Talk:Chris Shays/Archive 1

This archive includes threads from Talk:Chris Shays from the page's creation until December 31st, 2008.

Official biography for Congressman Shays
Hello, My name is Sarah Moore, and I am Congressman Shays' Press Secretary. I would ask and suggest that the following official biography please be used in updating Christopher Shays' Wikipedia article. We feel that it is the most factually based and accurate in its representation of the Congressman.

Thank you, Sarah Moore Press Secretary Office of Congressman Christopher Shays sarah.moore@mail.house.gov Christopher H. Shays (born October 18 1945), American politician, has been a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives since 1987, representing the 4th District of Connecticut (map), which includes 17 towns in Southwest Connecticut Born in Stamford, Connecticut, Shays grew up in Darien, attended Principia College and received an MBA and MPA fromm New York University. He and his wife Betsi -- his high school sweetheart -- served in the Peace Corps in Fiji. He was a seven term member of the Connecticut House of Representatives before entering the U.S. House of Representatives. Now in his tenth term, he was first elected to the Congress in 1987 in a special election held to fill the vacant seat of the late Stewart McKinney. In the 109th Congress, Shays serves as Vice-Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform. He Chairs the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations. Shays is also a member of the Financial Services and Homeland Security Committees.

Political Views
A moderate Republican known for his independence, the New York Times hailed Shays, saying "...his record reflects a rare thoughtfulness and considerable independence....Legislators with the fearlessness and principles of Mr. Shays aren't easy to come by." An expert on terrorism, Shays devotes much of his time to improving our nation’s military, intelligence and homeland security operations through tough oversight and legislative reform. He has traveled to Iraq 11 times -- more than any other legislator -- to conduct oversight first-hand, speaking to American and Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi citizens and military leaders. Shays has been a committed advocate to good government practices, serving as the driving force behind reforming our nation’s campaign finance laws, requiring Congress to live by the laws it writes and holding elected leaders to a higher ethical standard. Representing a largely urban District, Shays addresses the cities’ needs, working to clean up and redevelop industrial sites, improve our transportation system, reduce crime and stimulate the economy by getting our financial house in order. He recently launched the One Coast, One Future initiative, bringing Norwalk, Bridgeport and Stamford together to promote regional economic development and attract more businesses to the area. As a member of the Financial Services Committee, which oversees an industry critical to the Fourth Congressional District's regional economy, he is an advocate for improvements in housing, community development, the securities and insurance industries, and U.S. capital markets. Shays is steadfast in his commitment to protecting our environment, advocating humane treatment of animals and ending discrimination in the workplace.

Vandalism, or illiteracy
Someone added information that Shays used negative ads in 2004 when the source cited to said EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE (which is correct, I live in CT and know he didn't)

If you are either malicious or ignoarant go play in another sandbox The editor who keeps wiping the article clean is removing scads of relevant and useful information, We could just give a name and date of birth, but then this would be more like a phone directory

View on Tom DeLay
In April of 2005, he broke with most of his party over House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's alleged ethics violations. This made Shays the first Republican to say DeLay should step down from the Majority Leader post. He also fought to maintain the Republican Party rule that requires an indicted leader to step down -- the rule that ultimately resulted in Tom DeLay's resignation. Shays is a member of various Liberal/Moderate Republican groups, such as The Republican Main Street Partnership, Republicans For Choice, The Republican Majority For Choice, Republicans For Environmental Protection and Its My Party Too.

&mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by StephenPBarry (talk • contribs). 17:23, 6 February 2006


 * Hi Sarah,
 * Thanks for your honesty in admitting who you are and asking Wikipedia to include your version. This is the sort of approach that should be used more often by politicians and their staff. But the relationship between Wikipedia and politicians is (or should be) similar to that between journalists and politicians. Honesty and declaring ones interests is important and is the fairest way to reach an article that gets the facts right, allowing the reader to decide for themselves what they think. I hope fellow Wikipedians will include any new facts and carefully consider any discrepancies.
 * Also, as I am not a citizen of the US I must point out that "our nation" is not accurate - even if the majority of Wikipedia contributors are American (and I'm not even sure about that) they are all working for an international encyclopedia. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 23:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't "thank her for her honesty". Congressional staffers had already reverted the page into that censored biography see here. They only posted it here after it had been reverted (though we can't be sure that the person who made the post in this talk page is who they say they are). I was under the assumption that Jimbo had banned all these IPs, unfortunately it seems he hasn't and they are still free to spread their disinformation across Wikipedia.---Jersey Devil 05:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think she should be thanked for her honesty. I second what Aaron McDaid said. Kevin Baastalk

Congressmonkeys getting involved
Congress itself is now getting involved in this article. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 15:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

any relation to Daniel Shays?
Is there any indication he's related to Daniel Shays, the leader of Shays' Rebellion?--KrossTalk 22:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Do Democrats Oppose Shays?
From the article, as revised, it's difficult to tell -- apparently, Shays' only enemies are on the right. Sandy, you might consider returning the sourced criticisms Democrats have leveled, since you have been generous enough to remove them.Francisx 06:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to add any content that is written in a neutral tone and based on the highest-quality reliable sources per WP:BLP. Unsourced, or poorly sourced criticism of living persons has no place in Wikipedia. Regards, Sandy 13:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Statements sourced to Diane Farrell's website
DONE, poorly-sourced text removed by JzG. Sandy 22:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Some questions and comments about this edit: I changed the statement that Shays was "in the process of" questioning his faith, as I don't know what "in the process of" means in that context (you're either questioning your faith, or you're not), and the source didn't use those words. Please remember to attribute sources and to stick to what they say. Sandy 01:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Please don't introduce weasel words into articles.  "Some critics, however, allege" is weasly, using words to avoid.  Wiki is an encyclopedia, reporting what reliable secondary sources say, not what vaguely-defined critics allege.
 * 2) Diane Farrell's website is not a reliable source, and not an independent source for stating what others say about Shays:  please use reliable, independent sources&mdash;subject to journalistic fact-checking without bias&mdash;for referencing edits.  Diane Farrell's website can only be used as a reference for what Diane Farrell says.  In this case, the words, "some critics however allege" would be better stated as "Diane Farrell says", or "According to Diane Farrell", in which case, it would be better placed in the election article, and not Shays' article, anyway.
 * 3) The 80% voting record issue has already been quoted, discussed, and sourced to an independent, reliable source (without the Farrell spin) later in the article, so I'm wondering why you included it again?  It's already covered, and sourced from an independent source, which made an unbiased analysis of Shay's entire voting record.
 * 4) For candidate voting records (for example, Medicare, Medicaid, and student loans), please cite independent reliable sources. This article should contain independent reliable secondary sources describing the candidate's record; not what Farrell's website - not a WP:RS - says about Shays' record.

I believe that sourcing from a candidate's statements about that candidate is borderline acceptable. But sourcing from an opposing candidate's (or party's) website is just wrong. If a statement about a political opponent cannot be traced to a non-partisan source, it should not be mentioned. Political spin is not to be trusted. He said, she said, tax rate high, tax rate low, she's evil, he's evil... These add nothing and only serve to confuse.


 * Wikipedia agrees with you: that's why we have guidelines about reliable sources, requiring independent, neutral verification of facts, and that's why we quote secondary sources (the same thing with respect to using Farrell's own site to source the statement that Republicans support her.  That kind of statement needs to be independently sourced.) In the case of biographies of living persons, we quote the highest-quality reliable sources (e.g.; NY Times, etc., not blogs and partisan sites.) But Francisx has reinserted the text.  The partial-birth abortion spin needs to be cleaned up as well, since what Francisx inserted is not what is in the sources.  Sandy 03:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding abortion edit
DONE, text corrected, removed unsourced claim about "life" of mother, inserted correct wikilink for partial-birth abortion. Sandy 22:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: the two sources for the sentence (and the text from those sources) are: Francisx, although Farrell, and the article, specifially refer to partial-birth abortion, you deleted that phrase, and re-defined it, differently from what the reliable sources say. Shays' article can link to the appropriate Wiki article on partial-birth abortion, and the definitions and controversies can be discussed there: Shays' article covers what reliable sources say about Shays, not the partial-birth abortion controversy. Please remember that we can't synthesize, present our own views, or "connect the dots" on Wikipedia. We report what reliable secondary sources say. Please don't alter text that was originally written correctly to reflect the reliable sources used (another editor may later put a tag on the source), and please provide reliable sources for your edits. Thanks, Sandy 02:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keating, Christopher. "Rep. Shays Facing His Toughest Race in 17 Years; Incumbent's Maverick Image Concerns Fellow Republicans". Hartford Courant. Sep 13, 2004. pg. B.1
 * Some say Farrell may have a tough time capitalizing on Shays' vulnerability because her views are too far to the left. Farrell responds by saying that Shays votes too frequently with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on issues such as banning partial-birth abortion.
 * Seelye, Katharine Q. "House, by Broad Margin, Backs Ban on a Type of Late Abortion'. New York Times. Mar 21, 1997. pg. A.1
 * The House voted today for the fourth time to ban what opponents call partial-birth abortion ... which doctors call intact dilation and extraction.
 * The bill passed by the House today would ban the procedure except to save the life of the mother, making no exception for her health.

Regarding quotes
DONE Quotes section eliminated, content merged, inaccurate quote removed per WP:BLP. Sandy 22:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, please review WP:QUOTE, particularly:
 * [E]ditors should try and work quotations into the body of the article, rather than in a stand alone quote section. Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations. A simple list of quotations would be better suited for our sister project, Wikiquote.

Collections of quotations belong in WikiQuote, and can be linked back to the main article. A section on quotations is discouraged, and unencyclopedic. Please see WP:NOT. Thanks, 05:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Further, please be aware of WP:BLP, particularly when attributing direct quotes to candidates. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we must get it right, particularly when putting words in the mouths of public figures.  A CNN headline cannot be attributed to Shays as a direct quote:  those were not the words he used, rather the headline of the article.  Putting words into Shays' mouth which he did not utter is a violation of BLP: please take greater care with biographical articles on Wikipedia.  Sandy 06:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiable quotes, possible copyvio
Regarding these edits:

The direct quotes attributed to Shays are sourced to incomplete references as follows:
 * 1) "The war plan has been nearly flawless." Connecticut Post. April 10, 2003
 * 2) "We're on the right track now." CNN. August 19, 2004
 * 3) "We've seen amazing progress [in Iraq]." CNN. June 24, 2005

In attempting to complete these references to include author, title, and URLs where available, I've been unable locate any source for No.1 or No.3 other than Diane Farrell ads, which take No.2 (at least) out of context. (The second quote referred to being on the right track with respect to acknowledging mistakes made in Iraq, which is not the context given in the Diane Farrell ads.) The concern is that, if these passages can't be independently sourced, they appear as a possible copyvio from Diane Farrell's website, which indicates this is the direct text of a campaign ad, "FARRELL FOR CONGRESS AIRS NEW TV SPOT". The only online sources I can find for two of these direct quotes attributed to Shays are Diane Farrell ads, so context can't be verified. If they are on CNN and in the Connecticut Post, perhaps someone more familiar with the exact text will be able to locate them: if not, we may need to delete these passages per WP:BLP and as a possible copyvio. Taking text directly from Diane Farrell ads isn't really the best reliable source for text about Shays' positions: if we can independently source this text, and write it in such a way that it isn't a copyvio of a Diane Farrell ad, perhaps we can keep some version of the text. Further, Diane Farrell's campaign ads don't really belong on Shays' entry in an encyclopedia: perhaps a place for similar text can be found in the election article. Sandy 03:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Direct sources clarified for all three cites for your edification. These are not copy violations; they are direct quotes from the reliable sources cited. The sources cannot be posted in full because of copyright restrictions, but they are all available at your local library via Lexis. Additionally, the fact that the Farrell campaign happens to cite CNN doesn't invaldidate it as a source.--Francisx 04:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Per #2, I have provided the full quote, in context. While acknowledging some initial mistakes, Shays expressed full support for the President and the war, and he clearly stated "we're on the right track." Providing additional contextualization will not enhance the meaning.Francisx 05:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing the full references. It's not a question of whether the quotes are invalidated:  it's a question of using the exact text of Farrell's campaign ad on Shays' article, and whether it is a copy vio of the Farrell ad (not of the articles), since it's the exact text of her ad.  (I don't imagine she would pursue Wiki Foundation for a copy vio, since she's probably thrilled to see her ad reproduced in her opponent's article.)  But, there's the additional problem of Farrell campaign "spin" by using selective passages of the full quotes.


 * With the information you posted about Number 1, I was able to locate the article, which says, to provide context:


 * "This conflict is not yet over and we need to be mindful that there could be casualties in the days and weeks ahead," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn. "The road may not be easy but I'm confident that we will prevail."


 * Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4, said the fall of Baghdad is "obviously a healthy sign" but also cautioned that American and coalition forces are still at risk and the task of establishing a permanent peace remains.


 * "The successes to date are extraordinary. The war plan has been nearly flawless. Now we need to make sure the peace plan rises to the same level," Shays said. "If we are able to help them form a government quickly, we will be viewed as liberators. If we are there too long, we will be viewed basically as conquerors."


 * Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3, said the fall of Baghdad represents "an important turning point in the Iraqi conflict" but "we cannot rest until all our troops are home safely."


 * Followed by similar quotes from other CT politicians.
 * PETER URBAN 'Great progress,' but caution urged Connecticut Post (Bridgeport, CT) April 10, 2003


 * So, it's apparent that the Farrell ad had taken one small portion out of context, and didn't tell the full story.


 * I had located Number 2 (posted above), and it also was taken out of context and "spun" on Farrell's ad.


 * Number 3 hasn't been located yet, for context, and I'm still not able to find it from the information you gave. I suggest that Farrell's campaign ad/spin isn't appropriate on Shays' article:  perhaps you could rewrite the content in NPOV language, using the full context rather than just the Farrell spin, and use it somewhere on the election article. Sandy 05:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your concern. No text has been taken from the Farrell campaign -- all the text is provided from the Reliable Sources duly cited. That other people may quote from the same sources is incidental. As for the other quotations you mentioned, if you find them valuable I would encourage you to contribute to Chris Dodd and Rosa DeLauro. Additionally, as for your requested contextualization; no Wikipedia policy requires that level of citation. All sources have been properly and exhaustively cited. If you have questions about additional sources, I will be happy to help you with research.Francisx 05:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy of Farrell ad
I didn't ask you for extensive citation because it's required: I asked for it when I found the text was a copy of Farrell's ad, and we needed to discuss possible copyvio or campaign spin. Here's the problem:

Text you inserted On April 10, 2003, Shays told the Connecticut Post that "The war plan has been nearly flawless."[32] On August 19, 2004, Shays told reporters, "We're on the right track now."[33] On June 24, 2005, Shays said "We've seen amazing progress [in Iraq]."[34]

Farrell campaign ad TEXT:

I’m Diane Farrell and I approve this message.

Announcer: After 3 ½ years and 14 trips to Iraq, Chris Shays continues to be one of President Bush’s strongest supporters of the war.

Trip 1

Quote: “The war plan has been nearly flawless.”

Trip 6

Quote:  We’re on the right track now.”

Trip 8

Quote: “We’ve seen amazing progress.

All "spun" by the ad, taken out of context. It doesn't behoove Wikipedia to parrot her campaign ads, or to take commentary from sources out of context: it's not encyclopedic content. Sandy 05:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The quotes are not from the Farrell campaign. They are from Chris Shays, as reported -- and extremely well documented --- in reputable independent reliable sources. If you feel the quotes could serve with additional contextualization, you are welcome to provide it. The strength of Wikipedia is that this is a collaborative project. Francisx 05:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The other problem with the way the text is presented is that, by separating and highlighting Shays' Iraq stance from 20-years' worth of other political views, the possible appearance is given of writing Shays' article to support Farrell's campaign, rather than covering in encyclopedic tone Shays' almost 20-year record in Congress. It appears now as an article written *for* Diane Farrell's campaign.  I suggest that we'll need to remove your recent Iraq edits, and then reinsert more carefully a balanced and contextual view of some of the points you want to cover, without creating the appearance of parroting Farrell's campaign ads.  Sandy 05:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think the article would benefit from additional information on Shays' 20-year record in Congress, I would encourage you to post it. However, I started by expanding on his positions on Iraq, since they are likely of greatest interest to the greatest number of readers. The Iraq war is at the top of constituents' concerns (per polls of the 4th CD which I'd be happy to cite) and it has been the top issue of the 2006 campaign. It is particularly topical to Chris Shays, as chairman of the Emerging Threats subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee.Francisx 05:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Shays' article should be about Shays. Farrell's campaign ads have a place in the election article.  We can possibly separate several of his important stances, including Iraq, and elaborate on them, but it needs to be done with neutral information and in encyclopedic tone, rather than being a POV copy of Farrell's campaign ads.  I'll also move the Foley quote to the correct place, and correctly attribute the criticism you inserted from the Farrell campaign.  Sandy 05:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Shays' article should be about Shays. Shays claims to vote as an independent. If you want that controversial, POV claim on his bio page, then you need to allow a POV rebuttal. I'd be happy with removing both claims, but you can't pretend Shays' website is an NPOV source. As for the "Farrell Ad" -- you are again invited to contextualize Shays' comments on the Shays bio page. His stance on the Iraq war belongs here -- criticsm from other sources belongs on the eleciton page.--Francisx 07:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not label good faith edits that have been discussed on the talk page as vandalism in your edit summaries. Sandy 06:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that Shays' article should be about Shays. As Shays, as a powerful subcommittee chair, holds key oversight responsibilities over the War in Iraq, it is imperative that this article examine his views and his record in depth. If you want to provide additional information, I'd welcome that. The War is not just a campaign issue (althought it is most certainly that), it's Chris Shays' main job in Washington. Additionally, the quotes you label "Farrell campaign criticism" are not criticism. They are quotes from Chris Shays, cited in independent sources, provided to readers without commentary. Please refrain in the future from removing sourced information, as some editors will interpret that as vandalism.--Francisx 06:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're mixing different edits. This isn't about whether it's criticism or appropriate: it's about presenting Shay's Iraq stance via a copy of Farrell's campaign ad, with Farrell POV, using quotes taken out of context, and a possible copyvio.  The other "criticism" which needs attribution is the "some critics allege however" which you inserted yesterday, when the text refers to the Democrat campaign website.  That needs to be properly attributed to them, per WTA and WP:AWW. There are two different issues now where you are inserting Democrat campaign material into Shays' article.  Both need to be corrected. Sandy 06:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you feel the quotes are out of context, please provide context. They are provided by the Connecticut Post, CNN and other sources and their limited use on WP constitutes clear fair use. All sources are also properly documented. If you feel that additional information would be of use to readers, please add it.Francisx 06:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove sourced text. This is especially true in large amounts, as in the case described. Doing so may be construed as vandalism.--Francisx 06:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not mischaracterize my edits: the multipled updates and accumulated corrections I made were discussed above in multiple sections.  Very little text was removed, lots of text was moved around.  You reverted it in less than 2 minutes:  I wonder if you had time to even look at the changes? Sandy 06:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

POV
Farrell for Congress airs new TV spot

As detailed above, the Views on Iraq section is mostly taken directly from and parrots Diane Farrell's campaign ads, using selective quotes, taken out of context, to paint a biased picture of Shay and Iraq. It makes no attempt to present a balanced view of his positions. The article can be fixed by restoring the old text, and building from there to develop the larger story. It can't be fixed by building upon the structure of biased campaign ads. Farrell's TV ads cannot be the basis for Shays' Wiki entry, and copyright violations should never stand. The section is POV. Further, since it isn't fully referenced, it's factually accuracy is in question. Sandy 11:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As detailed above, your criticism is without merit. No text is taken from the Farrell campaign -- the three quotes you dispute were made by Chris Shays and cited -- thoroughly -- in reliable third party sources. If you feel the quotes are taken out of context -- and frankly I don't think they are -- then you can provide other quotes or material to color them. Chris Shays will be the first one to tell you his views on Iraq have evolved over time, and it is a disservice to readers to hide that.--Francisx 16:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * These also aren't obvious misstatements or "gotcha" quotes. Chris Shays is a powerful subcommittee chair with oversight over the war and his views -- which most certainly have evolved -- are important to readers. That the Farrell campaign also refers to them is mildly interesting, and might be noted in the 4th District elections article. --Francisx 17:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't build an NPOV encyclopedia by using material taken directly from a campaign ad, consisting of quotes chosen selectively to present a POV, and then slapping references on the ad.

We don't structure entire sections in an article to parrot campaign material: the entire section is a copy of Farrell's campaign ad, including the exact quotes, with no attempt to present balance.

We don't enhance Wiki's image by copying verbatim an opponent's campaign ad into a biography, even if the content can be sourced.

We don't source text like this: Connecticut Post. April 10, 2003; CNN. August 19, 2004; CNN. June 24, 2005

We don't use weasle words like "several independent pundits" and "some critics however allege", especially when those critics and pundits are the campaign of the opponent.

And we don't use campaign statements from non-reliable sources as criticism on any BLP in Wiki: the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) is not a reliable source. It is a partisan, biased source.

We do go back to reliable secondary sources and write neutral, balanced text, rather than relying only on a collection of biased, selected quotes from campaign ads. I have now had to find most of the references for the material from the campaign ads. The section is still organized to present a specific POV, as a copy of a biased campaign ad. You speedy reverted my first (and only) edit to go back to the original version, from which some of the text you want to include could have been added. When the section/content which copies Farrell's campaign ad is removed, and the original version is restored, content can be expanded in a neutral, balanced, encyclopedic fashion, telling the entire story&mdash;not just the story that Farrell's campaign ads tell. Sandy 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that the quotes were referred to in an opponent's ad is entirely irrelevent. If a political ad referred to 9-11, would we remove all references to 9-11 as POV? Of course not. These are statements that Chris Shays made, that have been widely quoted in the media. Now if the quotations are not represntative of his views, then that would be a legitimate criticism of the section. But you have consistently failed to make the case that they are not represntative and so your claims are entirely without merit. Your response was to delete almost the entire section of sourced text, which is a violation of Wikipedia policies and may constitute unacceptable POV vandalism.Francisx 19:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The text inserted was an exact copy of the POV ad. A copy of the ad is a copy of the ad, whether or not it can be independently sourced.  The copyright and sourcing implications are clear, and it is biased, one-sided, POV content, not to mention an embarrassment to Wiki that anyone can realize that Farrell's campaign ad has been copied to Shays' article.  Sandy 19:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're making WP guilty by association. No Admin has found fit to ban mention of Shays quotations, simply because Diane Farrell, CNN and the Connecticut Post have also referred to them. WP doesn't and shouldn't censor itself for the benefit of the Shays campaign, so long as the information we provide is topical, encyclopaedic, NPOV and sourced as this most certainly is.Francisx 19:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Consistency, bibliographic, encyclopedic, and incumbent bias
There's a double standard being applied to Shays' and Farrell's articles: criticism of Farrell has been removed to the election article, while criticism of Shays is being piled on here. Further, someone with a 20-year record offers more to criticize, while Farrell has never been in the public eye, so has little record for scrutiny. Please be consistent. This is a bibliography: not a detailing of every perceived transgression Shays has ever committed according to someone's POV. Every quote Shays' has ever made is not appropriate to an encyclopedic bibliography. Debates and political controversies belong in the election article. Keep this article to an encyclopedic bibliography, move the rest to the election article, and most certainly, if that is not done, bring the Farrell criticism back to her article. Sandy 20:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What criticism of Shays is present here? I've been working on the Shays article for a couple of days. If I have neglected Farrell, it's only because I hold down a full-time (more than full time, actually) job. But I promise I'll help you out with that one too!--Francisx 21:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For example, how does what Shays says about Newt Gingrich rise to the level of importance of an encyclopedic, bibliographic entry? Do you think Encyclopedia Britannica cares?  If there's a point, make it in encyclopedic quality, on the election article.  It's certainly not important to his bio.  Sandy 21:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The information is included because the section discusses Shays' political philosophy. We have Shays saying he's a social liberal, Shays saying he's a fiscal moderate and Shays saying Newt Gingrich is his hero. That's not an attack -- clearly lots of conservative Republicans support Newt Gingrich, and it is in fact a direct, attributed quote from the subject of this article.--Francisx 21:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research
DONE. Source to support edit now provided. Sandy 22:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Connecting the dots, not based on commentary from a reliable source, original research.. Kennedy campaigning in Westport. You are making a connection which is not made in the source. Sandy 21:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not independent research. Shays brought up Sen. Edward Kennedy in direct response to Kennedy's visit a week before. The contextualization is not POV or original research. Without it, the remark makes no sense.--Francisx 21:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That may be your opinion, but content in Wiki is determined by reliable sources, not opinion. Sandy 21:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? It's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of 92 independent news articles on the comments, referenced here. All of which directly connect Shays' comments on Kennedy to Kennedy's decision to campaign against him.--Francisx 21:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, so pick one that specifically ties the fact that Kennedy campaigned for Farrell to Shays' reason for making the comment, and cite it. Otherwise, it is synthesis, original research, drawing your own conclusions, connecting the dots.  Find a source that makes the specific connection between the visit and the comment, or its OR.  Sandy 21:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This doesn't rise to the level of citation. The Hartford Courant article directly links the two events. This is shear pedantry.Francisx 21:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If the Hartford Courant directly connects them, then cite the Hartford Courtant, not CNN. The only article referenced there now is CNN.  Sandy 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This level of pedantry over non-controversial highly-sourced claims is highly disruptive and wastes everybody's time. I have added an additional cite for the link. If you'd like, I can add 91 more.Francisx 21:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We need only one cite that directly makes the connection, supporting the text. Please be aware of civility and WP:AGF; do not label good faith requests for following policy as "pedantry", "disruptive" and a "waste of time".  Thanks, Sandy 21:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify and reiterate why sources should be supplied at the time an edit is made, and that requesting sources is neither "pedantry" or a "disruptive" waste of time. Long after all of us have ceased to edit this article, another editor could come along, find a passage that isn't sourced, be unable to locate a source, and delete the content as original research or unfactual.  It's far easier to find a source when an issue is active and the editors working on the article know where to locate the info.  Supplying sources is never a waste of time:  it prevents future problems in the article.  Sandy 14:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the source for Wspta: "But when Sen. Edward M. Kennedy came to Connecticut last week to help her campaign, Rep. Christopher Shays hit back." Now the content is no longer original research: please don't assume everyone reads the Hartford Courant or follows CT politics. It saves everyone time if edits are sourced at the time they're made. Sandy 22:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What became of the Hartford Courant reference ... it's no longer there? Francisx, if you know where it went, can you replace it?  Sandy 14:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I re-added it; don't know how/where it went missing. Sandy 15:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight, unencyclopedic section heading
This heading:

Shays denys torture took place at Abu Ghraib

is inflammatory, POV, and does not have content worthy of an entire section in a bibliography. The content is marginally relevant to his bio, and if it is kept, should be merged to an appropriate section. Sandy 22:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I agree about the title, I changed it. 2) Controversy and criticism belongs in a controversy and criticism section per wikipedia policy. You cited "undue weight" as a reason to delete controversial statements all over the news. Please explain why you think five sentences is undue weight. I think you have misread the policy. Arbusto 23:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't make the undue weight clear enough: what I meant was that creating entire sections for each minor part of the bio applies undue weight to that issue.  It's about how the article is structured into sections, rather than how many sentences are used.


 * Likely, once the elections are nearer, we'll see more of this on all the articles (attempts to create inflammatory section headings, which show up in the TOC). It's better to organize the article in a way that Section headings allow content to grow encyclopedically.  You mentioned adding a "criticism" section, but that isn't encouraged by Wikipedia, and Jimbo has specifically spoken up against separate criticism sections, as they are POV magnets.  He has said criticism should be woven into the text, balanced.  (The exact quote from him is floating around somewhere on a talk page.) In an encyclopedia (think Britannica), we don't usually find criticism sections or separate sections about each notable point of the person's life:  we find seamless text, weaving it all together into a cohesive whole.  Balanced, as in a biography, not an attack page. Right now, the page is structured as an attack page, with the Iraq content still being a featured, literal copy of the Farrell campaign ad, with no attempt at neutrality.  Further, labeling something as "criticism" is POV anyway, when 50% of the people in the United States may support the policy that is "criticized", while 50% criticize it.  We can't give undue weight to one view by labeling it as "criticism".


 * Not sure how to fix all of this right now (perhaps just a section labeled "Controversy"), but urgently the Farrell atttack ad needs to move to the election article, leaving an encyclopedic bio entry here ("Shays once was an ardent supporter, no longer is," blah, blah, blah, without endless quotations which backed up the selective view presented in the attack ad.) Neither "Hastert defense" nor "Abu Ghraib" warrant separate section headings:  they aren't major themes of Shays' life and bio in and of themselves.


 * There's another problem in the Abu Ghraib section: right now, it's presented with an incorrect use of Summary style.  Summary style is used to summarize a daughter article back to the main article:  Shays is not the main article for Ghraib, nor is Ghraib specifically about Shays.  The "main" template should be removed, with Abu Ghraib linked into the text.


 * Some thought could go into how to fix the headings: right now, I'm not clear on the differences between the sections "Political views" and "Policy", but the Table of Contents has become rambling and unfocused, needing a reorganization.  The inflammatory "Denies torture took place" heading is back, and some good faith and non-tendentious editing could be shown if *all* editors here would work against POV and vandalism on *all* articles, not just those of the candidates they clearly support.


 * On a general note, whenever you see extensive and selective exact quotes in a bio, rather than seamless prose, it's a pretty good indication that some POV-pushing is going on, and that the entry isn't aiming for an encyclopedic, biographical summary. I urge editors to remember this is a bio; there is a separate election article, and to remember that until this is corrected, the article will be labeled POV, which means no one will read it anyway, since it's not accurate.  Pushing POV isn't ultimately effective, as it results in the article being tagged. Sandy 14:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right about undue weight -- if someone created an absurdly large section chronicling Shays' views on steel tariffs, or ethanol, or Terri Schiavo, or foreign policy stance regarding Nigeria, thos all would constitute excess, undue weight to subjects having little to do with Chris Shays. But that's not the case. Iraq isn't a minor issue -- it is Shays' issue, for the simple fact that he's the Congressman with perhaps the greatest day-to-day oversight over America's strategic objectives in Iraq. That his views on the subject have changed isn't just notable from a political "gotcha" perspective, it's crucial information for people across the USA and potentially in other countries as well. It isn't something Shays has run from, and it isn't something we should pretend is just an ephemeral political footnote.Francisx 14:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I said Abu Ghraib and Hastert were given undue weight. I have not said that a separate heading for Shays on Iraq constitutes undue weight:  I have said the content needs to be written neutrally, comprehensively, and the Farrell campaign ad needs to be removed. There is more to Shays and Iraq than Farrell's narrow attack ad.  Sandy 14:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I reorganized Kennedy and Abu Ghraib to "Controversies", but reading the text, I'm unclear why Kennedy is in this article, when it's a campaign issue. That seems to be clearly content that is related to the election, rather than of biographical significance. Sandy 14:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no discussion addressing the POV tag in the last week. If there are no discussions the tag will be removed. Arbusto 05:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently you missed the section above that is titled "POV". The section taken directly from the Farrell attack ad has still not been rewritten to a neutral point of view.  Removing a POV tag when there is an ongoing POV dispute wouldn't be a wise course of action.  Sandy (Talk) 14:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is a discussion of it in the last week? Arbusto 19:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there a new POV-only-lasts-a-week policy on Wikipedia? The tendentious section has not been removed, corrected, or neutralized; my initial attempts to begin working on it were reverted.  Someone needs to neutralize the tendentious edit, or restore the article to the version before the tendentious edit.  I am traveling, am on a slow connection, and even if I had good internet access and time to fix it right now, it's "not my job" to fix someone else's tendentious edit, when my initial attempts to work on it were reverted.  I'm not interested in edit warring; until other editors want to correct the POV, or work together to correct it, the tag stays.  Sandy (Talk) 21:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You appear to be the only editor who sees POV in Christopher Shays. You have had well over a week to suggest a way to correct what you view as POV, and yet you have not done so. There doesn't seem to be a controversy in the community about the POV tag, so unless you want to step forward to address your concerns, there seems to be little point in maintaining the tag. For what it's worth, I'm editing right now from a cafe in Tblisi, Republic of Georgia (not in the CT-04 Congressional District!)--Francisx 23:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you believe I'm the only editor who sees the POV, you might want to do some more careful reading of commentary made in many places. Summarizing again the biased content&mdash; your edit and Farrell's attack ad. What needs to be done to address the POV has been spelled out several times already.  You're welcome to 1) neutralize the info you introduced, 2) allow others to work on correcting it without another speedy revert, or 3) return it to the version which existed prior to you inserting the Farrell attack ad.  In the meantime, POV doesn't "expire" just because it isn't discussed for a week, while other editors' attempts to fix it are reverted.  With the connection I have right now, I'm not in a position to access the resources necessary to correct the biased information; it's also not my obligation, particularly when my edits are reverted.  If you agree not to engage in edit warring or speedy reverts again, when I again have access to resources and a good computer connection, I could begin to work on it, but that will involve some delay.  There is also still the matter of the Kennedy info, which isn't noteworthy in Shays' bio:  it belongs in the election article, it's an election issue. Sandy (Talk) 01:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, there is the ongoing issue of the insertion of the "undue weight" heading on Abu Ghraib. Although both of you seem to recognize the issue (discussed above), I seem to be the only one correcting it each time it occurs.  So, all in all, there are at least three POV issues on this page (the insertion of the Newt Gingrich is possibly another, I haven't investigated the context in full), and moving the POV tag to one section only isn't accurate as long as these issues are unresolved. Sandy (Talk) 14:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What are your proposed changes? Arbusto 02:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward
Attempting to resolve the easier issues of undue weight first, I would like to know if there is consensus on :
 * 1) The Kennedy paragraph is a campaign issue, is not a notable component of a Shays' bio, and should be moved to the election article. I've brought this up several times; I don't think anyone has answered yea or nay.  I can't imagine an argument which would make this a notable paragraph in the bio of a 20-year political career; on the other hand, it is clearly a notable part of the campaign/election.
 * 2) The Abu Ghraib heading continues to be added, in spite of an apparent consensus against it (above) as undue weight. Are others going to help maintain the article's neutrality, and is there or is there not consensus that undue weight is given by adding that heading?

If we can resolve these two minor issues, then the POV tag is appropriately placed on only the Iraq section, which we can hopefully address: if not, the entire article has bias issues. Sandy (Talk) 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Kennedy and Abu Ghraib comments stays for the same reason; major media attention on those comments. I don't care about the title "Abu Ghraib;" the title can stay or go as long as the content remains.


 * Do you want to give some recommendations for the Iraq section so we can start "moving forward"? Its been a week and a half since you tagged it. Arbusto 00:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Any proposed changes? Arbusto 04:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Proposed changes have already been discussed several times on the talk page. Sandy (Talk) 15:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please write below how you want the section to read on this page. So we can discuss it. Arbusto 03:50, 3

November 2006 (UTC)


 * You've had three weeks to address your concerns. No one else has a problem with it and you won't offer an example of alternate version. Hence, I removed the tag. Arbusto 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You* have had three weeks to address the POV, and it hasn't been done, and you are the only one suggesting removal of the tag. When I tried to correct the POV by rewriting the Farrell attack ad paragraph, my edit was speedy reverted.  You may 1) remove the attack ad completely, 2) rewrite it in comprehensive NPOV, or 3) leave the tag.  Sandy (Talk) 15:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Phil Maymin
Why are Libertarian articles prohibited?

I do not support their party much; but, Mr. Phil Maymin is an actual candidate, w/ the "I approved this massage" commercial.

< http://mayminforcongress.com/index.htm?home.php >;

< http://mayminforcongress.com/home.php >;

< http://mayminforcongress.com >.

hopiakuta ; &#91;&#91; &lt;nowiki&gt; &lt;/nowiki&gt; { &#91;&#91;%c2%a1]] &#91;&#91;%c2%bf]] &#91;&#91; %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 23:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Peace Corps volunteer category
I guess I picked a sensitive time to do it, but I was the one who added the Category:Peace Corps line to the bio page. It was not partisan (I got Shays' name off of the list of RPCV Congressmen who signed a letter re the budget last year as shown on http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/2629/2029357.html ). I added all 5 plus a senator, a deceased senator, and a former Peace Corps director who was also once a volunteer. Peace Corps volunteers run a range of political opinions and are in both parties.

For the record I am in the jusidiction of none of them and am not a member of either party or any partisan political group. Moreover it's hard to see how adding this has any possible impact on the election. Who notices? It's mainly a matter of completeness in linking, anyway, and for any rare individual who would be swayed by mention of Peace Corps in a Wikipedia bio, it's already there in the text!

Furthermore, and with all due respect, Francisx is totally offbase to characterize the adding of an appropriate esteblished category as "vandalism" which it clearly was not. Vandalism would be adding something inappropriate or defacing in some way. Sorry for the rant, but this was a surprise.--A12n 12:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The category should not have been removed: labeling the edit as vandalism was inappropriate.  I will re-instate it.  Sandy (Talk) 15:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--A12n 18:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

New England?
Is there a state called New England? Why does it say that he is currently the only Republican serving from NEW ENGLAND? He is from CT. New England has no representatives and his part of CT certainly does not identify with New England. Man, the propaganda is all over the place... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to read more about his tort reform views. This is one of the few things I agree with the liberal shays on. Interestingly his liberal opponent is against reform and makes him look good even to me.

-- mccommas

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
"The more I look," Shays says, "the more convinced I am that they're not eager to disclose what they do. They're wonderful organizations, but they're trying to protect a privilege that could ultimately be destructive to them." -- August 2002 http://www.washingtonian.com/print/articles/6/171/8593.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojo87 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Republican?
Every single advertisment I've seen for Shays here in Connecticut clearly defines him as an Independent, not a Republican, even going so far as to use the catchphrase "Independent. Bipartisan. Effective." Or something to that effect. Is there something I am missing here? -69.121.179.87 (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * He's a Republican, but he is downplaying that in his PR because he wants to get re-elected in a district where a GOP affiliation is no longer an asset. --Orlady (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that's the kind of honest leadership we need [/sarcasm]. Sorry for wasting your time, feel free to blow my commments into oblivion. -69.121.179.87 (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)