Talk:John Conyers/Archive 1

letter to congress
Ayeum... is there a wikipedia entry for this actual article? I know its not the fashion for the U.S. Media to make such a big deal about this, but I guess I think that's where wikipedia should be different. I believe the fact that this has gone on undocumented by our media for so long is worth ... documentation.

Anyone agree? Ideas?Yeago 05:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be better in the Iraq war article or associated articles "Contoversy over the Iraq war" if there is such an article. I'm not sure there is sufficient information for a whole article to be made for it. pomegranate 10:39, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency?
The article states: 'CNN picked up the story on June 7, more than a month after the letter was sent to the White House. Fox News had a story about the memo 6 days earlier, on June 1.'. However, as the date on the CNN link shows that they picked up the story on the 12th of May. Fixed by 203.214.156.78 02:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC).

It's a credible source.
This is from a political newsletter, and nothing that I added to the article was untrue. Conyers himself acknowledged all of this.

Read this: Wikipedia rules say generally not to use internet sources but that "Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name." Ron Gunzburger publishes under his real name, is well-known enough to regularly appear on CNN and NBC, has been a professional campaign consultant for 20 years, and has served important roles as an attorney. The fact that you are calling his integrity into question in order to cover up Conyers' rubbing elbows with a Bush-bashing fascist criminal is very sad. GOP4LIFE 17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It was published on a blog. Therefore it is not a credible source. He did not publish it in a newspaper but on a blog. And it contains many POV statements like extreme left. Also this statement by you contains many POV allegations like fascist criminal. KittenKlub 17:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Calling LaRouche a criminal is not POV. It is a fact. He is a convicted felon. LaRouche himself claims he only got out of jail because of his buddy Bill Clinton helping him out. Fascist may be a little more difficult to prove, but it is a very common complaint made against LaRouche. I don't know why you're defending this scumbag. Also, again, your complaint about it being a "blog" doesn't hold up, since Wikipedia rules state, again, that blogs are generally not to be used, but "Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name." GOP4LIFE 17:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * LaRouche is a scumbag, but I still don't think the POV stuff about him belongs in an article about someone else. I'm making the proper revert, please leave the article alone for the time being. --CJ Marsicano 17:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not "POV," and the "stuff" in question details the connections between Conyers and LaRouche, which is relevant information for anyone who wants to know the connections betweeen the liberal Democrats and their fascist friend they only bring out when they think no one is looking. I will tone down some of the assertions and restore the information. GOP4LIFE 17:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A blog posting is not an acceptable source. There is no way to verify that the information on that blog is correct. KittenKlub 17:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What you are saying directly contradicts Wikipedia policy and it seems your partisan slant is causing you to censor the article. Please read this:

''Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.

''At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. '' GOP4LIFE 17:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * According to his own entry, his ads have been featured on CNN. That does not make him a rare exception. He simply has a blog. He does not fall into the top category. KittenKlub 17:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

World Can't Wait
When someone who is one election away from becoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee signs a statement advocating a mass movement to drive the President from power, that's an important and bold step in his life.<- Unsigned Comment

What did the president get a blow job from an intern? Because that would be news! --8bitJake 20:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"John j. Conyers"
His middle initial is "J" , however I do not see the significance of this info. --Knowpedia 01:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since
Tuesday, 28th, I had been attempting to post a message to read:

"This

morning, on Democracy Now%21,  Worldlink, &  Pacifica Radio, he said that he has participated in more  impeachments than any other person, house, or  senate."

I, also, want to add:

There are many guestlists of people who have appeared on various shows; are there any for Democracy Now!?

I had, as well, been attempting to remind you to sign your messages.

Further, I had been attempting to complain about the wikiwebservers failing, blocking these messages.

Some webholes, with gibberish signatures of their own, have been claiming my signature as gibberish,... sort of pot versus ketttle & marijuana,... & they have been deleting my messages completely, entirely.

It does appear that these persons do not like Democracy Now!;

&/or that they want to discourage people from signing;

&/or they like the webservers to fail;

&/or they do not like disabled-persons;

&/or they spend their days to destroy other people.

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The webservers are continuing to fail on this page.

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 15:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

recentism
It's more than a little crazy that almost all of the content on this article is generated from the last two years in office -- from someone who's been in office around 40 years! --Lquilter 00:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

slander
There appears to be a piece of potentially slanderous text added at the bottom of this article - should this be a cause for concern?


 * Heh, slanderous or not, it's certainly not encyclopedic. Removed. pomegranate 11:04, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I added a quote from TIME magazine at the bottom. It appears he doesn't agree with the Patriot Act. He wouldn't be the only Congressman to doubt how Consitutional the Act is.


 * If its from TIME magazine, then it must not be slander. Put it back in!

"If its from Time Magazine, then it must not be slander?" Really Now? --68.118.188.188 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 Defeat
The congressman has not filed paperwork making him eligible for the primary ballot. Unless the decision is somehow reversed, this looks like the end of the line for Conyers. The issue should have its own section as well news about his successor whoever he or she is. --68.118.188.188 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added a few sentences on the primary ballot situation to the end of the 'Elections' section. I will continue to keep this updated, but do not believe a separate section is warranted, now that Conyers will appear on the ballot. Mark E Miller (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on John Conyers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090203215630/http://abcnews.go.com:80/US/wireStory?id=2633701 to http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2633701
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090212210053/http://www.taxpayeraccess.org//action//HR801-09-0211.html to http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/HR801-09-0211.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)