![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
this edit goes against consensus here and here Scientus ( talk) 00:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Speeches by Grayson are not “Irrelevent”. [1] I am not the only one that has put in reference to this speech. (look as history) Trilemma is the only one that seeks to remove it. Scientus ( talk) 00:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Grayson's response to accusations are not "irrelevent", that is preposterous. [2] [3] This has was raised after the first removal here. Scientus ( talk) 00:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
One of those big loud people on Fox did a segment on this guy. Expect a lot of traffic and vandalism attempts for some length of time. 75.73.208.167 ( talk) 06:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this is pretty significant
[4].
I think it should be included in the health care debate section, with something to the extent of: "Grayson's comments brought criticism from some of his colleagues. “There’s no call for that language. No call for it. That’s absurd. If he was standing here now, I’d say that to him,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) “Is this news to you that this guy’s one fry short of a Happy Meal?” asked Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.).
Trilemma (
talk)
13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh and it is also significant that Grayson appeared on the
Alex Jones radio show.
Trilemma (
talk)
13:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's another statement Grayson made covered in the article that is getting coverage:"Here I am, the only member of Congress who actually worked as an economist. And she’s, this lobbyist, this K Street whore, is trying to teach me about economics."Coverage includes the aforementioned article as well as [5] [6] [7]. Trilemma ( talk) 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the criteria you suggest is analogous. I think that the Cheney comment does deserve inclusion due to the attention it received in the press versus his other comments but I can at least see why it may be seen an non-encyclopedic. However, this second statement about Bernanke's assistant was not only notable in the press and amongst his colleagues but it also prompted numbers of quotes and assessments of Grayson's job in congress by his colleagues. Additionally, this included colleagues from both parties making comments captured in a political news outlet. Therefore those comments almost certainly rise to the higher level of significance than what you are suggesting as they actually characterize Grayson's performance/character on a larger scale. Simply including the comments made by other congressman about him without listing what they were responding too would decontextualize the statements too much. Finally, your criteria is certainly too extreme. Not only would it require a full scrubbing of quotes across thousands of wikipedia pages because of a new standard it would set, but the original health care comment Congressman Grayson made should also be removed by those rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.224.99 ( talk) 16:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me this article (and many other on Wikipedia) basically follow this general procedure.
1. Someone sees something covered on cable news, or a prominent news aggregator.
2. Said person googles for an AP or Reuters source, whatever.
3. The info is added to Wikipedia.
4. Debate ensues.
Is this really appropriate for this article? I think you should all head over to Wikinews if you want to copy and paste AP headlines. Reliefappearance ( talk) 03:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I've addressed this contention in the earlier comment you made. First, as other users have mentioned it seems to depart from standards used on many other figures' pages. Secondly, it's simply too broad a characterization to be accurate in this case. While including all quotes would certainly not be encyclopedic there are clearly some which deserve inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.224.99 ( talk) 16:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Should this guy's statement about the Republican position healthcare really be included in the lead? It may be what many people know him for, but he has had several other notable achievements, and to highlight it in that way strikes me as pretty POV. Let's have a sense of perspective here: just because someone's been involved in a recent controversy, doesn't mean it's so important that we have to put it in the lead of their article. Doing so here looks like undue weight and recentism to me. (I would edit the article myself, but it's been fully-protected...) Robofish ( talk) 20:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The only reason anyone knows who Grayson is is because he said Republicans were trying to kill people quickly, and he called FOX News the "enemy of America" and he called a female Treasury Dept. employee "a paid whore." He brags about it himself, calling himself a "Congressman with Guts." Each of those issues (especially the "die quickly" one) have been getting a ton of coverage on all media.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28786.html
Some of these are rehashes. We had established earlier that we don't need exhaustive exchanges, rebuttals, and soundbites involving Grayson. Trilemma ( talk) 15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
This has been remove as excessive detail..
Grayson described these comments as “Republican hissy fits”,[32] and the next day gave a speech from the House Floor, saying “I would like to apologize: I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”[38] He cited a September 2009 Harvard study[39] that found 44,000 Americans die each year due to being uninsured. Grayson, who is Jewish, apologized to the Anti-defamation League for those offended by his generic use[40] of the word 'holocaust'.[41]
On September 30, 2009, Grayson called Congressional Republicans "nattering nabobs of negativism" and "foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who think they can dictate policy to America by being stubborn" despite having lost the election. He argued that on the issue of health care "the Republicans have been insulting … [and] disserving America," and that "some thoughtful opposition" has been missing in the debate. He responded to criticism of his comments about the Republicans by saying he was speaking "the honest truth", because he contends that Republican leaders have offered no feasible counter-proposal to that of the Democrats, and that when the minority is not compromising and thereby stopping progress, few alternatives exist from which to draw conclusions. During the interview, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos responded to Grayson with four initiatives that he believes Congressional Republicans are now proposing or have previously proposed: (1) enacting tort reform, (2) expanding health insurance portability, (3) permitting consumers to shop for health insurance across state lines, and (4) ensuring access to health care regardless of pre-existing health conditions. Grayson maintained his position that Congressional Republicans have failed to offer a feasible plan, and in his rebuttal to the second and fourth points said "What you just described is the Democratic plan. You think you can steal the emperor's clothes that way?"[42][43] On October 1, 2009, Grayson referred to Congressional Republicans as "'no' mongers" and added, "They've got 'no' answers for anything."[44]
On October 8, 2009, Grayson gave a speech in which he reiterated that he would not apologize to the Republicans (“America doesn't care about [the Republican party's] feelings”), while accusing the Democratic party of narrowly focusing on procedure over policy[45] ("We as a party have spent the last six months, the greatest minds in our party, dwelling on the question, the unbelievably consuming question of how to get Olympia Snowe to vote on health care reform") and the Republican party for dogmatic opposition to the Democrats ("If Barack Obama has a BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon").[46][47]
I agree that the whole Grayson said this, Joe Schmoe called for him to apologize, then Grayson said this, then Joe Schmoe said this is really becoming tedious in his article. Furthermore I believe anything included is given WP:UNDUE weight, because Grayson has said all sorts of stuff that is not included in the article. I think we should summarize Grayson's modus operandi and stop adding quotes every time we see him say something on TV. Reliefappearance ( talk) 16:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Rob, I was earlier referencing Tom (A8)'s statement: hat's funny lol. Sorry.. yeah that is blatant POV..... Who cares about his analysis of the GOP? It's irrelevent A8UDI talk 13:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC). This was decided, then Scientus unilaterally and surreptitiously added it back in. I'm not very familiar with the whole dispute resolution process but it certainly seems that given Scientus' string of outright dishonesty and hostile editing, he deserves topic banned. Trilemma ( talk) 18:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The current wording of the final paragraph is poor: Grayson criticized Senator Jon Kyl who said, “I'm not sure that it's a fact that more and more people die because they don't have health insurance.″[40][42] Republicans accused Grayson of violating campaign ethics guidelines because the website links to Grayson's campaign website.[43] However, according to Grayson, no formal complaint has been lodged against him, and such allegations, including similar ones over another speech, are “Republican propaganda” and “lie[s] to distract people from the truth”. First, we should combine it with the prior paragraph and start the sentence with Kyl's criticism, which is the point of the sentence, not Grayson's retort. Furthermore, "however" should be removed, and the second half should be reworded as something like: "to which Grayson responded by arguing that no formal complaint has been lodged." Once again, we simply do not need multiple quotes of every response Alan Grayson gives. Trilemma ( talk) 18:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
A lot of edits in the last couple of days, some discussion. I would like to see some stability in the article, can all involved editors, take a step back and look at the article as it is now and bring any concerns they have to the talkpage, excessive tit for tat editing will only result in the article being locked down again and no one wants that. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Please add the following:
{{ editprotected}}
Grayson's comments on Former Vice President Cheney
On October 22, 2009 Grayson made the following comment during an interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews: “By the way, I have trouble listening to what [Cheney] says sometimes because of the blood that drips from his teeth while he’s talking, but my response is this: he’s just angry because the president doesn’t shoot old men in the face. But by the way, when he was done speaking, did he just then turn into a bat and fly away?”"
It can be sourced by a dozen or so news articles including politico http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1009/Alan_Grayson_v_Chris_Matthews.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.224.99 ( talk) 18:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Not done. Obviously not an uncontroversial edit request at this time; please establish consensus before requesting again.
PeterSymonds (
talk)
14:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Grayson has made lots of off the wall statements. If you want to compile them head on over to Wikiquote. This article should basically state that he is a liberal firebrand and leave it at that. Reliefappearance ( talk) 19:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. If any congressman makes comments (e.g. Linda Robertson characterization) that cause the majority leader of his own party to condemn them (as well as words of rebuke from other members of congress within his own party), and for the congressman to apologize and issue a formal written apology (media release) on his own congressional web site, that becomes an issue that defines him and is worthy of being written about in his official Wikipedia page, not just Wikiquote. James.DC ( talk) 15:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Grayson has gained a reputation for several statements he has made, which has led to condemnation by some of his colleagues. After Grayson appeared on
9/11 Conspiracy Theorist
Alex Jones' radio show, during which he called
Linda Robertson, an adviser to Federal Reserve Chair Ben Barnanke, a "
K-Street
Whore", Democrat representative Bill Pascrell condemned the remarks, saying, “There’s no call for that language. No call for it. That’s absurd. If he was standing here now, I’d say that to him.” Democrat Representative
Anthony Weiner said, “Is this news to you that this guy’s one fry short of a Happy Meal?”
[9]. Grayson subsequently apologized for the remark.
[10].
Grayson has additionally called
Fox News and Republicans, "Enemies of America."
[11]
I can't see any additional value in what is in this section and having a controversy section is not a good idea, if there is any content worthy of inclusion it can be moved to a better location. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Grayson's characterization of Linda Robertson and the reaction and rebuke that it prompted from the Democratic Party leadership and other Democrats warrants its own section and should not be included in the Fed. Audit section. This issue has grown into its own issue and transcends the Fed Audit issue. It should not be included in the Fed Audit section as the characterization and reaction from other Democrats does little to inform the reader about Grayson's position on the Fed Audit issue. James.DC ( talk) 15:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems like these are not "gaffes", but political calculations. Grayson seems inclined to continue his pattern of controversial statements, and the technique is not necessarily without merit if it moves along discourse, crystallizes points, and accentuates differing views. I created a section to allow readers to quickly compare Grayson's statements with their timeline and with each other, in a format that I believe to be encyclopedic. It was here, but now is here. At least it's a place to start the discussion about what format such a section should retain. -- 24dot ( talk) 20:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
user:James.DC is trying to remove a Weiner quote that was a response to a question about the federal reserve comments. [14] [15] The other quote supposedly from Weiner it is not clear what it about at all, and is completely un WP:VERIFYable. Scientus ( talk) 14:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The Weiner quote that does not belong under the "Federal Reserve transparency" section is this one: "[Grayson] is making an argument about health care that is not wrong, the Republican plan of doing nothing is indeed killing people.…We have people on both sides who believe that in this age of media being what it is, the way to get attention is to say things that are fairly outrageous…" Weiner is clearly talking about Grayson's argument on health care, regardless of what question may have been asked. This quote belongs in the "Health care" section of this article, if anywhere. It should be deleted from the "Federal Reserve transparency" section. Additionally, Weiner's "Happy Meal" comment about Grayson is appropriate in this paragraph and should be kept, as it is about Linda Robertson, as per the Politico article, in which a number of quotes were published by various members of Congress in response to Grayson's characterization about Linda Robertson. The "Happy Meal" quote has been widely published, and Weiner has not disclaimed credit for this quote. It is therefore appropriate to associate the comment with Weiner. James.DC ( talk) 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I just deleted the newest James.DC addition because having a whole sub-section based on one article places undue weight on a single columnist's opinion, and because, as it was written, the section didn't even represent the source article well - the article also has quotes from people who like Grayson's style. It smacks of POV-pushing. Just checking in here to see if there's a consensus either way. Dawn Bard ( talk) 15:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The quotes were taken from an editorial that appeared in the New York Times, a leading and respected global publication. These are not quotes from right-wing talk radio or other news outlets around which I doubt we would ever reach a consensus. Having said that, I can see Dawn Bard's point that one editorial may be insufficient to support an entire new section, but the fact that the New York Times opines in this way is noteworthy and should not be dismissed. I am content if Dawn Bard or others want to supplement this new section with the quotes from those who "like" Grayson's style (e.g., those from Barney Frank and James Carville), but for clarification, they didn't really say they "like" his style but rather they think Grayson's style can be useful or may serve a purpose within the Democratic Party. As soon as this new section can be sourced from other publications and with additional viewpoints, then it should be included, because few other congressman are receiving such national acclaim for their "manner of political discourse" to the extent Grayson is receiving such discourse. It is fair to state that Grayson's style of discourse is one of his defining characteristics as a congressman, and it should therefore be included in his "Congressional career" section. For the record, the addition at issue that I wrote (which Dawn Bard deleted) was, IMHO, objectively written and without POV, although, once again, I can agree with Dawn Bard that it should be further sourced/supplemented. Below is a copy of the deleted section. Additional comments and suggestions are welcome. ( James.DC ( talk) 15:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC))
Grayson has received media recognition for his manner of political discourse and style of representation. On Octotber 31, 2009, the New York Times observed, "...Mr. Grayson has catapulted himself to national renown for outlandish rhetoric and a pugilistic political style that makes him seem less staid lawmaker than a character on the lam from one of his Orlando district’s theme parks.... Mr. Grayson could be the latest incarnation of what in the American political idiom is known as a wing nut -- a loud darling of cable television and talk radio whose remarks are outrageous but often serious enough not to be dismissed entirely." [1] The New York Times' editorial cited Grayson's comments regarding health care, former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, and his characterization of Linda Robertson as examples. [1] James.DC ( talk) 15:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The text of the section: In recent years, as a plaintiffs' attorney, Grayson specialized in whistleblower fraud cases aimed at Iraq war contractors. One contractor, Custer Battles, billed the government $15 million for inspecting allegedly non-existent civilian flights at Baghdad Airport, and $10 million on a time and materials contract that had cost $3.5 million. The contractor received payment in newly printed cash direct from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.[3]
Is not backed up by the citation [3] at all. An Oversight Hearing on Waste, Fraud and Abuse in U.S. Government Contracting in Iraq - Witness Biographies, U.S. Senate Democratic Policy Committee, 2005-02-14, accessed 2009-09-30.
This is merely a brief bio of Grayson and does not outline anything about these contractors, government bills and anything about the federal reserve bank. (side note, all money is printed from the federal reserve, how is this relevant?).
This section should be deleted and i'm sure the rest of the article has many more such fake citations that need to be cleaned up.
Where did he work? What job title? What qualifications did he have as an economist? I see nothing anywhere on Google that explains this, and it seems to come from his own vanity self-biography webpage. This is most certainly not npov. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.184.210 ( talk) 13:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a worthy question. What substantiation do we have for Grayson's claim of being an "economist"? James.DC ( talk) 14:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the uncited claim to religiousness from the info box, it is also unsupported in the body of the article, religiousness claims should only be inserted if he declares it himself in a strong cite or if a citation says he is a regular synagogue attendee. There is a cat paternal Jews which could be added. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
yes or no?
http://www.mycongressmanisnuts.com/
Reliefappearance ( talk) 23:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Current version:
Grayson described these comments as “Republican hissy fits”,[37] and the next day gave a speech from the House Floor, saying “I would like to apologize: I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”[43] He cited a September 2009 Harvard study[44] that found 44,000 Americans die each year due to being uninsured. Grayson, who is Jewish, apologized to the Anti-defamation League for those offended by his generic use[45] of the word 'holocaust'.[46]
On September 30, 2009, Grayson called Congressional Republicans "nattering nabobs of negativism" and "foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who think they can dictate policy to America by being stubborn" despite having lost the election. He argued that on the issue of health care "the Republicans have been insulting … [and] disserving America," and that "some thoughtful opposition" has been missing in the debate. He responded to criticism of his comments about the Republicans by saying he was speaking "the honest truth", because he contends that Republican leaders have offered no feasible counter-proposal to that of the Democrats, and that when the minority is not compromising, few alternatives exist from which to draw conclusions. During the interview, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos responded to Grayson with four initiatives that he believed Congressional Republicans have proposed: (1) enacting tort reform, (2) expanding health insurance portability, (3) permitting consumers to shop for health insurance across state lines, and (4) ensuring access to health care regardless of pre-existing health conditions. Grayson maintained his position that Congressional Republicans have failed to offer a feasible plan, and in his rebuttal to the second and fourth points asserted, "What you just described is the Democratic plan. You think you can steal the emperor's clothes that way?"[47][48]
My proposal:
Grayson subsequently refused to apologize for his remarks, giving a speech in which he said, “I would like to apologize: I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”[43] Grayson, who is Jewish, later apologized to the Anti-defamation League for those offended by his generic use[45] of the word 'holocaust'.[46] Grayson later charged that "some thoughtful opposition" has been missing in the debate, and that the Republicans lacked a counter-proposal, a charge that Republicans, including Alex Castellanos, rejected.[47][48]
The point of my revision is to condense what is currently an overlong series of back and forths and sound bites. This parlays the relevant information to the biography of Alan Grayson (note that I still object to the inclusion of the word "generic") Trilemma ( talk) 00:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not support the condensed paragraph proposed by Trilemma. The new paragraph he has offered does not paint a complete enough picture to help the reader understand an appropriate degree of context for Grayson's perspectives on health care. The amount of time Grayson has spent on the health care issue, the vast media coverage he has received, and the reactions provoked by others warrants more than a minimalist summary of events. The current version has undergone substantial revisions and discussion for weeks and should be kept. James.DC ( talk) 14:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I totally disagree, the current version has enjoyed constant tit for tat reverting and is imo almost unreadable. There has never been any agreement about anything in that section, I am looking for an independent copy editor to rewrite it to something that a reader wanting to know what it is about could understand something, at present it is just a collection of comments from this cite and that cite and the whole section is very poor. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Off2riorob ( talk) 14:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I find that section at least as intelligible as any other text on the page. What exactly is "unreadable" to you? I find it entirely coherent. You seem to dismiss it on the basis of "tit for tat" editing, which may or may not be true. However, even if it were the culmination of tit for tat editing, that in and of itself does not make it unreadable, so please at least offer a couple of examples of what is unreadable to you. Additionally, you do not address the substance of my argument as to why this section should not be condensed, and the justification for keeping it expanded (i.e. Grayson's expended energy on the issue, media coverage of his work, and the provoked response). James.DC ( talk) 15:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I support Trilemma's reduced version of the section, it summarises the issue and it is easily read and understood this version is the one I am talking about, simple clear and consise, as I said, the version that has been reverted to again now is a mess and unreadable and confusing to the reader. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
user:Trilemma seems to think that if he WP:BLUDGEONs enough that anything he wants is immediately "consensus", and anyone who disagrees is a "rogue editor". user:Trilemma continually changes the page when no one has addressed mine, or James.DC's concerns, and leaves the page in a complete mess. Scientus ( talk) 19:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the order of edits:
It seems clear that user:Trilemma puts removing sourced information, and pushing her POV against Grayson, over building a correctly formatted, coherent encyclopedia. Scientus ( talk) 19:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
We dont do that, so they are going to have to be removed and any info that they are supporting will need a new citation. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Now that we've addressed two other issues, let's get down to the federal reserve section. Here's my proposal to make it more concise: During his first term in office, Grayson gained attention for exchanges with Federal Reserve System Vice Chairman Donald Kohn [2] and Elizabeth A. Coleman regarding federal spending. Grayson joined with fellow freshman Democrat Jim Himes of Connecticut to introduce the Grayson-Himes Pay for Performance Act, legislation to require that all bonuses paid by companies that had received funds under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to be "based on performance" [3]; on April 1, the bill was passed by the full House of Representatives by a vote of 247-171. [4] Grayson is a co-sponsor of the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009.
Grayson attracted bi-partisan criticism for September, 2009 appearance on the Alex Jones Show radio program, during which he called Linda Robertson, an assistant to Ben Bernanke, a " K-Street Whore. [5] Grayson subsequently apologized for his characterization of Robertson. [6] [7] Trilemma ( talk) 01:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
I'm moving these from hidden text in the article to here in case someone wants to see if they can be used here: -- Banjeboi
Also removed these two from the external links, they may be useful as sources but don't meet the stringent WP:EL policy. -- Banjeboi 22:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I've taken the weed-whacker to clean-up and trim all the excesses from Alan Grayson#2008 Health care comments. First off YouTube is generally not a great source so i encourage those using such to start backing up those with print journalism ones which tend to be more stable. Secondly it was a bit of a soapbox and quotefarm which seemingly was to be NPOV-ish to present multiple views but just ending up being so-and-so also didn't like ____. Get to the point, state it NPOV and move on. Guess what, as it's written now it presents that Grayson either says a lot of foolish things to simply enrage or actually spark debate. This is what his article should cover, not digressions and quibbling. There are good articles all about the current health care debates and any extra content can go to those if it needs to go anywhere. Try to see US politics for what they are and don't fall for the hype. Also Politico is used extensively. They may be a good or even great source but it may be wise to diversify sourcing in future editing. -- Banjeboi 22:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, we're hearing you loud and clear, pal. Except no one believes you. If you're so concerned about video links dying then go through EVERY single article in Wikipedia deleting every video link along the way. BTW, LOTS of links die - not just those of vids. And they aren't all available in archive. That doesn't mean we don't use them. You're just trying to whitewash Grayson's CRAZY side and not fooling anyone... Big Daddy 69.244.182.135 ( talk) 19:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Most politicians have a section on personal life.
About all I can find here is the last paragraph of Career saying that he had a wife and 5 kids, the box saying his wife is named Lolita Grayson, and reference 5 suggesting that his wife is Shellie Ruston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimJJewett ( talk • contribs) 14:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Source says "four to one in our favor" [18]. this is inaccurate, yet Off2riorob reintroduces it, twice!, with only justification that my edit is "unfounded". Scientus ( talk) 10:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Scientus refuses to discuss his edits (beyond churlish insults on my talk page, which lead me to suspect that he is Grayson or someone very close to Grayson). So let's run down his new NPOV edits: 1) and such allegations, including similar ones over another speech, are “Republican propaganda” and “lie[s] to distract people from the truth”. [8] According to Grayson the Republican party is “party of 'no' [and] well on its way to becoming the party of 'nobody'”. [9]
2) On October 8 Grayson gave a speech in which he reiterated that he would not apologize to the Republicans (“America doesn't care about [the Republican party's] feelings”), while accusing the Democratic party of narrowly focusing on procedure over policy
original research? (“We as a party have spent the last six months, the greatest minds in our party, dwelling on the question, the unbelievably consuming question of how to get
Olympia Snowe to vote on health care reform”) and the Republican party for dogmatic opposition to the Democrats (“If Barack Obama has a
BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon”).
[10]Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page). told Grayson that her office does not know and is not tracking where this money is.
[11]
Bloomberg has totaled the credit put out in the
bailout as 9.7 trillion dollars,
[12]
I think it's abundantly clear by now that one can not assume good faith with Scientus. He has behaved in a hostile and dishonest manner perpetually. Will Beback talk 07:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
mindingthestore
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).We only use "K-street whore" four times including a pull quote - surely if we try hard enough we can mention at least a dozens times. Maybe we could explain whether one or both of his parent were K-street whores in the early life section. -- Banjeboi 16:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added the NPOV tag as this article has once again degraded. This time to pile a list of seemingly transgressive actions into a hitlist of shame against the subject of this BLP. This violates our NPOV and BLP policies. These items should be integrated appropriately with due weight into the main text of the article or removed altogether. Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Why this there no mention of this? Truthsort ( talk) 02:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Is Grayson a citable religious person, I have never seen anything, he said he was jewish in a cite but I thought he meant by birth . Any citations to support religiousness and practice? Will Beback talk 07:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
There's no mention in the "Controversy" section as to why the quotes therein are listed under this heading. Did anybody deem them controversial? If so, was the incident of this controversy a significant enough aspect of Grayson's bio to warrant mention here? I'm not inclined to think so. Will Beback talk 07:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obietom ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Two reputable groups have criticized the subject for a misleading political ad. It's not a huge event, but it's not nothing either. I cut the previous material down to a single sentence, which I think is appropriate weight. However the anon deleted even that. He hasn't made any effort to explain the deletions here. I hope he does so before deleting it again. Will Beback talk 07:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Disruption, vandalism and a foul mouth. Sounds to me like 24.151.113.86 might be Grayson himself! :P ...or at least someone worth reporting. Has anyone done so yet? -- 70.181.171.159 ( talk) 14:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't do anything wrong but try to remove bias in wording. But whatever. 24.151.113.86 ( talk) 23:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Edited the section w/ the Taliban Dan ad to add on that PolitiFact.com verified the substance of the ad. I left the part showing the critique of it in the Sentinel though because that is equally true. I originally referred to PolitiFact as the Pulitzer Prize winning group but removed that language because it was biased on the re-edit after my original edit was reverted. Also removed reference of a Philadelphia Inquirer OpEd piece questioning the validity of the Florida TEA Party because it is merely an OpEd piece without any journalistic rigor or verification. While it may be a good read, it is a poor reference. 75.112.131.164 ( talk) 04:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Z October 22 12:51AM
Thank you, I'm glad we can be civil. 75.112.131.164 ( talk) 23:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
"America's Worst Politician"... -- AnonMoos ( talk) 04:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The last two paragraphs especially (leaving out the one concerning his concession) seem to portray Grayson as a hero of the American left -- hence all the cited praise from prominent liberals -- who became the powerless victim of relentless right-wing smears. The obviously one-sided narrative laid out in the cited grafs needs to be scaled back significantly at the very least, balanced to some measure, or failing all else, deleted. -- SchutteGod ( talk) 03:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to criticize, comment on, or modify these changes. LewisWasGenius ( talk) 17:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
An encyclopaedia is expected to be neutral, this page reads like a campaign advertisement, it needs rewriting. I think it deserves a tag advertisement. 8digits ( talk) 04:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
8digits, what Xenophrenic has been getting at is that, as the placer of the tag, you should be pointing out SPECIFIC instances where you think the article sounds like an advert; this would allow us to discuss it in detail, establish consensus, and remove any truly offending material. If you give instances where the article truly sounds like an advert, then we can take care of it. However, vague pointing at the whole article as an advertisement with no given evidence will result in nothing. かんぱい!
Scapler (
talk)
16:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
this edit goes against consensus here and here Scientus ( talk) 00:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Speeches by Grayson are not “Irrelevent”. [1] I am not the only one that has put in reference to this speech. (look as history) Trilemma is the only one that seeks to remove it. Scientus ( talk) 00:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Grayson's response to accusations are not "irrelevent", that is preposterous. [2] [3] This has was raised after the first removal here. Scientus ( talk) 00:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
One of those big loud people on Fox did a segment on this guy. Expect a lot of traffic and vandalism attempts for some length of time. 75.73.208.167 ( talk) 06:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this is pretty significant
[4].
I think it should be included in the health care debate section, with something to the extent of: "Grayson's comments brought criticism from some of his colleagues. “There’s no call for that language. No call for it. That’s absurd. If he was standing here now, I’d say that to him,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) “Is this news to you that this guy’s one fry short of a Happy Meal?” asked Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.).
Trilemma (
talk)
13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh and it is also significant that Grayson appeared on the
Alex Jones radio show.
Trilemma (
talk)
13:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's another statement Grayson made covered in the article that is getting coverage:"Here I am, the only member of Congress who actually worked as an economist. And she’s, this lobbyist, this K Street whore, is trying to teach me about economics."Coverage includes the aforementioned article as well as [5] [6] [7]. Trilemma ( talk) 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the criteria you suggest is analogous. I think that the Cheney comment does deserve inclusion due to the attention it received in the press versus his other comments but I can at least see why it may be seen an non-encyclopedic. However, this second statement about Bernanke's assistant was not only notable in the press and amongst his colleagues but it also prompted numbers of quotes and assessments of Grayson's job in congress by his colleagues. Additionally, this included colleagues from both parties making comments captured in a political news outlet. Therefore those comments almost certainly rise to the higher level of significance than what you are suggesting as they actually characterize Grayson's performance/character on a larger scale. Simply including the comments made by other congressman about him without listing what they were responding too would decontextualize the statements too much. Finally, your criteria is certainly too extreme. Not only would it require a full scrubbing of quotes across thousands of wikipedia pages because of a new standard it would set, but the original health care comment Congressman Grayson made should also be removed by those rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.224.99 ( talk) 16:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me this article (and many other on Wikipedia) basically follow this general procedure.
1. Someone sees something covered on cable news, or a prominent news aggregator.
2. Said person googles for an AP or Reuters source, whatever.
3. The info is added to Wikipedia.
4. Debate ensues.
Is this really appropriate for this article? I think you should all head over to Wikinews if you want to copy and paste AP headlines. Reliefappearance ( talk) 03:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I've addressed this contention in the earlier comment you made. First, as other users have mentioned it seems to depart from standards used on many other figures' pages. Secondly, it's simply too broad a characterization to be accurate in this case. While including all quotes would certainly not be encyclopedic there are clearly some which deserve inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.224.99 ( talk) 16:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Should this guy's statement about the Republican position healthcare really be included in the lead? It may be what many people know him for, but he has had several other notable achievements, and to highlight it in that way strikes me as pretty POV. Let's have a sense of perspective here: just because someone's been involved in a recent controversy, doesn't mean it's so important that we have to put it in the lead of their article. Doing so here looks like undue weight and recentism to me. (I would edit the article myself, but it's been fully-protected...) Robofish ( talk) 20:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The only reason anyone knows who Grayson is is because he said Republicans were trying to kill people quickly, and he called FOX News the "enemy of America" and he called a female Treasury Dept. employee "a paid whore." He brags about it himself, calling himself a "Congressman with Guts." Each of those issues (especially the "die quickly" one) have been getting a ton of coverage on all media.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28786.html
Some of these are rehashes. We had established earlier that we don't need exhaustive exchanges, rebuttals, and soundbites involving Grayson. Trilemma ( talk) 15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
This has been remove as excessive detail..
Grayson described these comments as “Republican hissy fits”,[32] and the next day gave a speech from the House Floor, saying “I would like to apologize: I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”[38] He cited a September 2009 Harvard study[39] that found 44,000 Americans die each year due to being uninsured. Grayson, who is Jewish, apologized to the Anti-defamation League for those offended by his generic use[40] of the word 'holocaust'.[41]
On September 30, 2009, Grayson called Congressional Republicans "nattering nabobs of negativism" and "foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who think they can dictate policy to America by being stubborn" despite having lost the election. He argued that on the issue of health care "the Republicans have been insulting … [and] disserving America," and that "some thoughtful opposition" has been missing in the debate. He responded to criticism of his comments about the Republicans by saying he was speaking "the honest truth", because he contends that Republican leaders have offered no feasible counter-proposal to that of the Democrats, and that when the minority is not compromising and thereby stopping progress, few alternatives exist from which to draw conclusions. During the interview, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos responded to Grayson with four initiatives that he believes Congressional Republicans are now proposing or have previously proposed: (1) enacting tort reform, (2) expanding health insurance portability, (3) permitting consumers to shop for health insurance across state lines, and (4) ensuring access to health care regardless of pre-existing health conditions. Grayson maintained his position that Congressional Republicans have failed to offer a feasible plan, and in his rebuttal to the second and fourth points said "What you just described is the Democratic plan. You think you can steal the emperor's clothes that way?"[42][43] On October 1, 2009, Grayson referred to Congressional Republicans as "'no' mongers" and added, "They've got 'no' answers for anything."[44]
On October 8, 2009, Grayson gave a speech in which he reiterated that he would not apologize to the Republicans (“America doesn't care about [the Republican party's] feelings”), while accusing the Democratic party of narrowly focusing on procedure over policy[45] ("We as a party have spent the last six months, the greatest minds in our party, dwelling on the question, the unbelievably consuming question of how to get Olympia Snowe to vote on health care reform") and the Republican party for dogmatic opposition to the Democrats ("If Barack Obama has a BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon").[46][47]
I agree that the whole Grayson said this, Joe Schmoe called for him to apologize, then Grayson said this, then Joe Schmoe said this is really becoming tedious in his article. Furthermore I believe anything included is given WP:UNDUE weight, because Grayson has said all sorts of stuff that is not included in the article. I think we should summarize Grayson's modus operandi and stop adding quotes every time we see him say something on TV. Reliefappearance ( talk) 16:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Rob, I was earlier referencing Tom (A8)'s statement: hat's funny lol. Sorry.. yeah that is blatant POV..... Who cares about his analysis of the GOP? It's irrelevent A8UDI talk 13:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC). This was decided, then Scientus unilaterally and surreptitiously added it back in. I'm not very familiar with the whole dispute resolution process but it certainly seems that given Scientus' string of outright dishonesty and hostile editing, he deserves topic banned. Trilemma ( talk) 18:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The current wording of the final paragraph is poor: Grayson criticized Senator Jon Kyl who said, “I'm not sure that it's a fact that more and more people die because they don't have health insurance.″[40][42] Republicans accused Grayson of violating campaign ethics guidelines because the website links to Grayson's campaign website.[43] However, according to Grayson, no formal complaint has been lodged against him, and such allegations, including similar ones over another speech, are “Republican propaganda” and “lie[s] to distract people from the truth”. First, we should combine it with the prior paragraph and start the sentence with Kyl's criticism, which is the point of the sentence, not Grayson's retort. Furthermore, "however" should be removed, and the second half should be reworded as something like: "to which Grayson responded by arguing that no formal complaint has been lodged." Once again, we simply do not need multiple quotes of every response Alan Grayson gives. Trilemma ( talk) 18:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
A lot of edits in the last couple of days, some discussion. I would like to see some stability in the article, can all involved editors, take a step back and look at the article as it is now and bring any concerns they have to the talkpage, excessive tit for tat editing will only result in the article being locked down again and no one wants that. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Please add the following:
{{ editprotected}}
Grayson's comments on Former Vice President Cheney
On October 22, 2009 Grayson made the following comment during an interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews: “By the way, I have trouble listening to what [Cheney] says sometimes because of the blood that drips from his teeth while he’s talking, but my response is this: he’s just angry because the president doesn’t shoot old men in the face. But by the way, when he was done speaking, did he just then turn into a bat and fly away?”"
It can be sourced by a dozen or so news articles including politico http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1009/Alan_Grayson_v_Chris_Matthews.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.224.99 ( talk) 18:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Not done. Obviously not an uncontroversial edit request at this time; please establish consensus before requesting again.
PeterSymonds (
talk)
14:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Grayson has made lots of off the wall statements. If you want to compile them head on over to Wikiquote. This article should basically state that he is a liberal firebrand and leave it at that. Reliefappearance ( talk) 19:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. If any congressman makes comments (e.g. Linda Robertson characterization) that cause the majority leader of his own party to condemn them (as well as words of rebuke from other members of congress within his own party), and for the congressman to apologize and issue a formal written apology (media release) on his own congressional web site, that becomes an issue that defines him and is worthy of being written about in his official Wikipedia page, not just Wikiquote. James.DC ( talk) 15:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Grayson has gained a reputation for several statements he has made, which has led to condemnation by some of his colleagues. After Grayson appeared on
9/11 Conspiracy Theorist
Alex Jones' radio show, during which he called
Linda Robertson, an adviser to Federal Reserve Chair Ben Barnanke, a "
K-Street
Whore", Democrat representative Bill Pascrell condemned the remarks, saying, “There’s no call for that language. No call for it. That’s absurd. If he was standing here now, I’d say that to him.” Democrat Representative
Anthony Weiner said, “Is this news to you that this guy’s one fry short of a Happy Meal?”
[9]. Grayson subsequently apologized for the remark.
[10].
Grayson has additionally called
Fox News and Republicans, "Enemies of America."
[11]
I can't see any additional value in what is in this section and having a controversy section is not a good idea, if there is any content worthy of inclusion it can be moved to a better location. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Grayson's characterization of Linda Robertson and the reaction and rebuke that it prompted from the Democratic Party leadership and other Democrats warrants its own section and should not be included in the Fed. Audit section. This issue has grown into its own issue and transcends the Fed Audit issue. It should not be included in the Fed Audit section as the characterization and reaction from other Democrats does little to inform the reader about Grayson's position on the Fed Audit issue. James.DC ( talk) 15:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems like these are not "gaffes", but political calculations. Grayson seems inclined to continue his pattern of controversial statements, and the technique is not necessarily without merit if it moves along discourse, crystallizes points, and accentuates differing views. I created a section to allow readers to quickly compare Grayson's statements with their timeline and with each other, in a format that I believe to be encyclopedic. It was here, but now is here. At least it's a place to start the discussion about what format such a section should retain. -- 24dot ( talk) 20:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
user:James.DC is trying to remove a Weiner quote that was a response to a question about the federal reserve comments. [14] [15] The other quote supposedly from Weiner it is not clear what it about at all, and is completely un WP:VERIFYable. Scientus ( talk) 14:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The Weiner quote that does not belong under the "Federal Reserve transparency" section is this one: "[Grayson] is making an argument about health care that is not wrong, the Republican plan of doing nothing is indeed killing people.…We have people on both sides who believe that in this age of media being what it is, the way to get attention is to say things that are fairly outrageous…" Weiner is clearly talking about Grayson's argument on health care, regardless of what question may have been asked. This quote belongs in the "Health care" section of this article, if anywhere. It should be deleted from the "Federal Reserve transparency" section. Additionally, Weiner's "Happy Meal" comment about Grayson is appropriate in this paragraph and should be kept, as it is about Linda Robertson, as per the Politico article, in which a number of quotes were published by various members of Congress in response to Grayson's characterization about Linda Robertson. The "Happy Meal" quote has been widely published, and Weiner has not disclaimed credit for this quote. It is therefore appropriate to associate the comment with Weiner. James.DC ( talk) 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I just deleted the newest James.DC addition because having a whole sub-section based on one article places undue weight on a single columnist's opinion, and because, as it was written, the section didn't even represent the source article well - the article also has quotes from people who like Grayson's style. It smacks of POV-pushing. Just checking in here to see if there's a consensus either way. Dawn Bard ( talk) 15:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The quotes were taken from an editorial that appeared in the New York Times, a leading and respected global publication. These are not quotes from right-wing talk radio or other news outlets around which I doubt we would ever reach a consensus. Having said that, I can see Dawn Bard's point that one editorial may be insufficient to support an entire new section, but the fact that the New York Times opines in this way is noteworthy and should not be dismissed. I am content if Dawn Bard or others want to supplement this new section with the quotes from those who "like" Grayson's style (e.g., those from Barney Frank and James Carville), but for clarification, they didn't really say they "like" his style but rather they think Grayson's style can be useful or may serve a purpose within the Democratic Party. As soon as this new section can be sourced from other publications and with additional viewpoints, then it should be included, because few other congressman are receiving such national acclaim for their "manner of political discourse" to the extent Grayson is receiving such discourse. It is fair to state that Grayson's style of discourse is one of his defining characteristics as a congressman, and it should therefore be included in his "Congressional career" section. For the record, the addition at issue that I wrote (which Dawn Bard deleted) was, IMHO, objectively written and without POV, although, once again, I can agree with Dawn Bard that it should be further sourced/supplemented. Below is a copy of the deleted section. Additional comments and suggestions are welcome. ( James.DC ( talk) 15:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC))
Grayson has received media recognition for his manner of political discourse and style of representation. On Octotber 31, 2009, the New York Times observed, "...Mr. Grayson has catapulted himself to national renown for outlandish rhetoric and a pugilistic political style that makes him seem less staid lawmaker than a character on the lam from one of his Orlando district’s theme parks.... Mr. Grayson could be the latest incarnation of what in the American political idiom is known as a wing nut -- a loud darling of cable television and talk radio whose remarks are outrageous but often serious enough not to be dismissed entirely." [1] The New York Times' editorial cited Grayson's comments regarding health care, former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, and his characterization of Linda Robertson as examples. [1] James.DC ( talk) 15:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The text of the section: In recent years, as a plaintiffs' attorney, Grayson specialized in whistleblower fraud cases aimed at Iraq war contractors. One contractor, Custer Battles, billed the government $15 million for inspecting allegedly non-existent civilian flights at Baghdad Airport, and $10 million on a time and materials contract that had cost $3.5 million. The contractor received payment in newly printed cash direct from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.[3]
Is not backed up by the citation [3] at all. An Oversight Hearing on Waste, Fraud and Abuse in U.S. Government Contracting in Iraq - Witness Biographies, U.S. Senate Democratic Policy Committee, 2005-02-14, accessed 2009-09-30.
This is merely a brief bio of Grayson and does not outline anything about these contractors, government bills and anything about the federal reserve bank. (side note, all money is printed from the federal reserve, how is this relevant?).
This section should be deleted and i'm sure the rest of the article has many more such fake citations that need to be cleaned up.
Where did he work? What job title? What qualifications did he have as an economist? I see nothing anywhere on Google that explains this, and it seems to come from his own vanity self-biography webpage. This is most certainly not npov. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.184.210 ( talk) 13:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a worthy question. What substantiation do we have for Grayson's claim of being an "economist"? James.DC ( talk) 14:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the uncited claim to religiousness from the info box, it is also unsupported in the body of the article, religiousness claims should only be inserted if he declares it himself in a strong cite or if a citation says he is a regular synagogue attendee. There is a cat paternal Jews which could be added. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
yes or no?
http://www.mycongressmanisnuts.com/
Reliefappearance ( talk) 23:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Current version:
Grayson described these comments as “Republican hissy fits”,[37] and the next day gave a speech from the House Floor, saying “I would like to apologize: I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”[43] He cited a September 2009 Harvard study[44] that found 44,000 Americans die each year due to being uninsured. Grayson, who is Jewish, apologized to the Anti-defamation League for those offended by his generic use[45] of the word 'holocaust'.[46]
On September 30, 2009, Grayson called Congressional Republicans "nattering nabobs of negativism" and "foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who think they can dictate policy to America by being stubborn" despite having lost the election. He argued that on the issue of health care "the Republicans have been insulting … [and] disserving America," and that "some thoughtful opposition" has been missing in the debate. He responded to criticism of his comments about the Republicans by saying he was speaking "the honest truth", because he contends that Republican leaders have offered no feasible counter-proposal to that of the Democrats, and that when the minority is not compromising, few alternatives exist from which to draw conclusions. During the interview, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos responded to Grayson with four initiatives that he believed Congressional Republicans have proposed: (1) enacting tort reform, (2) expanding health insurance portability, (3) permitting consumers to shop for health insurance across state lines, and (4) ensuring access to health care regardless of pre-existing health conditions. Grayson maintained his position that Congressional Republicans have failed to offer a feasible plan, and in his rebuttal to the second and fourth points asserted, "What you just described is the Democratic plan. You think you can steal the emperor's clothes that way?"[47][48]
My proposal:
Grayson subsequently refused to apologize for his remarks, giving a speech in which he said, “I would like to apologize: I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”[43] Grayson, who is Jewish, later apologized to the Anti-defamation League for those offended by his generic use[45] of the word 'holocaust'.[46] Grayson later charged that "some thoughtful opposition" has been missing in the debate, and that the Republicans lacked a counter-proposal, a charge that Republicans, including Alex Castellanos, rejected.[47][48]
The point of my revision is to condense what is currently an overlong series of back and forths and sound bites. This parlays the relevant information to the biography of Alan Grayson (note that I still object to the inclusion of the word "generic") Trilemma ( talk) 00:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not support the condensed paragraph proposed by Trilemma. The new paragraph he has offered does not paint a complete enough picture to help the reader understand an appropriate degree of context for Grayson's perspectives on health care. The amount of time Grayson has spent on the health care issue, the vast media coverage he has received, and the reactions provoked by others warrants more than a minimalist summary of events. The current version has undergone substantial revisions and discussion for weeks and should be kept. James.DC ( talk) 14:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I totally disagree, the current version has enjoyed constant tit for tat reverting and is imo almost unreadable. There has never been any agreement about anything in that section, I am looking for an independent copy editor to rewrite it to something that a reader wanting to know what it is about could understand something, at present it is just a collection of comments from this cite and that cite and the whole section is very poor. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Off2riorob ( talk) 14:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I find that section at least as intelligible as any other text on the page. What exactly is "unreadable" to you? I find it entirely coherent. You seem to dismiss it on the basis of "tit for tat" editing, which may or may not be true. However, even if it were the culmination of tit for tat editing, that in and of itself does not make it unreadable, so please at least offer a couple of examples of what is unreadable to you. Additionally, you do not address the substance of my argument as to why this section should not be condensed, and the justification for keeping it expanded (i.e. Grayson's expended energy on the issue, media coverage of his work, and the provoked response). James.DC ( talk) 15:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I support Trilemma's reduced version of the section, it summarises the issue and it is easily read and understood this version is the one I am talking about, simple clear and consise, as I said, the version that has been reverted to again now is a mess and unreadable and confusing to the reader. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
user:Trilemma seems to think that if he WP:BLUDGEONs enough that anything he wants is immediately "consensus", and anyone who disagrees is a "rogue editor". user:Trilemma continually changes the page when no one has addressed mine, or James.DC's concerns, and leaves the page in a complete mess. Scientus ( talk) 19:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the order of edits:
It seems clear that user:Trilemma puts removing sourced information, and pushing her POV against Grayson, over building a correctly formatted, coherent encyclopedia. Scientus ( talk) 19:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
We dont do that, so they are going to have to be removed and any info that they are supporting will need a new citation. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Now that we've addressed two other issues, let's get down to the federal reserve section. Here's my proposal to make it more concise: During his first term in office, Grayson gained attention for exchanges with Federal Reserve System Vice Chairman Donald Kohn [2] and Elizabeth A. Coleman regarding federal spending. Grayson joined with fellow freshman Democrat Jim Himes of Connecticut to introduce the Grayson-Himes Pay for Performance Act, legislation to require that all bonuses paid by companies that had received funds under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to be "based on performance" [3]; on April 1, the bill was passed by the full House of Representatives by a vote of 247-171. [4] Grayson is a co-sponsor of the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009.
Grayson attracted bi-partisan criticism for September, 2009 appearance on the Alex Jones Show radio program, during which he called Linda Robertson, an assistant to Ben Bernanke, a " K-Street Whore. [5] Grayson subsequently apologized for his characterization of Robertson. [6] [7] Trilemma ( talk) 01:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
I'm moving these from hidden text in the article to here in case someone wants to see if they can be used here: -- Banjeboi
Also removed these two from the external links, they may be useful as sources but don't meet the stringent WP:EL policy. -- Banjeboi 22:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I've taken the weed-whacker to clean-up and trim all the excesses from Alan Grayson#2008 Health care comments. First off YouTube is generally not a great source so i encourage those using such to start backing up those with print journalism ones which tend to be more stable. Secondly it was a bit of a soapbox and quotefarm which seemingly was to be NPOV-ish to present multiple views but just ending up being so-and-so also didn't like ____. Get to the point, state it NPOV and move on. Guess what, as it's written now it presents that Grayson either says a lot of foolish things to simply enrage or actually spark debate. This is what his article should cover, not digressions and quibbling. There are good articles all about the current health care debates and any extra content can go to those if it needs to go anywhere. Try to see US politics for what they are and don't fall for the hype. Also Politico is used extensively. They may be a good or even great source but it may be wise to diversify sourcing in future editing. -- Banjeboi 22:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, we're hearing you loud and clear, pal. Except no one believes you. If you're so concerned about video links dying then go through EVERY single article in Wikipedia deleting every video link along the way. BTW, LOTS of links die - not just those of vids. And they aren't all available in archive. That doesn't mean we don't use them. You're just trying to whitewash Grayson's CRAZY side and not fooling anyone... Big Daddy 69.244.182.135 ( talk) 19:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Most politicians have a section on personal life.
About all I can find here is the last paragraph of Career saying that he had a wife and 5 kids, the box saying his wife is named Lolita Grayson, and reference 5 suggesting that his wife is Shellie Ruston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimJJewett ( talk • contribs) 14:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Source says "four to one in our favor" [18]. this is inaccurate, yet Off2riorob reintroduces it, twice!, with only justification that my edit is "unfounded". Scientus ( talk) 10:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Scientus refuses to discuss his edits (beyond churlish insults on my talk page, which lead me to suspect that he is Grayson or someone very close to Grayson). So let's run down his new NPOV edits: 1) and such allegations, including similar ones over another speech, are “Republican propaganda” and “lie[s] to distract people from the truth”. [8] According to Grayson the Republican party is “party of 'no' [and] well on its way to becoming the party of 'nobody'”. [9]
2) On October 8 Grayson gave a speech in which he reiterated that he would not apologize to the Republicans (“America doesn't care about [the Republican party's] feelings”), while accusing the Democratic party of narrowly focusing on procedure over policy
original research? (“We as a party have spent the last six months, the greatest minds in our party, dwelling on the question, the unbelievably consuming question of how to get
Olympia Snowe to vote on health care reform”) and the Republican party for dogmatic opposition to the Democrats (“If Barack Obama has a
BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon”).
[10]Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page). told Grayson that her office does not know and is not tracking where this money is.
[11]
Bloomberg has totaled the credit put out in the
bailout as 9.7 trillion dollars,
[12]
I think it's abundantly clear by now that one can not assume good faith with Scientus. He has behaved in a hostile and dishonest manner perpetually. Will Beback talk 07:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
mindingthestore
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).We only use "K-street whore" four times including a pull quote - surely if we try hard enough we can mention at least a dozens times. Maybe we could explain whether one or both of his parent were K-street whores in the early life section. -- Banjeboi 16:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added the NPOV tag as this article has once again degraded. This time to pile a list of seemingly transgressive actions into a hitlist of shame against the subject of this BLP. This violates our NPOV and BLP policies. These items should be integrated appropriately with due weight into the main text of the article or removed altogether. Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 20:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Why this there no mention of this? Truthsort ( talk) 02:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Is Grayson a citable religious person, I have never seen anything, he said he was jewish in a cite but I thought he meant by birth . Any citations to support religiousness and practice? Will Beback talk 07:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
There's no mention in the "Controversy" section as to why the quotes therein are listed under this heading. Did anybody deem them controversial? If so, was the incident of this controversy a significant enough aspect of Grayson's bio to warrant mention here? I'm not inclined to think so. Will Beback talk 07:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obietom ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Two reputable groups have criticized the subject for a misleading political ad. It's not a huge event, but it's not nothing either. I cut the previous material down to a single sentence, which I think is appropriate weight. However the anon deleted even that. He hasn't made any effort to explain the deletions here. I hope he does so before deleting it again. Will Beback talk 07:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Disruption, vandalism and a foul mouth. Sounds to me like 24.151.113.86 might be Grayson himself! :P ...or at least someone worth reporting. Has anyone done so yet? -- 70.181.171.159 ( talk) 14:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't do anything wrong but try to remove bias in wording. But whatever. 24.151.113.86 ( talk) 23:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Edited the section w/ the Taliban Dan ad to add on that PolitiFact.com verified the substance of the ad. I left the part showing the critique of it in the Sentinel though because that is equally true. I originally referred to PolitiFact as the Pulitzer Prize winning group but removed that language because it was biased on the re-edit after my original edit was reverted. Also removed reference of a Philadelphia Inquirer OpEd piece questioning the validity of the Florida TEA Party because it is merely an OpEd piece without any journalistic rigor or verification. While it may be a good read, it is a poor reference. 75.112.131.164 ( talk) 04:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Z October 22 12:51AM
Thank you, I'm glad we can be civil. 75.112.131.164 ( talk) 23:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
"America's Worst Politician"... -- AnonMoos ( talk) 04:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The last two paragraphs especially (leaving out the one concerning his concession) seem to portray Grayson as a hero of the American left -- hence all the cited praise from prominent liberals -- who became the powerless victim of relentless right-wing smears. The obviously one-sided narrative laid out in the cited grafs needs to be scaled back significantly at the very least, balanced to some measure, or failing all else, deleted. -- SchutteGod ( talk) 03:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to criticize, comment on, or modify these changes. LewisWasGenius ( talk) 17:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
An encyclopaedia is expected to be neutral, this page reads like a campaign advertisement, it needs rewriting. I think it deserves a tag advertisement. 8digits ( talk) 04:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
8digits, what Xenophrenic has been getting at is that, as the placer of the tag, you should be pointing out SPECIFIC instances where you think the article sounds like an advert; this would allow us to discuss it in detail, establish consensus, and remove any truly offending material. If you give instances where the article truly sounds like an advert, then we can take care of it. However, vague pointing at the whole article as an advertisement with no given evidence will result in nothing. かんぱい!
Scapler (
talk)
16:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)