This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eric Cantor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Eric Cantor was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Personal opinions of people highlighted in these biographies should not be put into the article. I believe personal opinions (especially those that are not supported by fact) can be stated in this Discussion area. Articles are supposed to be objective, and including personal opinions renders the articles subjective, and people will be less willing to use Wikipedia as an authoratative source.
I reverted this, and then self-reverted back when I saw Cantor's name, but then I followed the source to the AP article and it does not support the statement that Cantor was aware of this? We need to be very careful here to not violate WP:BLP. We need a source for this... -- plange 05:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to have both these sentences exist in this article: (1) Cantor is the currently the only Jewish Republican in the U.S. House. (1st paragraph) AND (2) Cantor is the sole Jewish Republican in the House. (4th paragraph) Infernallek 07:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Steve Cohen, D-Tennessee, is also Jewish and won the seat previously held by Harold Ford, Jr.
Therefore, these two redundent sentences would ONLY be true today if stated in the past tense. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.209.187.249 (
talk) 03:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Ooops, a senior moment. Please disregard my stupidity for the post of 03/02/09
As to "repetition that Cantor is Jewish" the point of view problem is even more clear-cut when you realize that Cantor is NOT the only Jewish Republican in the House. Note Nan Hayworth [1] It is also odd not to mention that his is the first Jewish House Majority Leader [2] To misstate that he is the only Jewish Republican in the U.S.Congress, and then fail to note that he is the first Jewish House Majority leader from either party shows some pretty serious point of view problems.
There is a reference to an anonymous source from the McCain campaign, denying he was under consideration as McCain's veep. As has been shown many times in respect to Sarah Palin, those anonymous sources from the McCain camp often always contradicted by McCain himself and seem to have an agenda. In any event, he was seriously considered [3] In fact I could probably fill this page with references showing he was a serious candidate. It shows the entire article to have POV problems.
If you are going to talk about the "Campaign Office Incident" you should put in context of the many many similar claims by Democrats. Of course, the whole thing should be deleted, because to put it into context you would clutter the article. It is too minor a matter to because to put it into context necessitates the inclusion of much too much collateral matter.
Listing the AFL-CIO rating, alone, and then saying he is anti-labor is unbalanced, particularly when the paragraph is labelled "Economy, budgeting, and trade" - that is to say, it is not a paragraph about unions. One could list his U.S. Chamber of Commerce ratings, which have more to do with "Economy, budgeting and trade" and are very favorable. [4]
In "Social Issues" his Wolf Blitzer conversation is without cite, and seems to be taken out of context - written in a subtly pejorative manner.
The "2010" statement that "Though he won with 59% of the vote, Cantor received the lowest vote percentage since taking the hill in 2000" is inane. The Democrat lost a similar percentage from the Democrat in the previous election, because a third party had entered the race, and took a little from both.
This article is fraught with point of view problems, and needs a lot of editing for neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypercallipygian ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
References
Some people seem to be very irked by how this man blamed Pelosi for the republican vote against the bailout, and are taking out their (justified?) frustration on this article. Hopefully the attacks will die down after a day or so. I doubt it will continue past that, but if it does, we might want to consider semi-protection. BlastYoBoots ( talk) 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the year of his marriage is 1999 - the cited source says 1989. (The article got reverted when I corrected it.) - 24.183.28.227 ( talk) 01:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how the "flavorless" food cooked at home by the rep's mother is relevant for his wiki. Changed section to take out irrelevant elements. Nhbunzl ( talk) 09:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
With regards to the passages describing Cantor's statements regarding Pelosi and in response to Obama, the writing seems to be almost championing what he said. Fifty7 ( talk) 15:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Some have removed lines regarding the partisan tone Rep. Cantor struck. While the inclusion of this line may seem Anti-Cantor-ish, this sentiment has been agreed upon by everyone, including Cantor himself. He has proudly stated (including on videos on his own site) that he is happy that he had nothing to do with the bill. Including this in the article is important as it is a watershed moment in Cantor's career (when Cantor runs for President, everyone will be pointing to this moment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.18.98 ( talk) 06:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
As categorized as sneaky vandalism, removed arguments that were cited to opinion pieces, not factual articles. These inclusions of plausible misinformation have been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.182.183 ( talk) 03:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. However, those opinion articles were being used for the facts in those articles and not the opinions expressed. Additionally, Cantor's attitude toward this bill (i.e. vehemently opposing it) is an important historical moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.195.229 ( talk) 06:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, there is vandalism occurring with regard to the language (i.e. calling the bill the "Democrat's spending bill"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.209.220 ( talk) 15:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Removed the statement regarding Cantor's response to an interview of then-Presidential hopeful Obama. The section included sound bytes from Obama's interview, thus being slanted toward Cantor's position. It is unimportant to the article, as Cantor's position on Israel has already been stated and because the article already mentions that he is worried about President Obama's approach to Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.18.98 ( talk) 00:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The portion of the article quoting Obama specifically does not misrepresent his words. Cantor may have tried to misrepresent Obama's word's in his press release, but so much the worse for Cantor. And there is reason to include this account in the article. Cantor is a politician and this incident conveys important information about his politics. Fears of a trend toward unreasonably long articles about politicians, not exactly an urgent constraint to begin with, simply do not warrant excluding the paragraph in question, which is brief, dense, referenced, and factual in style. 71.232.20.61 ( talk) 03:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
In order to keep an NPOV, I changed the statement that the conflict is seen by Cantor as a reminder to the greatness of America to the relationship with Israel. I personally am not a fan of Mr. Cantor, but having the sentence the way you have it is certainly not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.196.214 ( talk) 17:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The IP address 98..... keeps removing the material about the 2008 VP selection, or clouding it up with nonsense POV. The material as it currently stands and well sourced, and follows proper wording guidelines to make it clear this is what an ANONYMOUS source has said, and is not official history. If you would like to add a Reliable Source that directly refutes the claims go ahead, but so far there has been none that I am aware of. TharsHammar Bits and Pieces 02:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It is relevant to the proliferation of former "connected" McCain campaign sources who turn out to be completely bogus. You can find ample examples of this in the months following the campaign; if those sourced articles are not relevant to the article, than neither is your anonymous blog claim. This is particularly relevant, because respected verifiable sources - such as the Associated Press - reported the opposite of this single anonymously sourced blog story that you are using.
In addition, the source for your anonymous claim is from an extremist and/or fringe source (at least in the coverage of political events). It involves a claim about a third-party; there is substantial reason to doubt it's authenticity and the claim is based solely on this single anonymous source. As a fringe source for political news, it may not be used to dispute or obscure the mainstream view, nor can it be used to indicate the fringe theory's level of acceptance (as your preferred text would do). <class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.204.115 ( talk) 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Rolling Stone is not a primary source for American political news, it is an entertainment industry magazine. CNN, Huffington Post, Politico, MSNBC, the Associated Press (and others) all reported a different view (with the fact checking that their reputations demand). Since your claim is contrary to the established mainstream view, the burden is upon you to provide a second source and from a non-fringe source for political news. Your personal preferences should be set aside; your fringe claim is not properly sourced to be included in the article.
I still feel that gives the fringe claim too much weight. How about this? In May 2009, The Rolling Stone reported on their website that an anonymous source who claimed affiliation with the McCain campaign disputed those reports, fueling conspiracy theories about the claim.
What about this?
I think that text validates the use of the term. "they contrast with institutional analysis of historical or current events, and are not supported by conclusive evidence." That is exactly what this claim does. The institutional analysis, as defined by the event as it was occurring and the global media since that time, support one view. A single, anonymous and inconclusive source contrasts with that view. This is a textbook conspiracy theory.
I would suggest just removing the entire section. It's all rumor from unnamed sources, so what's it doing here anyway?
One other suggestion. Brad, you should register a Wikipedia account, and sign your posts. That will give your opinion more weight, at least in my eyes.
Rees11 (
talk) 13:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I think these are good suggestions and we can take them as the consensus of the project community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.204.115 ( talk) 15:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
We obviously haven't reached consensus so removing the section was premature. And I am not an admin, I am just giving my opinion. But I'll still argue for removing it. I have no problem with the sources, I just think the content is too petty to include here.
Brad, I'll once again urge you to at least sign your posts. It's starting to look like you have something to hide.
Rees11 (
talk) 20:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that the section should stay. It certainly deserves mention that he was considered as McCain's running mate and the Rolling Stone information clearly points out that it is quoting from the article and makes no suggestion that it is true. Given the accusations made in the article regarding PR men and the possible COI of 98.218.204.115, I can't see a reason to delete it. Smartse ( talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
On January 22, 2010 an
SPA
removed the sentences saying that Cantor's consideration as VP was a hoax and replaced it with POV saying that "Several conservative organizations and grassroots leaders endorsed Eric Cantor for Vice President and encouraged John McCain to select him for the nomination". That sentence was based on a
blog (not and
a reliable source) and an article in
CBS News. The CBS News article had one person saying that he thinks Cantor would be a good selection.
I reverted the
SPA, but re-inserted his contribution with the following wording: "The idea for Cantor to be McCain's running mate was supported by conservative leader
Richard Land."
Victor Victoria (
talk) 12:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The same SPA mentioned above is at it again, this time boldly adding the sentence "...the nomination details have been kept private by Senator McCain and therefore not verifiable..." (emphasis added). Victor Victoria ( talk) 14:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Can someone summarize the alleged NPOV issues --- I cannot see them in the text. Or is this tag no longer relevant? Bigdaddy1981 ( talk) 23:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The incident of Cantor using his Blackberry during Obama's speech has been added to the article. I think it was a very small incident. Should it be included? JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It does seem trivial however when the president of the United States is giving a speech to a joint session of congress, texting or other signs of rudeness are a breach of congressional protocol. It was significant enough to be mentioned in many news stories and I feel it's significant enough to be mentioned in his article. Lakerking04 ( talk) 22:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm including it in the article Lakerking04 ( talk) 23:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not think this should be included. He could have even been taking notes on the speech or writing a response to it. While I don't need to speculate on his actions, this is a passing event that probably shouldn't be mentioned in his encyclopedia article. Nobody is going to bring this up in a campaign, for instance. It's not a big controversy. As far as I know, nobody has even asked him to apologize. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 06:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
"The Cantor children (Evan, Jenna, Michael) were born in approximately 1989, 1991, 1993." How can one approximately be born? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.28.104.151 ( talk) 18:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
An SPA has removed the sentence
His daughter, Jenna, currently serves as the president of the Virginia Council of BBYO.
with the reason being "the content of that sentence is not directly about the topic of this page"
The sentence in question:
Any objections to re-inserting this sentence?
Victor Victoria (
talk) 14:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I am going to spend the next few weeks trying my best to improve this article, which would be mediocre at best if Cantor were any member of Congress. But when considering the fact that Cantor is one of the most powerful people in Washington, this article is a disgrace. I would also like to point out something which I have said many times before: There should be no controversy section. It is a symptom of bad writing and would never be found in any paper encyclopedia. But anyway, here is my to-do list for the article...
Feel free to help me with this! My ultimate goal is to get this listed as GA, like Jim Moran. ~ BLM Platinum ( talk) 21:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
What information is there, of Eric Cantors parents or grandparents? Thank you for adding this topic to Mr. Cantors bio. -- Ben. 96.251.132.17 ( talk) 00:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I will look over the article and make a GA status review. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
After looking over the article, I like it. It is not an automatic GA, but I think it will pass (I will do an official "rubric" review shortly. I would like to get some feedback from other editors before making a decision. So let's start a discussion here. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 21:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 21:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
After reading this article through a couple times, I noticed many problems with it, unfortunately. There are many uncited paragraphs, let alone statements. The majority of the House section is about a single 2010 incident, and not much of his actual career is mentioned. Are there any major bills he has written or sponsored? For that matter, the whole last paragraph regarding the incident is not only unsourced, but could probably be removed if not shrunk, it doesn't seem overly major. Lastly, it's odd to me that the 2008 and 2010 elections get their own sectins when all his other ones aren't mentioned; the elections themselves could be put in its own section in one-two paragraphs (it's partially that way now, but not entirely).
I trust that becoming majority whip could help this article grow, but until then, this still needs a good deal of work, and I have to fail this as a GA. I will note some good points though; the personal and political positions sections are pretty well done, and it satisfies NPOV, which is impressive for a current American politician in a fairly major role. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I just want everyone to know that I am still watching this article, and I am still keeping the nomination "on hold". Once Congressman Cantor has been sworn in as Majority Leader, I will conduct an appropriate review and will make a decision (at this point, the article looks like it will probably pass). Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 20:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I would also fail this article. As Wizardman states, it is full of WP:RECENTISM. The lead section is woefully inadequate. His nine years in the Virginia state legislature get less space than the 2010 campaign office incident. What people do in state legislatures is important, and surely more can be said than this; compare to the Hilda Solis#California State Legislature section, for example, which is a GA article. There is little description of most of his years in the House of Representatives and no discussion of how he came to rise so fast in the Republican leadership, which is probably the most interesting question to answer about his career. The "Political campaigns" section suffers from recentism, as Wizardman points out, and would be better merged into the biographical narrative where it would be integrated in with the rest of what he has done. The "Political positions" section seems somewhat selective in which issues it covers. At 12 kB (1957 words) readable prose size, the article is fundamentally too brief for a political figure of this stature.
I see no reason to hold this article's nomination until he becomes Majority Leader; that isn't going to change any of the article's shortcomings. Wasted Time R ( talk) 15:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
As the reviewer, I agree with a user who mentioned (above) that this article concerns a controversial current event (quick criteria #5). Once Cantor is officially installed as Majority Leader, I think users will come to his page and make the necessary corrections. But until that time, I feel it is only fair to keep the article on hold. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 00:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
This nomination was failed by Wizardman on 29 October 2010. [2]. It seems that the nominator chose to revert this edit. I have restored the failed tremplate. If you wish to renominate, then please do so. But to do that place a new nomination template on the talk page. Jezhotwells ( talk) 09:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that corrected history. Wizardman was not authorized by me or anyone else to fail the article. Therefore, I undid his inappropriate failure of the article. The original nomination stands. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 22:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I just want to make it clear that the nominator has done nothing to interfere with the GA review. I have not been in contact with the nominator and I, under the advice of other editors, made the decision to hold the article. I have decided to end the hold late Saturday, January 8. That is when I will publish a final assessment. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 22:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I came across this article in October and began a review. At the time, on advice of other editors above, I decided to put the article on hold until the midterm elections were over and Congressman Cantor was sworn into his new position. Also, I take offense that you say I am not aware of the GA criteria. I have been doing GA reviews for quite a while. My comments above were initial reactions and not official assessments. Wizardman should have contacted me if he was planning to take over the nomination, for which he did not even conduct an official assessment. As far as contacting the nominator, I personally do not view that as common practice. In my experience, the most involved editors check their articles for updates. My decision stands, and this Saturday I will publish an official review. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 01:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The review will be given on Saturday, so the hold will be over. There is no point on saying what should've been done and what should not have been done. This was a small miscommunication blown way out of proportion. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 19:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Due to the overwhelming controversy concerning this GA review, I have decided that in order to preserve the integrity of this process, I will request a second opinion and remove myself from this article's GA review. However, in accordance with the rule that no one closely associated with the article can conduct a review, I expect that no one heavily involved in this debate will take on the review. I would just like this time to say I am disappointed at how this situation unfolded. I feel many editors blew a small problem out of proportion. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 19:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as my thoughts on the article, I feel it is almost GA quality, but needs expansion before being promoted. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 20:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, following the abandonment of the review and the lack of interest shown by the nominator, I shall conclude this review. Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguations: Seven dead links found, can be seen here. Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Linkrot: blind date links to a disambiguation page, there is no Wp page on this, perhaps link to Wikitionary if you feel this is necessary. Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I would just like to state I did not "abandon" the review. I chose to remove myself due to the controversy surround my hold. However, this review does seem reasonable and I must say that I endorse it. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 01:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, rereading this page, I must retract my endorsement. According to the rules of GA nominations, no one closely associated with the article is allowed to review the article. I would consider Jezhotwells ( talk numerous posts on this page "associated" with the article, and I feel that the review should be invalidated. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 01:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the "controversy" section that was just added, which consists of some remarks Cantor made regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Per WP:NPOV wikipedia can't put these remarks under an "anti-Arab" section or state that "these remarks demonizing Arab culture came shortly after Cantor stated in the same speech 'It is not okay to demonize Jews'." This is original research. I did a google news search to see whether these remarks have generated significant controversy [3] and I saw only 8 results. The Wall Street Journal printed the remarks without comment under a headline: "House Majority Leader Eric Cantor offers a story that captures the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." I saw a couple of blogs condemning Cantor but not very much. It seems like this is a minor controversy not notable enough for inclusion. However, if editors do feel that it should be included, than I suggest that it be moved to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict section (which already contains some controversial remarks) and that the original research mentioned above be removed. GabrielF ( talk) 21:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Gabriel, I originally had a shorter version (w/o the OR) in the Israel section and it was deleted without explanation. I'll put it back there. I think it's important as it may influence his stance on the conflict and the remarks alone are important to the Arab American community. Thank you for your help! I am new at editing. xrock14 ( talk) 22:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Add new section outlining his lack of respect for the Office of President. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/after-cantor-proposes-two-debt-limit-votes-obama-abruptly-walks-out-of-meeting/2011/07/13/gIQABatADI_blog.html -- 198.228.195.42 ( talk) 18:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone reverted my removal of the following uncited fact:
Eric has stated he enjoys playing Tenis and enjoys music artists such as Public Enemy, N.W.A and The Who among his favourites. [4].
Can someone tell me where in the references these factors are cited? Cantor is not mentioned until page 3 and there is nothing in there about his music tastes. I've posted on the talk page of the person who undid the removal. Perhaps this fact is true, but it's not in the given reference. Sailing to Byzantium ( talk) 15:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
"A few weeks ago, Mr. Cantor was the hard man in the confrontation over the debt ceiling; he was willing to endanger America’s financial credibility, putting our whole economy at risk, in order to extract budget concessions from President Obama. Now he’s doing it again, this time over disaster relief..."
Virginia apparently has certain provisions for a recall. It would be interesting to collect some info on Virginias recall system, and any info regarding Cantor specifically. Has there been much mention of a Cantor recall in local or alternative media? - Spaq ( talk) 04:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you not count Barney Frank? 97.88.87.68 ( talk) 09:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Is Cantor's failure on the farm bill notable yet? Hcobb ( talk) 14:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Is the below really appropriate for a biography of a living person?
As House Majority Leader, Cantor was named in House Resolution 368, which was passed by the House Rules Committee on the night of September 30, 2013, the night before the October 2013 government shutdown began, as the only member of the House with the power to bring forth bills and resolutions for a vote if both chambers of Congress disagree on that bill or resolution. Prior to the resolution's passing in committee, it was within the power of every member of the House under House Rule XXII, Clause 4 to be granted privilege to call for a vote. This amendment to the House rules was blamed for causing the partial government shutdown and for prolonging it since Cantor refused to allow the Senate's continuing resolution to be voted on in the House. Journalists and commentators noted during the shutdown that if the Senate's version of the continuing resolution were to be voted on, it would have passed the House with a majority vote since enough Democrats and Republicans supported it, effectively ending the government shutdown.[17][18][19]
It's extremely current event focused, and it's also not true: "as the only member of the House with the power to bring forth bills and resolutions for a vote if both chambers of Congress disagree on that bill or resolution" is flatly inaccurate - 1) the resolution only applied to the bill under consideration, and House Rule XXII Clause 4 is NOT the only way to bring a bill to the floor of the House. It is one of the ways.
Not to mention that it is counterfactually speculative "it would have passed the House". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJohnOldcastle ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Under the "Personal Life" section, Cantor's wife's name is presented in two different forms:
"Cantor met his wife, Diana Marcy Fine, on a blind date;. . .Fine is a lifelong, liberal Democrat. . ."
- AND -
"Diana Cantor is a lawyer. . ."
What name does the woman herself use - Fine or Cantor? Please edit the article accordingly. Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 05:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
In the "Political campaigns" section, under the "2000" subsection, there is a passage that reads as follows:
"..Benjamin A. Gilman of New York, who had been the only Jewish Republican since the departure of S. William Green in 1992."
This is incorrect.
Dick Zimmer (New Jersey politician), also a Jewish Republican, was originally elected in 1990 and served three terms (until 1996).
The passage in the article should be edited to correct this erroneous passage.
72.82.174.140 ( talk) 06:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
This sentence in the lead seems a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to me. Do we have firm indication that he won't run as an independent to maintain his seat? Evan ( talk| contribs) 01:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The article mentions that Rep. Cantor's district includes part of the Shenandoah Valley. This is not true. The 7th District, as configured since 2013, stretches from New Kent County in the Tidewater of Virginia, to Culpeper County in the Northern Piedmont of Virginia. At no point does his district cross the Blue Ridge Mountains into the Valley of Virginia or the Shenandoah Valley. In fact, his district does not even reach to the eastern base of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The easiest place to check is the map of Virginia Congressional Districts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.5.238.94 ( talk) 02:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Eric Cantor. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eric Cantor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Eric Cantor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://dela.state.va.us/dela/MemBios.nsf/b9d1ff441cd43fbc85256c23006d3f87/88ce18374aef087485256b35005fb755?OpenDocument{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/local_govtpolitics/article/CANTGAT19_20081119-123005/117520/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://article.nationalreview.com/311228/assads-speaker/eric-cantorWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eric Cantor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 3#House Majority Leader Eric Cantor until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 22:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eric Cantor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Eric Cantor was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Personal opinions of people highlighted in these biographies should not be put into the article. I believe personal opinions (especially those that are not supported by fact) can be stated in this Discussion area. Articles are supposed to be objective, and including personal opinions renders the articles subjective, and people will be less willing to use Wikipedia as an authoratative source.
I reverted this, and then self-reverted back when I saw Cantor's name, but then I followed the source to the AP article and it does not support the statement that Cantor was aware of this? We need to be very careful here to not violate WP:BLP. We need a source for this... -- plange 05:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to have both these sentences exist in this article: (1) Cantor is the currently the only Jewish Republican in the U.S. House. (1st paragraph) AND (2) Cantor is the sole Jewish Republican in the House. (4th paragraph) Infernallek 07:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Steve Cohen, D-Tennessee, is also Jewish and won the seat previously held by Harold Ford, Jr.
Therefore, these two redundent sentences would ONLY be true today if stated in the past tense. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.209.187.249 (
talk) 03:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Ooops, a senior moment. Please disregard my stupidity for the post of 03/02/09
As to "repetition that Cantor is Jewish" the point of view problem is even more clear-cut when you realize that Cantor is NOT the only Jewish Republican in the House. Note Nan Hayworth [1] It is also odd not to mention that his is the first Jewish House Majority Leader [2] To misstate that he is the only Jewish Republican in the U.S.Congress, and then fail to note that he is the first Jewish House Majority leader from either party shows some pretty serious point of view problems.
There is a reference to an anonymous source from the McCain campaign, denying he was under consideration as McCain's veep. As has been shown many times in respect to Sarah Palin, those anonymous sources from the McCain camp often always contradicted by McCain himself and seem to have an agenda. In any event, he was seriously considered [3] In fact I could probably fill this page with references showing he was a serious candidate. It shows the entire article to have POV problems.
If you are going to talk about the "Campaign Office Incident" you should put in context of the many many similar claims by Democrats. Of course, the whole thing should be deleted, because to put it into context you would clutter the article. It is too minor a matter to because to put it into context necessitates the inclusion of much too much collateral matter.
Listing the AFL-CIO rating, alone, and then saying he is anti-labor is unbalanced, particularly when the paragraph is labelled "Economy, budgeting, and trade" - that is to say, it is not a paragraph about unions. One could list his U.S. Chamber of Commerce ratings, which have more to do with "Economy, budgeting and trade" and are very favorable. [4]
In "Social Issues" his Wolf Blitzer conversation is without cite, and seems to be taken out of context - written in a subtly pejorative manner.
The "2010" statement that "Though he won with 59% of the vote, Cantor received the lowest vote percentage since taking the hill in 2000" is inane. The Democrat lost a similar percentage from the Democrat in the previous election, because a third party had entered the race, and took a little from both.
This article is fraught with point of view problems, and needs a lot of editing for neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypercallipygian ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
References
Some people seem to be very irked by how this man blamed Pelosi for the republican vote against the bailout, and are taking out their (justified?) frustration on this article. Hopefully the attacks will die down after a day or so. I doubt it will continue past that, but if it does, we might want to consider semi-protection. BlastYoBoots ( talk) 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the year of his marriage is 1999 - the cited source says 1989. (The article got reverted when I corrected it.) - 24.183.28.227 ( talk) 01:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how the "flavorless" food cooked at home by the rep's mother is relevant for his wiki. Changed section to take out irrelevant elements. Nhbunzl ( talk) 09:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
With regards to the passages describing Cantor's statements regarding Pelosi and in response to Obama, the writing seems to be almost championing what he said. Fifty7 ( talk) 15:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Some have removed lines regarding the partisan tone Rep. Cantor struck. While the inclusion of this line may seem Anti-Cantor-ish, this sentiment has been agreed upon by everyone, including Cantor himself. He has proudly stated (including on videos on his own site) that he is happy that he had nothing to do with the bill. Including this in the article is important as it is a watershed moment in Cantor's career (when Cantor runs for President, everyone will be pointing to this moment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.18.98 ( talk) 06:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
As categorized as sneaky vandalism, removed arguments that were cited to opinion pieces, not factual articles. These inclusions of plausible misinformation have been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.182.183 ( talk) 03:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. However, those opinion articles were being used for the facts in those articles and not the opinions expressed. Additionally, Cantor's attitude toward this bill (i.e. vehemently opposing it) is an important historical moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.195.229 ( talk) 06:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, there is vandalism occurring with regard to the language (i.e. calling the bill the "Democrat's spending bill"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.209.220 ( talk) 15:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Removed the statement regarding Cantor's response to an interview of then-Presidential hopeful Obama. The section included sound bytes from Obama's interview, thus being slanted toward Cantor's position. It is unimportant to the article, as Cantor's position on Israel has already been stated and because the article already mentions that he is worried about President Obama's approach to Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.18.98 ( talk) 00:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The portion of the article quoting Obama specifically does not misrepresent his words. Cantor may have tried to misrepresent Obama's word's in his press release, but so much the worse for Cantor. And there is reason to include this account in the article. Cantor is a politician and this incident conveys important information about his politics. Fears of a trend toward unreasonably long articles about politicians, not exactly an urgent constraint to begin with, simply do not warrant excluding the paragraph in question, which is brief, dense, referenced, and factual in style. 71.232.20.61 ( talk) 03:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
In order to keep an NPOV, I changed the statement that the conflict is seen by Cantor as a reminder to the greatness of America to the relationship with Israel. I personally am not a fan of Mr. Cantor, but having the sentence the way you have it is certainly not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.196.214 ( talk) 17:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The IP address 98..... keeps removing the material about the 2008 VP selection, or clouding it up with nonsense POV. The material as it currently stands and well sourced, and follows proper wording guidelines to make it clear this is what an ANONYMOUS source has said, and is not official history. If you would like to add a Reliable Source that directly refutes the claims go ahead, but so far there has been none that I am aware of. TharsHammar Bits and Pieces 02:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It is relevant to the proliferation of former "connected" McCain campaign sources who turn out to be completely bogus. You can find ample examples of this in the months following the campaign; if those sourced articles are not relevant to the article, than neither is your anonymous blog claim. This is particularly relevant, because respected verifiable sources - such as the Associated Press - reported the opposite of this single anonymously sourced blog story that you are using.
In addition, the source for your anonymous claim is from an extremist and/or fringe source (at least in the coverage of political events). It involves a claim about a third-party; there is substantial reason to doubt it's authenticity and the claim is based solely on this single anonymous source. As a fringe source for political news, it may not be used to dispute or obscure the mainstream view, nor can it be used to indicate the fringe theory's level of acceptance (as your preferred text would do). <class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.204.115 ( talk) 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Rolling Stone is not a primary source for American political news, it is an entertainment industry magazine. CNN, Huffington Post, Politico, MSNBC, the Associated Press (and others) all reported a different view (with the fact checking that their reputations demand). Since your claim is contrary to the established mainstream view, the burden is upon you to provide a second source and from a non-fringe source for political news. Your personal preferences should be set aside; your fringe claim is not properly sourced to be included in the article.
I still feel that gives the fringe claim too much weight. How about this? In May 2009, The Rolling Stone reported on their website that an anonymous source who claimed affiliation with the McCain campaign disputed those reports, fueling conspiracy theories about the claim.
What about this?
I think that text validates the use of the term. "they contrast with institutional analysis of historical or current events, and are not supported by conclusive evidence." That is exactly what this claim does. The institutional analysis, as defined by the event as it was occurring and the global media since that time, support one view. A single, anonymous and inconclusive source contrasts with that view. This is a textbook conspiracy theory.
I would suggest just removing the entire section. It's all rumor from unnamed sources, so what's it doing here anyway?
One other suggestion. Brad, you should register a Wikipedia account, and sign your posts. That will give your opinion more weight, at least in my eyes.
Rees11 (
talk) 13:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I think these are good suggestions and we can take them as the consensus of the project community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.204.115 ( talk) 15:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
We obviously haven't reached consensus so removing the section was premature. And I am not an admin, I am just giving my opinion. But I'll still argue for removing it. I have no problem with the sources, I just think the content is too petty to include here.
Brad, I'll once again urge you to at least sign your posts. It's starting to look like you have something to hide.
Rees11 (
talk) 20:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that the section should stay. It certainly deserves mention that he was considered as McCain's running mate and the Rolling Stone information clearly points out that it is quoting from the article and makes no suggestion that it is true. Given the accusations made in the article regarding PR men and the possible COI of 98.218.204.115, I can't see a reason to delete it. Smartse ( talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
On January 22, 2010 an
SPA
removed the sentences saying that Cantor's consideration as VP was a hoax and replaced it with POV saying that "Several conservative organizations and grassroots leaders endorsed Eric Cantor for Vice President and encouraged John McCain to select him for the nomination". That sentence was based on a
blog (not and
a reliable source) and an article in
CBS News. The CBS News article had one person saying that he thinks Cantor would be a good selection.
I reverted the
SPA, but re-inserted his contribution with the following wording: "The idea for Cantor to be McCain's running mate was supported by conservative leader
Richard Land."
Victor Victoria (
talk) 12:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The same SPA mentioned above is at it again, this time boldly adding the sentence "...the nomination details have been kept private by Senator McCain and therefore not verifiable..." (emphasis added). Victor Victoria ( talk) 14:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Can someone summarize the alleged NPOV issues --- I cannot see them in the text. Or is this tag no longer relevant? Bigdaddy1981 ( talk) 23:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The incident of Cantor using his Blackberry during Obama's speech has been added to the article. I think it was a very small incident. Should it be included? JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It does seem trivial however when the president of the United States is giving a speech to a joint session of congress, texting or other signs of rudeness are a breach of congressional protocol. It was significant enough to be mentioned in many news stories and I feel it's significant enough to be mentioned in his article. Lakerking04 ( talk) 22:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm including it in the article Lakerking04 ( talk) 23:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not think this should be included. He could have even been taking notes on the speech or writing a response to it. While I don't need to speculate on his actions, this is a passing event that probably shouldn't be mentioned in his encyclopedia article. Nobody is going to bring this up in a campaign, for instance. It's not a big controversy. As far as I know, nobody has even asked him to apologize. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 06:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
"The Cantor children (Evan, Jenna, Michael) were born in approximately 1989, 1991, 1993." How can one approximately be born? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.28.104.151 ( talk) 18:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
An SPA has removed the sentence
His daughter, Jenna, currently serves as the president of the Virginia Council of BBYO.
with the reason being "the content of that sentence is not directly about the topic of this page"
The sentence in question:
Any objections to re-inserting this sentence?
Victor Victoria (
talk) 14:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I am going to spend the next few weeks trying my best to improve this article, which would be mediocre at best if Cantor were any member of Congress. But when considering the fact that Cantor is one of the most powerful people in Washington, this article is a disgrace. I would also like to point out something which I have said many times before: There should be no controversy section. It is a symptom of bad writing and would never be found in any paper encyclopedia. But anyway, here is my to-do list for the article...
Feel free to help me with this! My ultimate goal is to get this listed as GA, like Jim Moran. ~ BLM Platinum ( talk) 21:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
What information is there, of Eric Cantors parents or grandparents? Thank you for adding this topic to Mr. Cantors bio. -- Ben. 96.251.132.17 ( talk) 00:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I will look over the article and make a GA status review. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
After looking over the article, I like it. It is not an automatic GA, but I think it will pass (I will do an official "rubric" review shortly. I would like to get some feedback from other editors before making a decision. So let's start a discussion here. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 21:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 21:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
After reading this article through a couple times, I noticed many problems with it, unfortunately. There are many uncited paragraphs, let alone statements. The majority of the House section is about a single 2010 incident, and not much of his actual career is mentioned. Are there any major bills he has written or sponsored? For that matter, the whole last paragraph regarding the incident is not only unsourced, but could probably be removed if not shrunk, it doesn't seem overly major. Lastly, it's odd to me that the 2008 and 2010 elections get their own sectins when all his other ones aren't mentioned; the elections themselves could be put in its own section in one-two paragraphs (it's partially that way now, but not entirely).
I trust that becoming majority whip could help this article grow, but until then, this still needs a good deal of work, and I have to fail this as a GA. I will note some good points though; the personal and political positions sections are pretty well done, and it satisfies NPOV, which is impressive for a current American politician in a fairly major role. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I just want everyone to know that I am still watching this article, and I am still keeping the nomination "on hold". Once Congressman Cantor has been sworn in as Majority Leader, I will conduct an appropriate review and will make a decision (at this point, the article looks like it will probably pass). Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 20:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I would also fail this article. As Wizardman states, it is full of WP:RECENTISM. The lead section is woefully inadequate. His nine years in the Virginia state legislature get less space than the 2010 campaign office incident. What people do in state legislatures is important, and surely more can be said than this; compare to the Hilda Solis#California State Legislature section, for example, which is a GA article. There is little description of most of his years in the House of Representatives and no discussion of how he came to rise so fast in the Republican leadership, which is probably the most interesting question to answer about his career. The "Political campaigns" section suffers from recentism, as Wizardman points out, and would be better merged into the biographical narrative where it would be integrated in with the rest of what he has done. The "Political positions" section seems somewhat selective in which issues it covers. At 12 kB (1957 words) readable prose size, the article is fundamentally too brief for a political figure of this stature.
I see no reason to hold this article's nomination until he becomes Majority Leader; that isn't going to change any of the article's shortcomings. Wasted Time R ( talk) 15:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
As the reviewer, I agree with a user who mentioned (above) that this article concerns a controversial current event (quick criteria #5). Once Cantor is officially installed as Majority Leader, I think users will come to his page and make the necessary corrections. But until that time, I feel it is only fair to keep the article on hold. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 00:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
This nomination was failed by Wizardman on 29 October 2010. [2]. It seems that the nominator chose to revert this edit. I have restored the failed tremplate. If you wish to renominate, then please do so. But to do that place a new nomination template on the talk page. Jezhotwells ( talk) 09:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that corrected history. Wizardman was not authorized by me or anyone else to fail the article. Therefore, I undid his inappropriate failure of the article. The original nomination stands. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 22:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I just want to make it clear that the nominator has done nothing to interfere with the GA review. I have not been in contact with the nominator and I, under the advice of other editors, made the decision to hold the article. I have decided to end the hold late Saturday, January 8. That is when I will publish a final assessment. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 22:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I came across this article in October and began a review. At the time, on advice of other editors above, I decided to put the article on hold until the midterm elections were over and Congressman Cantor was sworn into his new position. Also, I take offense that you say I am not aware of the GA criteria. I have been doing GA reviews for quite a while. My comments above were initial reactions and not official assessments. Wizardman should have contacted me if he was planning to take over the nomination, for which he did not even conduct an official assessment. As far as contacting the nominator, I personally do not view that as common practice. In my experience, the most involved editors check their articles for updates. My decision stands, and this Saturday I will publish an official review. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 01:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The review will be given on Saturday, so the hold will be over. There is no point on saying what should've been done and what should not have been done. This was a small miscommunication blown way out of proportion. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 19:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Due to the overwhelming controversy concerning this GA review, I have decided that in order to preserve the integrity of this process, I will request a second opinion and remove myself from this article's GA review. However, in accordance with the rule that no one closely associated with the article can conduct a review, I expect that no one heavily involved in this debate will take on the review. I would just like this time to say I am disappointed at how this situation unfolded. I feel many editors blew a small problem out of proportion. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 19:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as my thoughts on the article, I feel it is almost GA quality, but needs expansion before being promoted. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 20:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, following the abandonment of the review and the lack of interest shown by the nominator, I shall conclude this review. Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguations: Seven dead links found, can be seen here. Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Linkrot: blind date links to a disambiguation page, there is no Wp page on this, perhaps link to Wikitionary if you feel this is necessary. Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I would just like to state I did not "abandon" the review. I chose to remove myself due to the controversy surround my hold. However, this review does seem reasonable and I must say that I endorse it. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 01:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, rereading this page, I must retract my endorsement. According to the rules of GA nominations, no one closely associated with the article is allowed to review the article. I would consider Jezhotwells ( talk numerous posts on this page "associated" with the article, and I feel that the review should be invalidated. Ryderofpelham123 ( talk) 01:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the "controversy" section that was just added, which consists of some remarks Cantor made regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Per WP:NPOV wikipedia can't put these remarks under an "anti-Arab" section or state that "these remarks demonizing Arab culture came shortly after Cantor stated in the same speech 'It is not okay to demonize Jews'." This is original research. I did a google news search to see whether these remarks have generated significant controversy [3] and I saw only 8 results. The Wall Street Journal printed the remarks without comment under a headline: "House Majority Leader Eric Cantor offers a story that captures the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." I saw a couple of blogs condemning Cantor but not very much. It seems like this is a minor controversy not notable enough for inclusion. However, if editors do feel that it should be included, than I suggest that it be moved to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict section (which already contains some controversial remarks) and that the original research mentioned above be removed. GabrielF ( talk) 21:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Gabriel, I originally had a shorter version (w/o the OR) in the Israel section and it was deleted without explanation. I'll put it back there. I think it's important as it may influence his stance on the conflict and the remarks alone are important to the Arab American community. Thank you for your help! I am new at editing. xrock14 ( talk) 22:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Add new section outlining his lack of respect for the Office of President. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/after-cantor-proposes-two-debt-limit-votes-obama-abruptly-walks-out-of-meeting/2011/07/13/gIQABatADI_blog.html -- 198.228.195.42 ( talk) 18:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone reverted my removal of the following uncited fact:
Eric has stated he enjoys playing Tenis and enjoys music artists such as Public Enemy, N.W.A and The Who among his favourites. [4].
Can someone tell me where in the references these factors are cited? Cantor is not mentioned until page 3 and there is nothing in there about his music tastes. I've posted on the talk page of the person who undid the removal. Perhaps this fact is true, but it's not in the given reference. Sailing to Byzantium ( talk) 15:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
"A few weeks ago, Mr. Cantor was the hard man in the confrontation over the debt ceiling; he was willing to endanger America’s financial credibility, putting our whole economy at risk, in order to extract budget concessions from President Obama. Now he’s doing it again, this time over disaster relief..."
Virginia apparently has certain provisions for a recall. It would be interesting to collect some info on Virginias recall system, and any info regarding Cantor specifically. Has there been much mention of a Cantor recall in local or alternative media? - Spaq ( talk) 04:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you not count Barney Frank? 97.88.87.68 ( talk) 09:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Is Cantor's failure on the farm bill notable yet? Hcobb ( talk) 14:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Is the below really appropriate for a biography of a living person?
As House Majority Leader, Cantor was named in House Resolution 368, which was passed by the House Rules Committee on the night of September 30, 2013, the night before the October 2013 government shutdown began, as the only member of the House with the power to bring forth bills and resolutions for a vote if both chambers of Congress disagree on that bill or resolution. Prior to the resolution's passing in committee, it was within the power of every member of the House under House Rule XXII, Clause 4 to be granted privilege to call for a vote. This amendment to the House rules was blamed for causing the partial government shutdown and for prolonging it since Cantor refused to allow the Senate's continuing resolution to be voted on in the House. Journalists and commentators noted during the shutdown that if the Senate's version of the continuing resolution were to be voted on, it would have passed the House with a majority vote since enough Democrats and Republicans supported it, effectively ending the government shutdown.[17][18][19]
It's extremely current event focused, and it's also not true: "as the only member of the House with the power to bring forth bills and resolutions for a vote if both chambers of Congress disagree on that bill or resolution" is flatly inaccurate - 1) the resolution only applied to the bill under consideration, and House Rule XXII Clause 4 is NOT the only way to bring a bill to the floor of the House. It is one of the ways.
Not to mention that it is counterfactually speculative "it would have passed the House". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJohnOldcastle ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Under the "Personal Life" section, Cantor's wife's name is presented in two different forms:
"Cantor met his wife, Diana Marcy Fine, on a blind date;. . .Fine is a lifelong, liberal Democrat. . ."
- AND -
"Diana Cantor is a lawyer. . ."
What name does the woman herself use - Fine or Cantor? Please edit the article accordingly. Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 05:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
In the "Political campaigns" section, under the "2000" subsection, there is a passage that reads as follows:
"..Benjamin A. Gilman of New York, who had been the only Jewish Republican since the departure of S. William Green in 1992."
This is incorrect.
Dick Zimmer (New Jersey politician), also a Jewish Republican, was originally elected in 1990 and served three terms (until 1996).
The passage in the article should be edited to correct this erroneous passage.
72.82.174.140 ( talk) 06:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
This sentence in the lead seems a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to me. Do we have firm indication that he won't run as an independent to maintain his seat? Evan ( talk| contribs) 01:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The article mentions that Rep. Cantor's district includes part of the Shenandoah Valley. This is not true. The 7th District, as configured since 2013, stretches from New Kent County in the Tidewater of Virginia, to Culpeper County in the Northern Piedmont of Virginia. At no point does his district cross the Blue Ridge Mountains into the Valley of Virginia or the Shenandoah Valley. In fact, his district does not even reach to the eastern base of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The easiest place to check is the map of Virginia Congressional Districts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.5.238.94 ( talk) 02:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Eric Cantor. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eric Cantor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Eric Cantor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://dela.state.va.us/dela/MemBios.nsf/b9d1ff441cd43fbc85256c23006d3f87/88ce18374aef087485256b35005fb755?OpenDocument{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/local_govtpolitics/article/CANTGAT19_20081119-123005/117520/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://article.nationalreview.com/311228/assads-speaker/eric-cantorWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eric Cantor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 3#House Majority Leader Eric Cantor until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 22:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)