Talk:Barney Frank/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

The Frank Rule

I just watched a YouTube clip of Barney Frank with Bill Maher. The quote provided in "The Frank Rule" section should apply to the Larry Craig scandal instead of the Mark Foley scandal, should it not? Unless he's just repeating himself. BadMojoDE 22:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The current text gives me the impression that Frank commented in 2006, with Foley in the news and Craig's embarrassment still in the future. Is that incorrect? JamesMLane t c 04:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon repeatedly adding duplicative information

I've edited the article on Barney Frank to reflect the fact that he is on TV saying that Fannie Mae and Frannie Mac have never been in trouble. But whoever runs this page deletes this fact. Sad cos now the taxpayers are stuck with rescuing both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekoppen (talk • contribs) 03:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Repeated anonymous edits add the statement "Mr. Frank is a homosexual" to the introductory section. I've urged the anon(s) to discuss the issue here, but without success.

The information is already in the article. It's not important enough to be elevated to the introductory section. See, for example, Tammy Baldwin and Michael Huffington, other articles about politicians whose sexual orientation is stated but isn't in the introductory section.

In accordance with these precedents, I am again reverting the anonymous edit. I would welcome a discussion of the issue here, in the absence of which I will conclude that the edit is not being made in good faith. JamesMLane t c 03:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

These aren't good-faith edits, just vandalism; see the last reversion I made of the same anonymous editor ([1]). ~Wikimancer X *\( ' ' ^) 19:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Frank is a homosexual. As a matter of fact, he holds a a prestigious postion in goverment. You should be proud that Barney Frank is a homosexual and this achievement deserves to be mentioned at the begining section what discusses his bio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.237.207.70 (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not about expressing "pride" or feelings. It is about reporting verifiable facts. Barney Frank isn't notable because he is gay - he is notable because he is a prominent politician. He happens to be a homosexual. The homosexuality part is a side bar, not the main reason for which he has achieved prominence. His sexual orientation is given due attention already. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, to a certain extent, but it IS a notable fact that I think should be mentioned in the introduction, if for no other reason than the fact that he is the FIRST openly gay House member. There does seem to be precedent with being the first of something as far as elected office goes. Barack Obama's page, for instance, mentions him being the first African American candidate of a major party. SiberioS (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Being the first openly gay House member is much more notable than being merely an openly gay House member. That's why the fact is included in the introductory section of the Gerry Studds article but is lower down in this article. JamesMLane t c 08:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that it is notable because he uses it to blackmail social policy by gay republicans. I am not the same anonymous guy as above by the way. --58.172.251.46 (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've cleaned up the lede a bit and re-added this content. It certainly is notable but the article (and the lede) need a lot of improving to show how this all fits in. The lede, for instance, needs to be expanded - it should be a stand-alone mini article summary that highlights this person's life. It's woefully incomplete as of this writing. -- Banjeboi 03:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 Financial Crisis

The section mentioning Frank's alleged role in the 2008 financial crisis only cited quotes by Rupert Murdoch on outlets owned by Murdoch's NewsCorp (Fox News and The Wall Street Journal). The tone sounded highly biased as well, so I attempted to clean this up to the best of my abilities. Should we remove this section entirely?

Bbecker2 (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason that you find the info you refer to only from those sources you mention is that the MSM won't print anything negative about Frank. But go ahead and cover it up. That would be par for the course here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinygoon (talk • contribs) 15:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Frank's role in the 2008 financial crisis in this article is stated in a massively biased way. Putting quotations around words such as "bad" generally lend a sarcastic tone--this is out of place for an encyclopedia quality article. Furthermore, new news articles about his role are coming out on a daily basis: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/. If the Wikipedians given rights to update this article are going to fail at being unbiased then it should be unlocked so that others can keep it updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osmcgraw (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


The article says nothing about how Frank was supposedly involved in the credit crisis. Could someone explain this if it is verifiable, or remove this section. Ninahexan (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Frank is responsible for a HUGE part of this crisis, perhaps more than anyone else. Read this article. It CLEARLY states, from a left-wing paper, The New York Times, that he is indeed at fault by his own words!!! http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63 75.40.204.26 (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
There's no need for multiple exclamation marks. Your assertion that he would be responsible is unqualified, isn't it? --92.229.112.85 (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The NYT is a left wing paper? Gatorinvancouver (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if this is so, it does not mean that it is necessarily true. Remember the Pulitzer Prize won by a plant from the Defense Department. Or watch Manufacturing Consent. Just 2 examples among many. Gatorinvancouver (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the current version is partisan. In [2] Frank explains why he had to vote against more regulation in this case. --92.229.66.30 (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case the claim is not justified at all. To quote from the source mentioned, Barney Frank said - please note - in 2003:

"'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

1) He does not explicitly say there should be no regulation. 2) This was in 2003. To the best of my knowledge, no problems in the mortgage sector were apparent at that time.

Answers: 1) The question is not should the be regulation, it is how the regulation should be enforced and by whom. 2) How would there be people "exaggerating the problems" if they weren't apparent at the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.16.194 (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just ask short sellers.Gatorinvancouver (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Gatorinvancouver (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This article, in my opinion, is not the appropriate forum for hashing out the collapse of the mortgage industry. In 2003 Michael G. Oxley (R-OH) was the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, so Representative Frank's beliefs carried a lot less weight then, than it currently does. I tried to remove some of the bias in the original wording. I also added a reference to the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight 2007 PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT which gives the date for the authorization allowing Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to buy additional billions of subprime mortgages.LarG (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The NYT article cited: "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae" Says nothing about more lax standards, or less regulation etc. It cites that Michael G. Oxley (R-OH) the Chairman was in favor of moving oversight to Treasury as was Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive. Barney Frank was the senior minority member of the committee and was apparently in agreement (regardless of motivation) with Administration policy which did not support the move. Please, leave the facts here and take the opinion elsewhere.LarG (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ: "The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken." I have modified that section of this biography to better reflect the contents of the article. As you suggest, I think it best we leave personal opinions out. Isn't the new plan a similar change to the one Frank supported recently that's being done to increase oversight? I'm not clear on what you're taking issue with.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

Bill O'Reilly

O'Reilly's attack on Frank was added to this section. O'Reilly is not a journalist, he is (according to his WP article) self-proclaimed "traditionalist" political commentator. Not informing the reader of this lends his actions more credibility than they deserve. Cobalty (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "Bush administration proposals for increased oversight of Fannie Mae."

I have no idea if this is true or not but given the attitudes towards regulation of the current administration I would like to see a reference to a reputable source.

As it is there isn't one.

Here is one: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.102.241 (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hahah. Two problems. #1: Someone lying claiming "there isn't one" when obviously there is. And #2: The person providing the link not realizing that views that show bias toward liberals are not supposed to be on wikipedia. 69.217.169.97 (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Haha


Gatorinvancouver (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This section is very biased. Wiki should not use information from editorials as factual information. If there is there must be a balance of editorials from different spectrums to give the reader an unbiased view. The way it has been written it is more of an attempt to misslead than inform.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.24.104 (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Quote from article: "As recently as July 14, 2008 in an interview on business news channel CNBC, Frank said Fannie and Freddy were essentially sound and in no danger of collapse, and promised action to improve their prospects.[9]" - reference [9] leads to a video of O'Reilly blasting and insulting Frank, of which the replay of a small fragment of said interview on CNBC is but a small part. I think given the behaviour of the host this video is completely inappropriate as a source of Frank's earlier statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.232.234.4 (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you find a video of the interview on CNBC from another source? The citation is to a source where that portion of video can be viewed. If you can find a better source that would be great! Also, the rest of the video showing the interview of Frank on O'Reilly has been very controversial and newsworthy in and of itself (and is discussed in another section on this board discussion page). Just because an interview is conducted on O'Reilly, doesn't bar comments contained in the interview or issues raised in the interview from being a source for NPOV information any more than a Nina Totenberg interview shouldn't be used because she advocates on liberal liberal causes. I don't see any suggsetion that this is a case of comments being taken out of context or being manipulated. But I understand your distaste for O'Reillys yelling. The clip speaks for itself. (Wallamoose (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
Totenberg is a journalist, unlike O'Reilly. Perhaps you meant to refer to someone like Keith Olbermann. —KCinDC (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I prefer Bob Schiefer myself. Totenberg objective? Puh-lease. And if Olbermann is your model for good journalism, it's no wonder we can't seem to agree on much. I suspect Olbermann would have a hard time referring to himself as a news anchor and keeping a straight face.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC))
If you actually read my comment, you'll see that I was comparing Olbermann to O'Reilly and saying that neither was a journalist, which is why your comparison to Totenberg, who is one, was inappropriate. —KCinDC (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Not much on her page. Maybe you should contribute there. The term apparatchik comes to mind when talking about her, but I don't see it used in her biography. Although reading what is there it seems she's had some trouble with plagarism. Apparently ethics isn't her strong suit. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC))


On who will pay

I hope that I cited this in proper form, when I added it just now to the article:

In October of 2008, Frank made clear who will pay for the financial crisis when he said on CNBC "At this point, there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending........there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax". [1] Aigrette (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected this for a week until early October 2008, due to excessive vandlaism by IP and new users. Frank has been in the news much of late. Please discuss any changes you may wish to make, but can not, on this talk page. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There are comments on Rep Franks statements in 2003 on Freddie Mae an Fanie Mac that are in the section on him being chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services.

I have heard the same thing done on Talk Radio, where the guest host cited Frank as the Chairman in 2003.

The prevailing party in the House (like in the Whitehouse and the Senate) in 2003 were the Republicans. Michael G. Oxley, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_G._Oxley, was the chairman then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.135.180 (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A simple change: Citation 25 for the LA Weekly is listed as a "dead link." I accessed it today (9/29/08) and it is functioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanEisen (talk • contribs) 23:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC) I've now made this correction.

Citations 34 and 35 don't link to the pages they're supposed to link to. Anyone know what happened there?--MidnightSoldier (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

New Information on Barney's Fannie Conflict of Interests

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432501,00.html

Also, if anyone saw his interview on O'Reilly, as much as O'Reilly let him off on his 2003, 2004, 2005 opposition and statements and efforts to block oversight of Fannie, it was pretty amazing to watch Barney lie about about what he said seconds after the clip of him saying Fannie would be a good investment going forward. (Wallamoose (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

Uhh...no, this what you've written here doesn't look like "information" at all. It looks like a mix of Neofox talking points and your own point of view. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Check your facts. This is all sourced, documented, video recorded truth. "Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions." Check it out for yourself: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432501,00.htmlWallamoose (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

That draws a bad picture, but it proves nothing in the end. --92.229.66.30 (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This page needs to be locked down from the recent claims against Frank. This is not the O'Reilly Factor. Let's keep it clean of POV... Although much of the statements from Frank looks bad it doesn't prove anything... Some posters here seem to live in fallacy land... Let's keep it on the facts... not opinions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.24.104 (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The information is well sourced, notable and verifiable. Even the New York Times reported on and quoted Frank's opposition to oversight. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Barney Frank is clearly responsible, just as I pointed out a few paragraphs above. Just the fact that this isn't added to the article is COMPLETELY BIASED! 75.40.204.26 (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Keeping it Encyclopædic

I've just gone through one of the recently controversial sections and cleaned up a great deal of very unencyclopædic writing, some of it for the second time. We are writing an encyclopædia here, not a tabloid or a gossip sheet or a blog post. This is not the appropriate place to advance a liberal or conservative, Republican or Democratic view in favour of Mr. Frank or against him. It just plain isn't the right place, no matter how many sources we might think prove our view of Frank is the correct one. Using scare quotes is a sneaky way of inserting bias into an article, so we need to avoid that, too.

Fact is, no single person caused any single aspect of the current turbulence. The situation is far too complex for that to have been the case. There is ample blame to go around, and there are plenty of legitimate targets for it. With a hot, polarising, political topic like this, we all need to be extra-careful not only to write with a neutral point of view, but also to be very selective about the sources we use to support assertions. And as in all articles, we need to follow all the basic Wikipedia protocols: We don't lift blocks of text from other websites or gratuitously drop in lengthy quotes, even if we cite the source. Instead, we paraphrase and then cite. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your efforts and I'd like to believe they are good faith, but you go too far when you remove Barney Frank's own quote about Fannie and Freddie from 2003. "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Obviously this is notable and verifiable. This issue has been discussed here already and a compromise achieved. Also, where you've added "reportedly" and similar terms, I don't think those are consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Are you questioning the accuracy of the source? I'm not clear on why you keep making this change. Thanks. (Wallamoose (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
I'm glad you'd like to believe my edits are made in good faith — please go ahead and do so, for they are, and that's what we're supposed to do here, is assume good faith. The block quote isn't necessary, because it's paraphrased. The quote itself is available to anyone clicking the reference link; that's pretty standard procedure here, and including the quote can potentially be seen as taking O'Reilly's position.
The word "reportedly" is a non-partisan way of handling the contentious issue of source veracity, particularly when we're dealing with chains of sources (Fox News reported that the Boston Globe quoted the New York Times as saying that USA Today printed a story calling Frank a booger brain, that kind of thing.) There are those who regard everything Fox News reports as gospel truth, and those who regard everything Fox News reports as invidious lies. It's not our job to take one side or the other. "Reportedly" is a neutral term that means nothing more or less than that the following statement was reported. It allows both sides some breathing space: to those who consider the source to be of unassailably spotless accuracy and integrity, "reportedly" gives validation. It was, y'know, reported in an actual news source. To those who consider the source dubious at best and malicious at worst, it also gives validation: the statement may have been reported, but that doesn't mean it necessarily actually happened. It's a way of reducing the fuel for an edit war without damaging the article or its (precarious) balance of neutrality. If you still feel this is in error, please discuss it here rather than reverting. Thanks.—Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The quote was important enough that the New York Times included it in its article, and it has been republished many many many times since. So that's why it needs to be included. It expressed Frank's view in his own words, so I'm not clear what the problem is. You think the NYTimes quoted him out of context to make him look bad? I notice you don't object to Frank's quote attacking McCain's efforts to achieve bipartisan compromise on a bailout being included. And there doesn't seem to be any dispute about the figures for campaign contributions Frank has received. Do you have a source that states otherwise? (Wallamoose (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
Your first sentence very nicely illustrates my point: We are not writing a newspaper here, we are writing an encyclopædia. It's terrific that the quote is so widely available; it means the mention of Frank's position, and the paraphrasing of what he said, can be well and robustly supported. But your next sentence is a nonsequitur; the wide publication of the quote does not make it particularly important for us to include it in the article. The information is still there in the article; the question isn't whether it should or shouldn't be. This is purely a question of the format in which the information is presented. Over-use of quotes is just one of many kinds of unencyclopædic writing. I can't comment on the other quote you mention; I've been paying attention to this particular section of the article. Thanks for the pointer; I'll go give it a look.
You obviously have a great deal of passion on the subject of Barney Frank — and other public servants, from looking at your contributions. That's terrific; passionate editors are often very knowledgeable about their subjects and well-networked with respect to sources for their assertions. I note, though, that your edits seem to attract a fair number of warnings and cautions lately regarding NPOV and revert wars. You may want to consider slowing down a half-notch, allowing time for discussion on the talk page rather than reflexively reverting. Remember, assume good faith isn't just a buzzphrase, it's something we all need to do in actual practice. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There are many partisan editors who try to remove notable and verifiable information because they don't like it. The financial crisis is a huge issue, and Frank has played a major role in it. So it's important to include notable information about his role. I appreciate your words of caution, but I would like to point out that you are the one who is changing the article and trying to take out a quote. I've repeatedly explained why the quote is significant and should be included. So unless you can achieve consensus from others it should stay in the article. You don't seem to dispute the quote's veracity, so I can only surmise that you don't want people to know what Frank actually said and want to paraphrase it in a way that puts his comments in a more favorable light. (Wallamoose (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

H'm. This doesn't read very much as if you are assuming good faith. In fact, since your word "surmise" is a synonym for "assume", you have stated openly that you are assuming bad faith. We don't do that here. I don't live in the U.S. and I've no interest or intent to remove any information from Barney Frank. Again, this is purely a question of how to present the information. Please adopt a less belligerent tone. Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not an excessively long quote, and based on its notability it should be included. I have every reason to believe it fairly represents Frank's views on Fannie and Freddie at that time, and I think it's important that Frank's views on such an important issue not just be paraphrased. You haven't established an overuse of quotes or provided an explanation for why you object so stridently to this quote being included. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are at the core of the crisis. There's actually more information from that and other articles that could be added to the Frank article, but I think it's a good compromise to keep it short and to the point. As I understand it reportedly and allegedly are frowned upon at Wikipedia. And as far as your faith, you state, "Fact is, no single person caused any single aspect of the current turbulence. The situation is far too complex for that to have been the case. There is ample blame to go around, and there are plenty of legitimate targets for it." Everyone's entitled to their opinion. But this is an encyclopedia of notable and verifiable information, and you personal views are irrelevant. (Wallamoose (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
Let's please keep our metaphorical feet on the ground; I am not "stridently" objecting to anything. I respectfully suggest you may want to take a half-step back, maybe have a cuppa tea, and review the tone of your own comments here before you start characterising others as "strident". As for personal views, I agree, they're irrelevant. So are yours. So are everyone else's. That's why we keep them out of the edits we make to the article. Here again, when your own comments include such phrases as I have every reason to believe... and I think..., you have little firm basis for accusing anyone else of inappropriate expression of personal views, eh! —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you think you're the first editor to come along and attempt to scrub the article? The quote is important because if the information expressed is paraphrased and not in a quote then people say it's POV and remove it or modify it so much that it no longer resembles it's original source. This is Barney Frank's article and his quote, so leave it be.
This issue comes up again and again with people trying to impose their personal bias into an article. That's why I've attempted to include one short quote from a NYTimes article about Frank's views on Fannie Mae in 2003. As this lengthy debate shows, it's very difficult even to maintain a short quote with no POV issues because people with agendas come by again and again, and try to take it out. I hardly think my statements suggesting that there is no reason to believe the quote isn't accurate, support some kind of argument that I am trying to include my personal opinions. Also, I'm not sure why you've resorted to restoring my editing out of my own statement here quoting you to demonstrate your obvious bias and your attempts to impose your personal views on this article. I had thought better of including this information (though accurate), since you've been defensive and confrontational from the beginning and so I removed it. Unless you can offer new information to support excising Barney Frank's quote about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac it should remain in the article. (Wallamoose (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

I'm not sure why you're still accusing me of trying to "scrub the article". I still have no interest or intent to remove any relevant information from the article, and I'm still only interested in discussing how the information in question is presented — not whether or not it should be in the article, which I have always agreed with you that it should. You're going to need to look elsewhere for someone to fight with; I'm not going to wear the costume you're trying to put on me. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion This is a third opinion that has been requested on WP:3O. Scheinwerfermann, I applaud your efforts of making this article more neutral. I'm not quite sure what your problem with the quote is, though. You seem to be saying that it's more encyclopaedic to paraphrase quotes than to quote directly, which I don't tend to agree with. And you seem to have particular problems with this specific quote, since there are many other - undisputed - quotes in the article.

If I didn't get your point let me know, but I don't the issue. While I agree that you shouldn't over-quote, quotes are also good tools to convey someone's position to the readers. In this case I feel that the quote isn't overly long, and it clearly illustrates the man's position on an important topic. It seems clearer and reads better than paraphrasing the same thing in a passive voice.

I also don't really like the use of words like "reportedly" in this case, since it's very close to being a weasel word - reported by whom? It's also not as "neutral" as it seems, because it adds a connotation that the information may be dubious or the veracity disputed. (Just try this: "The Titanic reportedly sank..."). "Fox news reported" at least gives some context to the reader.

My personal opinion is that a fact should be presented as a fact, unless it is disputed. In which case the article should note the dispute and the major opinions in that. In my book a fact is not automatically disputed just because it's reported by a news source that some people don't like.

If these statements are really disputed, it will be very easy to find evidence. This guy is a politician, and if a major news outlet makes an unfounded accusations he will be very quick to publish his version. Which you can use to illustrate the dispute in the article.

I just want to add that Wikipedia's NPOV policy doesn't mean that articles should be written in a way that offends no one. "Neutral" means that the article should present all relevant and verifiable facts - whether they are nice or not - and present them without taking sides in the argument. Averell (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments here. The kerfuffle is really way out of proportion to the degree to which I care. I never objected to the paragraph's contents, and I still don't. I never felt — not even a little bit — that the info should be removed from the article. I really only thought paraphrasing (same content, different words, no quote marks) was better. I haven't looked at other quotes in the article because I've been focusing on this section, that's all. Your edits are fine with me. Wallamoose (talk · contribs)'s belligerence is not; it verges on ownership. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Can we move Donald Trump's blaming the crisis on Frank lower in that section so it's chronological? I think that would make more sense. But maybe someone else sees it differenty. (Wallamoose (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Chronology is very helpful in complex and developing situations like this. I agree with your suggestion to keep things chronological to the greatest practicable degree. Go for it! —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. (Wallamoose (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Possible source


and


Both for House Financial Services Committee. -- Banjeboi 14:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

CBS ‘60 Minutes’: Barney Frank, ‘The Smartest Guy in Congress’

14 December 2008; Lesley Stahl, produced by Shachar Bar-On

Long article - full transcript and video online.


Plenty of good content here as well. -- Banjeboi 13:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not much, the first isn't an opinion of CBS and can't be claimed as such, everything else can be construed as postive or negative depending on what you wish to add. Soxwon (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I see this instant and disparaging assessment indicative of an inability to seperate a reliable source and potential content from one's bias. There is indeed plenty of good content there, I didn't suggest what could be added. You may note the lede however - Barney Frank has been called the "smartest guy in Congress,". Here is a US national program stating that upfront, how we use it is another issue. Again this speaks to Frank's notability. -- Banjeboi 14:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, who said it? His wife, his colleagues, his dog? It means nothing as it doesn't mention anyone and doesn't reflect the views of CBS. Soxwon (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Knock it off, see Wikipedia:Attribution. If we want to use this we simply source where it comes from, 60 Minutes is a respected US news source. If you're going to continue this non-stop disruption. I'll look into helping you take a break from here. -- Banjeboi 10:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
So if we're sticking in quotes can we stick in these:

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." In response to Republicans suggesting more regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all I mean, it's in the article, but in light of his recent calls for sticter oversight and howls at mismanagement, shouldn't that get mentioned in a more prominent place? Soxwon (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I mean after all, you can find his relationship w/the Fannie Mae exec in reliable sources all over the place, that quote and his actions later, and his reign over one of the worst collapse over the internet. Yet it seems they aren't as notable as quotes mentioned in the lead. Soxwon (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you even know what FannieMae and FreddieMac are? How they work? What Frank does in his relationship with them? I ask these questions because you seem to be throwing out this concept of "his relationship with Fannie Mae" as though there were something sinister and evil going on (and i had to laugh heartily when you said "his reign over one of the worst collapse", really, that's a knee-slapper!). I would recommend that you read some information from people who are actually in the financial industries, preferably from experts on the federal agencies which oversee mortgages, homeowner, and farmowner lending in America, before you continue with this silly buzzword tossing which you seem to think will somehow tar Frank. In case you don't understand what i mean, do some research into Annaly Capital and their associated businesses. Then when you have educated yourself about how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and HUD actually work and what they actually do in the American housing markets and their relationship to the broader economy, you might begin to realize that you're going to have to come up with a much more convincing "brush" with which to tar Barney Frank. We get it-- you don't like fags and liberals, and you want to use freeper buzzwords to smear people, but instead you could actually be learning about how things work in your country. Which would be more constructive?~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 21:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I was commenting on his affair with the Fannie Mae executive if you'd bother to read, and was he or was he not head of the HFSC when the bubble burst? I never said he had anything to Fannie Mae other than the conflict of interest having open relations with the head might have entailed. That last bit is documented and can be seen here: [3], [4] Read for comprehension, it helps. Soxwon (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Soxwon, you may want to re-read the article. That source and this content are already in the article. In fact we go into extensive and undue detail about this but we've left it for now since it's a current issue. -- Banjeboi 10:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed Edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think the article contains more than a little POV. For starters rename or remove the "Free Speech" section, remove his humor bit in LGBT: Frank is known for his witty, self-deprecating sense of humor. He once famously quipped that he was unable to complete his review of the Starr Report detailing President Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, complaining that it was "too much reading about heterosexual sex".[21] In 2004 and again in 2006, a survey of Capitol Hill staffers published in Washingtonian gave Frank the title of the "brainiest", "funniest", and "most eloquent" member of the House.[22] , and take out the second paragraph in the lede. These are all far from NPOV. Soxwon (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The second lead paragraph is a set of quotes giving a overall portrait of the subject, with a source for each one, as in the above. These are notable points of view and they are credited. It does not violate NPOV to give them. Jonathunder (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The second paragraph has been discussed above in the "Intro Paragraph" thread and there is no consensus to include promotional quotes in the introduction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The second paragraph is a clear violation of WP:BLP:

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.


The second quote is out of context: With relations between the White House and the Democratic Congress growing more acidic as the presidential election approaches, Mr. Frank, 68 and in his 14th term, has emerged as a key deal-maker, an unlikely bridge between his party’s left-wing base and the free-market conservatives in the administration, particularly Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and comes across as a blanket statement rather than in the scope of the article. The last statement is just praise from a partisan and doesn't belong in the lead. The first statement places on him a designation that apparently is reserved for him alone since it is absent John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and even Nancy Pelosi. Instead of stating something let the facts speak for themselves. Another suggested edit would be taking out a lot of the quotations for the Political Initiatives and Positions section. Soxwon (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We are using direct quotes to avoid injecting POV, either for or against the subject. And we use their own words as a person is considered and expert on themselves. This sudden concern here smacks of WP:IDon'tLikeIt and a rally to support editors called for misbehaviour on the Admin notice board. -- Banjeboi 00:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No this is an attempt to use select quotes to pump the man up. I probably could fine quotes that attack him just as easily. And it would appear that others in the discussion that got this article closed agree with me.Soxwon (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

For instance on negative, a recent article in the Chicago Tribune: Either Frank is an incompetent reader or he is deliberately trying to mislead people into believing that justices vote for results in cases the way legislators vote a bill up or down. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chioped0407gayapr07,0,3951559.story

From the Boston Globe:

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

The accusations of an affair come up before the material that supposedly frames his character:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958598,00.html

All this was gleaned from a simple Google search and going with the top results. Soxwon (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You may need to brush up on NPOV and reliable sourcing, the very same issues those other editors have had a problem with here. Editorials and opinion peices are general unhelpful for introducing negative material on BLPs. And that Time article? That content is already neutrally covered in the article and that "supposedly frames his character" article is from 1989. Twenty years is fairly out of date for dredging up mud to sling. Again if you have reliable sources that present criticism that we can present neutrally then please share them so others can see what is possible to use. -- Banjeboi 01:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
You have yet to give reason, however, as to why those statements seem to skirt the ideas of WP:BLP when they seem to praise the ground he walks on. Should they be included, possibly, but why in the lead? Soxwon (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
They have been discuseed, repeatedly, to the same editor who is now apparently got a posse. They speak to Frank's notability and cover his entire career. I'll include my comment directed at ChildofMidnight here as they have removed it from their talkpage - As has been stated, a few times, deleting positive material because you haven't matched it up with negative material is not policy or acceptable nor is it a compromise. In fact you've not shown any signs of compromising until warned with a 3RR block. You then edit warred until the page was fully protected and then edit-warred after the page was unprotected against consensus. You've made precious little help and have continued to fabricate false accusations against other editors including characterizing those who disagree with you as homophobes which is rubbish. Your edits were unreasonable and many editors helped revert them. ChildofMidnight's first level of "compromise" was to delete the information then when called on it to move it into the "Early life" section which is also ridiculous and unhelpful. Let me state this clearly, for the umpteenth time, no one opposes negative information here. It is already in the article in shovel fulls and is neutral and well sourced. That is the compromise, that we follow policies regarding BLPs. This isn't a game that we trade good for bad or anything else. If we had reliable sources that he is the most hated person in the world we'd look to the validity of the claim and how it could be used. No one is stopping negative information. We are stopping ChildofMidnight's campaign to remove well-sourced and positive information from the lede because they apparently don't care for this subject. Our own bias' is not the reason to include or disinclude reliably sourced and appropriate content. It may be wiser to edit on subjects you do approve instead. Likely those articles will improve and positive bbias is less problematic than poorly sourced negative bias. -- Banjeboi 02:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact that it's sourced doesn't matter, I repeat from the BLP:

and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. As other editors have commented including myself, Rklawton, and CoM have stated that the opening paragraph is flat out biased. Soxwon (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus has been that those quotes have already been edited down to present the info neutrally and concisely. They hardly overwhelm anything but we can certainly add more neautral and reliably sourced content if you think that's a concern. Simply removing them because they're positive is rubbish. The lede needs to be expanded properly, not gutted of material that fails to mudrake the subject. -- Banjeboi 02:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be alright if they were simply "positive" but they read more fanboy than encyclopedic. And WP:CCC anyone?
We'll have to disgaree if they are more positive than needed but the point is that consensus of less than a month ago was they were fine and that was only as a result of ChildofMidnight's edit-warring that it was even an issue. Perhaps consensus will change in time or, just maybe, all this energy being put into this, IMHO, non-issue, will be spent actually finding better content so it bacomes a moot point. -- Banjeboi 03:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you show me any other political leader that has that kind of praise in the introduction? Are you suggesting that Frank is better at fashioning compromise than Henry Clay? Also, if it's such a defining characteristic that it belongs in the lede, surely you can come up with more than one source to support it.Soxwon (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
George Washington's lede paragraphs include a quote about "greatest man in the world". That's in a biography about somebody who had no problem about slavery. So, ummm, yes, i can show you other political leaders who have that kind of praise in the introduction. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 04:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Soxwon, we get it, you don't care for the subject, fine. You want to insert negative info in its place citing opinion and op-ed sourcing, not fine. You want to argue about how other articles do or don't do something - also not fine, take it to those articles. You might want to read the note posted at the top of this page - Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. The content we have is sourced fine so there is no need to add more sources to assert what reliable sources have already stated. Again, if you want to find a reliable source that states negative things about this subject then we can certainly look at what they have to offer. This is the exact same issue we're having with ChildofMidnight. Present the compelling reliable sources and we can look to adding them, until then you may want to focus your energies on subjects you do approve. -- Banjeboi 03:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
With all due to respect, no consensus has been reached on the parts that you put into the the artucle, Benjiboi, you are making this article sound like an advertisement. When I first read this article I didn't know if I was reading about the guy who a lot of people consider to have presided over the biggest financial collapse in American history or whether I was reading about the article on Jesus Christ Nicholas.tan (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Your POV is clear (although my grandparents might have something to tell you about financial collapses of American history, but that's besides the point). A lot of people consider something? So if that's true, then please give us some Reliable Sources which show us what "a lot of people consider". You can't make the assertion without providing the materials. Period. This is a WP:BLP and there is no way to put something in or take something out unless you have WP:RS and WP:V to support your edits. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 04:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no, consensus was reached, but now, of course, it's always an ongoing process which can be updated. However, if you want to make changes to the lede, you will need to come up with sources which are equally reliable as the New York Times and present them here for contrast. An op-ed piece from twenty years ago is not acceptable. A partisan sniping in a magazine written by and for conservatives is not acceptable. If the contentious points which you are trying to make are so universally true, then it shouldn't be difficult for you to come up with some strong Reliable Sources to provide us with material. Personally, i don't actually have a very high opinion of Barney Frank regarding most political topics, but that doesn't mean i can just delete other editors' strongly sourced and verifiable material. In some articles it's easier to be Bold, but this is a Biography of a Living Person, so we have a very restrictive editing situation with little leeway. If you want to add something to this article, or subtract something, you are going to need to produce Reliable Sources which are as powerful as those being used here already. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 03:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Random section break

<outdent>Quotes are rarely included in an introduction and certainly not opinions of random partisan figures like Bill Clinton's speechwriter. All the independent feedback is that these promotional quotes violate various Wikipedia guidelines, particularly when included in the introduction. If an RfC is needed to gather further input let's do it. But there is no policy to support one sided fluff. So if a compromise or alternative can't be reached (and none has been suggested by those who want to include this material) it will have to be removed according to guidelines including undue weight, NPOV, and MOS. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Wrong. It is Reliably Sourced. If you think it is UNDUE weight, then please give us Reliable Sources which provide more information we can include to help keep it from being Undue. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 04:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Clearly an opinion from Bill Clinton's speech writer doesn't belong in the introduction. You've been told this numerous times by numerous editors. The New York Times statement is taken out of context and conflicted by sources I've posted above that call Franks a partisan and a liberal. So there you go. The content doesn't belong. Let's not go round and round. I think most editors are willing to have it be included in the body of the article in appropriate context. But the intro needs to include major issues and content list those in sections of the article: Frank as leading Dem on Financial Services committee, Frank advocating for gay rights, Franks advocating for medical marijuana etc. If you look at the section titles that might give you some ideas on what information actually belongs in the introduction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
gay rights, medical marijuana, and universal healthcare for children in Massachusetts-- those are all examples Civil Rights issues. So we have a very WP:V WP:RS in the lede which says Frank is a leader on Civil Rights issues, and then we elaborate in the subsections of his article. How is that not clear and concise? If we went with your wording, it would simply make his lede paragraphs a portrayal of somebody whose career consists of nothing more important than devotion to gay sex and drugs, at the expense of the national economy. Clearly not acceptable in a BLP. If you want to elaborate further with Reliable Sources giving us more info to include in the subsections, that's fine. But if you want to change the lede paragraphs, i must ask you for the umpteenth time to produce some Reliable Sources which give us accurate information which we can utilize to form a general summary and proceed from there. Simply singing the same refrain over and over is never going to produce results. The next time you propose a change to the lede, please bring something to support the change, preferably something as Reliable and Verifiable as the New York Times, because that's what we're using right now. If your viewpoint about Barney Frank is so commonly held, certainly it should be easy for you to find some Sources. If your viewpoint about what to put in the lede is the viewpoint supported by consensus, then certainly the lede will be updated to reflect that changing consensus. But we can't delete anything Reliably Sourced unless you give us another Reliably Sourced reason to do so. I'm not going to repeat this again. Further expressions indicating a complete failure to understand this basic requirement of WP:BLP will be viewed as Disruptive. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 05:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The point you are ignoring Teledildonix is that while your wording isn't correct, gay rights and the collapse of the economy are linked to him in many sources whilst the stuff sitting there now is confined to three articles and the one about being a dealmaker is out of context, it defines recent times not his whole career. As such, it doesn't belong in the lede as it's not a defining characteristic. Again, IF THEY ARE SUCH LARGE PARTS OF HIS LEGACY TO MENTION WARRANT IN THE LEDE, SURELY YOU CAN FIND OTHER EXAMPLES BESIDES A SINGLE ARTICLE EACH. Soxwon (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Soxwon, you are mistaken and more to the point you're simply arguing on points that have been argues and dismissed by concensus already. If you have reliable sources that counter these statements or have have anything that likely should be included then present those for others to also view. Otherwise your efforts here are in fact disruptive. -- Banjeboi 14:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No, WP:CCC. I see a problem and am making an argument for changing it. If other editors agree with me it can change. Soxwon (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:WABBITSEASON is becoming applicable, by which i refer to you singing the same verse again and again. Your next "verse" needs to come with some Reliable Sources, then maybe we could sing along with you. Otherwise, you're being disruptive. I want this biography to be edited, and i don't want it to be a big piece of WP:PUFF, so i will happily support anything you might wish to present, negative or positive or neither or both, so long as you bring us something tangible with Sources and Verification. I agree the lede paragraphs could be improved, but i am suggesting your approach is not constructive unless you offer us material we can summarize from sources such as the ones Banjeboi has given us below. If your position and POV is so widely held, then it should be easy for you to find something constructive. Otherwise, your next verse in the song of Wabbit Season will be ignored as disruptive. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No, no, no my friend, you are mistaken, I say the second paragraph should be moved or removed. The burden of proof is on you. You've given two sources that seem to warrant notability despite having only one WP:RS each, and with other things more widely cited (role in Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac collapse or his work in gay rights. Soxwon (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Soxwon, you are reviving an issue that was already resolved with consensus to re-include it. Your next tactic was to suggest it be removed/mitigate, etc and replaced with disparaging content from opinion sources which violates policy. You then have suggested we somehow found these fringe ideas at the New York Times which is rubbish. I've even posted multiple sources that generally praise Frank as one of the most intelligent politicians, a bridge builder, effective, witty and ... a champion on all civil rights. What we have might not be perfect but it is sourced quotes so we're not saying these things, they are. The burden of proof has been met already. Unless you want to now, after many requests to do so, provide reliable sourcing that disputes this content or suggests content to be added it's time to end this circular arguing. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, WP:CCC. We obviously do NOT have consensus if CoM, myself, Nicholas Tan, Imperfectly informed, and Rklawton disagree and say the content should be removed. My first edit was to remove it and all of my others have been support of this. All of your "sources" don't add up to much. Going through them individually:

10 things about Barney Frank, nothing in support of the conclusions drawn

1989 wasn't good enough for my source, so I guess it's not good enough for yours either, and it still doesn't support any of the claims.

The next two are unpublished or inaccessible

Financial News is a BLOG not a WP:RS

The Guardian does not specify whom and does not claim the opinion as its own

The next two are interviews, how can they be sources?

Ok, an 11 year old short blurb from the same Newspaper, hasn't anyone else noticed these things?

He's in the news, what the heck?

60 Minutes, again does not state it as their opinion, but as an opinion

Quotes of Barney's, again, how are they evidence for inclusion

You have nothing but two articles and a short blurb, does this really warrant mention in the lead. It seems more and more ppl are saying no. Soxwon (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon you are arguing now about possible sources and you are wrong on almost every count. We certainly do include interviews and Frank is considered an expert on himself. You seem to be eager to just argue here and I find it extremely unhelpful. If you are unable or unwilling to present any constructive input or reliable sources and choose to fill up this page with circular arguing against sourcing policies we can look into if you should also be welcome to take a vacation from this article. -- Banjeboi 03:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
This must be why CoM had his outburst. You seem to be capable of nothing but stonewalling, accusing me of bad-faith, and providing bogus sources. So is a person now a WP:RS on themselves? If that's the case Hitler is the most respectable man who ever lived and Pol Pot did what was best for the ppl (or at least I'd bet that's how they'd characterize themselves!). You are the one including the material, instead of saying "we have consensus" which according to the ppl I just quoted, YOU DON'T, provide evidence as to why these cherry-picked and out of context quotes deserve to be put in the lede. Soxwon (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Many of the sources trashed by Soxwon seem perfectly legitimate to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, how? Soxwon (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll give you an example. You trashed anything that was an interview, and yet interviews are perfectly acceptable reliable sources for statements and positions expressed by Frank himself. It is all about context. Another example is the 60 minutes transcript - "Barney Frank has been called the 'smartest guy in Congress,' which is lucky for us since he works on some of the thorniest issues around." - that would be a perfectly acceptable source for saying that Frank has been described as "the smartest guy in Congress," whether it is true or not. Some sources will be appropriate for some things, and not for others. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, however, I would be willing to include something like what I left on Baseball Bugs' talk page: Instead of having the slightly out of context quote about dealmaking and comment made by Clinton's secretary, put in something along the lines of "Frank is considered by his peers to be intelligent, a compromiser, and an ardent supporter of civil rights." Instead of all that flowery garbage you get an easily citable sentence that doesn't lend undue weight. I also believe there should be brief mentions of gay rights and trouble with Fannie Mae. Soxwon (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

After discussion, how about something like: Frank has been the subject of controversy in his career and figure both lionized and villified. However, even his critics agree that he is intelligent, a compromiser, and a supporter of civil rights. Soxwon (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Please, that is extremely convoluted and antagonistic and puts Frank in the worst possible light. Before entertaining this "compromise" please demonstrate that the rather paltry controversies even need to be mentioned in the lede - they seem quite minor compared to his years of service. Lionized and villified is quite antagnoistic and unhelpful to our readers, also sourcing to state that would, of course, be helpful. The crtitics statement seems underwhelming at best. This is like stating someone's best accomplishment is that they still have strong teeth. Rather empty and seemingly a backhanded compliment. -- Banjeboi 10:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Fine, drop my it and go with the original "Frank is considered by his peers to be intelligent, a compromiser, and an ardent supporter of civil rights," and mention something about his work in LGTB. Soxwon (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That's degrading what is already there. He's a bit more than just intelligent, for instance. He's been hailed as one of, if not the smartest politician. All politicians are presumed to have intelligence so that's just silly. Again that's like complementing someone for still having a pulse - it's better to state nothing if there is nothing to state. A compromiser - also watered down. We have - an unlikely bridge between his party’s left-wing base and [...] free-market conservatives - this is much better writing and actually tells something about the subject. All politicians, by definition have to compromise. That's really empty and unhelpful and would show a bit of nihilistic POV if we used it. In fact, ____is considered by their peers to be intelligent, a compromiser, and an ardent supporter of civil rights could be inserted into almost every politician and anyone who works in any civil rights area. It's incredibly lowballing and a sign you really have little regard for this subject. What we have is by far preferable and that little zinger by his peers also is antagonistic when major media sources are already quoted as praising his skills and accomplishments. -- Banjeboi 10:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No, what is obvious is that you have no grasp of NPOV and wish to continue having cheerleader cherrypicked quotes in the lead. The compromise quote is not a defining characteristic and out of context. Soxwon (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Not a defining characteristic in your opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No I mean the NYT had a very limited scope to which it was applying that statement and it is instead being used as a blanket description. Soxwon (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Soxwon your suggested edits is in no ways a compromise quote. Even Baseball bugs pointed out the same issues I did above, that it's so poorly written it could be applied to almost any politician. That is a big step backwards. And no, it's false to assert the NYT only meant this statement for a short time-span. Is there something else in that source to suggest that they feel this statement was only momentarily true, no. There has always been tensions between US Republicans and Democrats even as the power in the governemnt has flipped. The statement speaks to Frank being ... an unlikely bridge between his party’s left-wing base and the free-market conservatives and there is no suggestion that has changed. If you have a reliable source that Frank is no longer an unlikely bridge between his party’s left-wing base and the free-market conservatives or even something that comes close to asserting this then - as requested many many times - present these sources that support your preferred POV on the matter. A quick look from the Dec 2008 interview noted below has - But two years later, even the most hardened Republicans give him good reviews. I'm sure there's more but really you haven't presented any compelling sources to dispute what we have. -- Banjeboi 23:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ . CNBC. October, 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k. Retrieved 2008-10-22. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barney_Frank/Archive_2&oldid=1080611465"