Talk:Grover Norquist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note[edit]

Note the additional info about foreign Islamic influence including attempts to name associate with bin laden.

lots of issues | leave me a message 21:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it is true, why is the neutrality of the page being disputed? Truth is inherently neutral.

Tax fraud. It's ugly too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.95.141 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Asserted[edit]

But as usual for the astroturf sock, no justification in talk. --Gorgonzilla 21:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Truth is inherently neutral."

That is totally false! Printing true statements, while omitting other true statements is NOT inherently neutral at all!

I am a very novice editor. It seems to me the reference to him in the book "Screwing America" should not be in the biography. Grover Norquist is mentioned in dozens (if not hundreds) of books, with both negative and positive connotations. (Search for his name in Google Books to get an overview) By calling out this single reference, and within it's own heading, it overly emphasizes the negative. I did not delete the reference because I was not sure if it was better to discuss it here first. --subbob 10:11, 10 June 2007 (CST)

Good reasoning. I went ahead and deleted it. Steve Dufour 04:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New section under controversies[edit]

I added the section on Norquist comparing the estate tax to the Holocaust. I added a sentence summarizing Norquist's explanation of the quote from the primary source (that he wasn't comparing the events, just the morality behind the acts), so that the section wouldn't be taken out of context. It's still a pretty bad quote, though. Oh well, I hate the guy, and I think that I was lenient giving him the extra qualifying sentence.

Ihavenoheroes 16:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ihavenoheroes, your comment "Oh well, I hate the guy" tells us that you are unlikely to have a NPOV about the subject, although we can get to this conclusion via other means.

The title "Comparison of the estate tax to the Holocaust" is misleading and illicit. In fact, as the text below it reads, "Norquist compared the morality" employed to rationalize the different deeds. He alleges that the excuse offered in defense if each is the same. This is not at all equivalent to comparing the deeds theirselves as you insinuate.

The quote attributed to Norquist substantiates the judgement that the section title is flawed. As written, the title is a crude smear; it should be revised if the section itself is not entirely deleted.

A suitable replacement would NOT be "Comparision of the morality of estate tax to the morality of the Holocaust" for the quote provided does not at all support the idea that he was commenting on the whole set of rationalizations from morality used in each case. A better one would be simply "Comment about the estate tax and the Holocaust."


The quote, by the way, is not "pretty bad" but right on the money and portrays the object of your spite in a favorable light, notwithstanding your best efforts to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.91.187 (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are off topic and violate several WP policies. FYI, editors are not expected or required to "have a NPOV about the subject" -- none of us do, certainly not you. -- Jibal (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quote to Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air that the rationalization for the estate tax was the same rationalization used by the Nazi's during the Holocaust should appear under the controversies section. Leaving it out indicates a bias in this article. He specifically said that the rationalization used by those who want to impose the estate tax is the same rationalization used by the Nazis during the Holocaust. The quote is not taken out of context; it's exactly what he said. Unless someone objects, I am going to put the exact quote, Terry's Gross's attempt to clarify what he was saying and his reiteration of what he said under controversies with appropriate documentation.

Norquist's legal team??[edit]

Lawyer2b removed this text, a decision I agree with, but I want to note it here (I've removed some leading spaces that made it look particularly poorly formated when the text was in the article):

As a prominent figure in republican politics Grover Norquist has frequently been the victim of attack (from those on the political left)using of guilt by association tactics.
was not created to be used as a tool to asassinate the charactor of those whose political beliefs differ from your own through the use of libel slander guilt by association
Allegations that are often supported by highly biased and partisan sources.
Wikepedia must have rules to prevent libelous and slanderous entries.
Legal team on behalf of Mr Norquist request the cease using such a prominent open source publication to attack his reputation and charactor.

This was posted by 24.17.65.82, who has no other posting history. Anyone think that this really was posted by the "legal team"? There is a process, I assume, for notifying the folks that run the website of real legal threat. I do find it hard to believe that a lawyer would write so badly (maybe a paralegal?), and misuse a legal term like slander (slander is SPOKEN, not WRITTEN). John Broughton 17:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt any lawyer, let alone legal team, wrote that. "Charactor" "asassinat[ion]"? Lawyer2b 16:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is illegal to present yourself as a lawyer if you're not a lawyer. It is illegal to imply you're a lawyer if you're not a lawyer. I would suggest to anyone attempting to give the impression that they are a lawyer when they're not and attempting to obtain ANYTHING at all through such a ruse that such actions can be and are prosecuted and more, you're NOT anonymous on the internet.

IANAL, however it appears to me that the words "legal team on behalf of Mr. Norquist" is an attempt to represent yourself as a lawyer. I suggest this be referred internally to Wikipedia and externally to interested authorities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.136.199 (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish heritage?[edit]

The name Norquist looks Swedish, does anyone know if he has Swedish heritage? /Slarre 02:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wife's Heritage[edit]

The article says his wife was "born muslim". Can you really be born muslim, of just of muslim parents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.37.221 (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing "...Palestinian Muslim[44] named Samah Alrayyes,[69][70] a Kuwaiti PR specialist..." [emphasis added] is also odd.

Is one or the other accurate? Should it be hyphenated? X-born, Y-raised? The current wording is confusing, at any rate. 180.0.99.206 (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abromoff in the head?[edit]

Really? That's why Norquist is notable? I'm not important enough to change it, but it seems like there ought to be a better place for "His close business and political ties to recently indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff are the subject of a current federal investigation."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.232.72 (talk • contribs)

If this article was at all fair/neutral to its subject, the "scandal" portion would be far down the article, much like in the Michael Moore article, in which his directing "work" is front and center as it should be, and only FAR down the article are the controversies (mitigated, however, with someone's clever use of the "Warning: weasel words" template to mute anything negative said about him.) - Nhprman List 05:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you raise some good points. I was bold, and re-ordered the sections. -- Sholom 12:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good move. We'll see if it lasts. - Nhprman List 15:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to Republicans it sounds to me as if they currently consider Norquist to be radioactive as a direct result of the Abramoff scandal. Norquist is no longer the Washington player he once was. His weekly lunches are no longer 'must attend' events for GOP lobbyists. The K-street project is no longer operating except in name. The scandals that Norquist has been involved in are directly related to the operation of K-street and his relationship to DeLay, Abramoff, Reed and other 'culture of corruption' figures. Even if Norquist had not been personally involved with Abramoff the Abramoff scandal is the principal reason for the demise of DeLay (it is generally agreed that it is the expected Abramoff related indictment rather than the current Texas indictment that led to Delay's resignation). And without ties to the DeLay machine Norquist is simply not a player.

The comparison to Michael Moore is not relevant. His films are unabashed polemics. There are plenty of people on the left who consider him a complete jack-ass. The fact that his work is controvertial is stated clearly in the header He is widely known for his outspoken, critical views on.... Unlike Norquist, Moore is not a target in the biggest Washington corruption scandal since Teapot Dome. none of Moore's close associates have been accused of corruption by a Senate Committee (Reed), indicted (DeLay), or pled guilty to corruption (Abramoff, Safavian, &ct). --Gorgonzilla 16:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a lot more connection to Abramoff than mentioned on the page. See BillMoyers report on Abramoff. http://billmoyers.com/content/moyers-on-america-capitol-crimes/101.51.239.48 (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Allies[edit]

1. They are not "religious allies," they are Islamic terrorists.

2. This section is much more important than the Abramoff scandal, regardless of its scope.

A political operative with ties for foreign goverments that were on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terror, i.e. Libya, and two of the most destructive, powerful Islamic terror organizations on the planet, i.e. Hezbollah, and Hamas, is a lot more important than the corruption of Congress or the White House, which has existed-to some degree or another-since the Jackson administration. 72.68.172.229 13:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 Aug 2007, an unregistered editor deleted all the material linking Grover Norquist to convicted conspirator Sami Al-Arian. In the process, this deletion scrambled some following text and references. I have repaired the formatting damage, but I don't know enough about the issues surrounding the link between Norquist and al-Arian to know whether it is important or not. I elected to leave the material out, but it follows my signature here in case someone wants to reintroduce it. —Aetheling 16:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norquist has been linked to Florida professor and Muslim activist Sami Al-Arian. On March 2, 2006, Al-Arian pled guilty to one count of conspiracy "to make or receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad."[1] He was sentenced to 57 months in prison, of which he had already served 38, and to then be deported.

  • In July, 2001, Norquist received an award from the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF), a civil liberties group headed by Al-Arian. This award was for Norquist’s work to abolish the use of secret intelligence evidence in terrorism cases, a position Bush had adopted in the 2000 campaign.[2] After the September 11th, 2001 attacks, the NCPPF urged Muslims not to cooperate with the U.S. government.[3]
  • Conservative activist Frank Gaffney, whose offices were on the same floor of the building where Norquist works, said that Al-Arian visited with Norquist in July 2002.[2]
  • Norquist's name was mentioned by al-Arian's lawyers during his 2005 trial.[4]

References

  1. ^ Plea Agreement, Sami Al-Arian, February 28, 2006
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference SPT-3-11-03 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ As early as April 23, 1999, NCPPF was listed as a project of the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization and as early as April 19, 2000, NCPPF advised "Know Your Rights Don't Talk to the FBI". That web page was still linked by NCPPF as late as August 2, 2002.
  4. ^ Paul Sperry, "Sami's Guardian Angel", FrontPageMag.com, December 9, 2005

Ties to Al-Qaida?[edit]

The bottom-line here is, Norquist has no association to Al-Qaida, as some have asserted, period. [1] because the assertion that any of his associates do so is patently false. 19:44, 26 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billmunny (talk • contribs)

Okay, the link you provided seems fairly authoritative, and the paragraph in the wikipedia article was pretty speculative, so I've removed it. But I put the rest of the text that you deleted back in.
When you delete two entire sections, which (I haven't followed the links) seem reasonably well-sourced, you need to justify more than the inaccuracy of one paragraph within one of those sections. Again, posting an explanation here is appreciated (bottom of the page, though, and probably with a new section heading. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 21:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted the source for the Bathtub Comment which I had incorrectly changed a long time ago. Simply tried to meet proper standards. Mcas 01:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the three sentences under the heading "Alleged links to radical Islamists and terrorism" could be moved into the section above ("Religious allies"). The loaded heading "Alleged links to radical Islamists and terrorism" could then be removed. What does everyone else think? Rlorenc 20:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008[edit]

Who is Grover supporting? -Amit

Now, it seems like he is supporting Mr. Opportunist (i.e. Mitt Romney). Has it not come to his knowledge that business fees went up signficantly in Massachusetts to balance the budget? This was on MSNBC's "Tucker." -Amit, 03/02/07

rumors[edit]

Also, Norquist is not a member of the CFR. See here - http://www.cfr.org/publication/13430/price_of_liberty.html -- "And I'm sure if Grover Norquist were a member of the council, he would say people like you that are going to cause us problems, Bush's tax cuts were the way to go..." -- ie he ain't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.207.195 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I deleted the previous version of this section, applying WP:BLP, since all the sourcing there is (so far) might charitably be called "speculative rumor".

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

So far, there really are only a couple of blog posts carrying this (albeit on very very high traffic blogs), there isn't even a 1/4th credible source repeating it as rumor yet, not even Wonkette. I know, y'all were trying to cautious, but I think even the speculative association is somewhat toxic.

While the rumor may be very plausible to many, that's not enough to overcome WP:BLP. We'll know soon enough anyway... Studerby 05:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current WP:BLP problems with this article[edit]

Much of Grover_Norquist#Other_criticisms_and_controversies is not written from a neutral point of view, but as a partisan attack page. See, for example, my attempt to bring header of the "Anti-government approach" section into conformity with WP:NPOV by renaming it to "Limited-government approach", which, along with the rest of my edits, was summarily reverted. John254 12:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we, and the encyclopedia, will be best off if we work together instead of threatening each other. I would appreciate that a lot. I'm sorry if my revert of your major rewrite upset you. Reading Norquist's own words[2] it seems that he is an advocate of something stronger than just limited government. Perhaps his comments about drowning the government in a bathtub are entirely facetious, but all of his public statements and policy work seems to be extremely anti-federal government. Commitment to the Neutral Point of View also means avoiding weasel words. To take a cue from the ATR website, I believe the best way to describe his policy is "Minimal government approach". --User At Work 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-structured the 'minimizing Government Power' to remove the unnecessary speculation that the 'bathtub' comment was facetious. Placed the ATR mission as first, then provided quotes and supporting information below to exemplify his intent to minimize government power. --Mcas (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Kerry with a tan?[edit]

I have removed the section referring to a comment made regarding Barack Obama. I think the fact that someone made this edit to the original version makes it fairly clear that there is no way this text can conform to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, at least not without some high quality sources. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's NOT a mosque!!![edit]

Someone put in the blurb about Norquist's view of the islamic center that more importantly, a mosque is the idea. This is implied by the title: "New york mosque-controversy"

It is NOT a mosque. Look it up! I understand all the hoopla but look at what the proposal for the building is. Then look up what a mosque is...

This is why %99 of what I read on wikipedia is purely apolitical, It amazes me to read articles on such an important figure when they contain glaring inaccuracies.

Conndog (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the word illegal from Iran-Contra reference[edit]

Hi, I removed the word "illegal" regarding Norquist's involvement with Oliver North's efforts. The efforts were never anything more than deemed illegal. The Boland Amendment to the defense appropriations act was anything but clear cut, and no one was ever prosecuted for behavior involved in the actual arming of the Contras in Nicaragua. The prosecutions had to do with lying to Congress, which is a separate issue in my mind. Just a little change, but I think it helps the neutrality of the article on this small front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.184.19.174 (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strongly bias quote in info paragraph? the quote isn't even accurate to the source[edit]

I just removed it he other day, since the man's stance on tax reform is clearly stated further down in the article, the reference is used elsewhere in the article and the quote isn't even accurately taken from the source. Since the inaccurate quote has been added back, I'll ask if somebody feels this can be reworded to remove such a strong bias at the beginning of the man's page? At the very least the quote should be accurate to the source material. But, I would contend it doesn't belong in the intro at all. Bilrand (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK the inaccuracy has been corrected by removing "under any circumstance." Of course there is still the more substantive question of whether what remains is biased. Your interest in raising this on the Talk page instead of just reverting again is appreciated.
Aside from noting that Norquist's anti-tax pledge itself uses the phrase "“oppose any and all", please note that the source is an Associated Press wire story. This means that you'll find this quote in a wide variety of respected media outlets which themselves have editorial views which range across the political spectrum. The source also describes him as an "anti-tax diehard" and says the "rigidity [of Norquist's pledge] tends to squelch even modest flexibility. Die-hard conservatives such as tea party activists see that as an asset. Others, however, say the inflexibility hampers GOP efforts to negotiate tough agreements with Democrats." This seems to suggest that if you are a "die-hard conservative", rigidly opposing any tax increase is something to be proud of as opposed to something to apologize for. It's only when one assumes that it is something to apologize for that a negative bias is created, and assuming a particular political perspective in this way is exactly when the neutral POV policy is meant to avoid.
I don't see the reference being used elsewhere as especially relevant but even if it is, it is used as a secondary support to a Bloomberg wire reference. Indeed, when it comes to general theme, the two wire stories reinforce each other to a large degree.
Characterizing Mr Norquist's stance as "rigid" is not just consistent with this AP source but with the bulk of the available sources. It would also be consistent with the sources to imply that this is what makes Mr Norquist's stance distinctive. I don't see how the text at issue is unfair to the subject or unrepresentative. Wikipedia is not a PR outfit or advertising venue such that a subject's views are presented in accordance with how the subject or his organization wants them presented. If, for example, Mr Norquist says his advocacy for small government is as important as his anti-tax advocacy, this claim may be noted incidentally, but for him to be described as such in the introduction his fingerprints (ie evidence of his influence) ought to be in evidence on terminated or cut back government programs to an extent approaching the extent to which his fingerprints on tax policy can be found.
I would add that no description in the introduction would constitute bias, because such non-information would arise out of of deletion or suppression of the extent of his influence, who he has influenced, and just what the nature of his influence has been. As it stands now, the quote used explains in a nutshell why the subject is notable. I suggest we be ambitious and strive for the most definitive statement that can be supported instead of watering it down to the lowest common denominator.
--Brian Dell (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Making the quote accurate deals with the major issue. But, it does seem that taking a single aspect of someones career and placing it center stage like this does show an overall bias. I don't see it as negative bias, just an overly narrow view. The man appears to have done many things, one of which is shill over tax reform.
I'm not sure how not saying this particular bit in the introduction can be considered bias. The article goes into plenty of detail about the topic further down. Bilrand (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no one else has anything to say, I'll remove the line again in another day or two. Bilrand (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is objected to, and I do not believe that you have responded to the objections. If you are "not sure" how to construct an argument supporting your allegation of bias, I suggest you don't have support for your preferred reading. OF COURSE he has "done many things," this is trivially true of every bio in Wikipedia, and that fact does not render it impossible to make any sort of summary statement about what the subject is famous (or infamous) for. THIS SUBJECT is primarily known for his influence on tax policy and on GOP legislators in particular. His position is relatively uncompromising, and this fact might well be what distinguishes him from Washington's many other lobbyists. This is well established by the sources and you have not cited contradicting sources. An example of evidence that this is inaccurate would be finding a contemporary biographical style article about the subject where the introduction talks about him as being known for something else with the implication that his position on taxes is incidental. Can you refer us to such articles? Are these found as commonly as the sort of article that is currently footnoted by the introduction? If you truly concerned just with NPOV, then why do you do not reword instead of delete? Simple deletion suggests a lack of imagination about how to keep the article informative. I trust that you share the project's goal of informing readers.--Brian Dell (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost nothing you've said I said has been said. I did not suggest anything was wrong. I did not suggest removal of information. I am simple suggesting removing a bias quote from a bias source from the intro paragraph for this article. With all aspects of the quote being well covered elsewhere in the article (that is, no reader "informing" would be harmed). Plenty of wikipedia bibliographical articles have short into paragraphs. There would be nothing unusual about that. I will also note that the current reading does not have support and only exists because it was changed back to this instead of opening a dialog over the issue in the talk page as per standard practice. Bilrand (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing is wrong then what is the problem with the current reading? I'm making your argument for you by drawing out the logically necessary implications of what you must mean because unless I do so you don't have an argument that can be responded to. Not removing information? Then where is your proposed alternative reading that is less biased but just as informative? How is the quote biased? You claim bias without presenting an alternative presentation and then explaining why that presentation would be more accurate and less biased. Since when is the Associated Press biased? Can you point to a WP:RS discussion where the consensus was that this particular source is biased? I do not like to edit war, but I can assure you that I will do what I can to prevent the gutting of Wikipedia that a purging of AP references would entail, and I am quite confident that the consensus of editors supports my view on this. If I am misrepresenting your view somehow then do you retract your specific charge that the quote is "from a bias source"? "Covered elsewhere in the article" is an argument to having no introduction at all, which would not be informative. You seem to be implying that a two sentence introduction would be too long, since you don't seem to be willing to extend your argument for having a "short" introduction to supporting the two sentence introduction that currently exists. "Does not have support" from who? From you? How about the sources? Where are the sources that do not support the current reading? I am violating "standard practice" in terms of my willingness to "dialog"? Can you be more specific (accepted "practices" are generally written on Wikipedia's WP pages, if not there, the claimed "standard practice" is in fact only a standard practice in the eyes of the person claiming it to be so)?--Brian Dell (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There would now appear to be three editors that don't consider the sentence in question appropriate. One went so far as to call it "bias editorializing" which it certainly is. It would be nice if the other two edits came from logged in users and not just IP addresses. I'm no comfortable drawing consensus from IP only accounts. But we certainly are moving in the direction of consensus. Bilrand (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norquist and those two IP addresses all originate from Massachusetts, and in any case there still has to be engagement on the Talk page. This last response of yours did not respond to any of my points. You continue to allege bias without saying what the bias is. Surely if something exists you can describe it. I am more than willing to work with you here if you are willing to work with me and come up with some wording that identifies what the subject is most well known for while doing so in a fair way. He is NOT most well known for being the head of ATR. That's incidental to being known for having an influence on GOP politicians and for encouraging them to take a stand on tax issues in particular that may be described as "firm", "uncompromising", or whatever (I am not insisting on any particular language, although I do suggest that if the Associated Press language is good enough for the vast majority of American newspapers across the political spectrum, it is a good starting point for a NPOV Wikipedia article). There should be SOMETHING here in the article to this effect if you are not trying to hide something about the subject. The language used here has already been considerably diluted and sanded down from what's typical.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I object to the inline attribution to Charles Babington. If he's subject to AP's editorial control the attribution should be to AP. And if the "opinion" is not unique to AP but widely held it should not be attributed to AP either. Why? Because it creates the misleading impression that the "opinion" expressed is idiosyncratic or otherwise not widely held. The number of sources claiming something similar is enormous, if one disputes that, one should come here and say that it is disputed, at which point I could start listing the evidence. For the moment, I've added another source (60 Minutes) to partially correct the false impression that "Charles Babington" is some sort of lone voice, but the more encyclopedic reading would be a single, unattributed remark that makes the point and makes it fairly.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

arrest record[edit]

he was referred to as a "petty criminal" on cable news today, is there any truth to that or is it just metaphor? 66.220.113.98 (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

adopted children[edit]

Are the Norquist children adopted? They are very close in age and the yonger one appears to be a natural blond, highly unlikely if her mother is an Arab. Also, this would seem to confirm other rhumors as well. Dutchman Schultz (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's a rhumor? Moncrief (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source. 2. a statement or report current without known authority for its truth. Dutchman Schultz (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rumor. Moncrief (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, be an ass hole! If you really cared about Wikipedia, instead of being a snot about it, you would simply have corrected my typing error and let it drop. But no, you have to be sarcastic, uncharitable, petty, nit-picking, and just a total shit about it. Go troll somewhere else; Wikipedia needs coöperation, not sabotage! Dutchman Schultz (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already know Moncrief is an asshole, but you, Dutchman Schultz, you need to polish your "A" game. You had the trolls head right on your plate and you blew it.12.39.179.62 (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And how should I have handled it? R.M. Schultz (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better source for statement "ATR started at request of Ronald Reagan"[edit]

I think this line: "Norquist is best known for founding Americans for Tax Reform in 1985, which he did at the request of President Ronald Reagan." needs to be either removed or have a different source. Right now the source is the Americans for Tax Reform website. Can their own "about" section really be a proper source for this statement?

I came over to this article in Wikipedia specifically to find a source for that statement & was a little bummed when it directed me right back to ATR.

I tried a quick search on google but couldn't really find anything better.

66.158.61.130 (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)jess[reply]

Agreed. I have slightly revised the wording to better match the claim and the source from which it is derived. Grandpallama (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Views on government - unsourced material removed[edit]

I have removed this material because it is not sourced. If anyone has a RS for these statements, please feel free to re-add them to the article. -KeptSouth (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tax Pledge has been used as rationale by ATR for not closing tax loopholes which disproportionately favor specific industries.[citation needed] Norquist has been criticized for foregoing traditional Republican ideals of fiscal responsibility so as to maintain the position regarding tax policy.[citation needed]

New source: A Lesson in Conservative Optimism, The Weekend Interview by Stephen Moore, Wall Street Journal, November 23, 2012

Currency[edit]

Should there be a mention on Norquist trying to get Reagan on the 10 dollar bill in place of Alexander Hamilton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.32.72 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage years?[edit]

How was Norquist a volunteer for Nixon's 1968 campaign during his "teenage years" when he wasn't even a teenager until 1969 (born October 1956)? 174.19.137.71 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done   Davemck (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Governor of what state?[edit]

Is there some reason the article doesn't indicate what state he's governor of? And shouldn't this be sentence number 1, as it is for others? Betaneptune (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Betaneptune: You don't say who you mean when you say "he," but I assume you're referring to George W. Bush. Bush was governor of Texas, and I've clarified that in the article. I don't see any reference to Grover Norquist being "governor" of anything, but I'll take another look. Famspear (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation[edit]

"Conservative Libertarian" is not an occupation. Suggest "Political activist". 72.66.76.211 (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Done.--S. Rich (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GN as a Republican[edit]

ATR About Grover says he was staff on past Republican Campaign Committees and the Executive Direct of College Republicans. That is enough to say he's a Republican & categorize him as same. --S. Rich (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Grover Norquist. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Grover Norquist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pics[edit]

Norquist was at an event I attended this past weekend. Took a few pictures. Putting them here in case editors of this page find them useful (the outdoor context may be too "unprofessional" or may add variety -- I don't know). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grover_Norquist&oldid=1217906298"