Dr. Fleming is currently a candidate for political office. This article reads like campaign literature, and in fact, most of its sourcing is from either
Details currently in this article are not notable with respect to the subject, other than to create an electable image — such as what he did during his military service. His particular assignment in the military is not unusual for a military physician.
I propose cleaning up the article — deleting the promotional material. If he is in fact elected to office, biographical details would likely become available from reliable sources, such as a Congressional biography. — ERcheck ( talk) 16:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The subject of this article is covered by WP:BLP and is also currently a candidate for political office. As such, it is of the utmost important that:
— ERcheck ( talk) 22:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I have concerns about <ref name=mph>
meeting Wikipedia requirements for a reliable source. Reading the article, it contains much that is almost verbatim from Flemings election website. — ERcheck ( talk) 23:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
In the politics section, it was noted that Fleming was "a member of the transition team for Governor Bobby Jindal". This was from his election website, as well as a few other places. The inclusion of this information implies a major role in Jindal's team, such as a top advisor. However, according to Jindal's website ( "Governor-Elect Bobby Jindal Announces Social Services Group Members". BobbyJindal.com. November 28, 2007. Retrieved November 27, 2008., his Heath Care Transition Advisory Council had two groups - a Social Services Group and a Health Care Group. Fleming was associated with the Social Services Group — which had a Chair, Vice Chair, and 30 members representing various Louisiana cities. Fleming represented Minden. As such, his role on the transition team was not a major role. — ERcheck ( talk) 23:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The infobox says that he is the incumbent congressman. I am asking somebody to fix this because I am unsure how. It should say "apparent congressman-elect" instead of current member. Thank you. HUZZAH HANUKKAH ( talk) 05:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This page has way to many internal wikipedia links. Is it really necessary to link to "physician" and "author." This encyclopedia should assume a knowledge of basic English. talk 9:05, 26 June 2009
Politics555 ( talk) 03:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this is worth mentioning on the page, but the tone is not terribly NPOV. In particular, the worked-out employee salaries seem necessarily inexact(both because 500 employees is probably an estimate and because he said he spent $5.7 million on multiple expenses including salary), and he did not actually say his family spends $200K per year on food. 140.247.236.166 ( talk) 03:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
How does this statement merit any citation on Fleming's bio? "Fleming's comments were widely reported and criticized, including by bloggers who portrayed him as out of touch with the difficulties of lower-income Americans." Is it noteworthy how bloggers portrayed Fleming? They could have portrayed Fleming to be a bunny rabbit, but that would not make him one. Fleming's comments were in the context of the impact of higher taxes on jobs produced by his companies, not a complaint that he would not have money to feed himself as portrayed by bloggers. Again, there is no reason for this rubbish to be posted as fact. Politics555 ( talk) 04:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
A discussion has been opened at WP:BLPN on the remarks made by Fleming and their aftermath in the subsection 2011 tax plan comments. I've backed out some recent changes made by two SPA accounts. However, I believe some more pruning is needed. I think we should report on what reliable sources say about the blog commentary, but not cite to the blogs themselves. In that way, we let reliable sources make the determination as to what is noteworthy, as opposed to us picking the various blogs on either side of the political spectrum and what they say. We should also keep this to a minimum so as not to give it undue prominence. It's a recent phenomenon, and it's unknown at this point what long-term value it has to the article.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The comment is typical political speech, nothing more. I would like to trim it to something like this: Fleming's comments prompted considerable political commentary, both positive and negative. Politico gathered some of the negative commentary, such as Daily Kos, which criticized the salaries that Fleming pays his employees and the amount of his personal budget. [1] Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, agreed with Fleming that raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations would hurt the economy. [2] Josh Beavers, publisher of the Minden Press-Herald in Fleming's hometown, defended Fleming's comments in an editorial, writing: "His sentiment was only that the more taxes he pays the fewer people he can employ. High taxes on business owners thwart economic activity." [3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarhed ( talk • contribs)
Fleming's comments prompted considerable commentary. The remarks were criticized by bloggers who attacked him as being out of touch with the difficulties of lower-income Americans. [4] [5] Responding to a segment on The Daily Show in which Jon Stewart criticized both Fleming and Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly agreed with Fleming that raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations would hurt the economy. [6] [7] Josh Beavers, publisher of the Minden Press-Herald in Fleming's hometown, defended Fleming's comments in an editorial. [8] Theoldsparkle ( talk) 15:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so post a proposed edit and let's see. Perhaps your presentation will convince me about Stuart. I agree with paring down the long quotes, in fact, I already said that I would be fine with eliminating it altogether as undue weight. Jarhed ( talk) 02:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
On one side, you can't argue against including a quote in a BLP that came out of the subject's mouth. On the other side, it was an off the cuff remark, standard politics, and not notable enough for a mention. I'm willing to collaborate on a short NPOV mention of this issue as a compromise for not mentioning it at all. If the mention is truly NPOV, then it will help both poltical sides equally and everybody should be happy. So, let's see what Theoldsparkle proposes. Jarhed ( talk) 05:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Attempting to try to keep the discussion comprehensible. It seems clear there are two central issues on which we (myself and User:Jarhed) disagree. (I'll sign my comments in each section separately for clarity.) Theoldsparkle ( talk) 15:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
My opinion is that if we mention the O'Reilly response (and I think we're in agreement that the O'Reilly response should be mentioned), then in order to accurately convey the context of his response, we should mention that he was responding to a Daily Show segment that criticized both Fleming and O'Reilly. My suggested phrasing, shortened further from what I had included in my proposed paragraph above, is: "Responding to The Daily Show's criticism of both Fleming and Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly agreed with Fleming that raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations would hurt the economy. [9] [10]"
As I understand your opinion, you feel that Stewart/The Daily Show should categorically not be mentioned here for any reason, because it is a comedy program and therefore not relevant. Am I understanding you correctly? If not, please correct me. If so, I would suggest we solicit a third opinion as it seems unlikely that discussion between us will change either of our minds. Theoldsparkle ( talk) 15:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Here we seem to have, perhaps, more confusion than actual disagreement. My view is this: Bloggers made comments. Third-party sources, namely Politico and the Times-Picayune, reported that bloggers made comments. We should not quote or cite any particular blogger directly, but we should say, "Bloggers made comments," and we should cite Politico's and TP's stories about the bloggers making comments.
In the TP article, the article stated: "But on liberal blogs, Fleming was portrayed as insensitive to millions of working Americans who are struggling to meet expenses in the face of high unemployment and stagnant wages." I think this is the fact that we should include here, because it seems to me to show most accurately what happened, and we should cite the TP article for that fact. Obviously, because of copyright, we can't use the same words as in the article, and so, we need to write new words that communicate the same information. My suggested phrasing, intended to communicate only the information from that specific sentence in that specific source (and, again, revised from what I had previously suggested), is: "Several bloggers claimed the remarks showed that Fleming was out of touch with the economic difficulties faced by many Americans." If you think this does not accurately convey the same information as the sentence from the TP article, please explain what discrepancy you see.
This is not WP:SYNTHESIS, because synthesis involves combining information from multiple sources, and I am only talking about using this one piece of information from this one source. (The Times-Picayune may have synthesized the information by looking at multiple blogs and aggregating their comments, but since, as far as I know, the TP qualifies as a reliable source, we are allowed to take and use the information they report as reliable fact. We are not committing synthesis by reporting a single fact from a reliable source.) I think the Politico article says the same thing that the TP does, and could be used as an additional citation for the same information, but if citing two sources for this information will inevitably lead to objections of synthesis, I would accept using and citing only the Times-Picayune source. Theoldsparkle ( talk) 15:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Fleming's remarks were widely reported and resulted in considerable comentary. Bruce Alpert of the The Times-Picayune reported the substantial response of the liberal blogosphere thus: "insensitive to millions of working Americans who are struggling to meet expenses in the face of high unemployment and stagnant wages". [4] Conservative sources such as Drudge and O'Reilly vigorously defended Fleming's remarks, with Josh Beavers, publisher of the Minden Press-Herald in Fleming's hometown, writing: "His sentiment was only that the more taxes he pays the fewer people he can employ. High taxes on business owners thwart economic activity." [11]
Fleming's remarks were widely reported and resulted in considerable commentary. Bruce Alpert of Louisiana newspaper The Times-Picayune reported that "on liberal blogs, Fleming was portrayed as insensitive to millions of working Americans who are struggling to meet expenses in the face of high unemployment and stagnant wages." [4] Conservative sources including Bill O'Reilly [and the Drudge Report defended Fleming's remarks; Josh Beavers, publisher of the Minden Press-Herald in Fleming's hometown, wrote an editorial which stated, "[Fleming's] sentiment was only that the more taxes he pays the fewer people he can employ. High taxes on business owners thwart economic activity." [12] [13]
I am fine with your revision. Drudge is mentioned in Alpert's report. Jarhed ( talk) 19:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
This section may possibly give undue weight to a recent and relatively minor incident, so minor that I'd hardly classify it as an "incident" and bordering on trivia. It should be considerably pared down and integrated into the article, if kept at all. Why does the entire quote from The Onion need to be reproduced, for example? This is especially so since the WP article has nothing about Fleming after the 2010 campaign and then abrubtly devotes a whole section to this news snippet from three days ago. Voceditenore ( talk) 19:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This a member of the United States Congress who is so out-of-touch that he actually thought it possible that an entire mall dedicated to abortions was opening. That is newsworthy, and it was widely covered by newspapers. I attempted to reflect that newsworthy event in this article. Somehow other editors think that this is not really a notable event. Their arguments are:
Given the above complete absence of valid arguments for removing the material, the material should be reinstated. — goethean ॐ 22:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Sarek's condition has no force beyond his own opinion that that's what is required. I continue to think it merits inclusion, on the basis of widespread coverage. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 16:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I've raised this on ANI, as the lack of AGF seems to be getting out of hand. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Saw this on ANI and had to comment. While this is undoubtedly hilarious it really isn't that notable. It's a facebook post that made him look foolish. Seriously, when it comes to a persons biography I don't think we need to include facebook posts. It's clearly undue weight, and while I love this story, it isn't appropriate. It seems that this doesn't serve any purpose but to humiliate him. I mean there isn't even a section that discusses his stance on abortion. Is he pro-life and if so to what degree? If this facebook post is really so central to who he is, why haven't those who are trying to add it done so in a larger context? AniMate 03:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Bearian, Fleming's first national attention was with his H. Res. 615 that led eventually to millions to respond to his website after this interview on Fox News. Therefore you case that the "Onion incident" was his first wide national attention, you are incorrect. This negates your argument of NPOV. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN2tI49_5EI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ofHF90VKqo 68.34.117.152 (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Politics555 ( talk) 03:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC) As many here have stated, this is an issue that has been discussed endlessly and decided and should not be brought up again for the many reasons expressed here. Nobody has ever documented that Fleming personally made this post or link and it is a trivial incident. It is quite clear this is not a NPOV as Bearian even admits on his user page that he has "potential" (political)biases and he is a "progressive Democrat,"admits that he is or has been a paid Democratic political consultant, and as such obviously opposes the very conservative political positions of Fleming. It is improper and against Wikipedia rules to use this medium to settle political scores. Neither Berian nor anybody else even bothers to mention or cite Fleming's position on abortion, which is far more important. I suggest we strive for neutrality and stay within the rules as outlined. Politics555 ( talk) 06:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Trivial "incident" of negligible biographical value - thus UNDUE as presented. Collect ( talk) 22:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
This insertion is inappropriate in a BLP as clearly outlined. Still have one or two who insist on inappropriately dropping the "Onion Incident" back it. Editors have been very clear that his is trivial and unworthy of a BLP. Joapedia ( talk) 02:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
In 2017, when the ability to distinguish between real and fake news has become a dominant political topic in the US, as has a related focus on sources and misrepresentation, the promotion of a satirical source as fact by a government official while he was member of Congress is notable and should be included. I note, too, that no consensus was achieved when this was discussed throughout 2012-2013, and yet those in favor of deleting it problematically removed it entirely from the article. Shelfpea ( talk) 11:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
As almost four years have passed since the last major discussion of this point and a number of points have changed, I've started this new subsection for an updated discussion. Please comment here! The following three comments from 2017 are copied and pasted from the above section, so that we don't lose anything. Let me note that the 2012-2013 discussion of this did not yield consensus. And, of course, even if it had, consensus can and does change. I'll continue this comment below the following three pasted in. Shelfpea ( talk) 00:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
In 2017, when the ability to distinguish between real and fake news has become a dominant political topic in the US, as has a related focus on sources and misrepresentation, the promotion of a satirical source as fact by a government official while he was member of Congress is notable and should be included. I note, too, that no consensus was achieved when this was discussed throughout 2012-2013, and yet those in favor of deleting it problematically removed it entirely from the article. Shelfpea ( talk) 11:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Continuing on from above -- I suggest that several points make including this fact even more important now than previously. First, as I mentioned in my initial comment on this talk page, the ability to distinguish between real and fake news has become a dominant political topic in the US; politicians' media and technology literacies are key components of that. This includes their ability to evaluate sources and what they consider worth sharing in social media and other sites. Second, the politician in question, John Fleming, has since become the deputy assistant secretary for health technology in the Health and Human Services department of the US. This emphasis on technology makes his own level of technology literacy notable and important for readers and scholars consulting Wikipedia. Further, the Onion article in question was specifically about a healthcare issue, making his sharing it as fact doubly notable. Further along those lines, I want to note that, as far as I can determine, he is the only member of the US Congress to share this as fact, despite this being a satiric piece many individuals shared as fact. Third, the incident not only has reliable contemporaneous news sources, tertiary works by scholars cite it as significant. [14] [15] Note that the latter of these is from 2014. With regard to the question of undue weight, my understanding -- and I would appreciate it if other editors or admins would weigh in :) -- is that undue weight is primarily a concern where there are minority and majority perspectives on a subject, which is not the case here. Given all of these points, including this incident improves Wikipedia. Shelfpea ( talk) 00:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Via OTRS, I have received a request that the sentence "Fleming defeated Democratic candidate Paul Carmouche in the 2008 election by a margin of 356 votes" be cut from the lead. Opinions, anyone? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The district is 2:1 Democratic though the Cook PVI rating is R+11. Joapedia ( talk) 14:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Fleming never said he intended or was "comfortable" with cuts to the military. On the contrary he made a number of statements criticizing the cuts to the military, some which are cited here. The Forbes article inappropriately implies that Fleming was "comfortable" with cuts to the military, but he never said or even suggested that. Joapedia ( talk) 23:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Language improved and made more precise. You can't be thrown our of a franchise, only a store owned within the franchise. Joapedia ( talk) 03:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the deletion of sourced text. WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPOV do not require that we eliminate all allegations, only the flimsily sourced and defamatory ones. Rather, they require that we post as many of the supported facts and defenses as is reasonably possible. In this case, there is an accusation and a refutation of the same. Bearian ( talk) 13:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
http://thoughtcatalog.com/2013/the-35-best-times-someone-on-facebook-thought-the-onion-was-real/
Not sure if this is true... can anyone confirm this?
74.112.111.34 ( talk) 18:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm Becky Mancuso and I work for BrabenderCox [2]. John Fleming is included among our clients, and I would like to submit information regarding his legislative career to be considered for inclusion in the "Tenure" section of this Wikipedia page.
I have been studying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and will do my very best to abide by them, and seek help wherever necessary. My edits will be restricted to talk pages, and I will not engage in directly editing any page with which I have a conflict of interest. Instead, I will volunteer information on the talk pages, and ask for Wikipedians' help.
If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page [3], or e-mail me at bmancuso@brabendercox.com.
An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
Please consider adding the following legislative initiatives into Fleming's "Tenure" section so as to best represent the full breadth of his legislative career.
Mrsmancuso ( talk) 22:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)mrsmancuso Mrsmancuso ( talk) 22:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm Becky Mancuso and I work for BrabenderCox [4]. John Fleming is included among our clients, and I would like to submit information regarding his legislative career to be considered for inclusion in the "Tenure" section of this Wikipedia page.
I have been studying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and will do my very best to abide by them, and seek help wherever necessary. My edits will be restricted to talk pages, and I will not engage in directly editing any page with which I have a conflict of interest without the approval of a Wikipedia editor. Instead, I will volunteer information on the talk pages, and ask for Wikipedians' help.
If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page [5], or e-mail me at bmancuso@brabendercox.com.
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article. |
Please consider adding the following update into Fleming's "Tenure" section so as to best represent the full breadth of his legislative career.
On October 23, 2013, Fleming was the first member of the House of Representatives to call for the resignation of Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, following widespread problems with the government’s online opening of the health insurance marketplace.
In a letter to President Obama, Fleming cited “uncertainty, confusion and incompetence that has riddled the Health Insurance Marketplace” and called on President Obama “to hold Secretary Sebelius accountable for the fiasco that is Healthcare.gov and ask for her resignation.” Thirty-two other members of Congress joined Fleming in signing the letter. [1] and [2] Mrsmancuso ( talk) 16:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)mrsmancuso
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
John Fleming (U.S. politician). 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 01:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
A previous edit contained incomplete information. There was no mention of the laws in effect at the time of this incident, DOMA and state law prohibiting same sex marriages. None of the previous content was removed. There is one correction to it, quotations added as "private ceremony" was a quoted statement, not a fact. My edits contain no commentary, simply additional facts to preserve NPOV. Gamaliel should assume good faith from other editors and not vandalize others' edits. Furthermore the three-revert rule should be observed as well as WP:ALIVE, WP:BLP and WP:LIVE. Advise Gamaliel to review rules on warring edits and vandalism. I welcome WP:ADMIN. Politics555 ( talk) 02:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
They are not an "improvement" when the facts don't agree with you POV. Wikipedia doesn"t work like that. You don't get to "check pick" your facts. Politics555 ( talk) 08:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
You obviously have a very specific POV you are pushing here, that is quite clear. To be sure, "An Army chaplain has performed the first same-sex nuptial ceremony on a military base--one involving two lesbian soldiers" is the opening line of the article at http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/army-chaplain-performs-first-ever-military-same-sex-nuptial-ceremony-chapel-fort-polk. What does nuptial ceremony mean but marriage? There was never a claim of any other type of religious ceremony. Your slight of hand argument is silly. Such a ceremony, according to very reliable open sources was not authorized by the military, was against state law, and violated DOMA. I have not removed any of the existing content, only added important facts that were completely left out to complete the facts, though they may be inconvenient to your POV. Politics555 ( talk) 08:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
On Wikipedia NorthBySouthBaranof, you alone, don't get to decide what are "good" news sources and what are "bad." It is clear by your name-calling and obvious political POV from statements, that you wish to censor opposing views. The First amendmendment dictates that opposing political viewpoints, even if you may find them obnoxious, are allowed and even encouraged in our system. I am sure the most editors and administrators of Wikipedia would agree. It is okay to be biased in your thinking, but it is not okay to censor others in the public, open source domain for having opposing views. Politics555 ( talk) 14:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
There was lengthy discussion in 2012/13 regarding a brief posting of a link to a satire site (The Onion) on Congressman Fleming's Facebook page. Though it was never determined whether Fleming or a staff member actually posted the link, it was reported as one of many accidental references to satirical sites by politicians, editors and news anchors. Ultimately it was determined that it was not suitable for the article and has been deleted since then. There has been no further disclosures or incidents, but a single editor has posted it again to the article creating a disagreement as to whether it would improve the article when no new information or incidents have been reported. I request comment from other editors as to whether the new posting of the same information from 2012 should be re-added to the article. Tomuchtalk ( talk) 14:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
* Support restoration/include content. The coverage is brief, does not claim that Fleming's staff wrote the Onion piece, and is fully cited. The Atlantic is the most reliable of the sources cited, IMHO. Politico is fine too; I would eliminate the one from the New York Daily News. (Do we need three citations in addition to the The Onion article?)
Even TIME covered the story. http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/02/07/louisiana-congressman-mistakes-the-onions-planned-parenthood-story-for-factual-news/ As did CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republican-congressman-falls-victim-to-old-onion-article/ And several books did too (found with Google Books search) Peter K Burian ( talk) 13:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Remove · This is not relevant and the source you cite @Shelfpea ("A Conservative Walks into a Bar") has a prejudicial title. It seems the only real effort here is to smear a conservative politician; this appears more in the vein of a tabloid. If this material were to appear anywhere it should be in its own article as an example among many of notable figures who have mistaken The Onion for real news sources or in an article about fake news. Dr. ratdog ( talk) 02:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Remove. This is indeed trivial. There is no point in its inclusion other than to smear Fleming. Panopticonius ( talk) 04:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC) — Panopticonius ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on John Fleming (American politician). 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://www400.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcpr&rqsdta=10219560{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www400.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcms2&rqsdta=110706When 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) 18:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I have added a number of citations and information relative to Fleming's career both in Congress and HHS, all easily accessible on the internet. Not a single bill that he authored and was signed into law was listed, nor many other achievements and bills he was involved in have been added to the article. Comparing it to other members and former members of Congress, there is a lot that is missing in terms of what he has been doing and what he worked towards. There was virtually nothing about his service in HHS thus far. Also, there were important things about his personal life, such as his church work that was present but later deleted. Unfairnessdoctrine ( talk) 02:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I have added a number of citations and information relative to Fleming's career both in Congress and HHS, all easily accessible on the internet. Not a single bill that he authored and was signed into law was listed, nor many other achievements and bills he was involved in have been added to the article. Comparing it to other members and former members of Congress, there is a lot that is missing in terms of what he has been doing and what he worked towards. There was virtually nothing about his service in HHS thus far. Also, there were important things about his personal life, such as his church work that was present but later deleted. Unfairnessdoctrine ( talk) 02:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Fleming (American politician). 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC) OK Jim.henderson ( talk) 13:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Dr. Fleming is currently a candidate for political office. This article reads like campaign literature, and in fact, most of its sourcing is from either
Details currently in this article are not notable with respect to the subject, other than to create an electable image — such as what he did during his military service. His particular assignment in the military is not unusual for a military physician.
I propose cleaning up the article — deleting the promotional material. If he is in fact elected to office, biographical details would likely become available from reliable sources, such as a Congressional biography. — ERcheck ( talk) 16:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The subject of this article is covered by WP:BLP and is also currently a candidate for political office. As such, it is of the utmost important that:
— ERcheck ( talk) 22:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I have concerns about <ref name=mph>
meeting Wikipedia requirements for a reliable source. Reading the article, it contains much that is almost verbatim from Flemings election website. — ERcheck ( talk) 23:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
In the politics section, it was noted that Fleming was "a member of the transition team for Governor Bobby Jindal". This was from his election website, as well as a few other places. The inclusion of this information implies a major role in Jindal's team, such as a top advisor. However, according to Jindal's website ( "Governor-Elect Bobby Jindal Announces Social Services Group Members". BobbyJindal.com. November 28, 2007. Retrieved November 27, 2008., his Heath Care Transition Advisory Council had two groups - a Social Services Group and a Health Care Group. Fleming was associated with the Social Services Group — which had a Chair, Vice Chair, and 30 members representing various Louisiana cities. Fleming represented Minden. As such, his role on the transition team was not a major role. — ERcheck ( talk) 23:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The infobox says that he is the incumbent congressman. I am asking somebody to fix this because I am unsure how. It should say "apparent congressman-elect" instead of current member. Thank you. HUZZAH HANUKKAH ( talk) 05:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This page has way to many internal wikipedia links. Is it really necessary to link to "physician" and "author." This encyclopedia should assume a knowledge of basic English. talk 9:05, 26 June 2009
Politics555 ( talk) 03:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this is worth mentioning on the page, but the tone is not terribly NPOV. In particular, the worked-out employee salaries seem necessarily inexact(both because 500 employees is probably an estimate and because he said he spent $5.7 million on multiple expenses including salary), and he did not actually say his family spends $200K per year on food. 140.247.236.166 ( talk) 03:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
How does this statement merit any citation on Fleming's bio? "Fleming's comments were widely reported and criticized, including by bloggers who portrayed him as out of touch with the difficulties of lower-income Americans." Is it noteworthy how bloggers portrayed Fleming? They could have portrayed Fleming to be a bunny rabbit, but that would not make him one. Fleming's comments were in the context of the impact of higher taxes on jobs produced by his companies, not a complaint that he would not have money to feed himself as portrayed by bloggers. Again, there is no reason for this rubbish to be posted as fact. Politics555 ( talk) 04:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
A discussion has been opened at WP:BLPN on the remarks made by Fleming and their aftermath in the subsection 2011 tax plan comments. I've backed out some recent changes made by two SPA accounts. However, I believe some more pruning is needed. I think we should report on what reliable sources say about the blog commentary, but not cite to the blogs themselves. In that way, we let reliable sources make the determination as to what is noteworthy, as opposed to us picking the various blogs on either side of the political spectrum and what they say. We should also keep this to a minimum so as not to give it undue prominence. It's a recent phenomenon, and it's unknown at this point what long-term value it has to the article.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The comment is typical political speech, nothing more. I would like to trim it to something like this: Fleming's comments prompted considerable political commentary, both positive and negative. Politico gathered some of the negative commentary, such as Daily Kos, which criticized the salaries that Fleming pays his employees and the amount of his personal budget. [1] Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, agreed with Fleming that raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations would hurt the economy. [2] Josh Beavers, publisher of the Minden Press-Herald in Fleming's hometown, defended Fleming's comments in an editorial, writing: "His sentiment was only that the more taxes he pays the fewer people he can employ. High taxes on business owners thwart economic activity." [3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarhed ( talk • contribs)
Fleming's comments prompted considerable commentary. The remarks were criticized by bloggers who attacked him as being out of touch with the difficulties of lower-income Americans. [4] [5] Responding to a segment on The Daily Show in which Jon Stewart criticized both Fleming and Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly agreed with Fleming that raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations would hurt the economy. [6] [7] Josh Beavers, publisher of the Minden Press-Herald in Fleming's hometown, defended Fleming's comments in an editorial. [8] Theoldsparkle ( talk) 15:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so post a proposed edit and let's see. Perhaps your presentation will convince me about Stuart. I agree with paring down the long quotes, in fact, I already said that I would be fine with eliminating it altogether as undue weight. Jarhed ( talk) 02:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
On one side, you can't argue against including a quote in a BLP that came out of the subject's mouth. On the other side, it was an off the cuff remark, standard politics, and not notable enough for a mention. I'm willing to collaborate on a short NPOV mention of this issue as a compromise for not mentioning it at all. If the mention is truly NPOV, then it will help both poltical sides equally and everybody should be happy. So, let's see what Theoldsparkle proposes. Jarhed ( talk) 05:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Attempting to try to keep the discussion comprehensible. It seems clear there are two central issues on which we (myself and User:Jarhed) disagree. (I'll sign my comments in each section separately for clarity.) Theoldsparkle ( talk) 15:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
My opinion is that if we mention the O'Reilly response (and I think we're in agreement that the O'Reilly response should be mentioned), then in order to accurately convey the context of his response, we should mention that he was responding to a Daily Show segment that criticized both Fleming and O'Reilly. My suggested phrasing, shortened further from what I had included in my proposed paragraph above, is: "Responding to The Daily Show's criticism of both Fleming and Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, O'Reilly agreed with Fleming that raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations would hurt the economy. [9] [10]"
As I understand your opinion, you feel that Stewart/The Daily Show should categorically not be mentioned here for any reason, because it is a comedy program and therefore not relevant. Am I understanding you correctly? If not, please correct me. If so, I would suggest we solicit a third opinion as it seems unlikely that discussion between us will change either of our minds. Theoldsparkle ( talk) 15:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Here we seem to have, perhaps, more confusion than actual disagreement. My view is this: Bloggers made comments. Third-party sources, namely Politico and the Times-Picayune, reported that bloggers made comments. We should not quote or cite any particular blogger directly, but we should say, "Bloggers made comments," and we should cite Politico's and TP's stories about the bloggers making comments.
In the TP article, the article stated: "But on liberal blogs, Fleming was portrayed as insensitive to millions of working Americans who are struggling to meet expenses in the face of high unemployment and stagnant wages." I think this is the fact that we should include here, because it seems to me to show most accurately what happened, and we should cite the TP article for that fact. Obviously, because of copyright, we can't use the same words as in the article, and so, we need to write new words that communicate the same information. My suggested phrasing, intended to communicate only the information from that specific sentence in that specific source (and, again, revised from what I had previously suggested), is: "Several bloggers claimed the remarks showed that Fleming was out of touch with the economic difficulties faced by many Americans." If you think this does not accurately convey the same information as the sentence from the TP article, please explain what discrepancy you see.
This is not WP:SYNTHESIS, because synthesis involves combining information from multiple sources, and I am only talking about using this one piece of information from this one source. (The Times-Picayune may have synthesized the information by looking at multiple blogs and aggregating their comments, but since, as far as I know, the TP qualifies as a reliable source, we are allowed to take and use the information they report as reliable fact. We are not committing synthesis by reporting a single fact from a reliable source.) I think the Politico article says the same thing that the TP does, and could be used as an additional citation for the same information, but if citing two sources for this information will inevitably lead to objections of synthesis, I would accept using and citing only the Times-Picayune source. Theoldsparkle ( talk) 15:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Fleming's remarks were widely reported and resulted in considerable comentary. Bruce Alpert of the The Times-Picayune reported the substantial response of the liberal blogosphere thus: "insensitive to millions of working Americans who are struggling to meet expenses in the face of high unemployment and stagnant wages". [4] Conservative sources such as Drudge and O'Reilly vigorously defended Fleming's remarks, with Josh Beavers, publisher of the Minden Press-Herald in Fleming's hometown, writing: "His sentiment was only that the more taxes he pays the fewer people he can employ. High taxes on business owners thwart economic activity." [11]
Fleming's remarks were widely reported and resulted in considerable commentary. Bruce Alpert of Louisiana newspaper The Times-Picayune reported that "on liberal blogs, Fleming was portrayed as insensitive to millions of working Americans who are struggling to meet expenses in the face of high unemployment and stagnant wages." [4] Conservative sources including Bill O'Reilly [and the Drudge Report defended Fleming's remarks; Josh Beavers, publisher of the Minden Press-Herald in Fleming's hometown, wrote an editorial which stated, "[Fleming's] sentiment was only that the more taxes he pays the fewer people he can employ. High taxes on business owners thwart economic activity." [12] [13]
I am fine with your revision. Drudge is mentioned in Alpert's report. Jarhed ( talk) 19:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
This section may possibly give undue weight to a recent and relatively minor incident, so minor that I'd hardly classify it as an "incident" and bordering on trivia. It should be considerably pared down and integrated into the article, if kept at all. Why does the entire quote from The Onion need to be reproduced, for example? This is especially so since the WP article has nothing about Fleming after the 2010 campaign and then abrubtly devotes a whole section to this news snippet from three days ago. Voceditenore ( talk) 19:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This a member of the United States Congress who is so out-of-touch that he actually thought it possible that an entire mall dedicated to abortions was opening. That is newsworthy, and it was widely covered by newspapers. I attempted to reflect that newsworthy event in this article. Somehow other editors think that this is not really a notable event. Their arguments are:
Given the above complete absence of valid arguments for removing the material, the material should be reinstated. — goethean ॐ 22:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Sarek's condition has no force beyond his own opinion that that's what is required. I continue to think it merits inclusion, on the basis of widespread coverage. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 16:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I've raised this on ANI, as the lack of AGF seems to be getting out of hand. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Saw this on ANI and had to comment. While this is undoubtedly hilarious it really isn't that notable. It's a facebook post that made him look foolish. Seriously, when it comes to a persons biography I don't think we need to include facebook posts. It's clearly undue weight, and while I love this story, it isn't appropriate. It seems that this doesn't serve any purpose but to humiliate him. I mean there isn't even a section that discusses his stance on abortion. Is he pro-life and if so to what degree? If this facebook post is really so central to who he is, why haven't those who are trying to add it done so in a larger context? AniMate 03:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Bearian, Fleming's first national attention was with his H. Res. 615 that led eventually to millions to respond to his website after this interview on Fox News. Therefore you case that the "Onion incident" was his first wide national attention, you are incorrect. This negates your argument of NPOV. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN2tI49_5EI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ofHF90VKqo 68.34.117.152 (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Politics555 ( talk) 03:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC) As many here have stated, this is an issue that has been discussed endlessly and decided and should not be brought up again for the many reasons expressed here. Nobody has ever documented that Fleming personally made this post or link and it is a trivial incident. It is quite clear this is not a NPOV as Bearian even admits on his user page that he has "potential" (political)biases and he is a "progressive Democrat,"admits that he is or has been a paid Democratic political consultant, and as such obviously opposes the very conservative political positions of Fleming. It is improper and against Wikipedia rules to use this medium to settle political scores. Neither Berian nor anybody else even bothers to mention or cite Fleming's position on abortion, which is far more important. I suggest we strive for neutrality and stay within the rules as outlined. Politics555 ( talk) 06:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Trivial "incident" of negligible biographical value - thus UNDUE as presented. Collect ( talk) 22:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
This insertion is inappropriate in a BLP as clearly outlined. Still have one or two who insist on inappropriately dropping the "Onion Incident" back it. Editors have been very clear that his is trivial and unworthy of a BLP. Joapedia ( talk) 02:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
In 2017, when the ability to distinguish between real and fake news has become a dominant political topic in the US, as has a related focus on sources and misrepresentation, the promotion of a satirical source as fact by a government official while he was member of Congress is notable and should be included. I note, too, that no consensus was achieved when this was discussed throughout 2012-2013, and yet those in favor of deleting it problematically removed it entirely from the article. Shelfpea ( talk) 11:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
As almost four years have passed since the last major discussion of this point and a number of points have changed, I've started this new subsection for an updated discussion. Please comment here! The following three comments from 2017 are copied and pasted from the above section, so that we don't lose anything. Let me note that the 2012-2013 discussion of this did not yield consensus. And, of course, even if it had, consensus can and does change. I'll continue this comment below the following three pasted in. Shelfpea ( talk) 00:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
In 2017, when the ability to distinguish between real and fake news has become a dominant political topic in the US, as has a related focus on sources and misrepresentation, the promotion of a satirical source as fact by a government official while he was member of Congress is notable and should be included. I note, too, that no consensus was achieved when this was discussed throughout 2012-2013, and yet those in favor of deleting it problematically removed it entirely from the article. Shelfpea ( talk) 11:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Continuing on from above -- I suggest that several points make including this fact even more important now than previously. First, as I mentioned in my initial comment on this talk page, the ability to distinguish between real and fake news has become a dominant political topic in the US; politicians' media and technology literacies are key components of that. This includes their ability to evaluate sources and what they consider worth sharing in social media and other sites. Second, the politician in question, John Fleming, has since become the deputy assistant secretary for health technology in the Health and Human Services department of the US. This emphasis on technology makes his own level of technology literacy notable and important for readers and scholars consulting Wikipedia. Further, the Onion article in question was specifically about a healthcare issue, making his sharing it as fact doubly notable. Further along those lines, I want to note that, as far as I can determine, he is the only member of the US Congress to share this as fact, despite this being a satiric piece many individuals shared as fact. Third, the incident not only has reliable contemporaneous news sources, tertiary works by scholars cite it as significant. [14] [15] Note that the latter of these is from 2014. With regard to the question of undue weight, my understanding -- and I would appreciate it if other editors or admins would weigh in :) -- is that undue weight is primarily a concern where there are minority and majority perspectives on a subject, which is not the case here. Given all of these points, including this incident improves Wikipedia. Shelfpea ( talk) 00:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Via OTRS, I have received a request that the sentence "Fleming defeated Democratic candidate Paul Carmouche in the 2008 election by a margin of 356 votes" be cut from the lead. Opinions, anyone? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The district is 2:1 Democratic though the Cook PVI rating is R+11. Joapedia ( talk) 14:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Fleming never said he intended or was "comfortable" with cuts to the military. On the contrary he made a number of statements criticizing the cuts to the military, some which are cited here. The Forbes article inappropriately implies that Fleming was "comfortable" with cuts to the military, but he never said or even suggested that. Joapedia ( talk) 23:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Language improved and made more precise. You can't be thrown our of a franchise, only a store owned within the franchise. Joapedia ( talk) 03:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the deletion of sourced text. WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPOV do not require that we eliminate all allegations, only the flimsily sourced and defamatory ones. Rather, they require that we post as many of the supported facts and defenses as is reasonably possible. In this case, there is an accusation and a refutation of the same. Bearian ( talk) 13:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
http://thoughtcatalog.com/2013/the-35-best-times-someone-on-facebook-thought-the-onion-was-real/
Not sure if this is true... can anyone confirm this?
74.112.111.34 ( talk) 18:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm Becky Mancuso and I work for BrabenderCox [2]. John Fleming is included among our clients, and I would like to submit information regarding his legislative career to be considered for inclusion in the "Tenure" section of this Wikipedia page.
I have been studying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and will do my very best to abide by them, and seek help wherever necessary. My edits will be restricted to talk pages, and I will not engage in directly editing any page with which I have a conflict of interest. Instead, I will volunteer information on the talk pages, and ask for Wikipedians' help.
If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page [3], or e-mail me at bmancuso@brabendercox.com.
An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
Please consider adding the following legislative initiatives into Fleming's "Tenure" section so as to best represent the full breadth of his legislative career.
Mrsmancuso ( talk) 22:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)mrsmancuso Mrsmancuso ( talk) 22:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm Becky Mancuso and I work for BrabenderCox [4]. John Fleming is included among our clients, and I would like to submit information regarding his legislative career to be considered for inclusion in the "Tenure" section of this Wikipedia page.
I have been studying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and will do my very best to abide by them, and seek help wherever necessary. My edits will be restricted to talk pages, and I will not engage in directly editing any page with which I have a conflict of interest without the approval of a Wikipedia editor. Instead, I will volunteer information on the talk pages, and ask for Wikipedians' help.
If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page [5], or e-mail me at bmancuso@brabendercox.com.
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article. |
Please consider adding the following update into Fleming's "Tenure" section so as to best represent the full breadth of his legislative career.
On October 23, 2013, Fleming was the first member of the House of Representatives to call for the resignation of Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, following widespread problems with the government’s online opening of the health insurance marketplace.
In a letter to President Obama, Fleming cited “uncertainty, confusion and incompetence that has riddled the Health Insurance Marketplace” and called on President Obama “to hold Secretary Sebelius accountable for the fiasco that is Healthcare.gov and ask for her resignation.” Thirty-two other members of Congress joined Fleming in signing the letter. [1] and [2] Mrsmancuso ( talk) 16:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)mrsmancuso
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
John Fleming (U.S. politician). 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 01:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
A previous edit contained incomplete information. There was no mention of the laws in effect at the time of this incident, DOMA and state law prohibiting same sex marriages. None of the previous content was removed. There is one correction to it, quotations added as "private ceremony" was a quoted statement, not a fact. My edits contain no commentary, simply additional facts to preserve NPOV. Gamaliel should assume good faith from other editors and not vandalize others' edits. Furthermore the three-revert rule should be observed as well as WP:ALIVE, WP:BLP and WP:LIVE. Advise Gamaliel to review rules on warring edits and vandalism. I welcome WP:ADMIN. Politics555 ( talk) 02:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
They are not an "improvement" when the facts don't agree with you POV. Wikipedia doesn"t work like that. You don't get to "check pick" your facts. Politics555 ( talk) 08:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
You obviously have a very specific POV you are pushing here, that is quite clear. To be sure, "An Army chaplain has performed the first same-sex nuptial ceremony on a military base--one involving two lesbian soldiers" is the opening line of the article at http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/army-chaplain-performs-first-ever-military-same-sex-nuptial-ceremony-chapel-fort-polk. What does nuptial ceremony mean but marriage? There was never a claim of any other type of religious ceremony. Your slight of hand argument is silly. Such a ceremony, according to very reliable open sources was not authorized by the military, was against state law, and violated DOMA. I have not removed any of the existing content, only added important facts that were completely left out to complete the facts, though they may be inconvenient to your POV. Politics555 ( talk) 08:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
On Wikipedia NorthBySouthBaranof, you alone, don't get to decide what are "good" news sources and what are "bad." It is clear by your name-calling and obvious political POV from statements, that you wish to censor opposing views. The First amendmendment dictates that opposing political viewpoints, even if you may find them obnoxious, are allowed and even encouraged in our system. I am sure the most editors and administrators of Wikipedia would agree. It is okay to be biased in your thinking, but it is not okay to censor others in the public, open source domain for having opposing views. Politics555 ( talk) 14:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
There was lengthy discussion in 2012/13 regarding a brief posting of a link to a satire site (The Onion) on Congressman Fleming's Facebook page. Though it was never determined whether Fleming or a staff member actually posted the link, it was reported as one of many accidental references to satirical sites by politicians, editors and news anchors. Ultimately it was determined that it was not suitable for the article and has been deleted since then. There has been no further disclosures or incidents, but a single editor has posted it again to the article creating a disagreement as to whether it would improve the article when no new information or incidents have been reported. I request comment from other editors as to whether the new posting of the same information from 2012 should be re-added to the article. Tomuchtalk ( talk) 14:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
* Support restoration/include content. The coverage is brief, does not claim that Fleming's staff wrote the Onion piece, and is fully cited. The Atlantic is the most reliable of the sources cited, IMHO. Politico is fine too; I would eliminate the one from the New York Daily News. (Do we need three citations in addition to the The Onion article?)
Even TIME covered the story. http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/02/07/louisiana-congressman-mistakes-the-onions-planned-parenthood-story-for-factual-news/ As did CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republican-congressman-falls-victim-to-old-onion-article/ And several books did too (found with Google Books search) Peter K Burian ( talk) 13:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Remove · This is not relevant and the source you cite @Shelfpea ("A Conservative Walks into a Bar") has a prejudicial title. It seems the only real effort here is to smear a conservative politician; this appears more in the vein of a tabloid. If this material were to appear anywhere it should be in its own article as an example among many of notable figures who have mistaken The Onion for real news sources or in an article about fake news. Dr. ratdog ( talk) 02:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Remove. This is indeed trivial. There is no point in its inclusion other than to smear Fleming. Panopticonius ( talk) 04:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC) — Panopticonius ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on John Fleming (American politician). 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://www400.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcpr&rqsdta=10219560{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www400.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcms2&rqsdta=110706When 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) 18:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I have added a number of citations and information relative to Fleming's career both in Congress and HHS, all easily accessible on the internet. Not a single bill that he authored and was signed into law was listed, nor many other achievements and bills he was involved in have been added to the article. Comparing it to other members and former members of Congress, there is a lot that is missing in terms of what he has been doing and what he worked towards. There was virtually nothing about his service in HHS thus far. Also, there were important things about his personal life, such as his church work that was present but later deleted. Unfairnessdoctrine ( talk) 02:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I have added a number of citations and information relative to Fleming's career both in Congress and HHS, all easily accessible on the internet. Not a single bill that he authored and was signed into law was listed, nor many other achievements and bills he was involved in have been added to the article. Comparing it to other members and former members of Congress, there is a lot that is missing in terms of what he has been doing and what he worked towards. There was virtually nothing about his service in HHS thus far. Also, there were important things about his personal life, such as his church work that was present but later deleted. Unfairnessdoctrine ( talk) 02:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Fleming (American politician). 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC) OK Jim.henderson ( talk) 13:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)