Talk:Steve Womack/Archive 1

Archive 1

ROTC while an undergraduate?

Womack's bio (http://womack.house.gov/Biography/ ) says "Womack earned a Bachelor’s degree from Tech and was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in the Arkansas Army National Guard." That's the typical pattern if one is in ROTC in one's senior year, but I'm not seeing any supporting information anywhere for that. Womack did say that he joined the military to pay for his education (see http://bluearkansasblog.com/?p=8323 ), but that could be read as joining the military to pay off his student loans, as opposed to having a commitment because one was in ROTC.

(Two years of ROTC at Arkansas Tech were mandatory until 1970, per www.atu.edu/centennial/docs/HISTORYOFROTCATARKANSASTECHUNIVERSITY.pdf , but those were freshman and sophomore years, with no commitment beyond the two years, and in any case Womack enrolled sometime between 1973 and 1975, based on his graduation dates from high school and college.)

So - any source that would answer this question would be appreciated. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2015

I would like to change something on this page. To know what, watch Last Week Tonight Chickens 74.71.73.113 (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Frivolous request. Nthep (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe time for a 'controversies' section? [redacted] Malick78 (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Controversy sections are generally frowned upon as by their very nature they tend to be non-neutral. If someone wants to draft a paragraph(s) saying precisely what the proposed addition to the article is then this can be considered. And for anyone trying please remember it's for a global audience not just a US one. Nthep (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Here is a link to the video [1] where John Oliver encourages people to add "chicken fucker" to pages like this.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Not available in the UK so we're still completely in the dark as to what all this is about. Nthep (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

A look at this should clear it up for you. Also this and this. Dwpaul ^Talk 15:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Chickens

In light of it potentially being considered vandalism I didn't want to add what I saw in Last Week Tonight's Chicken segment to the article without first asking on the talk page. I've gone back and looked it up and because LWT is a national program on and because he has brought up this measure multiple times it warrants being mentioned in a neutral tone somewhere in the tenure page. I see this as no different than any other political position. It should go without saying their will be no implication that Womack is sexually attracted to chickens.

I would like guidance on this issue before I continue. mpen320 (mpen320)

(admin comment) No. For one thing, it is just a show and not remotely close to being a reliable source. This is not a pop culture article. We have been blocking those that add this mess and protecting pages to prevent this misguided advocacy from making it into our articles. It may arguably be added into the John Oliver article but if you do be careful not to run a fowl of the BLP policy. (pun intended)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. mpen320 (mpen320)

It is "just" a show and does have credibility. Misguided advocacy is what someone uses to downplay a legitimate concern from the public. Just checked Rep Steve Womack's campaign contribution breakdown, and why yes, indeed, Tyson foods is #2 campaign contributor. You can also look up the voting records for the bill that Marcy Kaptur attempted to pass, and see that Mr. Womack voted against it. Sorry, but the show is right this time. Thanks. (now go cuddle a chicken)

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Calibourger (talk • contribs)

"personal life" section borders on smear

The "Personal life" section contains one line for Steve Womack, and six lines about troubles of his son. One reference for him, and three references for his son. Unbalanced at least, unfriendly for sure.22:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)76.126.182.112 (talk)

I also think that was over the top. There were implications that his son received special treatment because of him and that is not what the source said. ~ GB fan 23:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Controversy section contains WP:BLP violations

I have again removed this content because it is poorly sourced and violates WP:NPOV. Of particular concern, it contains an unsourced WP:BLP violation: "His initiatives are focused on suppressing basic rights..." That appears to be someone's opinion (not clear who's opinion, as it isn't sourced), but this content really should not be restored. Marquardtika (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. That had to be removed. So same "controversy", but with more solid sources:

"In an analysis of practices in the chicken industry from 2015, Steve Womack and his connection to Tyson Foods became a centerpiece of John Oliver's episode of HBO's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver named Chickens." Womack was also criticised for his role on the House Appropriations Committee, which severely hindered the United States Department of Agricultures work on regulation to address chicken farmers complaints.

I think the first sentence is fine, although it should go under "Tenure" or "Political positions" because of WP:CSECTION. Where in the second source does it say that Womack was criticized or that he severely hindered the USDA? Marquardtika (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

"The USDA (...) proposed regulations in June 2010 designed to address many of the chicken farmers’ chief complaints.(...) The meat industry opposed the proposed regulations and lobbied Congress to block them.(...) The House Appropriations Committee also included Steve Womack, an Arkansas Republican whose district is home to Tyson Foods, the biggest chicken company. (...) When annual funding bills made their way through Kingston’s and Womack’s panels, lawmakers inserted a prohibition against USDA staff spending any time to work on finishing the regulations. "

That reads as criticism - by questioning the motivation behind inserting the prohibition. I dont see the need to further clarify Womack’s role in these events beyond the scope of the source. Alexpl (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

That content would verify something along the lines of: "Womack was a member of the House Appropriations Committee when lawmakers inserted a prohibition into an appropriations bill that would prevent USDA staff from working on finishing regulations related to the meat industry." Marquardtika (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds fine with me. I´ll put that in (plus a date).Alexpl (talk) 11:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

References