Talk:Lamar Smith/Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2018
From Rep. Lamar Smith

To the editors of the Wikipedia page of Congressman Lamar Smith: Some of the information on the congressman’s Wikipedia page is incorrect and does not portray an accurate description of his views or legislative efforts. The following edits are suggested for the reasons given.

1. Wikipedia: The district includes most of the wealthier sections of San Antonio and Austin (no citation).

After the congressional districts were redrawn in 2013, TX-21 lost much of West Travis County, including the affluent areas of Westlake and Barton Creek. TX-21 now includes predominantly South Austin, a less affluent area.

Citations for reference:

- Redistricting maps with census tracts showing median income levels are attached for both San Antonio (Bexar Co.) and Austin (Travis Co.)

Edit: This sentence should read, “The district includes parts of San Antonio and Austin.”

2. Wikipedia: As the Head of the House Science Committee, Smith has been criticized for promoting climate change denial, baselessly attacking scientific outlets and researchers...[2][3][4][5][6][7]

The sentence uses loaded and untrue phrases that create false impressions. Because this claim is located at the top of the Wikipedia page rather than in the climate change section or in a section about the congressman’s Science Committee chairmanship, it implies that the congressman’s role as Science Committee Chairman has been limited to the three inaccurately portrayed issues listed here. The congressman has worked on many issues in his capacity as Chairman, including STEM education (as noted lower on the Wikipedia page), cybersecurity, space exploration, energy, and research and development. A summary of his chairmanship should include many more subjects.

The Wikipedia sentence has been split into three parts below, with a separate response for each. Also, see the response in edit #10, which applies to this claim as well.

Part 1: Smith has been criticized for promoting climate change denial…

This claim wrongly implies that the congressman denies climate change is occurring. This claim is not an accurate description of even the media’s reporting on the congressman’s climate views. He does not deny that the climate is changing or that humans have contributed to that change; he is skeptical of exaggerated and unproven pronouncements.

Climate change is a complex issue; there are numerous variables that affect climate change. The congressman is skeptical of alarmists’ claims for three reasons. First, the congressman believes that humans contribute to climate change but he is skeptical that anyone can be certain about the precise impact of human activity on the climate. Second, he is skeptical of alarmists’ long-range predictions about what the weather will be like 100 years from now. Third, he is skeptical of alarmists’ proposed solutions of more regulations and higher taxes; he believes that increasing research and development will lead to more practical, innovative solutions. He does believe in the scientific method that follows these three principles: 1) welcomes critiques, 2) avoids unsubstantiated predictions, and 3) relies upon unbiased data.

There are several media sources that have presented an accurate description of the congressman’s views. Below are a few examples of this reporting as well as some of the Chairman’s own writings. I have added the emphasis in the articles’ excerpts below.

The Washington Times, 11/8/2017, Meeting energy and environmental challenges (Smith Op-ed)

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/8/government-should-meet-energy-and-environmental-ch/

· Today’s world is driven by technological advancements in every industry, which can increase efficiency, lower costs and benefit the environment. Technology also can provide solutions to today’s challenges. Instead of government mandates, more regulations and higher energy taxes, the federal government should invest in research that supports the development of advanced nuclear power, better energy storage and the conversion of emissions or waste into commercial products. Unfortunately, nuclear power, which is the only reliable, emissions-free source of electricity, is still criticized by environmental activists. But those who are interested in solving some of America’s environmental challenges should endorse sustainable energy policies that promote critical new technologies like advanced nuclear reactors and grid-scale energy storage.

· If successful, this technology will have more impact on carbon emissions than any current mandate, federal regulation or tax incentive.

· It is groundbreaking technology — not government regulations — that will protect the environment, lower energy costs for consumers and ensure that America remains a world energy and technology leader.

The Daily Caller, 1/29/2018, Technology Advances Civilization. Bureaucrats Do Not (Smith Op-ed)

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/29/technology-advances-civilization-bureaucrats-do-not/

· As the climate continues to change, as it always has, we should look to technology to solve possible problems. These technologies could help us both mitigate challenges and adapt to our ever-evolving world.

· In November, the Science Committee held a hearing on the topic of geoengineering with government, academic, think tank, and industry witnesses. During the hearing, experts commented on the potential power of these innovative concepts and advocated further research. While we do not yet know if these concepts will work, we should explore them further and encourage the innovative minds that are using technology to find solutions.

· By focusing our resources on basic research, we can find solutions that meet our needs.

The Washington Times, 9/25/2017, Alarmism in climate reporting (Smith op-ed)

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/25/climate-change-overreported-by-media/

· Americans deserve better than to be misled about important issues such as climate change. Instead of painting a dire future, media outlets should accurately report all the varying climate scenarios, not just the worst-case, catastrophic ones.

The Hill, 6/7/17, Paris climate agreement was a bad economic deal (Smith Op-ed)

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/336633-paris-climate-agreement-bad-economic-deal?rnd=1496788226

· Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology calculated that if all 195 countries abided by the Paris agreement it would have reduced global warming only 0.16 degree Celsius by 2100!

· Climate is changing and humans have an impact.

Daily Caller (Smith opinion): Climate Variability: Why Can’t We Talk About It?, May 31, 2017

· It is clear there is still more to learn about Earth’s climate. Instead of only focusing on the effects of human actions, we would be better served by continuing to research the full scope of issues impacting Earth’s climate. Evaluating and analyzing natural cycles will better inform how we respond and what actions might be taken. Scientists should not limit their understanding by only considering causes of climate change that fit their slanted worldview. To begin to understand the scope of climate science, scientists must investigate all reasonable, science-based approaches. This is the only way policymakers will have the information they need to make good decisions on climate change.

Morning Consult, 5/26/17, Let’s Put an End to One-Sided Science (Smith Op-ed)

https://morningconsult.com/opinions/lets-put-end-one-sided-science/

· The Science Committee is committed to advancing science by upholding its core principles. Just last month, the committee held a hearing on climate science and the scientific method with notable and respected scientific scholars. Unfortunately, many chose not to focus on the remaining scientific uncertainties we face before meaningful action is considered. Scientific debate should continue to enhance our understanding of issues such as the world’s changing climate.

Boston Globe: It’s not anti-science to expect government agencies to pursue honest, legitimate agenda; (Smith letter to the editor), Feb. 28, 2017

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/letters/2017/02/28/not-anti-science-expect-government-agencies-pursue-honest-legitimate-agenda/FqHZV7001XwogkwVonux1J/story.html

· No matter how many times The Boston Globe says I am a climate denier, that statement will continue to be untrue. I have never denied that carbon emissions contribute to climate change — the question is to what extent.

Daily Signal: The Inconvenient Facts the Media Ignore About Climate Change (Smith Opinion), Feb. 26, 2016

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/26/the-inconvenient-facts-the-media-ignores-about-climate-change/

· Those who reject the liberal viewpoint that climate change is the greatest threat to our country are ridiculed and ignored. For example, the Associated Press recently amended its stylebook to recommend that those who question the science behind global warming be called climate change “doubters” instead of “skeptics.” But this is inaccurate, since many “skeptics” don’t doubt that climate change has occurred.

My San- Antonio: Smith remains skeptical, but he’s polite; Oct. 20, 2016

https://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/josh_brodesky/article/Smith-remains-skeptical-but-he-s-polite-9999830.php

· Smith agrees the climate is warming. “I think that is probably the case,” he says. He even thinks humans are having some impact. He just thinks the impact is greatly exaggerated and highly uncertain.

· But he bristles at the dire projections. The ones about melting ice and rising sea levels, the predicted flooding and drought, the famine in developing countries, Florida underwater.

New York Times: Rep. Lamar Smith Questions Agency’s Revised Climate Data (Smith letter to the editor), Dec. 9, 2015

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/opinion/rep-lamar-smith-questions-agencys-revised-climate-data.html?_r=0

· The climate is always changing, and human activity likely plays a small role. But what climate alarmists say is sometimes untrue and often exaggerated. We should rely on good science, not science fiction, when we evaluate climate change.

USA Today, 12/13/15, Don't rely on bad climate deal (Smith Op-ed)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/13/climate-deal-president-obama-lamar-smith-editorials-debates/77253390/

· Climate change is caused by a combination of factors, including natural cycles, solar variability and human activity. Scientists still disagree about how much each of these factors contributes to overall climate change.

Part 2: [Smith has been criticized for] baselessly attacking scientific outlets and researchers…

The sources that Wikipedia cites for this sentence reference the chairman’s subpoenas of NOAA scientists and state attorneys general. However, his lawfully issued subpoenas were not “attacks,” nor were they “baseless.” The chairman issued subpoenas for information regarding the NOAA “Karl Study” because he had reason to believe the study authors ignored NOAA standards and the scientific method in compiling their conclusions. The Chairman issued subpoenas for information from several state attorneys general to obtain documents related to the attorneys general’s coordinated efforts to deprive companies, nonprofit organizations, scientists and scholars of their First Amendment rights and their ability to fund and conduct scientific research free from intimidation and threats of prosecution. Again, the Wikipedia sentence gives a false impression.

Part 3: [Smith has been criticized for] receiving funding from oil and gas companies…

This sentence needs to be put in context. Publicly available information shows that total funding from energy companies only amounts to about five percent of his total contributions. Both here and in edit #2, anyone can be criticized by anyone about anything. To cite critics is only giving one biased and, here and in edit #2, inaccurate side of the story.

Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00001811&cycle=CAREER

Edit: The sentence should be omitted. The first two parts are demonstrably wrong, and the third part is out of context and gives a false impression.

3. Wikipedia: He was formerly a contributor to Breitbart News.[8]

This claim is inaccurate since the word “contributor” implies that the congressman had some formal connections to the outlet, which is not true. The congressman has written op-eds that were published by Breitbart, see: http://archive.is/UcA3T, as he has for many other outlets. The op-eds listed below were published over the last two years. Breitbart published only two of the 36 op-eds.

Publication

Date Published

Link

Daily Caller

1/29/2018

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/29/technology-advances-civilization-bureaucrats-do-not/

Houston Chronicle

1/18/2018

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Smith-Culberson-Space-telescopes-promise-a-12505519.php

The Hill

12/20/2017

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/365565-to-fill-stem-jobs-federal-programs-need-to-focus-on-results

Roll Call

11/30/2017

http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/national-science-foundation-china

Decoding Dyslexia

11/15/2017

http://www.decodingdyslexiamd.org/news/research-helps-those-with-dyslexia-by-reps-smith-westerman-and-brownley

Washington Times

11/8/2017

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/8/government-should-meet-energy-and-environmental-ch/

Houston Chronicle

10/2/2017

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Smith-Weber-Babin-Electric-grid-resiliency-12247592.php

Washington Times

9/25/2017

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/25/climate-change-overreported-by-media/

Ventura County Star

7/22/2017

http://www.vcstar.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/07/22/government-needs-get-out-way-small-business/501572001/

Daily Signal

7/24/2017

http://dailysignal.com/2017/07/24/dont-believe-hysteria-carbon-dioxide

Washington Times

6/19/2017

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/scientific-research-funding-by-taxpayers-shouldnt-/

The Hill

6/7/2017

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/336633-paris-climate-agreement-bad-economic-deal?rnd=1496788226

Morning Consult

5/26/2017

https://morningconsult.com/opinions/lets-put-end-one-sided-science/

Daily Caller

5/31/2017

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/31/climate-variability-why-cant-we-talk-about-it/

Real Clear Energy

4/28/2017

http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2017/04/28/tax_subsidies_for_renewables_now_far_outpaces_fossil_fuels_110217.html

Daily Caller

4/21/2017

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/21/on-this-day-i-talk-about-science/

Forbes

3/29/2017

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/03/29/americas-cybersecurity-emergency-that-keeps-getting-worse/2/#6602ff8751bc

WSJ

3/9/2017

https://www.wsj.com/articles/getting-to-the-bottom-of-a-climate-crusade-1489016283

Houston Chronicle

3/7/2017

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Cruz-Smith-and-Babin-A-strong-step-for-Texas-10984570.php

USA Today

2/22/2017

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/02/22/science-foundation-research-taxpayer-funding-lamar-smith-column/98012732/

Idependent Journal Review

2/7/2017

http://ijr.com/opinion/2017/02/263861-congress-will-work-president-trump-make-epa-great/

The Hill

1/17/2017

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/314508-innovation-vs-regulation

Law360

9/15/2016

https://www.law360.com/articles/836946/rep-smith-on-the-aia-s-5th-anniversary

New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung

9/11/2016

http://herald-zeitung.com/opinion/article_9dcc562c-77ae-11e6-9c97-dfb452b6eb95.html

Breitbart

9/13/2016

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/13/rep-lamar-smith-amnesty-costs-workers-taxpayers/

SAEN

8/4/2016

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Panel-devoted-to-protecting-scientific-inquiry-9123765.php

FOX News

8/2/2016

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/02/rep-lamar-smith-dear-epa-stop-acting-like-bully-and-start-following-rule-law.html

Washington Times

6/16/2016

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/15/stopping-the-spread-of-zika/

The Hill

6/7/2016

http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/282545-the-overreach-of-the-administration-on-climate

Washington Examiner

6/2/2016

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lets-not-blur-the-distinction-between-legal-and-illegal-immigration/article/2592767

National Review

4/22/2016

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434397/barack-obamas-paris-climate-change-agenda-will-cost-american-families

Daily Signal

2/26/2016

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/26/the-inconvenient-facts-the-media-ignores-about-climate-change/

FOX News

2/25/2016

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/02/25/rep-lamar-smith-if-secure-our-border-will-secure-our-future.html

USA Today

2/9/2016

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/09/obama-administration-least-transparent-epa-state-doj-clinton-benghazi-column/80050428/

Breitbart

2/1/2016

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/01/halting-refugees-is-the-right-thing-to-do/

Washington Examiner

1/7/2016

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/climate-exaggeration/article/2579757

Edit: The claim should be removed since it presents an inaccurate description of the congressman’s relationship with Breitbart News.

4. Wikipedia: Smith attended the private high school at TMI — The Episcopal School of Texas and graduated in 1965.[10]

When the congressman attended the high school, it was known as Texas Military Institute. See the “Becoming Texas Military Institute” section of the schools webpage: https://www.tmi-sa.org/page/about/overview.

Edit: The sentence should read, “Smith attended a private high school, then called Texas Military Institute, now known as TMI — The Episcopal School of Texas, and graduated in 1965.”

5. Wikipedia: In 1982, he was elected to the 3rd Precinct of the Bexar County Commission.

There is no Bexar County Commission; it is called the Bexar County Commissioners Court.

Edit: This sentence should read, “In 1982, he was elected Bexar County Commissioner in Precinct 3.”

For citation, see:

1) Smith’s National Journal biography, which states, “He was elected to the Texas House in 1980 and the Bexar County Commissioners Court in 1982.”

https://www.nationaljournal.com/almanac/person/472#narrative

2) Bexar County Commissioners Court website: https://www.bexar.org/146/Commissioners-Court

6. Wikipedia: On June 23, 2011, H.R. 2306 was introduced to Congress by Barney Frank and co-signer Ron Paul.[33]

Edit: This sentence should say that the bill was introduced “in” Congress rather than “to” Congress and the correct term is “co-sponsor” not “co-signer,” a term never used.

7. Wikipedia: Smith publicly denies global warming.[56][57][58]

This statement is false and even the content of the sources cited do not support this claim. In fact, two of the sources cited, #56 and #57, present a more balanced description than does this assertion on the Wikipedia page. I have included excerpts from Wikipedia Sources #56 and #57 below.

· The Hill – Source 56: Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and a prominent congressional skeptic on climate change…

· The Hill – Source 57: But the truth is there are more questions about climate change than there are answers.

None of the three articles cited claim that “Smith publicly denies global warming.” To the contrary, the cited articles above specifically show that while Smith is skeptical of some mainstream views, he does not deny the existence of global warming caused by humans.

Also see the responsive material provided for requested edit #2, specifically the congressman’s own op-eds and letters to the editor, as well as the note on the difference between a “denier” and a “skeptic,” as they are applicable here as well.

Edit: This claim on the congressman’s page should be deleted. None of the sources support the claim.

8. Wikipedia: Under his leadership, the House Science committee has held hearings that feature the views of climate change deniers,[59]

This claim is false and the content of the citation does not support this description.

Edit: This claim should be deleted.

9. Wikipedia: In a June 2016 response letter to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Mr. Smith cited the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s as valid legal precedent for his investigation.[61][62]

This statement is a blatant and particularly nefarious misrepresentation. Chairman Smith did not cite the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee but rather Supreme Court rulings that set the precedent for modern congressional oversight responsibilities of all congressional committees.

Edit: This claim should be deleted.

10.Wikipedia: Committee assignments

The Committee Assignments section omits Smith’s previous chairmanship of the House Committee on Ethics, implies that the Tea Party Caucus is still in existence, misnames the Border Security Caucus, and omits the Media Fairness Caucus.

Edit: This sentence in the “Committee Assignments” section should read, “Smith has previously served on the Committee on Ethics (Chairman), the Congressional Border Security Caucus (Founder), and the Tea Party Caucus, which no longer exists, and currently serves on the Committee on Homeland Security, Committee on the Judiciary (former Chairman), the Republican Study Committee,[67] and the Media Fairness Caucus (Founder).

For citation, see:

1) Smith’s National Journal biography: https://www.nationaljournal.com/almanac/person/472#narrative

2) Smith’s biography on his congressional website: https://lamarsmith.house.gov/about/biography

11. Wikipedia: Leahy-Smith America Invents Act

Edit: In the “Leahy-Smith America Invents Act” section, add “Smith was named Policymaker of the Year in 2011 by Politico for his success in enacting the America Invents Act” to give a complete description of the legislation’s significance.

Citation:

- Politico: https://www.politico.com/story/2011/11/jackson-leahy-smith-ryan-named-policymakers-of-year-069373

12.Wikipedia: In 1992, he married Elizabeth Lynn Schaefer,[68] a Christian Science practitioner and teacher, as was his first wife, Jane Shoultz, before her death in 1991.[69]

The maiden name of the congressman’s first wife is misspelled. Her maiden name was Shoults.

Edit: Correct the spelling of Jane Shoults’ maiden name.

13.Additional Legislation

The congressman’s page is missing a reference to many pieces of influential legislation that were enacted during his Science Committee chairmanship.

Edit: Add the legislation listed below:

1. American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (National Interest, NSF Grants)

· The bipartisan American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, signed into law in 2017, was the result of a four-year effort to strengthen and reform agencies and programs that administer basic research.

· The AICA enacted NSF merit review reform to include Smith’s specific ‘national interest’ grant criteria. The national interest criteria ensures transparency and accountability by requiring a non-technical national interest justification of all federally funded research projects.

2. READ Act

· Despite the prevalence of dyslexia, many Americans remain undiagnosed, untreated and silently struggle at school or work.

· Smith’s bipartisan READ Act, signed into law in 2016, enables those with dyslexia to achieve their maximum potential.

3.   McCarthy-Smith SPACE Act

· The Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015, or SPACE Act, enacted in 2015, facilitates a pro-growth environment for the developing commercial space sector. It creates more stable regulatory conditions and improves safety, which in turn attracts private investment. The SPACE Act secures American leadership in space and fosters the development of advanced space technologies.

· This bill was the product of over three years of work, numerous committee hearings, and input from industry, education groups, and grassroots citizen advocacy groups. Virtually every stakeholder group supported this bill.

· This legislation is keeping America at the forefront of aerospace technology, promoting American jobs, reducing red tape, promoting safety, and inspiring the next generation of explorers.

4. STEM Education Act

· The STEM Education Act aims to prepare our students for degrees in STEM subjects – including computer science – to ensure that they have the ability to thrive in today’s technology-based economy.

· This bill, signed into law in 2015, expands the definition of STEM to include computing, provides incentives for students to study these subjects and trains more teachers.

5. Balanced Budget

● As a member of the Budget Committee, Lamar Smith helped write the last balanced budget enacted into law.

● Lamar Smith was the first Judiciary Committee Chairman in 15 years to bring a balanced budget amendment to the House floor.

● He supported the Budget Control Act that has reduced spending by $2.1 trillion over the last four years.

● He voted for a balanced budget and co-authored a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget every Congress.

Regulations

· According to the Small Business Administration, regulations cost the American economy $1.75 trillion annually. We need to encourage businesses to expand, not tie them up with red tape.

· In 2011, Congressman Smith sponsored three bills to reduce regulations and red tape for businesses. The REINS Act, Regulatory Accountability Act, and Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act were all approved by the House of Representatives.

· The bills place meaningful limits on federal agency regulations, including regulations from the EPA that harm small businesses and job growth. Each of the bills lowers the cost of regulations and provides additional oversight to the regulatory process. For example, the REINS Act (HR 10) requires Congress to take an up-or-down vote on government regulations with an economic impact of at least $100 million before they can be imposed on the American people and businesses. In 2012, Congressman Smith cosponsored the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act, a bill to place a moratorium on all major federal regulations.

-Rep. Lamar Smith

RepSmith (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC) RepSmith (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Hi. While we appreciate your concerns (aside from the obvious conflict of interest), at least part of the requested changes are way too biased to be included in any Wikipedia article, especially those about politicians. To go through all of your points by their respective numbering:


 * 1) To me, this looks like something that could go either way in terms of notability. I'd let a more experienced user look at that point, but I think it can stay in the meantime.
 * 2) The term "criticism" itself is more neutral than what it details. Just because this "criticism" is in the article with sources does not always mean the criticism is unbiased.
 * 3) Again, I'd call in another user more experienced in politics if you really stand by you claim that the source for this might not comply with Wikipedia's reliability policy.
 * 4) The source you provided sounds reasonable, but I'd once again have another user take a look at this.
 * 5) Wikipedia usually prefers common names over official names; you need to start a requested move before the title can be changed.
 * 6) The only thing I can clearly see being changed without problem; after all, that's how it's parsed in most lawmaking bodies.
 * 7) You'll need a second set of eyes. Yet again, I suggest contacting a more experienced user in this field.
 * 8) Still again, might need an experienced, unbiased user to address your claims.

For the remaining others (and all of these points in general), I suggest contacting the conflict of interest noticeboard. Please remember to abide by Wikipedia's rules regarding COIs. Thanks, and I hope that helps! Cheers - ToThAc (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "This claim wrongly implies that the congressman denies climate change is occurring [..] He does not deny that the climate is changing or that humans have contributed to that change"
 * No, you got that wrong. That is not what the term "climate change denial" means. Please consult the Wikipedia article Climate change denial for a relatively short introduction on the subject. The article also has a lot of useful information on what is wrong with deniers' reasoning. While you are at it, you could also try reading a few climatology articles to correct your obvious lack of understanding of the subject.
 * Also, since you do not seem to know this either: "alarmist" is a term that is not used outside the denialist filter bubble, especially not for the mainstream of climatology. Therefore there is no chance that we will use it in any article in that meaning.
 * Given your writing style, here is an abbreviation you will probably encounter often: "TL;DR". Hope this helps. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

From Rep. Smith, in response to the first editor's response above:

You taking the time to respond is appreciated. We assume you would want any Wiki posting to be as accurate as possible. So we will take you up on your offer of a second look as well as offer additional comments for your consideration.

1. The Wiki description is based on out-of-date information. We are trying to provide a more accurate description.

2. Criticism is not “neutral” to the person who receives it, nor have I ever promoted climate change denial. It would behoove Wiki not to repeat misleading statements.

3. “A contributor” implies a formal and/or regular writer, which is not the case.

4. All we can do is offer you the facts.

5. There is a big difference between a “commission” and a “court.”

7. Please read any of my op-eds on the subject.

8. None of the Committee’s witnesses have ever called themselves deniers. To allow others to apply that label unfairly would be like allowing “pro-choice” advocates to be called “pro-abortion” by Wiki.
 * It does not matter what they call themselves. "Denier" is the term commonly used by scientists for that specific sort of anti-science activist, and it is fully justified, given that that sort of activism is well known to be based on lies, distortion, and bribes. Needless to say, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on notoriously unreliable ones. We use the vocabulary used by the reliable sources, and that is "denier". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

From Rep. Smith, in response to the second editor's response above: All we can do is assume that Wikipedia wants to be as accurate as possible, even if that means reading lengthy responses from us. By accurate, we mean not (unintentionally?) citing something out of context (like the reference to the House Un-American Activities Committee), being factual (as in the committee assignment request and the spelling of my wife’s name), and occasionally giving credit (America Invents Act). We know Wikipedia strives to be a source of correct information and we hope that will continue.

RepSmith (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Political Positions: Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011
On Lamar Smith's position against Marijuana, I'm bringing up a couple of examples of what I see as violations of WP:WEASEL in this section, the entirety of which (in my opinion) is written in the style of MOS:OPED:

(1) "H.R. 2306 would limit federal powers to interstate transfer; while laws for cultivation, sales, use, and taxation would be determined by each state. This bill was well received by the public, especially medical marijuana patients and activists." This is unsourced, and uses weasel wording - "well received by the public, especially..." This should be backed up with national polls or ballot initiatives if it really was well received. As a counterexample to the "well received" quote: in Arizona, a ballot proposition legalizing medical marijuana passed by less than 5,000 votes out of 1.6 million votes cast - this was a controversial initiative, according to the ballots. (AZ Central says Arizona Medical Marijuana Proposition too close to call CNN reports 0.3% margin in favor of Arizona Medical Marijuana Proposition)

(2) "Smith stated that "Marijuana use and distribution is prohibited under federal law because it has a high potential for abuse and does not have an accepted medical use in the U.S., The Food and Drug Administration has not approved smoked marijuana for any condition or disease." This statement is highly controversial and has been disputed by many." We have this statement from the source cited: "The use of Cannabis for medicinal purposes dates back to ancient times (see Question 3). ... "Cannabis and cannabinoids have been studied in the laboratory and the clinic for relief of pain, nausea and vomiting, anxiety, and loss of appetite (see Question 6 and Question 7). "Cannabis and cannabinoids may have benefits in treating the symptoms of cancer or the side effects of cancer therapies (see Question 7). "Two cannabinoids (dronabinol and nabilone) are FDA approved for the prevention or treatment of chemotherapy -related nausea and vomiting (see Question 7 and Question 10). "Cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory and to affect the immune system. However, there is no evidence that Cannabis' effects on the immune system help the body fight cancer (see Question 6)." The first, third, and fourth comments indicate that Smith's statement could be incorrect (assuming chemotherapy and its effects are considered conditions, which I haven't researched), though there is no sourcing offered that would indicate backlash or controversy over the statement, nor is there a link to the chronology of FDA approval relative to Smith's statement. Furthermore, the source, the National Cancer Institute, doesn't qualify as "many," last I checked.

I'll remove the weasel words noted, and change the wording of (2) to more accurately portray the situation, but I'll leave the final verdict as to the section (as well as possible reverts to my changes) to the community. 174.19.141.246 (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * From IP 174.19.141.246: One edit has survived (the NCI comment), and the other ("well-received...") was added back in, though I can't find when, nor can I see a reason why. I've tagged the comment asking by whom the bill was "well-received." I'm also adding several tags on sentences of the Political Positions topic that are uncited or in need of clarification. As a final edit, I'm moving the "funding from the Beer, Wine, and Liquor Lobby" to a new section (titled "Campaign Funds and Donations"), as its current position (as well as the word "Incidentally" which I'm removing) is leading and editorial in nature. These will be done in two separate edits since they are (somewhat) separate issues. 75.171.4.85 (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism Aside
Why doesn't this article mention that he created S.O.P.A. --74.110.174.117 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know either. However, he HIMSELF is now questioning the bill. 69.228.91.99 (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He seems to get all his policy proposals from whatever lobbyists are willing to contribute the most, so I don't know if it would be accurate to say he created it. 107.37.137.187 (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I heard him say that he questioned it toward the end of the hearing but it was just posturing for the public because Homeland Security expressed their concerns about it interfering with the way it uses the net - some kind of computer programming issue which I did not understand. The fact is that he has been adamantly for the bill throughout. Mugginsx (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

He's still sponsoring despite the recent media uprising. I think this should be on the page, it is vital information that people searching for him will want to know.Vixenish (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No Protection‽
Nobody is (semi-)protecting the article from anticipated increased vandalism in light of SOPA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synetech (talk • contribs) 23:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC) --Jerzy•t 23:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. Keep an eye, if you like, and report specifically if/when there is actual vand that is hard to keep up with.

Rest'n in lead
I lacked, in the edit-summary window, a wider available margin that would have accommodated remarks along the lines of
 * I made this edit (which makes no difference in markup outside the lead section, nor any at all in rendered content) only in order to comment, as follows, within the edit history on the previous edit-history entry's summary:
 * In their preceding edit to the page Lamar S. Smith, my colleague Heimstern made no change that matters except (as stated) to restore a sentence to the form that it was left in by Cenarium in an edit at 22:22 (UTC) on 2011 December 26. Heimstern's change was, as stated, to remove PoV from the article. I say more on this subject, on the accompanying talk page, in a section entitled "Rest'n in lead" (by which i mean "About the text restored [by me] in the lead paragraph of the accompanying article").

Thus constrained, i made instead the following edit-summary
 * (lead secn only)(Dmy ed for annot'n:) Prec'g ed byHeimstern ch'd only ld sent of ld 'grph of ld sec'n, rest'r'g ess'ly a '11 Dec 26 22:22 sent by Special:Contributions/Cenarium, to rem PoV. See

of a dummy edit to the article, in order to clarify Cenarium's (for me) grossly cryptic and minimally helpful immediately preceding summary which i reproduce here:
 * rv last sentence of lede to last version by Cenarium. Not a fan of SOPA, but we've got to stay neutral in article content.

A diff shows that I remain a bit nonplussed by the decision to revert without further explanation to markup and text that was 40 revisions old, and in the same light by the degree of effort that was left to any colleagues who review the edit, but i am prepared satisfied for now to assume both sound judgment and GF underlying the substance of the reversion -- especially since the PoV surplus is so clear, and Cenarium's remedy so direct. --Jerzy•t 21:10 &21:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) full reversion to the revision i specify above would not have been appropriate, and
 * 2) the partial reversion
 * 3) affected only the sent i've specified,
 * 4) caused no change from the rendering of Cenarium's last preceding revision of the affected 'graph, and
 * 5) indeed removed a PoV problem.


 * I'm frankly not satisfied with either version. "Most well known for" is unsourced and seems contrary to the body of the article, wherein SOPA has a grand total of one non-assuming sentence. The other sentence is placing some unsourced POV in the lead, again without support in the body of the article.  I would have no qualms about a simple declaratory without the commentary: "He is the congressman who introduced SOPA — the Stop Online Piracy Act." and leaving the debate in the SOPA article.  Alternatively, expanding the one-liner in the article may be a good idea.  Kuru   (talk)  00:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Jerzy, I'm having some trouble following exactly what your concern is, but my decision to revert that one sentence is just what you and I both said: A simple solution to a POV problem. And as Smith is a living person, uncited content like that is also a BLP violation. I'm not completely sure I like the restored sentence that much, but consider it vastly preferable to what was there before my edit and a highly serviceable quick fix.
 * Kuru, I think your solution is probably better yet. In fact, I'm gonna give that a shot. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 January 2012
i want to write a prediction about his fall :U

Sealatis (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC) --Jerzy•t 05:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Request rejected. (AGF says to assume that is more than a bad joke.) You must specify "what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it." If you're willing to be specific, bear in mind CRYSTAL.

stolen photography
Someone should write that Lamar's site (possibly) violated copyright by using uncredited photography. See http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/lamar-smith-sopa-copyright-whoops and http://www.flickr.com/photos/oxherder/4189641199/

(sorry for my bad english) --Izar.cz (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems that there can be found more signs of "suspicious" behavior: http://torrentfreak.com/sopa-sponsors-break-their-own-law-111117/ --Izar.cz (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that I reviewed www.texansforlamarsmith.com using the internet archive wayback machine for the summer months of 2010 and the image was used. No one from the Lamar Smith organizations contacted my for permission to use the image (which whether you determine his site is commercial or not - it is a fund raising site - allows him to use the image) but he definitely did not attribute the image to me in any way which is against the Creative Commons license held on it. Then the site admins blocked historical viewing of the site. Don J Schulte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.75.87 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

false information
under the subsection on SOPA/PIPA, the Protect Children from Internet Pornographers Act (HR 1981) is called PIPA. However, the acronym PIPA refers to the PROTECT IP Act - introduced by Patrick Leahy. The quote is about HR 1981, not PIPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.249.9 (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting that - I corrected it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"admitted to the bar" is confusing for the majority of the world - please use "is a lawyer" or similar
"Admitted to the bar" obfuscates Lamar's actual profession - a lawyer.

Please add this information to the page to indicate his profession.

Rationale: I would suggest a bracketed item to the effect of "(a lawyer)" or "(a solicitor)" or similar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawyerslie (talk • contribs) 13:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an objective and honest addition showing his actual profession
 * Many people across the world will not know what "admitted to the bar" actually means; it is legal wording not generally accessible to the wider public
 * ❌ Since his infobox occupation states "Attorney", but I've hyperlinked admission to the bar & bar, as this is done in many other congressional biographies. Dru of Id (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Climate skeptic, also he will chair house committee on science and technology
These two things should be noted in this article (as they are somewhat related)--173.71.203.94 (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Meteors
I am not sure what sort of vetting process you have here, but it is terrible. The cited article about unicorns and meteor denial is the New Yorker's "The Borowitz Report," a satirical segment with recent articles like: "Choking Back Tears, N.R.A. Leader Marries Gun," "Tea Party Issues Scathing Rebuttal to State of Union Twelve Hours Before Speech," "U.S. Cancels Regular Drone Strikes on Saturdays" (a reference to USPS cutbacks)

Maybe we should start considering the Onion as a reputable source as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.94.142 (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are the vetting process. Wikipedia relies on editors to recognise, report and/or remove material which does not belong on Wikipedia, just as you have done. Cheers, Peter B. (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 April 2013
This article is missing criticisms of Lamar Smith's policies, especially those related to systemic de-funding of science in schools.

24.89.87.123 (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:. Please state your request in format "change X to Y", and provide reliable sources.  RudolfRed (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Under the chairmanship of Lamar Smith, The House Science Committee Has Held More Hearings on Aliens Than on Climate Change
The House Science Committee Has Held More Hearings on Aliens Than on Climate Change - National Journal, May 21, 2014


 * " ... In this session of Congress, House committees tasked with covering U.S. energy and science have held a total of seven hearings to discuss climate change. By contrast, the two chambers have held a combined 19 hearings about space exploration in that same time period.


 * The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee—led by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, since 2013—has held 15 hearings on space exploration alone, at least three of which have involved the search for extraterrestrial life. By comparison, Smith's committee has held just two hearings devoted to climate change. ... " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 15:26, 29 May 2014‎


 * Are you proposing a change to the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)