Talk:Thaddeus McCotter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Protest

If people are going to delete the protest section, they better state a valid reason. It has been cited and it is a direct issue concerning McCotter's stance on the war. Mccotter1 01:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dennis McCotter

A teacher named Dennis McCotter is a teacher who is in my old school who is related to Thaddeus McCotter. He is also a hot source of humor for his students. Should we make an article about him too, or would it be too much of a vanity article? --SuperDude 23:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unless there is something of more substantial interest, it would count as a vanity article. BTW, Dennis was a childhood friend/classmate of mine and was very funny then, even at 12 years old. He, Thaddeus, and I were all on the same little league basketball team. Thad was TALL. I mean HUGE! Our coach had to carry a copy of his birth certificate to prove he was "legal."(Sushinut (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC))

User:143.231.249.141 editing

It has been alleged that the removal of the following "In 2005, he has come under srutiny for accepting campaign contributions from embattled former house leader Tom Delay" is an example of issue blanking/POV editing by a user that is currently one of the subjects of the United States Congress user conduct RFC.

I am forced to agree (although I note there have been other, valuable edits from this IP on the same day). The subsequent edit that adds a similar charge to the listing of a Democrat, after the deletion of this charge from the listing of a Republican, demonstrates that the edit was not made in good faith. DrWitty 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom Delay Contributions controversy

Please note: If the statement is maintained, it should be revised to "Thad McCotter accepted campaign contributions from ARMPAC, a political action committee founded by Tom Delay, during the 2002 and 2004 election cycles". source: this campaign page which cites [1] (see below). I believe that that is being generous, because the original statement is partially factual, but essentially partisan (it is prominent primarily in partisan political sites, please Google "McCotter Delay" to judge for yourself). It is the flip side of the staffer editing complained of in the RFC. Regardless, the phrase "from embattled former house leader Tom Delay" is demonstrably false in the offered context and POV.

Although the revised statement is factual, I don't believe these statements should be included on either side unless they become noteworthy because of substantial legal action or prominent in the mainstream press. If every politican's page is filled with factual but partisan criticism and counterpoint, these pages are simply not going to read like something that resembles an encyclopedia. DrWitty 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment. I saw that the text had been removed and at first thought it was an attempt at a POV whitewash. But although it is a fact that McCotter accepted the money, so far the only people that seem to be making an issue out of it appear to be partisan sites. While those parties may try to make this a campaign issue, until it gets more widely reported in non-partisan media, I think it best to leave out of the article for now. older ≠ wiser 04:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If this is going to become an issue, then I am going to insist upon factual accuracy in an attempt to mitigate the otherwise political bent of the submission. Here is a primary source. [2]

There have been no contributions from ARMPAC in the 2006 election cycle. [3] There were two contributions from ARMPAC in the 2004 election cycle, the last in December 2003. [4] This is an organization founded by Tom Delay, the money does not come from Tom Delay. I will not remove facts from the listing, or anything that accurately describes the relationship to Tom Delay, but the emerging dispute over this entry is tolerating too much partisan suggestion and innuendo. DrWitty 14:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering that's it's a true statement and considering who tried to remove it

I vote to keep the notice there, i've come up w/ 3 sources so far:

• [5] (subscriber only, this is not a proper source DrWitty 14:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC))
• [6]
• [7] (scroll down)

~Cheers —This user has left wikipedia 14:43 2006-02-01

Do you have any comment on the proposed entry above? At this point you are the only one insisting upon maintaining the statement as first submitted, and I believe that the consensus has rejected that particular one. DrWitty 14:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

All-- Achille is insisting upon maintaining the entry that has been removed, but has removed the subsequent edit that this IP added to the page of this candidate's opponent, Tony_Trupiano, desipte this edit by a registered user that provides the source for entry. This lack of consistent editorial standards is disturbing. DrWitty 15:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC) I now understand that Achille removed the edits as POV pushing (true), which unfortunately caused a disparate substantive result. DrWitty 18:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it could be NPOV'ed and integrated but I'll take a straw poll below —This user has left wikipedia 15:04 2006-02-01

I have currently removed the statement from the page awating some sort of consensus here. —This user has left wikipedia 15:25 2006-02-01

Straw Poll

Disputed statement:

"In 2005, he has come under scrutiny for accepting campaign contributions from embattled former house leader Tom Delay." ^{[8] [9]}

Proposed Statement

"Thad McCotter has recently come under fire for accepting campaign contributions from ARMPAC, a political action committee founded by Tom Delay, during the 2002 and 2004 election cycles." ^[10]

If you agree w/ the the statement being kept (and replaced by the proposed statement) vote here with ~~~~

• —This user has left wikipedia 15:04 2006-02-01

If you agree complete removal of that entry, vote here with ~~~~

• DrWitty 15:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (otherwise agree to proposed statement)

Religious freedoms

Should this page mention that on Wednesday McCotter introduced a resolution condemning China for introducing laws that would violate the religious rights of competitors at the 2008 Olympics, then finding out that he'd been hoaxed because the laws didn't actually exist?

perfectblue 10:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If the matter was covered by newspapers and/or other reliable sources, then yes. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming Stance

On one of his appearances on Fox's Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld he took the stance that global warming was not real, and that many scientists believe this to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.143.188 (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

and your point is? --Geneb1955 (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)