Talk:John Culberson

Texas House category
m [John Culberson]; 22:06:28. . Thepedestrian (Talk) (putting back the texas house cat, since culberson was indeed a member (read the article maybe?)) Sorry about that, Ped. I was updating his current status, and didn't realize that we wanted to keep past biography information as well. I have a databse full of Texas House and Senate members going back about 10 years. Would you like for me to propose some backfill information on them? weide 13:24, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Link to opposition websites
I removed an edit that included one of the opponent's campaign sites, as well as language that was almost surely trying to make readers look kindly upon him. I don't necessarily disagree with including the sites of his opposers, but there should be links to both or neither to stay in line with WP:NPOV. Seqsea (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
This article to me does not appear to follow NPOV guidelines. The language used is rather slanted in places (ex: "While opposed to forms of public transportation that would immediately remove cars from Houston's roads, Culberson continues to throw 100's of millions of dollars into projects to build bigger roads for bigger cars resulting in dirtier air and a hotter climate."), and the entirely negative focus of the entire second half of the article is curious. I am not a regular wikipedia editor (and I know nothing about Culbertson), but I think this article definitely needs the note. Seasleepy 03:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The entirely positive version prior to November 4th is particularly disconcerting. Read the new part about how he lied about terrorists crossing the Mexican border and see if you can refute it. The Houston Chronicle isn't even that liberal. -- Utopianfiat

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Culberson. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.culberson.house.gov/bio.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515061020/http://www.houstonisd.org/HISDConnectDS/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c3783acb02efc010VgnVCM10000052147fa6RCRD to http://www.houstonisd.org/HISDConnectDS/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=c3783acb02efc010VgnVCM10000052147fa6RCRD
 * Added tag to https://team1.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/mar04_169_state.htm?x=0&y=3852&id=407

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Should the 2018 election have its own page?
There are - as of now - 7 candidates with 2 more likey.

CD 7 had he biggest drop in Rep over Dem voters from 2012 to 2016 in the country. 50.192.95.89 (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"Earmarks" controversy
The source cites 3 congressmen for and 3 against the earmarks rule change. Plus quotes from other groups.

Plus the line : " Members of the Texas GOP delegation, who typically vote in tandem, are split on the issue so far."

It is not a very well written article, the cites and references could be fisked out individually but since the data is all there is it really necessary?

50.192.95.89 (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it is necessary. You need to show it is a controversy to call it a controversy and it needs to be from a reliable independent source.  ~ GB fan 16:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

As a side note, it appears that the initial reference is copied in whole from: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2016/11/22/texas-republican-wants-bring-earmarks-back-washington without proper attribution. Does such lack of attribution invalidate it as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.192.95.89 (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Culberson. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160306124107/https://enrpages.sos.state.tx.us/public/mar01_273_state.htm to https://enrpages.sos.state.tx.us/public/mar01_273_state.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100418160636/http://washingtonindependent.com/47549/has-pete-hoekstra-been-beaten-by-nancy-pelosis-militia to http://washingtonindependent.com/47549/has-pete-hoekstra-been-beaten-by-nancy-pelosis-militia

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Lanier Middle School
The two references supplied do not support the suggestion that this chap attended this school.

Obviously I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong… TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 14:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You are correct, and I can't find any sources saying where he went to middle school. Everything on the interwebz is just a Wikipedia mirror. Marquardtika (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sentence
I have now twice removed a sentence three times that says, "Culberson did not comment after the release of the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape." The source for this is dated two days after the release of the tape and it does say at that point he hadn't commented. It does not say that at any point after that he did not comment. The first time I was reverted saying that to remove it I had to find a source that says he did comment. I am not saying that he did comment or that he didn't comment just that the source does not verify what the sentence says. The sentence could be rewritten something like "Culberson did not comment within the first two days after the release of the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape." I don't think that belongs either though. ~ GB fan 10:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Every singe piece of information on Wikipedia is contingent on time. It's absolutely ludicrous to remove "Culberson opposes the Affordable Care Act" because a new daily source to confirm the statement can't be found. The same applies to Culberson and the AH tape. Like with every other piece of information, we update text as new info comes in. If you're unable to substantiate that Culberson commented on the AH tape episode or that the RS in question is wrong, then there is no reason to remove reliably sourced content that accurately says he did not comment. Furthermore, you say that the text can't be verified, except "Culberson did not comment after the release of the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape" is entirely 100% accurate and reflects the source. In one of your edit summaries to remove this info in its entirely, you inaccurate claimed that the text asserted that Culberson "never" commented, except that's not at all what the text says. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We agree on some parts of what you say and disagree on other parts. Every piece is contingent on time.  It is absolutely ludicrous to remove information that he opposes the AHCA based on not having a new source.  This is not even remotely the same.  If someone says they support or oppose something we continue on to say they do until they say they don't, it is reasonable to believe they will announce when they change their mind.  In this case we have a reliable source that has researched and determined at the point of the publication he hadn't commented.  It isn't reasonable to expect that they will continue to monitor his actions and report if he says something.  Lack of evidence that he commented is not evidence that he didn't comment, it just means there is no evidence he did comment.  A reliable source that says someone didn't do something can only be used to state that they didn't do it only up to the point that the source is published.  That source can not be used to say he didn't comment sometime after the source was published.  That is what the sentence was doing.  It said he didn't comment.  If we put the disclaimer on it like I mentioned above then it agrees with the source.  Without something to state the time frame it does not agree with what the source says.  It makes it appear that we are saying he did not comment at any time in the last two years based on a single check just 2 days after the video was released.  ~ GB fan 19:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I was looking at your contribution history, not at the edits themselves. I saw one of your edit summaries that is really pertinent to this sentence.  this doesnt have encyclopedic value. before adding content, please consider whether the content that you're adding is notable, says something about the subject of the Wikipedia article and has long-term encyclopedic value. This sentence says nothing about Culberson other than he didn't comment about a video. What is the encyclopedic value of this sentence? ~ GB fan 20:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Reelection loss
Many other Representatives who lost re-nomination or re-election have a note to this effect in the lead section (in addition to infoboxes, electoral history sections, and so on). I'll go ahead and add one here, too. Airbornemihir (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)