Talk:Louie Gohmert/Archive 1

Personal Biography Dispute
Is Wikipedia really the place to copy and paste Congressman Gohmert's official biography? This biography is written by his staff and created to be favorable to him. It is not impartial in any sense. While some of the points within the biography may be good to bring up and be cited from that biography, shouldn't this entry be more biographical and less partisan? 66.76.225.39 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Concerned Regarding Impartiality


 * I certainly don't disagree, some of the politician articles are a bit slanted, and this certainly reads like "official bio". Wikipedia has an official policy, Neutral point of view, that this article seems to violate. There are also mechanisms for marking articles that lack neutrality, see Template:POV. Feel free to rewrite the article to be more neutral; I'll mark it as not neutral (since as an anon user, you're relatively unlikely to actually see this).--studerby 20:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The longer bio was made neutral and posted last week, but someone deleted it anyway, and tagged it as "vandalism." Seems that deleting a neutral bio without reading it is vandalism. I am not going to repost it, I will leave that to the "keepers of Wikipedia" to do if they are interested in correcting their mistake/vandalism.

Would it be appropriate to note that Louie went to a segregated high school and at no time then or since has ever had a negative word to say about segregation and white supremacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rillifane (talk • contribs) 22:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Show
Does not count as "coming under fire."

Just because Jon Stewart mentions something on his show, it does not warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Citation was horrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.61.14 (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

C-SPAN issue
I notice that the last two paragraphs of this article are sourced only to C-SPAN. I am unsure if this is acceptable, and have posted a topic about it on the BLP noticeboard: WP:BLP/N. Robofish (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it notable? Have the talking heads made this an issue? Has it been covered else where? The length seems like undue weight compared to the overall bio. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the material. If anything more develops, this can be revisited it seems. --Tom (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Terror babies
Apparently this person has become especially notable for advancing information related to foreign people coming to American, birthing children to gain those children US citizenship, then leaving the country to train the children as terrorists who have US citizen rights. It seems also to be the case that this person has support from other US politicians. If anyone can provide multiple WP:RS for this, I would appreciate a discussion here about adding content about this with sources to the article mainspace.  Blue Rasberry  20:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I expanded this section to make clear that Gohmert's story wasn't merely that "terror babies" was such a good plan that terrorists must be doing it. Rather, he asserted specific knowledge that it was taken place. He specifically claimed a conversation with an ex-FBI agent. Then, he specifically claimed a conversation with a woman. Although that woman had relative tied to or sympathetic with Hamas, that story did not involve an explicit claim that the purpose of the U.S. birth was to facilitate attacks on the U.S. So I think it's important to make clear that Gohmert made specific concrete claims that he didn't provide evidence for rather than omitting the fact that such "goal post moving" occurred. I cited to a Boston Globe editorial, but I know a straight news story would be better if someone can find one to link to. It also might be appropriate to include Anderson Cooper's rebuttal that his sources said the "terror baby" plan was inefficient and unlikely, because terrorist groups are perfectly capable of recruiting adult U.S. citizen. Otherwise, Gohmert's claim that it's common sense goes unrebutted. --JamesAM (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Just plain stupid
This is the most blatantly biased article on a political figure I've read on Wikipedia, all because of the idiotic opening. Now I think Gohmert is a dangerous lunatic, but anyone who thinks they're damaging him with the insulting "conspiracy theorist" label as part of his job description is a fool. You're just damaging the credibility of Wikipedia. Readers can decide for themselves based on the facts, dispassionately presented in the article, what laudatory or pejorative label they want to stick on him, but they don't need to be steered. Of course he's a "conspiracy theorist". He's also a bald-headed quadruped; should that be noted in the first paragraph as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.60.94 (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I've removed the offending words for BLP and NPOV violations. I would generally think we should avoid calling someone a conspiracy theorist unless they themselves apply said appellation. 76.21.201.155 (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Added some sections.
I have added some sections and plan on adding more when I have some time. It appears a ip addresses user is refusing to allow changes to gohmerts page. this user may have an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy0093 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Be Advised -
This article has continuously been vandalized by an user. He has tried to avoid detection by using three IP address 99.168.72.86, 75.60.185.120, 75.60.186.187 and two user names Jdblack326 and Johnnyb.3261. The IP addresses all trace back to Columbus, Ohio and have the edits are all revert attempts to edit and a section in the article entitled "Implication Obama is complicit in creating a Islamic Caliphate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy0093 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)