspear (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The user has asked a very legitimate question and one does not need to get defensive about it. This question comes in every persons mind when there is a series of editors trying to equate felony to misdemeanor and mistating facts. Personally I would raise the same question and put this PAC negative AD question on Cornyns page. Kroger952 (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Kroger952: Absolutely no one here has "equated" a felony and a misdemeanor. The source material (the Mimi Swartz article) clearly states that Stockman was charged with a felony, and that the charge was later dropped. Accurately summarizing what the SOURCE says is not "equating" felonies and misdemeanors. Famspear (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting to me that you address George125 as "the user", implying that the two of you are different. Yet the two of you use very similar grammar and spelling (for instance, both of you unnecessarily capitalize the word ad in the phrase "negative AD"). GabrielF (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GabrielF is that insulting question your defense to a legitimate question about undisclosed paid editors working for Senator Cornyns multimillion dollar negative AD campaign. Kroger952 (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Now, user "Kroger952" has removed this material:

In early January 2014 a PAC associated with Cornyn, Texans for a Conservative Majority (TCM), ran at least $166,000 worth of negative campaign ads about Stockman. Patricia Kilday Hart, Stockman takes hard hits in ads by Cornyn PAC, Houston Chronicle, January 9, 2014. On January 30, 2014, Stockman filed a libel suit against TCM disputing the factual accuracy of two claims made by the PAC: that Stockman had been charged with a felony in 1977 and that he had violated federal campaign laws. In TCM's response to the suit, the group asserted that court records and interviews given by Stockman in 1995 demonstrated that Stockman was charged with a felony, but that he ultimately pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge. Todd Gillman, Citing Stockman’s own words, pro-Cornyn group formally denies libel allegation, Dallas Morning News, 14 February 2014. TCM also asserted that the Federal Election Commission had fined Stockman $40,000 for issuing campaign literature disguised as newspapers in the 1990s. Allan Turner, "PAC: Stockman himself admitted offenses," Feb. 15, 2014, page B2, Houston Chronicle.

--with the following blatantly false explanation in his edit summary: "removed nonsense POV of Cornyns [sic] campaign PAC".

Kroger952, you are clearly well aware that this material is not nonsense POV of Cornyn's campaign PAC. I understand that you don't like what these two newspapers are reporting, but that's too bad. The Houston Chronicle and the Dallas Morning News are reliable sources, and you cannot properly remove correctly cited material from these sources with the false claim that this is "nonsense POV" of Cornyn's campaign. If you continue with this kind of tactic, you may be blocked from editing in Wikipedia (not by me, but by an administrator).

Again, read Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Famspear (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This sockpuppetry by Kroger, Justin and all the others has gone on long enough. I've filed a request for full page protection. Tiller54 (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

An administrator has confirmed the sockpuppetry: 1houstonian, also known as Actungberlin, is back at it (yawn... what a surprise...), using the following sockpuppets: George125, Javagalleria675, Dallas1963, Justin5075 and apparently Kroger952. See: [8]. Famspear (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Tiller54 (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Back on 6 February 2014, after "1houstonian," also known as "Actungberlin," was blocked, he issued an implied threat to try to circumvent the block, and he certainly did try hard to do that over the past few days, with "George125", "Javagalleria675", "Justin5075", "Kroger952" and "Dallas1963". He is definitely trying to use Wikipedia to help the political campaign for Steve Stockman. One of his tactics is to falsely charge that those who enforce Wikipedia rules and guidelines are somehow "paid" supporters of Stockman's main opponent, incumbent John Cornyn. Ironically, these kinds of tactics can only hurt Stockman's candidacy, if anything. I wouldn't be surprised if we see further attempts to disrupt Wikipedia by "1houstonian", in the guise of some other user account or accounts. Famspear (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Undisclosed Paid Political Editing for Senator Cornyn

It is unfortunate that Senator Cornyns millions of negative advertising dollars have also entered Wikipedia. Congressman Stockmans Political Positions have been replacement by malicious mistatements and untruths. Many editors who have been editing Wikipedia for years have been blocked from correcting the subjective misstatements on Stockmans page so it becomes a negative advertisement for Cornyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.92.242.57 (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear IP63.92.242.57: Baloney. Famspear (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia is not the proper place to campaign for political candidates. The "politickin'" that has been going on here has been in favor of Steve Stockman, not John Cornyn. And the "editor" who has been doing this in favor of Stockman has not been "editing Wikipedia for years."

By contrast, the editors who have been trying to keep this article from becoming a sales pitch for Mr. Stockman are indeed experienced editors. Accurately summarizing reliable sources does not constitute the making of "subjective misstatements."

By contrast, adding unsourced commentary and personal opinions (as "1houstonian," through his now-blocked stock puppets, has done) constitutes an abuse of Wikipedia and a violation of the rules. 1houstonian and his sock puppets have been blocked for that reason. Such misconduct is actually hurts Steve Stockman's campaign, if anything.

This article is not "negative advertisement" for Cornyn or for anyone else. Famspear (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Famspear and Tillman54 and cohorts keep putting the PAC defense on Stockman page and they make sure it is not on Cornyn page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.92.242.57 (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Policy Position

Can someone put the policy postions of Stockman back into his bio that were deleted, these are relevant to a politiian seeking election.George125 (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No. The edits are not appropriate. They're poorly sourced and badly written. A thinly-veiled puff piece, in other words. The edits include claims like:

• "Congressman Stockman is a supporter of American Energy Independence"
• "Stockman has spoken out about the need to dredge and secure the Texas"
• "hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake as these Ports are fueling the Texas economic miracle"
• "Stockman as consistently chased the EPA"
• "Stockman has called on Vice-President Biden to obtain a lifting of what he argues is an EPA"

They are not written from an NPOV and 3 of them don't even make sense. The rest of the section is just like it and as such is not appropriate. Tiller54 (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community project with objective point of view. All you have in here is subjective misstatements, out of context stories which do not reflect this individual's bio. By protecting this page you are closing this page for edit by anyone who wants to introduce a neutral point of view and you have opened this page only to allow edits by Tillman54, Famspear, GabrielF and cohorts who do not like Steve Stockman and can only put in a biased hateful POV as you can see on this page. If they had some questions about Steve Stockmans policy positions or wanted a citation they could have requested it as is done on Wikipedia. They outright removed his Policy Positions to belittle a man that has been elected by 70% to Congressional office. In 2014 Senate Elections the incumbent Cornyn missed being forced into runoff by 9%[9]whereas Cornyn outspent Stockman 14 million to 100,000. Instead Tillman54 and his cohorts focus the nonsense about TCR defense in the 2014 Election section.Aflac123 (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we do not have subjective mis-statements. No, we do not have out-of-context stories. No, I and other editors are not inserting a "biased hateful POV".

If I recall, the material that was removed -- the material you loved so much -- looked as though it could have come from press releases by Stockman himself. It was not presented in a neutral way. It was presented as though it had been written to support Stockman's candidacy.

Look, we're sorry that your "guy" lost, but Wikipedia was not the proper place for you to be campaigning on his behalf. Stockman lost, and he will be leaving Congress in January 2015. You might as well get over it. Famspear (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly he is not my guy, secondly I don't care if he loses or if your guy Cornyn won. I am interested in putting in NPOV. Seems like the undisclosed paid goons like Tillman54, Stockman haters and cohorts like you insist on putting biased nonsense on this bio that has nothing to do with objectivity. You have to remember that he is the current representative from district 36 and election which he won by over 70%. With only $100,000 put in by Stockman against $14 million from Cornyn, incumbent barely survived a run off by only 9%. There are more than 250,000 Texas voters like myself who disagree with your nonsense you keep putting in this bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.92.242.57 (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear IP 63.92.242.57: Yes, Stockman is your guy. That is very obvious. And no, the rest of us are not "paid goons" for Cornyn or anyone else. And the rest of us are not Stockman "haters" (as far as I know). We are regular, experienced editors of Wikipedia. I, for example, have been editing for over eight years -- thousands of edits in hundreds of articles. I am not paid by anyone to edit anything in Wikipedia, and I am neither a supporter of Cornyn nor a supporter of Stockman. You, on the other hand, are obviously here to promote Stockman. You are engaging in the Wikipedia equivalent of what psychologists call projection. I have not put any "nonsense" into the article. The fact that you refer to regular editors here as "paid goons" (in favor of Cornyn, apparently) and as "Stockman haters" illustrates your motivation: You are a supporter of Stockman, you're upset that he lost, and you're upset that the Wikipedia article contains material about Stockman that you don't like.

The election is over. It was not appropriate for you to use this Wikipedia article to promote a political candidate, and it is not appropriate for you to continue to use this talk page to whine and complain about Mr. Cornyn or any other politician.

For the umpteenth time: Major newspapers, such as the Houston Chronicle, are SOURCES in Wikipedia. SOURCES ARE ALLOWED TO BE BIASED. That's right: SOURCES ARE ALLOWED TO BE BIASED. Using a biased source DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RULE ON NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. Instead, Neutral Point of View entails presenting reliable sources -- even if they are biased -- without Wikipedia itself taking a stand as to which source is right and which is wrong. The article does not say that the sources are correct. The article does not say that the sources are wrong. The article reports what the sources say.

The problem you are having is that the sources are reporting material that you feel makes Mr. Stockman look bad. Well, that's too bad. That does not convert the article into "nonsense."

I can't speak for everyone, but I suspect that most of the rest of us don't care whether there are 250,000 Texas voters like you or not. I repeat: The election is over, and your guy lost. Get over it. Please read the Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and restrict your comments to discussion of ways to improve the article. Famspear (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

All the user seems to be asking for is a neutral point of view instead of subjective thrash from Tiller54, Famspear and other Stockman haters whose views none of us care about.Aflac123 (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Aflac123: You're still doing it: "Famspear and other Stockman haters....." This is nonsense rhetoric. Give it up. Famspear (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

The following can be sourced and puts Stockman "on the map", in my opinion!

Headline-1: Stockman bill allows taxpayers to use same lame excuses as IRS

• http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stockman-bill-allows-taxpayers-to-use-same-lame-excuses-as-irs

Under Stockman’s bill, “The Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Act,” taxpayers who do not provide documents requested by the IRS can claim one of the following reasons:

1. The dog ate my tax receipts 2. Convenient, unexplained, miscellaneous computer malfunction 3. Traded documents for five terrorists 4. Burned for warmth while lost in the Yukon 5. Left on table in Hillary’s Book Room 6. Received water damage in the trunk of Ted Kennedy’s car 7. Forgot in gun case sold to Mexican drug lords 8. Forced to recycle by municipal Green Czar 9. Was short on toilet paper while camping 10. At this point, what difference does it make?

QUOTE: "Stockman’s bill comes a week after the IRS refused to turn over to House investigators emails from former Exempt Organizations Divison director Lois Lerner that would implicate agency personnel in illegal targeting of citizens critical of President Barack Obama." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: GOP Rep. Proposes Bill Allowing Americans to Use the Same ‘Flimsy, Obviously Made-Up Excuses’ as Government Officials

• http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/25/gop-rep-outlines-his-proposed-bill-allowing-americans-to-use-the-same-flimsy-obviously-made-up-excuses-as-government-officials/

QUOTE: "Congressman Steve Stockman (R-Texas) recently proposed legislation allowing Americans to use the same “flimsy, obviously made-up excuses” that he says government officials have used on the American people. Stockman is calling the bill: “The Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Act.”" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-3: ‘Convenient computer malfunction’: Congressman introduces bill so taxpayers can use 'same lame excuses' as IRS when filing returns

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2664130/Congressman-introduces-bill-taxpayers-use-lame-excuses-IRS-filing-returns.html

QUOTE: "Taxpayers shouldn’t be expected to follow laws the Obama administration refuses to follow themselves,' Stockman, a Republican, said in a statement announcing The Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Act." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

There’s more: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Because it is honest, media is taking it ‘viral’—and it isn’t funny anymore. It’s painfully honest. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably not particularly notable, especially as it comes from a lame duck Congressman and will never be enacted. Hundreds of proposals are introduced in Congress every year, and the vast majority of them are never enacted. Famspear (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I give Stockman points for the humor, though! Famspear (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

In January and February, a group of editors (later blocked for sockpuppetry) made significant changes to the article to drop coverage of incidents that might be perceived as negative with respect to Stockman and to introduce weaselly, badly-sourced text about Stockman's policy positions. This version of the text was rejected by a number of experienced editors. In the last 24 hours or so, User:Rimjim007 and User:Americanwinner have repeatedly restored these rejected changes. In doing so they have eliminated several well-sourced paragraphs, including Stockman's controversial comments about the Waco Siege and his calls for investigation of the Kinsey Reports, and his opposition to the bailout of the Mexican peso, as well as his more recent opposition to the Violence Against Women Act and a recent ethics investigation of his office. These users have introduced material that reads as promotional and is largely sourced to Stockman's website (a sample: "Congressman Stockman has never voted for a tax increase and has been a proponent for spending cuts and small government.") These edits are clearly not neutral and need to be reverted.GabrielF (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Corrected the amount of Money spent by Texans for conservative majority and Cornyn

us-campaign-committees.findthebest.com/l/37259/Texans-For-A-Conservative-Majority

http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2014-01-09/texas-pro-cornyn-pac-spends-744000-attacking-stockman/36district (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

http://realtime.influenceexplorer.com/committee/texans-for-a-conservative-majority/C00542217/36district (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20140411-trail-mix-cornyn-spent-nearly-5.5-million-in-primary-victory-over-steve-stockman.ece

Fact Check Early Life

Fact check a felon cannot run for congress or become a congressman, he was obviously engaged in exaggerating his humble beginnings like Hillary Clinton[[17]] in her dead broke claim. His exaggeration was used by his opponents in 2014 Senate Campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36district (talk • contribs) 01:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

One -- you are engaging in original research (WP:OR). Two -- you are actually factually wrong on this. Three -- a felon is one who has been convicted of a felony and if the person is not convicted, he is not a felon in the first place. Three strikes. Collect (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP issues

(Full disclosure: I am a legislative assistant to Rep. Stockman). Is it necessary to include in this article charges which were later dropped? I don't see how these would be considered notable. Taking into account the policies of WP:N/CA and WP:BLPCRIME, the Valium issue and the ethics investigation issue should be removed from this article. --PiMaster3 ^talk 01:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe that WP:BLPCRIME is applicable here. The core of BLPCRIME states: "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." In this case, Stockman is a public figure, I do not believe he can be fairly classified as "relatively unknown". I would also argue that, given Stockman's plea of nolo contendere, a conviction was secured, in this case for misdemeanor use of a controlled substance.

I also do not believe that WP:N/CA is applicable here. Stockman's legal history became an issue in his most recent campaign and was discussed in the media in the 1990s, including in a front-page article in the Dallas Morning News. Stockman himself told the media about the incident as a means of explaining his life story.[18] GabrielF (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: I am a friend of Rep. Stockman for the past 25 years). I have read the full transcript of the interviews many times and for those of you who do not know him, he has a very colorful sense of humor which opponents and some news media quote out of context to discredit him. The interviews which opponents and some newsmen siding with opponents claim as admissions are at best exaggerations by Rep Stockman of his humble beginnings in his 1995 interview. Interview shows his colorful sense of humor where he jokes about being used to sitting at the back side of a cop car instead of front as a teenager is in know way an admission as claimed in negative ads by opponents and news media. Close to 10 million dollars was spent in negative ads twisting this 1995 interview around in the 2014 election campaign[[http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/the-steve-stockman-strategy/] A typical example of people exaggerating their humble beginnings is recent Hillary Clintons dead broke claim [[19]]. The incident from forty years ago in 1977 where there was no charges has been expunged from the records and according to Michigan Law it is illegal talk about it and I see no reason for Wiki to keep showing it. Rep Stockman is a decent human being who has done a lot of work for our country and his quips have been taken out of context to describe him and his tenure. 36district (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi 36district. Thank you for your comment. However, it's very clear from what you wrote that you have a conflict of interest here. Per our conflict of interest policy you should not be editing this article. GabrielF (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear 36district: I'm sorry, but neither Michigan law nor the law of any other state can make it "illegal" for people in general to "talk" about someone's criminal record, whether the record has been expunged or not. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies in that situation. The alleged felony arrest was reported in the news media and I believe Stockman even filed a lawsuit earlier this year about it. The assertion that the reported felony charge was dropped was also clearly explained in the article (although it appears that some of the detail was removed from the article for some reason a few weeks ago). We appreciate your loyalty to Mr. Stockman as a long-time friend of his, but we need to follow specific Wikipedia rules and guidelines. We understand that you feel uncomfortable, but the fact that you as Mr. Stockman's friend see "no reason for Wiki to keep showing" the material is not a valid basis for removing it. Famspear (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Famspear: If charges are dropped and records expunged it is not a notable issue worth mentioning in a persons bio. The reason this became such a big story was political opponents spent tens of millions of dollars in 2 or 3 months in negative advertising astutely twisting the 1995 interview by Rep Stockman exaggerating his humble beginnings with his colorful humor into a negative advertisement. Putting info on Wiki that does not exist is not just 'talk' it is read by thousands of people and convicts an innocent person of something which he has never been convicted of 40 years ago in his teenage years36district (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear 36district: You don't need to convince me that it's unfair. I agree. I personally disagree with the standard practice of the media to report someone's arrest before the charges have been accepted by the district attorney or that person has been formally indicted, etc. I'm a former broadcast news reporter, and when I was reporting (a long time ago), the police in the city where I worked had a rule: We will give the reporter the name of the suspect who has been arrested, but the reporter cannot publicize his name until the reporter obtains confirmation from the district attorney that the district attorney has decided to press the charges or the person has been indicted. I thought it was a good rule.

However, my feeling that it's unfair is not the same as Wikipedia's rules and guidelines.

By the way, my understanding is that the report that a Stephen Ernest Stockman was arrested in Oakland County, Michigan in 1977 for felony possession of diazepam (Valium) is not based merely on something Stockman said. The police record has been published on the internet. I have a PDF copy of it. It indicates that the alleged offense occurred on September 23, 1977. The detention report is dated October 5, 1977. The paperwork states that the witnesses were Detective Fattome and Officer Puchovan of the Madison Heights, Michigan police department. The paperwork makes reference to the 43rd Judicial District Court of the State of Michigan (Oakland County). Are you saying that Stockman was never actually arrested for felony possession of diazepam in 1977? Are you saying that the arrest record is a fake? Famspear (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear 36 District: Also, I want to point out that we have not one but two reliable secondary sources, Texas Monthly and the Dallas Morning News, plus one primary source (the actual arrest records I mentioned). You're claiming that Stockman's admissions "are at best exaggerations by Rep Stockman of his humble beginnings in his 1995 interview," but you have offered no reliable, previously published third party sources to back up that claim. You're only a Wikipedia editor, like me. Our own views about whether Stockman was "exaggerating" are not the basis for deleting material from Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Famspear: If charges are dropped and records expunged it is not a notable issue worth mentioning in a persons bio. The reason this became such a big story was political opponents spent tens of millions of dollars in 2 or 3 months in negative advertising astutely twisting the 1995 interview by Rep Stockman exaggerating his humble beginnings with his colorful humor into a negative advertisement. Putting info on Wiki that does not exist is not just 'talk' it is read by thousands of people and convicts an innocent person of something which he has never been convicted of 40 years ago in his teenage years36district (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Famspear: if there is no conviction or charges on a event 40 years ago it is not notable for this bio page. the reason why some reporters were able to find one arrest record from 40 years ago about a young man name Stephen Stockman was because Rep. Stockman after becoming Congressman in a 1995 interview was exaggerating his humble beginnings. in this interview, typical Stockman colorful sense of humor joked about him being more used to sitting at back seat of cop cars than front seat, his political opponents and some news media twisted it around as "according to his admissions has been to jail multiple times". I made the effort and was not able to find any such record claimed by the reporters at Michigan police department. the reason they may have been able to find something was because by some error someone may have forgotten to expunge the record as the charges were dropped. it is not notable for this bio and if it is put in here the other side of story need to be told 36district (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear district36: I think both sides of the story are told. The article says (A) that he was arrested on a felony charge, and (B) that the charge was dropped.

Stockman is both an elected public official and a public figure. People can argue about whether a felony arrest of a public official or public figure that occurred many years ago, prior to his entry in politics, is "notable" for purposes of Wikipedia, when in fact the felony charge was dropped, but I think you're having a hard time convincing anyone here that it's not notable.

And, please bear in mind my comments above. As a lawyer and a former reporter myself, I'm probably closer to your point of view on the matter of "notability" than some of the other editors here. However, you haven't convinced me.

Whether the felony arrest record was (or was intended to be) officially expunged or not, someone in the media obviously got a hold of the paperwork. Therefore, the information is and will always be a matter of public record, like it or not. I understand that you have strong feelings regarding your long-time friend, but I think you need to come up with some different arguments if you want to convince your fellow editors here. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Famspear: What I mean by both sides of the story is Stockman's colorful humor and his exagerations of his humble beginning in the inteview given 1995 at the peak of his career after defeating Jack Brooks the Democratic Icon. In the interview he joked about being more used to sitting in the back side of a cop car than the frontside and exagerated about his being in jail mutiple times as teenager. Certain media and his political opponents in 2014 election camapign shrewdly twisted this interview around to say Stockman admitted to being in jail multiple times. Tens of millions dollars were spent in negative advrtising based on this one interview. 36district (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't much follow the election at the time and I wasn't aware of the old 1995 Stockman interview you're talking about (until I read the various posts on this talk page). The interview you're talking about and the negative ads, etc., are tangential to the issue here. The issue is whether the felony arrest and the dropping of the felony charge should be mentioned in the article. That has nothing to do with some sort of exaggeration or joke by Stockman. Unless I missed it, the article says nothing about Stockman admitting, jokingly or otherwise, to having been arrested multiple times. From what I gather, the felony arrest report is not the creation of Stockman's political opponents, either. From everything I see, this was an actual incident documented by reliable, previously published third party sources. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're trying to use (1) your unhappiness with the media coverage of Stockman, (2) your unhappiness with what his political opponents did, and (3) your friendship with Stockman, to push for a deletion of a mention of the felony arrest and the dropping of the felony charge.

The article says he was subject to a felony arrest, and the charge was dropped. The article's description of the incident is very brief, and citations are given reliable sources. Famspear (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

image used

Two images have been used - I suggest the one which is a larger image of his face is superior here.

The choices are "Steve Stockman.jpg" or "Steve Stockman official portrait.jpg" which has been the one used for a long time. Collect (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Valium, jail time

[20]

but dropped out because he suffered from what he called "partying syndrome". In 1977, when Stockman was twenty, police officers found valium in his possession. He was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance, but the charge was later dropped.

Given the previous discussions on this content and the bad faith rationale for its deletion, why shouldn't it be restored? --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

there's no bad faith rationale for previous deletes, just people who disclosed connections to him who thought it wasn't relevant. still not seeing the relevance of one pill where charges were dropped. the way it reads in the article, it's clearly just meant as a hit. Stockman didn't make anti-drugs a big issue, this is just one salacious thing from ~40 years ago. if he got a speeding ticket 30 years ago is that relevant? Benwetmore (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

In an article on an individual, his prior arrest record is generally relevant to the individual and to the article. This is particularly the case where the individual is a public figure (in this case, an elected public official at the time of the Stockman-Cornyn controversy) and he falsely denies that he was ever even arrested, as was (apparently) the case here. Both the arrest record and the false denial are relevant to the individual's character, particularly where the individual is or was an elected public official.

However, the drug charge was dropped. He was never even tried on the charge, much less found guilty of anything.

So, the germane concern is not "relevance," but rather materiality or (maybe) notability. Whether the drug charge -- which was later dropped without any prosecution -- is material to the article on Stockman is perhaps a somewhat more difficult question to resolve. Famspear (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

To illustrate: The total amount of recorded rainfall in Utah in the year 1879 is neither relevant nor material to an article on Steve Stockman.

However, whether an individual received a speeding ticket 30 years ago would also be relevant to an article on that individual -- but would almost certainly be not material. The speeding ticket example is a good illustration of the difference between relevance and materiality. Famspear (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, the fact that Stockman might not have made drugs an issue when he was a public official (or when he was running for office) does not somehow make his drug arrest record "not be relevant" to the article.

Further, the fact that the inclusion of the report in the article was "clearly just meant as a hit" -- even assuming that to be a fact -- does not in and of itself disqualify the material for inclusion in the article.

One question that we might want to consider is: Assuming that the drug arrest report was material to the article as long as Stockman was still in office, has the report become less material, now that he is no longer a public official? (I don't have a strong position one way or the other on that.) Famspear (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Relevance presumes materiality. A single dropped drug charge over one pill has no connection to someone in 2017. It's not relevant to an encyclopedia entry on someone to include something from 40 years ago. If it had been a recurring problem, if he had a drug problem, if he was known for legalization or criminalizing drugs, if there was some element of hypocrisy, then perhaps it would be relevant. Here, however, it's just malicious. It's clearly biased editors who dislike a public figure vainly adding this irrelevant and immaterial fact to Stockman's article. Frankly, it's childish bullshit and undermines the whole project when the rules on materiality and relevance can't be applied in obvious cases. Benwetmore (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion on relevance and materiality. Could you explain further and relate them to our policies and guidelines?

Doesn't Stockman's lawsuit, and the dallasnews.com reference suggest some mention might be WP:DUE? --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Whether something is brought up in a media outlet doesn't determine relevant or materiality. Benwetmore (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

That is incorrect. If an allegation is brought up about a particular person in a media outlet, that allegation is relevant to an article on that person -- indeed, even if the allegation is false. (Of course, we have rules in Wikipedia about reliable sources, etc., but that's a separate problem). The mere fact, however, that an allegation is brought up about a particular person in a media outlet does not necessarily make that allegation material to the article. There are lots of things that are relevant to a particular subject but are not important enough to be material to that subject. Famspear (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

See my comments under "BLP Issues", above. Stockman's lawsuit and the fact that the drug arrest has been mentioned in the mainstream media are strong factors for including the reference to the drug arrest in the Wikipedia article.

What militates somewhat against inclusion of the material is the fact that the felony charge was dropped. He was never tried and found guilty of the charge. People are falsely charged with crimes from time to time, and this happens more often, perhaps, than the average person realizes.

On balance, however, I believe the factors for inclusion of the material in the article (e.g., a public figure, a felony arrest incident reported in the mainstream media, etc.) tend to outweigh this fact. Also, I believe the article mentions that at some point he became a born-again Christian. The charge of felony illegal possession of a controlled substance -- even if not ever proved -- and the fact (or at least the apparent or reported "fact") that he may have denied ever even being arrested are additional factors that could be considered material to readers interested in evaluating his status as a Christian, his honesty as a public figure, etc. Famspear (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: The drug arrest could also be considered both relevant and material to the mention in the article that Stockman had suffered from "partying syndrome." A drug arrest is relevant to the issue of whether someone has actually used a controlled substance for recreational purposes, which in turn is relevant to the issue of whether that person did indeed "party" excessively.

Again, the fact that the existence (or non-existence) of a particular piece of evidence does not, standing alone, necessarily prove a specific purported allegation does not mean that the evidence is not relevant to the consideration of whether that allegation is true or false. Famspear (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You're saying that because he said he became a 'born again Christian' therefore a drug charge that was dropped from 1977 is relevant and material? You must be on drugs right now because it clearly isn't. There's no sophistry that makes it relevant or material. Benwetmore (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly biased editors who dislike a public figure Nothing clear about it, but the statement made without diffs makes the edits look like they are based upon bad faith assumptions rather than policy. --Ronz (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Benwetmore: No. Go back and re-read what I wrote.

Something that describes an event that happened to Steve Stockman is relevant to the article on Steve Stockman. If we were talking about some other event that happened to someone else with no connection to Stockman --that event might not be relevant to the article on Stockman.

Instead, the issue is materiality, not relevance.

Please refrain from engaging in personal attacks on your fellow editors. Famspear (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Steve Stockman/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs photo, consistent reference formatting, more info outside the 94-96 period. At least close to a B-class, though. studerby 17:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 07:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of information

I'm wondering about this edit and this edit. I do not at all wish to add any irrelevant information that might unfairly portray a person badly, nor do I wish to whitewash any article for that matter, but the info that was removed does appear to be relevant to Stickman's biography, nor does the info seem biased against Stockman. I will re-add the info for those reasons. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Steve Stockman. 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/20130117185029/http://congressmanstevestockman.com/meet-steve/ to http://congressmanstevestockman.com/meet-steve/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201094805/http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/blog-posts/science-committee-questions-scientific-integrity-of-epa-hydraulic-fracturing to http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/blog-posts/science-committee-questions-scientific-integrity-of-epa-hydraulic-fracturing
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140706015618/http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stockman-will-vote-against-reckless-debt-spending-proposal to http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stockman-will-vote-against-reckless-debt-spending-proposal

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) 10:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Criminal case

I added some information on the March 2017 criminal case. The Federal grand jury indictment charges 28 different counts. Stockman is charged with 24 counts and Posey is charged with 15 counts. Twenty-four plus fifteen obviously totals to more than twenty-eight. However, this is not a discrepancy; Stockman and Posey are charged under some of the same counts, but not others. Famspear (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The info on the criminal case could be made more concise. Three massive paragraphs seems a bit bloated, IMO. Also, the section mentions twice (in the second and third paragraphs, respectively) that the trial will begin this month. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Steve Stockman. 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/20131215121932/http://erlc.com/article/southern-baptist-contingent-in-congress-grows/ to http://erlc.com/article/southern-baptist-contingent-in-congress-grows/
• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20120610141810/http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/may29_160_state.htm to http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/may29_160_state.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140305180619/https://team1.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/mar04_169_state.htm?x=0&y=218&id=176 to https://team1.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/mar04_169_state.htm?x=0&y=218&id=176
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201094805/http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/blog-posts/science-committee-questions-scientific-integrity-of-epa-hydraulic-fracturing to http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/blog-posts/science-committee-questions-scientific-integrity-of-epa-hydraulic-fracturing

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) 08:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2018

Spelling correction under "Criminal Case" section, paragraph 3, penultimate sentence - should be "trial," not "trail."

Addition to "Criminal Case" section: On April 12, 2018, "Stockman, 61, of Clear Lake, Texas, was convicted of seven counts of mail and wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to make conduit campaign contributions and false statements to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), one count of making coordinated excessive campaign contributions, two counts of making false statements to the FEC, 11 counts of money laundering and one count of filing a false tax return.... Sentencing has been set for Aug. 17."

Found in news release from US Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Thursday April 12, 2018. Also in Texas Tribune on April 12. 205.189.35.2 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done trail -> trial. Thanks for catching that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• SteveStockmanCP.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)