This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The article mentions his redistricting campaign 'to elect more Republicans'. This interpretation needs to be sourced IMO or else removed as editorialising. It may be true, but if it isn't citable it's opinion.-- Anchoress 08:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there a better photograph that can be used at the top of the article? The one shown there is really terrible. I think his mug shot is a much better likeness, but I recognize that it would be controversial to use that as the first image on the page. Even still, the man was in Congress for over 20 years. There must be some public domain or otherwise fair use image other than that lips-to-eyebrows shot (which is unsourced and subject to deletion, I might add). -- stubblyh ea d | T/ c 21:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This article reads like an attack on the politician. Undue weight and content is provided on negative aspects of this biography, far in excess of any sense of balance. - Amgine 02:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think there is no question that language can be improved to make it more NPOV - that's probably true of most articles on active politicians, and there seems to be a constructive discussion going on here about that. More examples, or constructive editing, are certainly helpful.
As for All sections should be trimmed; most should be removed completely and/or collapsed - you seem to be saying that controversies have little or no place in wikipedia articles on politicians. That seems to me a completely different view of what wikipedia articles should be from what is currently the case. As such, I suggest taking it to the talk/discussion page of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, because this article is NOT the best place to discuss general wikipedia policy. And if you think this does not represent a radical change from current wikipedia policy, it would be great if you could point to an article or two where what you want has in fact been done.
As for what is missing, I certainly encourage you to research these and, if interesting, to add them to wikipedia. My experience has been that just requesting others to add the material tends to lead to nothing happening. John Broughton 16:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course the article should include relevant, sourced facts about Tom DeLay. The tone is suboptimal, but the idea to stub the article down to a bare skeleton, as Amgine suggests in his e-mail, is completely outlandish. NPOV should not be confused with "no POV"; it merely means that opinions and controversial claims need to be attributed and sourced, and must never be linked to Wikipedia itself. As for balance, please see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance.
Biographies about living persons are only special insofar as we must pay close attention to their content; there is no special policy about the inclusion of facts. The core policies that are applicable to all articles apply here as well. And of course that makes perfect sense. After all, an article about a company's products that includes libelous information is just as bad as one about their CEO that does so, and potentially much more harmful to them. The reason we don't have a special policy about companies' products is that most complaints and threats come, understandably, from living persons. It's therefore a matter of prioritization to treat them differently. But we don't sanitize articles to avoid getting into trouble or offending people.-- Eloquence * 11:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I think "so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material." is putting the cart before the horse. What would the article on science be if the material was not written in a manner that overwhelms the article with the idea that it's based on empirical evidence or didn't appear to side with the presumption that unfalsifiable claims have no logical validity? Kevin Baas talk 17:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
A document from the office of the Texas Secretary of State date September 6 2006 doesn't list DeLay's name as a candidate for the general election for District 22, which means that he withdrew from the ballot. [2] NatusRoma | Talk 05:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I have thought for some time now that the "Domestic policy" and "Foreign policy" sections (particularly the former) depend on a patchwork of votes and ratings instead of a synthesized narrative. I would appreciate anyone adding content or sources that provide a more complete picture of DeLay's views. NatusRoma | Talk 04:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I think someone should add a paragraph about DeLay's connections to Brent Wilkes, if I remember correctly, was one of the biggest beneficiaries of campaign contributions from Wilkes and figures prominently in the investigation of Wilkes.
This article makes Tom DeLay, a Senator who would win the Most Corrupt Man in Politics award, look like just a regular old Senetor, even one who made improvemennts to our Constitution. HE IS NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE. There is a major difference beetween hurting someone's feelings and withholding the truth. It makes the horrible crime he commited seem like a tiny flaw in a holy man. It also makes it seem like impeaching Clinton was a high and noble deed, even though no one died when he lied, whereas thousands have died because of Bush's lies. This man was a criminal, not an angel. 24.14.33.61 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Erik Baker 1/3/07
Also, A "lie" is something that is intentionally untrue. It would be a lie to say, "I have four sisters", when you really have two. When Bush said his "16 words" about British intelligence, it was in fact, true. Not a lie, because British intelligence really did say what Bush said they did. Even if the information turned out to be false, that ain't a lie. If I were to say "No one I know has ever robbed a bank", but it turned out my 5th grade teacher was a bank robber, that wouldn't make it a lie. Also, as to whether or not anyone died because of Bill, that's debatable. I do agree impeaching him over 'what' he lied about was silly, but still, the fact that he did lie... (just look at poor ol' Scooter Libby, he "lied" about something that wasn't a crime, but he was convicted).
Does anyone else think that Infobox Criminal is a bit of a NPOV violation? They fact that it says "Still at large" is ridiculous. Plus, any article with two similar infoboxes seems over the top (as Infobox Criminal and Infobox Congressperson [or whatever its title is] appear similar). Other thoughts on this? -- Daysleeper47 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone looked at the article's history recently? There's been a lot of vandalism to this site ever since the protection template was removed. Just this morning, I removed a doctored photo of DeLay from the site. I suggest reenabling protection. Any thoughts on this idea? crazyviolinist 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the following from the first paragraph as I did not see it as being very essential introductory information:
"In May 2007, a New Yorker profile of Delay quoted him saying that God spoke to him -- and told him to be more like MoveOn.org. [6]"
I believe that this video adds to the value of the article and should be published in the external links section
Tom Delay Discusses his book No Retreat, No Surrender: One American's Fight 3/20/2007
-- Uschris 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
An excellent, well-written article. I do have a few suggestions though: The article should be a bit shorter (perhaps split-off long sections), simultaneously reducing the table of contents. The article has a few minor edit wars (due to his notability), but good enough for GA. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is that the best looking photo in this article? Are there any others available? His arrest picture is way better than the one that leads thea article. Jiffypopmetaltop 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
There has been heavy anon vandalism on this article, adding silly stuff such as "satanist", and such. Please stop. And please do not change the infobox picture (which is official) to the half-face picture. Wooyi Talk, Editor review 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Was Tom a pest exterminator prior to his entering politics? Is this why he is referred to as 'the Bug Man from Sugarland'? Chris66 0831, 20 June 2007
Yes and it's included in the article, I just read it. I will refrain from removing your comment though, I invite you to re-read the page and remove your comment yourself; when you do so, you can also remove this one of mine. Dave 20:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesilvan ( talk • contribs)
As of this series of edits - these - the entire section of Grand Jury Indictments has been removed. I don't know whether this is correct or not, so I thought I'd make a note of it on the talk page. Request someone more familiar with the article to please have a look. xC | ☎ 06:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The edits are not vandalism at all but designed to reduce length and clutter in the already large article. The intent was to have material on the corruption investigation put all into a separate article with a link from the main article for quick reference 128.253.43.21 06:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I too would like to know why there's no mention of his homosexual escapades with congressional pages who were also minors. This is not something that can be forgotten, as well as the fact that FOX 'News' labeled him as a Democrat when the story broke that he was targeting a male page (i.e. staffer). My mistake, I confused him with Mark Foley; Foley was the one FOX news labeled as a Democrat when the story broke. I'm trying to sign these, using both the 4 tildes and the signature button in the control bar across the top and I keep seeing it labeled as unsigned comment, so... yeah. Dave 20:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Poemisaglock 00:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC) you can add this: http://www.rense.com/general68/10mind.htm
-- Robert Waalk ( talk) 20:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani DeLay Ferro (2nd nomination), the content of Dani DeLay Ferro has been merged to this article. fish& karate 11:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know (cited or uncited) what is going on with the case against Tom Delay? Ronnie Earle is no longer DA (doesn't the law permit to be PA in this case anyway?) WHY has this case gone on this long? And is this our future? Weak cases against high-profile people that continue indefinitely? Jessemckay ( talk) 13:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the entire beginning of the article isn't showing on the page, but it appears in the page's source. Instead of the infobox and first paragraphs, it says only "citation needed" before the table of contents. I can't figure out if this is a bug, or something I may be overlooking, or what. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 23:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
re 03:53, 1 October 2009 Moxfyre (talk | contribs) (76,358 bytes) (→Dancing with the Stars: the tone is funny and irreverant, possibly not appropriate?)
i'm open to suggestions, but . . .
re tone tag: well, ;), if the facts are funny, then the facts are funny, que no? And who says we have to be "reverant"? (WP:"Reverance"?) ;)
re neutrality tag: "neutrality" toward a crazy conspiracy theory? "Fair and balanced"? Isn't this wikipedia, not fox news?
Beansandveggies ( talk) 10:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
“ | The false "conspiracy theory" has been widely and thoroughly debunked—among other things, President Obama and the Hawaii Department of Public Health have made public his "Certificate of Live Birth" from August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii, and two contemporaneous newspaper articles from Hawaii in August 1961 show birth announcements for Barack Obama—yet "birthers" like DeLay continue to either believe in, or at least tout, the conspiracy theory. | ” |
Hi Moxfyre :) I'll take what u've said as personal compliments, as i've written/edited most of the stuff in these sub-sections. In fact, i think one of the things u're picking up as pov is the fact that basically just one wiki editor has been at work here (me), so, as time goes on and more edits by others come in, whatever is of my "voice" will recede, and gradually be paved over ;) But i too have been wanting to add and change some things, and will; and will continue to contribute to the article, as i hope others will too.
An easy thing i'll do right now is put in a "see also" wiki link to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article in the subsection re it & DeLay. I wiki-linked it thru (first mention of) the word "birther" in the graf, but people may not click on it, and i agree we should make it more explicitly avail for people to reference.
As far as "birther" motives go, we might directly ref it to certain subsections of the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (e.g. Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Political_impact, or ref & link to other sources online. Until then, I'll change to something like "yet the 'birther' phenomenon persists" and elim the "oblivious to or scheming" phrase, but I included the phrases . . .
"either believe in, or at least tout, the conspiracy theory"
and
"oblivious to or scheming against the facts"
because i think it's imp to alert the (non-politically sophisticated/knowledgable) rdr to what's going on with birthism, and the only 2 possibs with sophisticated politicos who r birthers like DeLay. Either a given sophisticated politico is stupid, or cynical. Either he or she believes in the birther garbage themselves, or they see the political benefit in continuing to promote the conspiracy theory. As many other political observers have noted (for whom we can go fetch refs if we wish), those r the only 2 explanations for soph politicos like DeLay. Since we can't get inside the mind of DeLay, I offered both possiblities in those 2 phrases. Beansandveggies ( talk) 10:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Re recent vandalism by "birthers" and recent edits by DJ Clayworth:
Unsurprisingly, in order to promote their conspiracy theory, or make it or Mr. DeLay look less bad (by bad i mean kooky-- or cynical, take your pick), "birther" vandals have attempted to add or remove things from the subsection: "Revelation as Obama 'Birther' Conspiracy Theorist." DJ Clayworth, who, by dint of his user page, contribs and talk page would seem an unlikely birther or birther sympathizer, nevertheless has made edits (which i have mostly undone) that would put a smile on any birther's face (and perhaps make them blush).
The tweaks on which i have come to agree with DJ involve two phrases that seemed to unnecessarily antagonize the birthers and incite their vandalism-- the "established fact" phrase (which had been "watered-down" previously from "well-est fact") and the phrase "comparing the president to an illegal alien" in introducing the DeLay quote in which the former congressman does just that. As the two and a half sentences briefly explaining (and debunking) the "birther" conspiracy theory "establish," it is an "(well-)established fact" that President Obama is a "natural-born citizen," so use of the term "established fact" is, by exposition, redundant. Re the "illegal alien" phrase, we can let Mr. DeLay's words (and comparison) speak for itself; introducing it as such, obviously, becomes unnnecessary then. Therefore, I have removed those two phrases (the "est fact" and "comparing him to an illegal alien").
However, I do not agree with DJ's (or birther vandals') removal of the brief, 2 1/2 sent explan (and debunking) of birtherism. For those readers who don't follow politics (or political conspiracy theories) closely, it is necessary for us to briefly explain what the terms "birther" and "birtherism" mean, and state that the conspiracy theory has been "widely and thoroughly debunked," which it has. For us to mention the conspiracy theory and its adherents & proponents, and not mention that it and they have been thoroughly disproven, is to do Wikipedia readers an utter disservice, by depriving them of the facts, of the "full story," albeit in a short 2 1/2 sentences. To let a conspiracy theory be "put out there" and aired in the public domain (in no bigger a forum than Wikipedia), and not to shoot it immediately down with the facts that completely refute it, gives conspiracy theorists exactly what they want-- air time, a debate, the guise that there is anything actually to debate, and questions left lingering in the reader's mind: "Could 9/11 really have been an inside job?", or, in the case of our article, "Could Barack Obama really be ineligible to be president?" And the conspiracy theorist loves nothing more than a famous figure like Tom DeLay to vouch for the theory, so that even just a relative few casual, non-politically sophisticated readers might wonder that night, "Gee, if someone like (as big, famous, smart, politically plugged in as) Tom DeLay wonders about the president('s eligibility, legitimacy, openness & transparency), then maybe there's something to the conspiracy theory." That's all the conspiracy theorist needs to win; to prevail over the truth that is supposed to be represented by Wikipedia-- leaving doubt in the mind of the reader; not necessarily conversion, but at least doubt, at least questions. We at Wikipedia should leave no such doubt and no such questions when, in a mere 2 1/2 sentences, we can inform the reader with the facts instead. We should not rely on hoping the reader clicks on "Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories" to learn more, when we can tell him or her the essential truth about the untruth that is the conspiracy theory in a mere 2 1/2 sentences.
Beansandveggies ( talk) 10:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
(and p.s. re DJ's claim that the 3 mentions of DeLay as a birther might be "repeating ourselves": we mention it briefly in introducing the article as a whole (in the intro); briefly in introducing the section "Life after Congress"; and we dedicate a subsection to it. That completely conforms to all appropriate Wikipedia conventions (and all standards of good writing). And we also follow that same formula with all manner of subjects in this article: DeLay's "birtherism" is not treated any differently.
(and finally, re DJ's claim that this birtherism stuff is "based on a single interview" and "that we're perhaps giving this too much prominence," I'd refer him (and anyone else who wonders similarly) to Al Campanis (i confess, that's the first one that came to mind as a Dodger fan on tonite's big nite for the team ;-) or any number of other people and pols who said amazingly revealing things about themselves in a single, memorable, (in)famous interview. I'd also refer people to the Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories article, in which other prominent pols make DeLay-like statements in support of birtherism, and then try back-tracking away from them later (just like Campanis, and the vast majority of people who make outrageous statements, once they realize how foolish they look to the vast majority of the sane). I would also remind people that many political observers believe this is precisely the strategy of people and pols like DeLay (and Blunt and Schmidt and Shelby and et. al.) in discussing the theory: to mollify the Republican base (most of whom believe in or wonder about the theory), sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of the general public (and hopefully win over a few, non-sophisticated converts), and then, to reassure the rest of (sane) America, back-track away from their original statements and deny they're ACTUALLY birthers themselves-- they just want Obama to be "fully transparent and open." That, of course, is the (charitable? ;-) cynical explanation. The (less-charitable?? or) non-cynical explanation is that we are witnessing the descent of a once bright political star into lunacy, or, another way, his implosion into a black hole; both possibilties, and explanations, of which I explore earlier in my first comments in this subsection (another thing to please refer to before making any further changes on the article's "birther" subsection). Either way you look at it, it's a story worth (at least briefly) telling, and an item worth noting, in a person's (wikipedia or other) biography.
Beansandveggies ( talk) 10:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
"Briefly," DJ, my Talk page posts were "at-length" and "detailed," which is perfectly acceptable for a Talk page. However, the subsection-- a paragraph in length-- is brief. Also brief-- 2 and 1/2 sentences-- was what I had placed in the paragraph to define and explain the term "birther" for the non-politically engaged reader, who may not see the link to, or have time to read, the much longer and more thorough article on "birtherism." I have now removed the formal def of "birther," kept one of my two (brief) parenthetical phrases, and inserted two more quotes, inc the final exchange between Matthews and DeLay, which was formerly covered (appx 1 line of text more briefly) by my first parenthetical statement. The paragraph still "reports the facts," as you say and as is our mission as Wiki editors, and my revisions still allow the previously unaware rdr to briefly know what "birtherism" is and why it's relevant (both in politics and in this article). But re "balance" and "neither supporting nor opposing birthers": would you say the same, DJ, of flat-earthers, fake moon landers, and assorted other conspiracy theorists? Shall we really start pretending it's a 50-50 proposition, and "balance" the truth equally against lunacy? Truth is what's most important, DJ, not "balance." When the facts on one side so greatly-- or completely-- outweigh the other (kooky, in this case) side, we shouldn't do (il)logical backflips or add weight to the empty side of the see-saw (or remove weight from the truthful side, as you repeatedly did in your edits) to achieve "balance" and coddle the conspiracy theorists. The truth is, simply (briefly ;-), the truth.
Beansandveggies ( talk) 10:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
re: 04:30, 4 October 2009 DMCer (talk | contribs) (76,321 bytes) (moved TV show appearance paragraphs to respective section. birther claim already has a section. intro is way too long and filled with fluff, adding tag.) (undo)
I disagree that the intro is "way too long and filled with fluff." The intro conforms to the standards on length and content as laid out in WP:Lead section, to which the "too long" tag is linked. Therefore, I'm a bit puzzled by the tag. I'll leave the tag up for now, in case DMCer (or someone else) wishes to disagree, but I think it should be taken down. While the intro can be tweaked, there are actually a few things that we should add to the intro to better reflect the article as a whole (and Mr. DeLay). As WP:Lead section explains, noteworthy things from the body of the article should be included in the intro, which is why I'm also reverting the removal of the Dancing items, inc. the " birther" mention. While I am admittedly a Dancing fan and political junkie ;-), both Dancing and birthism belong in the intro on their own merits (and not because of my personal tastes ;-)
[Dancing with the Stars is consistently the 2nd highest rated show on television in the U.S., after only American Idol. Drawing in over 10 million viewers each week every fall and spring, it is not overstating things to say it is a cultural and national phenomenon, and has been so since it premiered in the U.S. in 2005. (It is also an int'l phenomenon, as numerous other nations belong to the intl Dancing franchise and produce their own super highly-rated national versions of Dancing.) It also may not be exaggerating things to say more Americans know of Tom DeLay from his d/Dancing, than from his political career. Mr. DeLay, like all Dancing participants, is also being highly compensated (to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars) for his work on the show. Yes, it is a job for Mr. DeLay, and we should prob mention that in the Dancing subsection of the body. (Mr. DeLay has even publicly joked about "doing it for the money.") Therefore, given the prominence of the show and DeLay's prominent role as a participant on it (his participation is a quite a national and political story, esp since he is the first politician to ever appear [perhaps we should add that "first" to the article]), since it is a job for our subject, and since it is the highest Mr. DeLay's profile has been at least since leaving Congress (and perhaps ever, or perhaps ever will be the remainder of his life), we definitely should mention it in the intro.
Along these same Dancing lines, but also because they stand on their own accord too, DeLay's Sara Evans Dancing controversy, and the revelation of himself as a birther while making the media rounds promoting his Dancing participation, deserve mention in the intro as well.
Sara Evans is one of country music's biggest stars, and one of the GOP's biggest entertainment stars as well, as relatively few high-profile entertainers are Republican, or at least publicly Republican. When DeLay reemerged onto the public stage, in his (up-to-then) most prominent way since resigning from Congress in June '06, to launch a public campaign urging people to vote for Ms. Evans when she participated in season three of Dancing in the fall of 2006, it was national news. Then, midway thru the season, Evans' sudden departure from the show due to a very ugly divorce from her Republican politico husband became an even bigger national news story.
Finally, DeLay's public outing of himself as a "birther" on national television, while promoting his participation on Dancing, not only became a national news story because Mr. DeLay is perhaps the most high-profile current or former Republican to promote this conspiracy theory, but because we may be looking at {perhaps along with his [antics on] Dancing ;-)} the descent into the loony bin of formerly one of the most powerful men in America. Yes, this may prove he was crazy all along (and there is certainly ample evidence to support that, although some may contend that somewhat depends on one's political persuasion perhaps), but from his (forced, by his own Republican Party) resignation from Congress in '06 after his indictment to his now latching onto "birther" conspiracy theory (not to mention some of the strange, crazy allegations he made about "liberals" and the Clintons in his '07 memoir), we may be looking at the implosion of a once very bright, very powerful star; that is, formation of a black hole (yes, I enjoy astronomy), or to use my previous metaphor, descent into the loony bin (or at least descent into a very strange, sad personal and/or political desperation). No, I am not a psychologist making a psychological evaluation, but I am a political observer making a political (or political-psychological) evaluation, and we would be remiss not to make mention of the events constituting such formations/descents in a political figure's biographical intro. However, regardless of whether or not you support my "descent" thesis, I hope you will agree DeLay's "birtherism," on its own merits as a national news story and as a stunning admission by arguably the highest-profile Republican yet to sign on to this nutty "theory," merits mention in the intro.
Beansandveggies ( talk) 09:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
How about creating a template (like the one in the Abramoff and Cunningham scandals) containing those charged in connection with TRMPAC? DeLay, Colyandro, Eliis, Robold and possibly others I might have forgotten? I mean even if the trials are still pending, it is gonna be a lot of attention when they do commence and a template like that could improve the quality of information, as it has done in the aforementioned cases.
What is with the cyberdemon picture?
--Cooly123 16:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)On todays episode of Who Wants to be a Millionare? October 29,2009 he stated that he wanted to be a doctor during his turn as a expert, I do not know where to place this information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 ( talk • contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force (" GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs major work to meet current criteria, outlined below:
Given the serious underlying issues and amount of unsourced content, I am boldly delisting the article at present. You may renominate at WP:GAN at any time, but I encourage working with a team of editors to deal with the POV issues. Contact me at my talk if you have further questions. Thanks, -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 02:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Read here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gip-lz16ENl6h1WGTogPuD7JbMjgD9HKQIJ00 98.118.62.140 ( talk) 02:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
He is a convicted criminal now. Why are there no categories to reflect this? Merrill Stubing ( talk) 06:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't have the history on Wikipedia to confidently make a unilateral change, but it seems to be fairly common practice to put a felonious conviction in the first sentence. For example, "Tom Delay is a former Congressman...and convicted money launderer." Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LicenseAppliedFor ( talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I found:
The parenthetical "but was, at the time, not illegal for U.S. citizens abroad" referencing smoking of a Cuban cigar in Israel is questionable. I do not believe it has ever been legal for the US to forbid American travelers, including hypocrites, from engaging in activities legal in the nations being visited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.7.196 ( talk) 21:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
This section is overweighted given the subject of this article. 123.3.92.217 ( talk) 06:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this, the sources indicate that DeLay was convicted of two crimes: conspiracy to commit money laundering and money laundering. See the third paragraph of this article, which describes the sentencing possibilities on both counts. If he were not convicted of one of those crimes, then it would be impossible to be sentenced for it (and printing information about it would be irrelevant).-- Chaser ( talk) 16:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The article mentions his redistricting campaign 'to elect more Republicans'. This interpretation needs to be sourced IMO or else removed as editorialising. It may be true, but if it isn't citable it's opinion.-- Anchoress 08:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there a better photograph that can be used at the top of the article? The one shown there is really terrible. I think his mug shot is a much better likeness, but I recognize that it would be controversial to use that as the first image on the page. Even still, the man was in Congress for over 20 years. There must be some public domain or otherwise fair use image other than that lips-to-eyebrows shot (which is unsourced and subject to deletion, I might add). -- stubblyh ea d | T/ c 21:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This article reads like an attack on the politician. Undue weight and content is provided on negative aspects of this biography, far in excess of any sense of balance. - Amgine 02:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I think there is no question that language can be improved to make it more NPOV - that's probably true of most articles on active politicians, and there seems to be a constructive discussion going on here about that. More examples, or constructive editing, are certainly helpful.
As for All sections should be trimmed; most should be removed completely and/or collapsed - you seem to be saying that controversies have little or no place in wikipedia articles on politicians. That seems to me a completely different view of what wikipedia articles should be from what is currently the case. As such, I suggest taking it to the talk/discussion page of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, because this article is NOT the best place to discuss general wikipedia policy. And if you think this does not represent a radical change from current wikipedia policy, it would be great if you could point to an article or two where what you want has in fact been done.
As for what is missing, I certainly encourage you to research these and, if interesting, to add them to wikipedia. My experience has been that just requesting others to add the material tends to lead to nothing happening. John Broughton 16:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course the article should include relevant, sourced facts about Tom DeLay. The tone is suboptimal, but the idea to stub the article down to a bare skeleton, as Amgine suggests in his e-mail, is completely outlandish. NPOV should not be confused with "no POV"; it merely means that opinions and controversial claims need to be attributed and sourced, and must never be linked to Wikipedia itself. As for balance, please see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance.
Biographies about living persons are only special insofar as we must pay close attention to their content; there is no special policy about the inclusion of facts. The core policies that are applicable to all articles apply here as well. And of course that makes perfect sense. After all, an article about a company's products that includes libelous information is just as bad as one about their CEO that does so, and potentially much more harmful to them. The reason we don't have a special policy about companies' products is that most complaints and threats come, understandably, from living persons. It's therefore a matter of prioritization to treat them differently. But we don't sanitize articles to avoid getting into trouble or offending people.-- Eloquence * 11:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I think "so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material." is putting the cart before the horse. What would the article on science be if the material was not written in a manner that overwhelms the article with the idea that it's based on empirical evidence or didn't appear to side with the presumption that unfalsifiable claims have no logical validity? Kevin Baas talk 17:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
A document from the office of the Texas Secretary of State date September 6 2006 doesn't list DeLay's name as a candidate for the general election for District 22, which means that he withdrew from the ballot. [2] NatusRoma | Talk 05:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I have thought for some time now that the "Domestic policy" and "Foreign policy" sections (particularly the former) depend on a patchwork of votes and ratings instead of a synthesized narrative. I would appreciate anyone adding content or sources that provide a more complete picture of DeLay's views. NatusRoma | Talk 04:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I think someone should add a paragraph about DeLay's connections to Brent Wilkes, if I remember correctly, was one of the biggest beneficiaries of campaign contributions from Wilkes and figures prominently in the investigation of Wilkes.
This article makes Tom DeLay, a Senator who would win the Most Corrupt Man in Politics award, look like just a regular old Senetor, even one who made improvemennts to our Constitution. HE IS NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE. There is a major difference beetween hurting someone's feelings and withholding the truth. It makes the horrible crime he commited seem like a tiny flaw in a holy man. It also makes it seem like impeaching Clinton was a high and noble deed, even though no one died when he lied, whereas thousands have died because of Bush's lies. This man was a criminal, not an angel. 24.14.33.61 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Erik Baker 1/3/07
Also, A "lie" is something that is intentionally untrue. It would be a lie to say, "I have four sisters", when you really have two. When Bush said his "16 words" about British intelligence, it was in fact, true. Not a lie, because British intelligence really did say what Bush said they did. Even if the information turned out to be false, that ain't a lie. If I were to say "No one I know has ever robbed a bank", but it turned out my 5th grade teacher was a bank robber, that wouldn't make it a lie. Also, as to whether or not anyone died because of Bill, that's debatable. I do agree impeaching him over 'what' he lied about was silly, but still, the fact that he did lie... (just look at poor ol' Scooter Libby, he "lied" about something that wasn't a crime, but he was convicted).
Does anyone else think that Infobox Criminal is a bit of a NPOV violation? They fact that it says "Still at large" is ridiculous. Plus, any article with two similar infoboxes seems over the top (as Infobox Criminal and Infobox Congressperson [or whatever its title is] appear similar). Other thoughts on this? -- Daysleeper47 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone looked at the article's history recently? There's been a lot of vandalism to this site ever since the protection template was removed. Just this morning, I removed a doctored photo of DeLay from the site. I suggest reenabling protection. Any thoughts on this idea? crazyviolinist 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the following from the first paragraph as I did not see it as being very essential introductory information:
"In May 2007, a New Yorker profile of Delay quoted him saying that God spoke to him -- and told him to be more like MoveOn.org. [6]"
I believe that this video adds to the value of the article and should be published in the external links section
Tom Delay Discusses his book No Retreat, No Surrender: One American's Fight 3/20/2007
-- Uschris 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
An excellent, well-written article. I do have a few suggestions though: The article should be a bit shorter (perhaps split-off long sections), simultaneously reducing the table of contents. The article has a few minor edit wars (due to his notability), but good enough for GA. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is that the best looking photo in this article? Are there any others available? His arrest picture is way better than the one that leads thea article. Jiffypopmetaltop 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
There has been heavy anon vandalism on this article, adding silly stuff such as "satanist", and such. Please stop. And please do not change the infobox picture (which is official) to the half-face picture. Wooyi Talk, Editor review 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Was Tom a pest exterminator prior to his entering politics? Is this why he is referred to as 'the Bug Man from Sugarland'? Chris66 0831, 20 June 2007
Yes and it's included in the article, I just read it. I will refrain from removing your comment though, I invite you to re-read the page and remove your comment yourself; when you do so, you can also remove this one of mine. Dave 20:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesilvan ( talk • contribs)
As of this series of edits - these - the entire section of Grand Jury Indictments has been removed. I don't know whether this is correct or not, so I thought I'd make a note of it on the talk page. Request someone more familiar with the article to please have a look. xC | ☎ 06:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The edits are not vandalism at all but designed to reduce length and clutter in the already large article. The intent was to have material on the corruption investigation put all into a separate article with a link from the main article for quick reference 128.253.43.21 06:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I too would like to know why there's no mention of his homosexual escapades with congressional pages who were also minors. This is not something that can be forgotten, as well as the fact that FOX 'News' labeled him as a Democrat when the story broke that he was targeting a male page (i.e. staffer). My mistake, I confused him with Mark Foley; Foley was the one FOX news labeled as a Democrat when the story broke. I'm trying to sign these, using both the 4 tildes and the signature button in the control bar across the top and I keep seeing it labeled as unsigned comment, so... yeah. Dave 20:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Poemisaglock 00:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC) you can add this: http://www.rense.com/general68/10mind.htm
-- Robert Waalk ( talk) 20:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dani DeLay Ferro (2nd nomination), the content of Dani DeLay Ferro has been merged to this article. fish& karate 11:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know (cited or uncited) what is going on with the case against Tom Delay? Ronnie Earle is no longer DA (doesn't the law permit to be PA in this case anyway?) WHY has this case gone on this long? And is this our future? Weak cases against high-profile people that continue indefinitely? Jessemckay ( talk) 13:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the entire beginning of the article isn't showing on the page, but it appears in the page's source. Instead of the infobox and first paragraphs, it says only "citation needed" before the table of contents. I can't figure out if this is a bug, or something I may be overlooking, or what. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 23:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
re 03:53, 1 October 2009 Moxfyre (talk | contribs) (76,358 bytes) (→Dancing with the Stars: the tone is funny and irreverant, possibly not appropriate?)
i'm open to suggestions, but . . .
re tone tag: well, ;), if the facts are funny, then the facts are funny, que no? And who says we have to be "reverant"? (WP:"Reverance"?) ;)
re neutrality tag: "neutrality" toward a crazy conspiracy theory? "Fair and balanced"? Isn't this wikipedia, not fox news?
Beansandveggies ( talk) 10:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
“ | The false "conspiracy theory" has been widely and thoroughly debunked—among other things, President Obama and the Hawaii Department of Public Health have made public his "Certificate of Live Birth" from August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii, and two contemporaneous newspaper articles from Hawaii in August 1961 show birth announcements for Barack Obama—yet "birthers" like DeLay continue to either believe in, or at least tout, the conspiracy theory. | ” |
Hi Moxfyre :) I'll take what u've said as personal compliments, as i've written/edited most of the stuff in these sub-sections. In fact, i think one of the things u're picking up as pov is the fact that basically just one wiki editor has been at work here (me), so, as time goes on and more edits by others come in, whatever is of my "voice" will recede, and gradually be paved over ;) But i too have been wanting to add and change some things, and will; and will continue to contribute to the article, as i hope others will too.
An easy thing i'll do right now is put in a "see also" wiki link to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article in the subsection re it & DeLay. I wiki-linked it thru (first mention of) the word "birther" in the graf, but people may not click on it, and i agree we should make it more explicitly avail for people to reference.
As far as "birther" motives go, we might directly ref it to certain subsections of the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (e.g. Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Political_impact, or ref & link to other sources online. Until then, I'll change to something like "yet the 'birther' phenomenon persists" and elim the "oblivious to or scheming" phrase, but I included the phrases . . .
"either believe in, or at least tout, the conspiracy theory"
and
"oblivious to or scheming against the facts"
because i think it's imp to alert the (non-politically sophisticated/knowledgable) rdr to what's going on with birthism, and the only 2 possibs with sophisticated politicos who r birthers like DeLay. Either a given sophisticated politico is stupid, or cynical. Either he or she believes in the birther garbage themselves, or they see the political benefit in continuing to promote the conspiracy theory. As many other political observers have noted (for whom we can go fetch refs if we wish), those r the only 2 explanations for soph politicos like DeLay. Since we can't get inside the mind of DeLay, I offered both possiblities in those 2 phrases. Beansandveggies ( talk) 10:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Re recent vandalism by "birthers" and recent edits by DJ Clayworth:
Unsurprisingly, in order to promote their conspiracy theory, or make it or Mr. DeLay look less bad (by bad i mean kooky-- or cynical, take your pick), "birther" vandals have attempted to add or remove things from the subsection: "Revelation as Obama 'Birther' Conspiracy Theorist." DJ Clayworth, who, by dint of his user page, contribs and talk page would seem an unlikely birther or birther sympathizer, nevertheless has made edits (which i have mostly undone) that would put a smile on any birther's face (and perhaps make them blush).
The tweaks on which i have come to agree with DJ involve two phrases that seemed to unnecessarily antagonize the birthers and incite their vandalism-- the "established fact" phrase (which had been "watered-down" previously from "well-est fact") and the phrase "comparing the president to an illegal alien" in introducing the DeLay quote in which the former congressman does just that. As the two and a half sentences briefly explaining (and debunking) the "birther" conspiracy theory "establish," it is an "(well-)established fact" that President Obama is a "natural-born citizen," so use of the term "established fact" is, by exposition, redundant. Re the "illegal alien" phrase, we can let Mr. DeLay's words (and comparison) speak for itself; introducing it as such, obviously, becomes unnnecessary then. Therefore, I have removed those two phrases (the "est fact" and "comparing him to an illegal alien").
However, I do not agree with DJ's (or birther vandals') removal of the brief, 2 1/2 sent explan (and debunking) of birtherism. For those readers who don't follow politics (or political conspiracy theories) closely, it is necessary for us to briefly explain what the terms "birther" and "birtherism" mean, and state that the conspiracy theory has been "widely and thoroughly debunked," which it has. For us to mention the conspiracy theory and its adherents & proponents, and not mention that it and they have been thoroughly disproven, is to do Wikipedia readers an utter disservice, by depriving them of the facts, of the "full story," albeit in a short 2 1/2 sentences. To let a conspiracy theory be "put out there" and aired in the public domain (in no bigger a forum than Wikipedia), and not to shoot it immediately down with the facts that completely refute it, gives conspiracy theorists exactly what they want-- air time, a debate, the guise that there is anything actually to debate, and questions left lingering in the reader's mind: "Could 9/11 really have been an inside job?", or, in the case of our article, "Could Barack Obama really be ineligible to be president?" And the conspiracy theorist loves nothing more than a famous figure like Tom DeLay to vouch for the theory, so that even just a relative few casual, non-politically sophisticated readers might wonder that night, "Gee, if someone like (as big, famous, smart, politically plugged in as) Tom DeLay wonders about the president('s eligibility, legitimacy, openness & transparency), then maybe there's something to the conspiracy theory." That's all the conspiracy theorist needs to win; to prevail over the truth that is supposed to be represented by Wikipedia-- leaving doubt in the mind of the reader; not necessarily conversion, but at least doubt, at least questions. We at Wikipedia should leave no such doubt and no such questions when, in a mere 2 1/2 sentences, we can inform the reader with the facts instead. We should not rely on hoping the reader clicks on "Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories" to learn more, when we can tell him or her the essential truth about the untruth that is the conspiracy theory in a mere 2 1/2 sentences.
Beansandveggies ( talk) 10:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
(and p.s. re DJ's claim that the 3 mentions of DeLay as a birther might be "repeating ourselves": we mention it briefly in introducing the article as a whole (in the intro); briefly in introducing the section "Life after Congress"; and we dedicate a subsection to it. That completely conforms to all appropriate Wikipedia conventions (and all standards of good writing). And we also follow that same formula with all manner of subjects in this article: DeLay's "birtherism" is not treated any differently.
(and finally, re DJ's claim that this birtherism stuff is "based on a single interview" and "that we're perhaps giving this too much prominence," I'd refer him (and anyone else who wonders similarly) to Al Campanis (i confess, that's the first one that came to mind as a Dodger fan on tonite's big nite for the team ;-) or any number of other people and pols who said amazingly revealing things about themselves in a single, memorable, (in)famous interview. I'd also refer people to the Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories article, in which other prominent pols make DeLay-like statements in support of birtherism, and then try back-tracking away from them later (just like Campanis, and the vast majority of people who make outrageous statements, once they realize how foolish they look to the vast majority of the sane). I would also remind people that many political observers believe this is precisely the strategy of people and pols like DeLay (and Blunt and Schmidt and Shelby and et. al.) in discussing the theory: to mollify the Republican base (most of whom believe in or wonder about the theory), sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of the general public (and hopefully win over a few, non-sophisticated converts), and then, to reassure the rest of (sane) America, back-track away from their original statements and deny they're ACTUALLY birthers themselves-- they just want Obama to be "fully transparent and open." That, of course, is the (charitable? ;-) cynical explanation. The (less-charitable?? or) non-cynical explanation is that we are witnessing the descent of a once bright political star into lunacy, or, another way, his implosion into a black hole; both possibilties, and explanations, of which I explore earlier in my first comments in this subsection (another thing to please refer to before making any further changes on the article's "birther" subsection). Either way you look at it, it's a story worth (at least briefly) telling, and an item worth noting, in a person's (wikipedia or other) biography.
Beansandveggies ( talk) 10:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
"Briefly," DJ, my Talk page posts were "at-length" and "detailed," which is perfectly acceptable for a Talk page. However, the subsection-- a paragraph in length-- is brief. Also brief-- 2 and 1/2 sentences-- was what I had placed in the paragraph to define and explain the term "birther" for the non-politically engaged reader, who may not see the link to, or have time to read, the much longer and more thorough article on "birtherism." I have now removed the formal def of "birther," kept one of my two (brief) parenthetical phrases, and inserted two more quotes, inc the final exchange between Matthews and DeLay, which was formerly covered (appx 1 line of text more briefly) by my first parenthetical statement. The paragraph still "reports the facts," as you say and as is our mission as Wiki editors, and my revisions still allow the previously unaware rdr to briefly know what "birtherism" is and why it's relevant (both in politics and in this article). But re "balance" and "neither supporting nor opposing birthers": would you say the same, DJ, of flat-earthers, fake moon landers, and assorted other conspiracy theorists? Shall we really start pretending it's a 50-50 proposition, and "balance" the truth equally against lunacy? Truth is what's most important, DJ, not "balance." When the facts on one side so greatly-- or completely-- outweigh the other (kooky, in this case) side, we shouldn't do (il)logical backflips or add weight to the empty side of the see-saw (or remove weight from the truthful side, as you repeatedly did in your edits) to achieve "balance" and coddle the conspiracy theorists. The truth is, simply (briefly ;-), the truth.
Beansandveggies ( talk) 10:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
re: 04:30, 4 October 2009 DMCer (talk | contribs) (76,321 bytes) (moved TV show appearance paragraphs to respective section. birther claim already has a section. intro is way too long and filled with fluff, adding tag.) (undo)
I disagree that the intro is "way too long and filled with fluff." The intro conforms to the standards on length and content as laid out in WP:Lead section, to which the "too long" tag is linked. Therefore, I'm a bit puzzled by the tag. I'll leave the tag up for now, in case DMCer (or someone else) wishes to disagree, but I think it should be taken down. While the intro can be tweaked, there are actually a few things that we should add to the intro to better reflect the article as a whole (and Mr. DeLay). As WP:Lead section explains, noteworthy things from the body of the article should be included in the intro, which is why I'm also reverting the removal of the Dancing items, inc. the " birther" mention. While I am admittedly a Dancing fan and political junkie ;-), both Dancing and birthism belong in the intro on their own merits (and not because of my personal tastes ;-)
[Dancing with the Stars is consistently the 2nd highest rated show on television in the U.S., after only American Idol. Drawing in over 10 million viewers each week every fall and spring, it is not overstating things to say it is a cultural and national phenomenon, and has been so since it premiered in the U.S. in 2005. (It is also an int'l phenomenon, as numerous other nations belong to the intl Dancing franchise and produce their own super highly-rated national versions of Dancing.) It also may not be exaggerating things to say more Americans know of Tom DeLay from his d/Dancing, than from his political career. Mr. DeLay, like all Dancing participants, is also being highly compensated (to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars) for his work on the show. Yes, it is a job for Mr. DeLay, and we should prob mention that in the Dancing subsection of the body. (Mr. DeLay has even publicly joked about "doing it for the money.") Therefore, given the prominence of the show and DeLay's prominent role as a participant on it (his participation is a quite a national and political story, esp since he is the first politician to ever appear [perhaps we should add that "first" to the article]), since it is a job for our subject, and since it is the highest Mr. DeLay's profile has been at least since leaving Congress (and perhaps ever, or perhaps ever will be the remainder of his life), we definitely should mention it in the intro.
Along these same Dancing lines, but also because they stand on their own accord too, DeLay's Sara Evans Dancing controversy, and the revelation of himself as a birther while making the media rounds promoting his Dancing participation, deserve mention in the intro as well.
Sara Evans is one of country music's biggest stars, and one of the GOP's biggest entertainment stars as well, as relatively few high-profile entertainers are Republican, or at least publicly Republican. When DeLay reemerged onto the public stage, in his (up-to-then) most prominent way since resigning from Congress in June '06, to launch a public campaign urging people to vote for Ms. Evans when she participated in season three of Dancing in the fall of 2006, it was national news. Then, midway thru the season, Evans' sudden departure from the show due to a very ugly divorce from her Republican politico husband became an even bigger national news story.
Finally, DeLay's public outing of himself as a "birther" on national television, while promoting his participation on Dancing, not only became a national news story because Mr. DeLay is perhaps the most high-profile current or former Republican to promote this conspiracy theory, but because we may be looking at {perhaps along with his [antics on] Dancing ;-)} the descent into the loony bin of formerly one of the most powerful men in America. Yes, this may prove he was crazy all along (and there is certainly ample evidence to support that, although some may contend that somewhat depends on one's political persuasion perhaps), but from his (forced, by his own Republican Party) resignation from Congress in '06 after his indictment to his now latching onto "birther" conspiracy theory (not to mention some of the strange, crazy allegations he made about "liberals" and the Clintons in his '07 memoir), we may be looking at the implosion of a once very bright, very powerful star; that is, formation of a black hole (yes, I enjoy astronomy), or to use my previous metaphor, descent into the loony bin (or at least descent into a very strange, sad personal and/or political desperation). No, I am not a psychologist making a psychological evaluation, but I am a political observer making a political (or political-psychological) evaluation, and we would be remiss not to make mention of the events constituting such formations/descents in a political figure's biographical intro. However, regardless of whether or not you support my "descent" thesis, I hope you will agree DeLay's "birtherism," on its own merits as a national news story and as a stunning admission by arguably the highest-profile Republican yet to sign on to this nutty "theory," merits mention in the intro.
Beansandveggies ( talk) 09:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
How about creating a template (like the one in the Abramoff and Cunningham scandals) containing those charged in connection with TRMPAC? DeLay, Colyandro, Eliis, Robold and possibly others I might have forgotten? I mean even if the trials are still pending, it is gonna be a lot of attention when they do commence and a template like that could improve the quality of information, as it has done in the aforementioned cases.
What is with the cyberdemon picture?
--Cooly123 16:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)On todays episode of Who Wants to be a Millionare? October 29,2009 he stated that he wanted to be a doctor during his turn as a expert, I do not know where to place this information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 ( talk • contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force (" GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs major work to meet current criteria, outlined below:
Given the serious underlying issues and amount of unsourced content, I am boldly delisting the article at present. You may renominate at WP:GAN at any time, but I encourage working with a team of editors to deal with the POV issues. Contact me at my talk if you have further questions. Thanks, -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 02:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Read here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gip-lz16ENl6h1WGTogPuD7JbMjgD9HKQIJ00 98.118.62.140 ( talk) 02:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
He is a convicted criminal now. Why are there no categories to reflect this? Merrill Stubing ( talk) 06:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't have the history on Wikipedia to confidently make a unilateral change, but it seems to be fairly common practice to put a felonious conviction in the first sentence. For example, "Tom Delay is a former Congressman...and convicted money launderer." Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LicenseAppliedFor ( talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I found:
The parenthetical "but was, at the time, not illegal for U.S. citizens abroad" referencing smoking of a Cuban cigar in Israel is questionable. I do not believe it has ever been legal for the US to forbid American travelers, including hypocrites, from engaging in activities legal in the nations being visited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.7.196 ( talk) 21:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
This section is overweighted given the subject of this article. 123.3.92.217 ( talk) 06:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this, the sources indicate that DeLay was convicted of two crimes: conspiracy to commit money laundering and money laundering. See the third paragraph of this article, which describes the sentencing possibilities on both counts. If he were not convicted of one of those crimes, then it would be impossible to be sentenced for it (and printing information about it would be irrelevant).-- Chaser ( talk) 16:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)