Talk:Chris Chocola/Archive 1

On unproven allegations

Keep partisan attacks OUT of the bios. You know who you are that keeps doing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.224.67.23 (talk • contribs) .

Stop removing sourcing information simply because it happens to reflect poorly on a person. older ≠ wiser 19:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You are engaging in partisan attacks, as you may have heard wiki will soon have a new policy on this. It would be wise for you to be responsible.

None of the allegations against Delay have been proven. Ronnie Earl has a long history of political endictments that went no where and we also know that Earl had to shop the charges to several grand juries because they kept refusing to indict. As we also know newt Gingrich had 92 ethics charges filed against him, all proved to go no where. This is why allegations need to stay out of the bios.

Here is an example of Earl's misconduct - Under Kay Baily Hutchinsons bio (which I am sure that you will go edit now so I guess I will have to watch that as well).

QUOTE: Shortly after the special election victory, Travis County authorities, led by district attorney Ronnie Earle, raided Hutchison's offices at the State Treasury looking for proof of allegations that Hutchison used state equipment and employees on state time to help with her campaign. She was indicted by a grand jury in September, 1993 for official misconduct and records tampering. Senator Hutchison was acquitted, as Earle did not have sufficient evidence to present. Time magazine reported, “Earle amassed thousands of documents as evidence and many thought the new Senator would lose her job. But at a pretrial hearing, the judge and Earle clashed over the admissibility of the documents; fearing he would lose, Earle declined to present a case. Hutchison was quickly acquitted and Earle was portrayed as a fool.” Time, July 14, 2003.

Again Bkonrad - this is another example of why unproven allegations need to stay out of the BIOS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.224.67.23 (talk • contribs) .

Calm down. You were removing a sourced statement of fact (which unfortunately also had an implication of guilt by association). The editorializing about ourfuture.org (or whatever that site is) that you added is inappropriate content for the article. There are a couple of ways to look at this. 1) Either it is or is not a fact that Chocola was the sixth largest recipient of funds. That source indicates he is and there's nothing to indicate that it is untrue. The statement about Delay's indictment as phrased is not very relevent to Chocola, however. That leads to 2) is the fact relevent? That's more debatable. To my knowledge, no one has accused the recipients of such funds of misconduct -- although I believe several have voluntarily returned money (either from ARMPAC or from Abramoff's contacts). Personally, I don't care all that strongly. I don't think the articles should whitewash such details, but there is a lot of leeway in how the details are presented. older ≠ wiser 20:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

However, your comment does still have an unproven allegation against someone else, namely Tom Delay. It is unfair to have an unproven allegation in a BIOS without a more complete picture, so the added on paragrapgh is appropriate.

Bkonrad - if you insist that the upproven allegation be added than the other side of the allegation in the following paragrapgh is appropriate to provide more information and balance. Also removing the information about Ronnie Earle and what he did to Kay Bailey Hitchison was whitewashing details, which you have accused others of doing. Also, pointing out that the web site you linked is a partisan outfit is not editorializing, in fact it is glaringly obvious just by looking at the web sites home page. Perhaps a better non-partisan link to the center for responsive politics would be more appropriate - User:Bachs

What is the "unproven allegation"? It is a fact that he was indicted. Whether that indictment will stand is another matter. As for the other information, I'll leave it be for now, though the relevance is rather dubious. The article is about Chocola, not Delay, not Earl, not Hutchinson. However, I did remove what you term "pointing out that the web site you linked is a partisan outfit is not editorializing" -- 1) I did not link to it, the link was there, you removed it, I restored it. 2) it is editorializing. Unless you are disputing the factuality of the list at the web site, it is irrelvant whether they are a partisan attack site or from Mars. If there is a better link to the same information, then I certainly have no objection to using that instead.

BTW, you can sign you comments on talk pages by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your comment. That automatically expands to your user name and a date/time stamp. older ≠ wiser 20:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

bkonrad - Everyone knows that any prosecutor can indict a ham salad sandwich - except Ronnie Earle who had to shop it to several grand juries before one would bite. So when you post an allegation about Tom Delay in Chris Chocola's bio, you automatically make it about Earle, because his conduct in this case cannot be ignored ethically. However, if you insist in using a partisan political link and are calling it fair; I have added some links to the national review articles about Ronnie Earle's movie just to provide balance. Bottom line, if DeLay's indictment is brought into this, bringing up the misconduct of Ronnie Earle, his prosecutor, is the only ethical option. Bachs 21:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Bkonrad - To answer your question - an indictment is an unproven allegation by definition. This is why it is unwise to have unproven allegations in anyones profile. Especially when the indictment or the unproven allegation is about Tom DeLay and not Chris Chocola. Bachs 21:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, are you always this cranky or did you just get up on the wrong side today? I NEVER said that ourfuture.org was "fair". The reason it is linked here is because of the list of contributions. I'd have no problem whatsoever with that information being sourced by a less partisan site. The link is there to substantiate the claim that Chocola was #6 -- nothing more. In fact it'd be better if it were sourced from a less partisan source. As for all the other tangential stuff, personally, I think it only goes to demonstrate how defensive Republicans have become about the whole Delay and Abramoff news. So if you want to blow everything out of proportion with exhaustive denials and attempts to shift blame and thereby make it look as though there really is something there, that is up to you. As for your last point, an indictment is an indictment. Whether meritorious or not is yet to be decided. However, it is a fact 1) that Delay was indicted and 2) that his indictment (along with Abramoff) is causing more than a little consternation among Republinans. older ≠ wiser 21:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Bkonrad - you are now engaging in personal attacks against me. It is most unfortunate that you refuse to discuss things in a dignified manner. If you are going to include an indictment against Tom DeLay in Chris's Bio, than it is only fair to present the other side of that indictment story. Bachs 21:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way - about Mr. Abromoff - he gave money to over 200 members of congress, 64% were republicans, which means many were not. Why dont you take a look right here where Ried got $50,000 from Abromoff's clients...

Feb. 03, 2006 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Tribes gave to Reid after hiring Abramoff

By TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Feb-03-Fri-2006/news/5696811.html.

Now why dont we keep Chris Chocola's bio about Chris Chocola and not about Tom Delay or Harry Ried or Jack Abramoff. Bachs 21:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Bkonrad - You are trying to whitewash and censor the facts surrounding DeLay's indictment. Since you insist that the DeLay indictment be a part of Chris's bio - the other side of that indictment story WILL be in the article. I will be monitoring this site 24/7 so if you want to censor, I hope you have alot of time on your hands. Bachs 21:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Get a grip (or a clue, or preferably both). I have not made ANY personal attack on you. If you think that my description of your posturing here as "cranky" is inaccuarate or constitutes a personal attack, then by all means, please take this to RFC -- I'd love to see what other Wikipedians have to say about your behavior here. I have not touched the article since the last time I commented. I am willing to leave your comments in the article. Another editor removed your comments. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 22:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

By all means lets - if this page is about Chris, than make it about Chris and not play guilt of association games with unproven allegations from Ronnie Earle, who is making a movie. If you include the Delay Indictment , than both sides of the Delay indictment must be presented. There is nothing untruthfull about what I have posted. In my view, since nothing in the Delay allegations is proven, there is no point in indicting everyone by association that his PAC game money to until it is proven, especially in light of Ronnie Earle's history. Bachs 22:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Under Debate

Per wiki template guidelines I have put the contested section under "Under Debate" that should make most people happy and is a reasonable compromise. Bachs 00:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this paragraph twice. As I mentioned on User Talk:Bachs, a lengthy excursus on Tom DeLay and Ronnie Earle is not relevant to Chocola's article. The article makes no assumption that DeLay is guilty, and expressly says that Chocola has not been accused of any wrongdoing. NatusRoma 02:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If this page is about Chris or the perspective member of Congress, than make it about Chris and not play guilt of association games with unproven allegations from Ronnie Earle, who is making a movie. If you include the Delay Indictment , than both sides of the Delay indictment must be presented. There is nothing untruthfull about what I have posted. In my view, since nothing in the Delay allegations is proven, there is no point in indicting everyone by association that his PAC game money to until it is proven.

You cannot include one side of an unproven allegation and not include the other side. If you insist on playing "guilt by association" to members of congress based un unproven allegations by Ronnie Earle who is making a movie and who has engaged in politically motivated indictments before than both sides of the indictment story must be explained in order to have balance. Also - if the members are going to be critiqued for not returning the money the reason for not returning the money should be listed. Again - you cannot whitewash one side of the indictment story and than use it to play the "guilt by association game" on the members bios, its unfair.

The only ethical choices are to have both sides of the Delay indictment story or no reference to it at all. Bachs 02:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

DeLay

None of the allegations against DeLay have been proven. Ronnie Earle, the Tom Delay prosecutor, has a history of indictments against Democrat and Republican political enemies that have failed (see Kay Bailey Hutchison) and it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to several grand juries because some refused to indict. [1] One of the charges filed by Earle was summarily dismissed by trial judge Pat Priest. Earle has partnered up with producers making a movie, called The Big Buy, about his pursuit of DeLay that has been filming since before DeLay was notified of the charges. [2] [3] [4]

This was added because the added statement about Tom Delay is an unproven allegation that is used to make the member of congress guilty by association. Especially when there is much evidence that Ronnie Earle's indictments are politically motivated. You cannot include one side of an unproven allegation and not include the other, to do so would be unfair and biased. The best course of action is to leave any reference to DeLay on Tom Delay's page and not Chris Chocola's until this matter is resolved in a court of law.

And have no mention of the relevant information that Chocola has been criticized for not returning the money or donating it to charity? We can do better than willful ignorance. A brief mention of the reason for the criticism, coupled with the implied presumption of innocence, is sufficient here. NatusRoma 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who is trying to whitewash information on the Delay Indictments so that only one side of the story is told so you can imply guily by association - The behavior and credibility of the prosecutor in teh DeLay case has everything to do with it - Not to mention that it is absolutely TRUE.... so let me ask yopu Roma, why are you so hellbent on making sure the whole truth doesnt get out there ??? Bachs 03:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am growing weary of the aspersions you are casting on my motives. Please stop doing that. My only goal in this matter is an encyclopedia that contains articles that are factual, neutral, and not unduly focused on any tangential issue. NatusRoma 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you are weary - however your actions in this case that are designed to keep the facts out cause me great concern that is justified.

I offer the following edit as a compromise since it is shorter and a bit more pithy.

Among all members of Congress, Chocola received the sixth largest amount of money from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's political action committee ARMPAC. In 2005, DeLay was indicted on felony money laundering charges by Ronnie Earle. While DeLay has not been convicted of any crime, and no one has accused the recipients of such campaign funds of misconduct, the indictments have led Democrats to call on Chocola to return the money or to donate it to charity. [5] Republicans say that the charges by Ronnie Earle are politically motivated because Earle has a history of indictments against Democrat and Republican political enemies that have failed (see Kay Bailey Hutchison) and it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to several grand juries because some refused to indict. [6] Republicans also criticized Earle for making a movie called The Big Buy, about his pursuit of DeLay that has been filming since before DeLay was notified of the charges. [7] [8] [9] Bachs 03:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Having several sentences criticizing Ronnie Earle gives undue weight to DeLay's defenders. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. The notion that DeLay is innocent is a viewpoint equal to the notion that he is guilty, and a statement of the presumption of innocence in DeLay's indictment is sufficient. A better formulation would be this diff. NatusRoma 03:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary - Ronnie Earle has everything to do with the indictments against Delay - he has made himself a part of the story with his conduct and his movie. Almost every press article that you see out there that references this also references part of the history of Ronnie Earle, so I am comfortable with the fact that I have a great deal of journalists the seem to agree with me. Bachs 03:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Again I tell you my strongest argument which you keep on ignoring, and that is if you are going to bring up the DeLay indictments in Chris's bio, than it is only fair that both sides of the incictment story be told.

You cant say with any fairness, that Chris's friend Delay is a crook , but hey by no means do we think that Chris is a crook (wink wink , nod nod) ...... thats like printing "Hey XXXXX Person did not beat his wife last night" Bachs 03:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Roma Said -

"Having several sentences criticizing Ronnie Earle gives undue weight to DeLay's defenders. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. The notion that DeLay is innocent is a viewpoint equal to the notion that he is guilty, and a statement of the presumption of innocence in DeLay's indictment is sufficient. A better formulation would be this diff. NatusRoma 03:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)"

Ohh Roma that is Rich, this coming form the person who only wanted the allegation and the guilt by association in there with ZERO reference or evidence to the other side of the indictment story.... so now you want equal space, when just a few minutes ago you were deleting any reference to the other side of the story. Bachs 03:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

To paraphrase Stephen A. Smith: I'm a grown man. I'm allowed to change my mind. Why not chalk it up to those arguments of yours that have proved reasonable? NatusRoma 03:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok Roma FAIR ENOUGH - In the way the paragrapgh is edited now there is a section where democrats say XXX and Republicans say XXX. So now both sides are represented with their basic facts and it is up to the readers to decide what to believe.

Can you give me one good reason why democrats should have their facts represented and the republicans should not? If you cant I will be happy to go edit the other bios with this new version of the paragrapgh, it really is the fairest we have come up with so far. Bachs 03:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not looking for any unfair advantage for anyone - I just want both sides of the idictment story told because after all, we are talking about a highly suspect unproved allegation. Bachs 03:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This is getting a little better. We certainly don't need to mention the documentary. From the links you've provided, it appears that Byron York is the only who really cares about it. Mentioning it also implies that Earle is a glory hound. NatusRoma 03:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

How's this diff look? It is balanced, and denies the charges without going into a lengthy discussion on Ronnie Earle. NatusRoma 04:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have offered this as a comprmise para

Among all members of Congress, Chocola received the sixth largest amount of money from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's political action committee ARMPAC. In 2005, DeLay was indicted on felony money laundering charges by Ronnie Earle. While DeLay has not been convicted of any crime, and no one has accused the recipients of such campaign funds of misconduct, the indictments have led Democrats to call on Chocola to return the money or to donate it to charity. [10] Republicans say that the charges by Ronnie Earle against DeLay are politically motivated because Earle has a history of indictments against Democrat and Republican political enemies that have failed (see Kay Bailey Hutchison) and it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to several grand juries because some refused to indict. [11] Republicans also criticized Earle for making a movie called The Big Buy, about his pursuit of DeLay that has been filming since before DeLay was notified of the charges. [12] [13] [14]

The Republican complaints need to be addressed, do you have any idea how unethical and illegal it is for a prosecuter to discuss the charges against a citizen with a FILM CREW for YEARS before you even file an indictmenst against that citizen. Lawyers get disbarred for a whole lot less, it speaks volumes about Earle and what he is all about.

This way you have Dems say XXX and reps say XXX, thsi way both sides have their facts presented.

Earle's personal character is not at issue in this article. Nor is the manner of his investigation. NatusRoma 04:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh Earle most certainly is. In my compromise both sides get their story told and facts out, this is as far as I am willing to go.

On what do you base the contention that the manner of Earle's investigation of Tom DeLay relevant to the article about Chris Chocola? NatusRoma 04:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. NatusRoma 04:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok new attempt at compromise - Among all members of Congress, Chocola received the sixth largest amount of money from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's political action committee ARMPAC. In 2005, DeLay was indicted on felony money laundering charges by Texas district attorney Ronnie Earle. While DeLay has not been convicted of any crime, and no one has accused Chocola of misconduct, the charges against DeLay have led Democrats to call on Chocola to return the money or to donate it to charity. [15] Republicans say that the charges by Ronnie Earle against DeLay are politically motivated because Earle has a history of unsuccessful indictments against political enemies of both parties (see Kay Bailey Hutchison), and because it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to multiple grand juries because the third refused to indict DeLay. [16] [17] [18] [19] Bachs 04:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It was the third grand jury that refused not the first correcting

I'm glad that we agree on the documentary. Why mention Kay Bailey Hutchison? It's a needless detail. Also, with the documentary no longer mentioned, the last three links add little. Also, it was the third that did indict, while the first two did not. NatusRoma 04:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok version as it stands now

Among all members of Congress, Chocola received the sixth largest amount of money from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's political action committee ARMPAC. In 2005, DeLay was indicted on felony money laundering charges by Texas district attorney Ronnie Earle. While DeLay has not been convicted of any crime, and no one has accused Chocola of misconduct, the charges against DeLay have led Democrats to call on Chocola to return the money or to donate it to charity. [20] Republicans say that the charges by Ronnie Earle against DeLay are politically motivated because Earle has a history of unsuccessful indictments against political enemies of both parties (see Kay Bailey Hutchison), and because it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to multiple grand juries because the third refused to indict DeLay. [21] [22][23] [24] [25]

This way dems get 3 lines and reps get two, but its still pretty balanced.

Bachs

A neutral point of view is not a matter of counting lines. However, which two lines "belong" to the Democrats? The following pieces of that line are statements of fact that "belong" to no one:

• DeLay has not been convicted of any crime
• No one has accused Chocola of misconduct
• The charges against DeLay have led Democrats to call on Chocola to return the money or to donate it to charity.

By contrast, the excursus on Earle's motivations can be said to "belong" to Republicans, in that it repeats Republican accusations of politically motivated investigations. NatusRoma 04:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest effort at compromise

Among all members of Congress, Chocola received the sixth largest amount of money from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's political action committee ARMPAC. In 2005, DeLay was indicted on felony money laundering charges by Texas district attorney Ronnie Earle. While DeLay has not been convicted of any crime, and no one has accused Chocola of misconduct, the charges against DeLay have led Democrats to call on Chocola to return the money or to donate it to charity. [26] Republicans say that the charges by Ronnie Earle against DeLay are politically motivated because Earle has a history of unsuccessful indictments against political enemies of both parties such as Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and because it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to multiple grand juries because one refused to indict. [27] [28]

Hutchison has to be in there because she was a person that Earle falsely indicted and in the Hitchison bio there is much about Earle and what he did to her. Bachs 04:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that we worked out a compromise Bachs 04:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I still have a couple of qualms, though you were right to remove the {{disputed}} tag. I'm happier with this, but not totally, and I have to sign off for the night. Let's discuss this some more tomorrow. NatusRoma 04:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well you know what they say, a good compromise is one that nobody is truly happy with. Bachs 05:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Break for convenience

• Let's finish this compromise. First, do you agree that, where possible, the most appropriate text to put after the calls from Democrats to return or donate the money would be a statement from the recipient himself, or from a spokeperson. For example, we could have:

Among all members of Congress, Chocola received the sixth largest amount of money from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's political action committee ARMPAC. In 2005, DeLay was indicted on felony money laundering charges. While DeLay has not been convicted of any crime, and no one has accused Chocola of misconduct, the charges against DeLay have led Democrats to call on Chocola to return the money or to donate it to charity. In response, Chocola said, "I am not returning the money due to x, y, and z." [source]

Second, if that is not possible, let us not mention Sen. Hutchison. That is an unrelated investigation, and mention of it gives undue weight to Republican criticism of Earle. What do you think? NatusRoma 01:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, in every almost interview that Delay and the like do they mention this, this is a part of the Republicans defense, There is no reason, other than partisan PoV reasons to give less facts and less evidence. What your "suggestion" has the effect of dfoing is making it look like the republicans are making an accusation without facts to back it up. Thus you are taking the credibility away from the republican side of the argument.... and you well know it. Bachs 00:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to involve DeGeurin, DeLay, or Hutchison in these articles unless necessary. A quotation from Rep. Chocola is better than an unsourced statement from "Republicans". As for the claim that DeLay and his allies bring up Hutchison "in almost every interview", back it up, provide several sources. NatusRoma 01:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"they say that"

It is not POV to specify that Republicans say that Earle has a history of prosecuting political enemies.

• Things that are true whether or not the Republicans say that they are:

• That Earle indicted Hutchison
• That Earle shopped the charges against DeLay to multiple grand juries

• Things that Republicans say are true, but that may not be true:

• That the charges against DeLay are politically motivated
• That Earle has a history of indicting political enemies
• That Earle's investigation of Hutchison is an example of Earle's history of indicting political enemies

Consider the sentence "Republicans say that the charges against DeLay are politically motivated because they say that prosecutor Ronnie Earle has a history of unsuccessful indictments against political enemies of both parties, such as Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and because Earle had to shop the charges to multiple grand juries because one refused to indict." This sentence differentiates between the things that everyone agrees are true and the things that only the Republicans say are true by placing "Republicans say that" or "they say that" before each of the things that only the Republicans say are true. This is NPOV. NatusRoma 06:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Earle has a history of failed indictments of his political enemies such as Kay Baily Hutchinson is a fact that is not in reasonable doubt. The fact that Earle had to shop some of the charges against DeLay because one failed to indict is not in dispute. The fact that Ronnie Earle has stated at party fundraisers that he was going to "get DeLay" is not in dispute. The fact that Earle has had a film crew following him around to film his quest to "get DeLay" since before DeLay was indicted is also not in dispute. Bachs

We agree, then, that the fact that Earle asked multiple grand juries to charge DeLay is indisputable. The fact that Earle allowed a documentary crew to follow him around is likewise indisputable, but is not relevant to this article. The contention that Earle has a "history of indicting his political enemies" must be supported by two planks in order to be placed beyond dispute:

1. That Earle has on many occasions indicted people who not only disagreed with Earle, but toward whom Earle felt personal or ideological enmity
2. That Earle has on many occasions indicted these people for the sole or primary reason of this state of enmity.

Demonstrating the first of these first point is difficult to support, the second nearly impossible. NatusRoma | Talk 03:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Delay's money - round 6

I just removed the following, including the section title (Money from ARMPAC):

Among all members of Congress, Chocola received the sixth largest amount of money from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's political action committee ARMPAC. In 2005, DeLay was indicted on felony money laundering charges by Texas district attorney Ronnie Earle. While DeLay has not been convicted of any crime, and no one has accused Chocola of misconduct, the charges against DeLay have led Democrats to call on Chocola to return the money or to donate it to charity. [29] Republicans say that the charges against DeLay are politically motivated because prosecutor Ronnie Earle has a history of unsuccessful indictments against political enemies of both parties such as Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and because Earle had to shop the charges to multiple grand juries because one refused to indict. [30] [31]

I don't think the matter is newsworthy. Political leaders like DeLay spread money around, of course. Chocola's only number six - and I'd bet my own money that most of the others in the top ten DON'T have sections in their wikipedia article about ARMPAC dollars. Moreover, there are no charges that ARMPAC dollars were illegal or unethical (unlike, say, dollars from Jack Abramoff). So we have a sort of guilt by association - if DeLay's bad [and I personally hope he ends up in jail for several decades, to show my bias], then (the argument goes) his ARMPAC dollars are bad. That doesn't logically follow.

And the text gives NO context - how many actual dollars? How much did Chocola get from other sources? How critical were the dollars from ARMPAC? Is there any evidence that Chocola changed his positions on any issues as a result of getting the dollars, or did anything different, or was this just a swing district where the Republicans (via ARMPAC) dumped a lot of dollars to try to keep it in Republican hands? And, if the latter, so what?

In short, I really think the matter should be dropped, and the focus changed to more important matters. John Broughton 14:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

John I totally agree, those who have seem to have engaged in partisan edits that amount to what appears to be Wikipedia vandalism, such as has been posted by NatusRoma, have been putting the bogus DeLay stuff on almost 20 congressmans entry's. So if they want to have it in there I included both sides of the argument to make it fair. All in all the vandals check the page almost daily so vigilence is needed ~ Bachs

The question of whether the Wikipedia articles of other politicians who received ARMPAC money mention that fact is a good one. The answer is yes: see Category:ARMPAC recipients. What is important is not whether the arguments that Democrats have put forth concerning the ARMPAC money are logical, but whether Democrats have made them vociferously or strongly enough. Essentially, it's an issue because some Democrats (primarily the DCCC) have made it an issue. NatusRoma | Talk 04:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

NatusRoma - the one external link in the deleted section was not to the DCCC, or, better yet, to Chocola's 2006 opponent (which would be worth quoting, I think, in the election section, as a campaign issues), but to a group called "Campaign for America's Future", and its "Project for an Accountable Congress". That's not impressive. Further, if ARMPAC money is such an important matter, why isn't there a discussion of how tainted it is in the ARMPAC article, or a discussion of calls for it to be returned or donated, in that same article? Is this really an "issue" of a small number of folks? (And, if not, can you or others provide links to an article that discusses how vociferously Democrats are raising this issue, or is that simply inference?)

And, again, context is entirely missing. Chocola got $40,000 (I found by looking), over what period? What percentage of campaign funds did this represent?

In short, I'm saying that if this goes back into the article, it really needs to be rewritten to say more than (a) some people are calling for Chocola to return money from Delay; (b) Some people think DeLay is bad; (c) some people think the charges against DeLay are unfair. For example, a quote from a newspaper in Chocola's district would be particularly valuable for a reader to understand the importance (or lack thereof) of something taking up this much space in a short article. John Broughton 15:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the numbers. The DCCC link is here: [32]. A South Bend Tribune editorial reproduced at the website of Chocola's current congressional opponent [33], which, according to a search of that paper's archives, was dated July 2 2006, made reference to MoveOn ads that discussed links of some sort between Chocola and Abramoff and DeLay. According to OpenSecrets, Chocola received $10,000 from ARMPAC in each of the 1999-2000 [34], 2001-2002 [35], 2003-2004 [36], and 2005-2006 [37] election cycles. The ARMPAC article may not discuss the "taintedness" of its contributions because it doesn't discuss much at all beyond the indictments. NatusRoma | Talk 20:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are good links. What was particularly interesting to me was that the DCCC used the ARMPAC money as one of several items that showed that Chocola has "ties to the DeLay/Abramoff mess"; there was no discussion that he should, per se, give the money back. In short, if anything the links support the argument that ARMPAC money (in itself) isn't worth a seperate section in the article. And your info ($10K per election cycle) versus (for example) the recent $100K TV buy by Chocola (in link you provided) seems to demonstrate that this really isn't a critical amount of money. John Broughton 23:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

An addendum to the DCCC links: Tell House Republicans to Return DeLay’s Dirty Money Other organizations that apparently don't impress you have also called on Chocola to give the money back. As for the dollar amount, those calling on Chocola to return the money would say that it's a matter of principle. NatusRoma | Talk 03:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

NatusRoma - The DCCC engaging in typical campaign rhetoric is not news. If you want to post this than I will go back and post the GOP talking points on every dem politician in the Congress. Neither one is news. Of course as I recall - when I posted what Time Magazine had to say about Ronnie Earle you kept deleting it. ~ Bachs

The original sources for that section did not contain links to the DCCC. User:John Broughton thought that those sources were insufficient, so I found others. The additional sources include both DCCC links and the reprint of the South Bend Tribune editiorial on Joe Donnelly's website. Therefore, this information is not simply the DCCC engaging in campaign rhetoric. NatusRoma | Talk 19:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh Roma, so you think its valid because Joe Donnely's the South Bend Tribune talked about it? Why did you leave out how the Elkhart Truth and other newspapers in the district said that the Moveon.org ads were misleading and untrue? How come you did not post a link to what factcheck.org has to say about ads from moveon? I will tell you why, it is because you are bahaving as a partisan vandal would. You have been vandalizing (read partisan editing) wiki entries of republicans for ages and whitewashing the wiki entries of others to suit partisan stripes (I give examples of this behavior below). Bkonrad below suggested that I report this to the wiki authorities, if the partisan silliness posted on this page does not stop than that is exactly what I intend to do. Bachs

I am confused by the notion that the The South Bend Tribune is "Joe Donnelly's". Is this statement a suggestion that Donnelly owns or controls the paper? At any rate, as best as I can ascertain online, the Elkhart Truth objected to the MoveOn ad's statements about Halliburton, Medicare, and gas prices, and not about the Abramoff connections. In fact, it appears that the MoveOn ad is an entirely. separate issue from the ARMPAC donations.NatusRoma | Talk 15:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Roma, the Moveon.org ad that is on now has nothing to do with DeLay or ARMPAC or Abramoff. Its a bogus commercial about Chocola and the Energy Industry that the Elkhart Truth and others have said is deceptive and false etc etc.... if you are from this district perhaps you should take the time to listen to the ad. If you are not from this district I would be curious as to why you have a habit of editing almost 20 members of congress wiki entries in favor of a certain partisan postion. Bachs

Then we conclude that the South Bend Tribune has not in fact discussed the ARMPAC allegations. Returning up the thread to the actual matter at hand, it appears that the DCCC, the "Campaign for America's Future" people, and other Democratic groups have made this issue a big deal. We can revisit it as the campaign heats up. NatusRoma | Talk 04:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Language

I am adding this paragraph to this section because it leaves out the what I said that made them flip out in the first place. So it is in quotes below. In short Bkonrad and NatusRoma, stop posting DNC talking points and other such nonsense on this page and keep it straight and honest and balanced, if you cant do that then others will do it for you. If you two would just keep it fair and honest to begin with then none of this discussion would be necessary.

"John I totally agree, those who have seem to have engaged in partisan edits that amount to what appears to be Wikipedia vandalism, such as has been posted by NatusRoma, have been putting the bogus DeLay stuff on almost 20 congressmans entry's. So if they want to have it in there I included both sides of the argument to make it fair. All in all the vandals check the page almost daily so vigilence is needed ~ Bachs"

Also, please read Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. NatusRoma | Talk 15:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no personal attack in my statement. When I point out that you have been adding/whitewashing partisan material to wiki entries to suit a partisan point of view that is a statement of mere fact. There is nothing personal about it. If I said that you were ugly or something, that would be a personal attack, please read and learn to understand the difference.

For more information please see the "Examples that are not personal attacks" section. While I have bent over backwards to give you the good faith benefit of the doubt in the past, your lengthy history of clearly partisan edits has expended that good faith benefit of the doubt. In short Roma, please stop with the partisan edits, it is vandalism and it is what makes newspapers print articles about wiki that are highly critical. Bachs

Sorry, but you called NatusRoma "a partisan vandal". That is personal and that is an attack. It goes beyond expressing disagreement with his/her edits. Rest assured that if you continue in such a vein you will not find much support in the Wikipedia community. older ≠ wiser 15:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Older/wiser - you are also another person with a history of partisan edits. NatusRoma and I had an agreement on the armpac language, to which sometime afterwards she went back and reedited to match the DNC talking points without any kind of factual balance. It is textbook partisan editing. Older/wiser, I am not interested in your support, I am interested in the facts. Quite frankly, the fact that you have attacked me is a badge of honor indicating that my edits are factual, fair and balanced. If my edits are factually incorrect, you and other partisan editors have been able to post no evidence indicating such. In the meantime, I suggest that you read the section marked "Examples that are not personal attacks". If you read it honestly than I am sure that it can help you a great deal. Bachs

Where do you think that I have attacked you? I was merely pointing out that your denial of making a personal attack on NatusRoma was incorrect. I am quite familiar with the section that you point out and I stand by my assessment that you made a personal attack on NatusRoma. I really couldn't care less whether you are or are not interested in my support. That is irrelevant. I was pointing out that if you continue with the behavior you have exhibited here, you will not get much support from the Wikipedia community -- i.e., you may well find yourself blocked makling personal attacks or before the arbcom. Just a word of caution. older ≠ wiser 22:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Older/Wiser - Once again I suggest that you read the section marked "Examples that are not personal attacks". If you read it honestly than I am sure that it can help you a great deal. If I see someone engage in what are blatent partisan edits, pointing that out is not a personal attack. I have even told you where to read the section that makes this clear for you. I dont know how else to make this more clear for you. Just because it is your opinion that a statement of fact that you find inconvenient is a personal attack it doesnt make it so. Instead of having a real legitimate conversation you resort to threats of banning people. Lets get one thing crystal clear, you arent banning anyone. The "Examples that are not personal attacks" section is crystal clear, once again I suggest you read it. Bachs

I told you that I am quite familiar with the section you mention. There is nothing there to exonerate your behavior here. If you see someone engaging in what you consider to be "blatent partisan edits", that does NOT justify labeling your opponent as a vandal. I suggest that you very carefully re-read both that entire policy, as well as Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I never said I was banning anyone. Get a grip, seriously. I was pointing out to you that you are seriously in danger of violating some core policies. older ≠ wiser 23:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Older/Wiser - I am sure that it is your opinion that you are familiar with the "Examples that are not partisan attacks" section, but your posts indicate that clearly you are not. If you would have read on my talk page and above, I have addressed the good faith section of that section. I will restate it in condensed form here since you have missed it. NatusRoma and I had an agreement on the Armpac language. At first she wanted the DNC talking point view posted and nothing else. After a long argument and constant reverting of her edits to match the DNC talking points. I was finally able to convince her to accept that both sides of the argument and both sides of the facts must be presented. We agreed on a final set of language. But when I went back to the other congressmens web sites I saw that in some places she had reverted the language back to the DNC talking point language against our agreement. Also NatusRoma repeatedly removed a statement and link about Ronnie Earle's persecution of Kay Baily Hutchinson by Time Magazine that I had added to the pile of information on the Tom DeLay entry and the Ronnie Earle entry. Anyone who takes the time to examine her relentless edits on the wiki entries of republicans can only come to one conclusion. Quite frankly, I bent over backwards giving her the benefit of the doubt (as evidenced by our lengthy exchanges above), after a long history of such edits that benefit of the doubt has been all used up. So let me make this clear, there are no personal attacks, I just stated the facts in a direct, Joe Friday style.

By the way Older/wiser, when I made the case that some posts amounted to partisan vandalism or partisan editing I had gone out of my way to make it crystal clear that it was in no way intended to be a personal attack, that it was merely a conclusion I was forced to come to after a long train of evidence was observed. According to the rules that you claim to understand well, you are supposed to give me the benefit of the doubt on my claim and observation that it is in no way intended to be a personal attack. But just to show how good faith I am, I clarified my language and made it even more directed at the alleged partisan posts themselves. Bachs

Now you're simply being disingenuous. You have called NatusRomus a partisan vandal. That is a personal attack. Period. You evidently came to this conclusion entirely on your own. There is no arbcom ruling against him/her. I have not seen him/her reported for vandalism on any of the appropriate noticeboards. If you are serious in your opinion that he/she is a vandal, then you should report the vandalism and seek community support in seeking sanctions. Ah, but you see THAT is my point -- if you had sought any sort of community comment on the actions, I very much doubt that you would have had much support. 02:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkonrad (talk • contribs)

To add another fact to this: I am male. NatusRoma | Talk 03:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Bkonrad - since you refused to address my argument and went directly to the ad-hominem there is no point in continuing further, other than to point out that you have broken the rules by not giving me the benefit of the doubt. It's too bad that so many partisan editors on here cant be civil and have to engage in personal attacks that are outside the argument. Bkonrad, if you want me to start reporting to Arbcom I will be happy to. If you two engage in partisan edits on this page again, I will go back through the entire post history and make a rock solid case and post it. In the mean time, this page WILL be kept clean of partisan silliness. Bachs

Regarding whether your statements were a personal attack, you have not made any argument except to put forward a gross misunderstanding of policy as justification. So I don't know what other argument you expect me to address. I have given you plenty of "benefit of the doubt" by attempting to engage you in civil discussion and warn you that persisting with similar behavior will, sooner or leater, lead you into further conflicts. If you seriously think you have any case to make before the arbcom, please go right ahead. Although, that in itself shows a total misunderstanding of how conflict resolution works on Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you seem to have taken a dislike to me. I really don't care though. You claim to want to remove "partisan silliness", and that is an admirable goal. Just be careful that you are not blind to your own partisanship. And of course, conduct yourself in a civil manner. older ≠ wiser 13:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Moveon.org

Is it really necessary to have a campaign commercial play by play?

IMO the moveon.org reference should be removed. I added the CNN link to make the moveon segment more accurate but unless someone gives me a good reason to keep in there I will remove it. Factcheck.org has much to say about the accuracy and honesty of moveon.org's political ads, and lets just say its not very flattering. ~ Bachs

That moveon.org is or is not a responsible/truthful organization should not be a factor in evaluating whether or not to have the information in the article. Wikipedia is not a censor. Let the reader decide what he/she thinks of the organization. In my opinion, it IS newsworthy that the organization is spending money in this election. It would be newsworthy if the KKK were to spend a lot of money in a Congressional contest; including that information in no way gives credibility or support to the KKK (in this hypothetical).

In other words, I'd vote to put the information back into the article, but I'm interested in what others say, so I'll leave it alone for the moment. John Broughton 17:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be newsworthy if the KKK spent a great deal of money in a contest, WHY???..because they have almost no membership and no money. While you may believe that there is a moral equivilence between the KKK and Moveon.org is not news. What Moveon.org does with George Soros's money is not news. Everybody knows what moveon.org does. They do the same thing that they did in the last 2 elections. The spend a ton of money on commercials that arent true and regularly have TV and Radio stations pull their adds for inaccuracy. Perhaps it would be best to put the fact that they air a commercial against Chris on the Moveon.org wiki entry. ~ Bachs

In regards to - "Wikipedia is not a censor" - Should I go to every Democrat politician and reporters wiki entry and post what Micheal Savage and Ann Coulter have to say about them and update that daily? ...after all Wiki is not a censor right?

So this brings us to the question - "Is it really necessary to have a campaign commercial play by play?" ~ Bachs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.161.14.1 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 17 July 2006

I think that things that get a lot of discussion in a district - be that a controversial ad or whatever - should be in the article. If the candidates are talking about Moveon.org ads, or a lot of people are seeing them, then yes, it's newsworthy. [While Moveon.org may have a lot of money, it's spending it in relatively few districts, I think. If it were spending it in (say) 200 Congressional districts, spread relatively thinly, then no, it wouldn't be newsworthy.]

My personal belief is that there are normally somewhere between six and twenty significant events and factors that determine an election. It would be excellent if an election article covered all such significant events and factors. So my answer to whether a "play-by-play description" is too much detail is to say that depends how detailed it is. More than 20 things (by the time the campaign is over, of course) is nit-picking; less than six things is too high a level of generality.

John Broughton 18:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Ok going to my handy dandy Funk & Wagnals Encyclopedia.... hmmm they dont have the last 10 or 20 minor events in the last campaign of the entries of politicians. They dont have campaign commercial references to the ones I have found so far.... hmmm lets look at my set of Brittanica's..... hmmm well no campaign commmercial play by play there either. So guys, if you think the moveon.org rhetoric is so valuable, why was it so important to leave out what the Elkhart Truth had to say about those ads and some other local papers? The answer is obvious........ Bachs

Tony Zirkle

Zirkle was called by one commentator the "craziest candidate of the ‘06 midterms".

I removed this line because it was not sourced and it was a personal attack. I did some googling and I found the person who said this and it was on the wonkette web site. If someone wanted to link to a Tony Zirkle wiki entry that lists all of his known political views that is fine, but to just call him crazy on someone elses wiki entry does not seem appropriate or scholarly. Please let me know if you disagree Bachs

I added a wiki page on Tony Zirkle that continues to be refined. ~~ jclayc ~~

Actions as representative

Any rhyme or reason for putting these particular votes? Any reason to select them? Perhaps just a link to his "voting record" would be sufficient rather than picking the bills that make him look good or bad? Zz414 16:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing what I thought were the non-notable/non-newsworthy votes. For example, any vote for a resolution is not newsworthy - resolutions aren't laws. A vote to pass an appropriation (Defense) is hardly newsworthy. I left what I thought were ones where there are large differences of opinion - on a Constitutional amendment on flag-burning, or drilling in ANWR, or stem-cell research, for example. I also shortened the text by removing the results of the vote (pass, fail, etc.) John Broughton 16:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Crystal Ball"

While this article seems largely NPOV, the paragraph about the "Crystal Ball" jumped out at me as POV. I reworded it using terminology pulled from the web site itself. Kardreader 04:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction of Birthplace

The infobox to the right has him as born in Jackson, Mississippi. However, the article itself, as well as his biography says he was born in Jackson, Michigan.

Therefore, I have changed the infobox to show him as born in Jackson, Michigan. Empowered 01:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Nickname

I've asked for guidance on the nickname issue at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Negative_nicknames. -- SCZenz 01:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, wrong place. I moved it to WP:BLPN#Negative nicknames, which is the correct place for such questions. -- SCZenz 05:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that it's negative. It's a pun off a cereal name, which seems entirely neutral. Here are a few instances of the nickname used in largely-neutral contexts: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

It is not a nickname he assigned himself, or uses himself; making light of someone's name is very likely to be negative, but I admit that (at best) it might really be used neutrally. But this is a trivial fact about a real person, which could be seen as negative and which isn't particularly enlightening for our readers. Under such circumstances, a reliable source seems like the minimum we need to include it. I don't think that some blogs using the nickname make the fact notable; a major news service discussing the nickname would. -- SCZenz 04:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody assigns their own nickname, and it's a prevalent nickname often used without explanation. Blogs are largely the place they would be found. No major news service is going to mention it except in the context of explaining about bloggers; that's a ridiculous requirement. If WP eliminated all phenomena that are limited to the blogosphere it would lose a lot of content. --Tysto 00:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Predecessor

Though the heart of District 2 (the South Bend-Mishawaka-Elkhart-LaPorte area) was Roemer's district, it was actually titled District 3 until the reapportionment of House seats. That area then became District 2 (which had been Pence's district in the south of the state) and which was won by Chocola, making Mike Pence his technical predecessor. For a graphical depiction, see United States Congressional Delegations from Indiana. Craig R. Nielsen 20:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)