Talk:Tom DeLay/Archive 3

Redistricting reasons POV?
The article mentions his redistricting campaign 'to elect more Republicans'. This interpretation needs to be sourced IMO or else removed as editorialising. It may be true, but if it isn't citable it's opinion.--Anchoress 08:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That claim is sourced in the body, but for some reason, it is invisible. If you edit the Investigation of alleged misconduct in Texas fundraising and indictments section, you will see that the third paragraph visible in that window, which starts, "Republican victories in 2002...", is not visible when one reads the article. That paragraph includes, which quotes DeLay as saying of the redistricting, "I'm the majority leader and we want more seats." If you can figure out how to make that paragraph visible to readers, I'd much appreciate it. NatusRoma | Talk 19:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK cool, thanks for the info, will look into it.--Anchoress 19:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are probably a gazillion sources out there, I seem to remember seeing supporting statements in the news at least a dozen times. Here are two:
 * * New Yorker article
 * * Wash. Post
 * and here's a quote from the man himself: "When you're drawing the lines, you have to set the example," DeLay explained late last week as he traveled his district during the Presidents' Day recess. "If you're going to maximize the number of Republicans that are elected, everybody can't have an 80 percent district. If you're the guy that's sort of leading the effort, you can't tell your members, 'Well, I'm going to dilute yours, but I'm going to pack mine.' " - Wash. Post, article above --studerby 20:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

better photo?
Is there a better photograph that can be used at the top of the article? The one shown there is really terrible. I think his mug shot is a much better likeness, but I recognize that it would be controversial to use that as the first image on the page. Even still, the man was in Congress for over 20 years. There must be some public domain or otherwise fair use image other than that lips-to-eyebrows shot (which is unsourced and subject to deletion, I might add). -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 21:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For a long time, until July 21, it had a different photo, see this older version. I'm not a particular fan of the new photo either (seems almost POVish), but it didn't rise to the level of comment for me... --studerby 22:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put forth some effort to find a better image. Image:Tomdelay.jpg is in the public domain, but it is very small. Do you think that it would be acceptable? NatusRoma | Talk 03:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree; Image:Tomdelay.jpg is too small to really be useful IMO. The diff that Studerby posted uses Image:TomDeLay.jpg (note caps in filename), which is not perfect, but much better than what's currently in use.  Any objections to changing it?  Alternatively, maybe someone has some old campaign materials that could be scanned?  Although his name is still on the ballot, he is not actively campaigning as I understand it, so there may not be any such materials for the upcoming election.  I believe that such an image would fall under fair use if it could be found.  -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 06:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Users have complained in the past about the low resolution of Image:TomDeLay.jpg (it was a big reason why the recent featured article nomination failed), so putting it in the article shouldn't mean the end of a search for a new image. Campaign pictures might work if they fall under the copyright category of publicity photographs. NatusRoma | Talk 06:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The current photo is a part of a meme. 62.197.171.66 16:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please explain what you mean. NatusRoma | Talk 03:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really know how I can explain that any better. It's part of a meme. Probably "that fucking cat" 4chan meme, but that's just a guess. 62.197.169.220 23:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed the photo back to Image:TomDeLay.jpg. I went back through the history to when that picture was used previously.  It was there with the  template, which forces the image to 225x250px. Since the image is only 180x220, it's getting stretched to fit, and that's where the graininess was coming from.  I concede that this isn't a perfect picture, but it's better than what was there before.  -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 15:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I thing the Congressional Pictorial Directory looks like a good source of images in the public domain. I haven't found an explicit disavowal of copyright, but the 2nd page of the .pdf edition says "Compiled Under the Direction of the Joint Committee on Printing Trent Lott, Chairman". Looks like work of the Federal government to me, therefore public domain, IMHO. The PDF version is available online. The PDFs could be mined in various ways. However, the images from Congressional Pictorial Directory are also already available as small JPEGs, scattered in each member's entry in the online version the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. DeLay's article. DeLay's photo. It's pretty small (174x214), but not teeny tiny, and it's otherwise high quality, perhaps it (or a capture from the PDF) could be scaled up (or, come to think of it, we fix  to take an image size parameter if it doesn't already - we've got hundreds of ready-made PD images and hundreds of articles what need 'em...).  But whatever y'all think is fine with me... studerby 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think modifying the template to take an image size would be a great idea. I'm not the template mastar by any stretch, but I'll copy it over to a sandbox and give it a go.  -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I've got it. Not nearly as tough as I was expecting.  See my comments on that talk page for details.  -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 17:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work, looks as good as that photo's going to look. It would still be good to get a better one somewhere. The newer Congressional Pictorial Directory photo is a crisper and cleaner shot, they did a very good job on the series, but arguably its less flattering to DeLay in particular, kind of an odd expression IMHO. We might want it elsewhere in the 'pedia, but I think the current one is better for the lead photo on the article. I'll keep my eye out for other resources. studerby 20:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've been going through the pages that use that template, and there are quite a few with small but nice images being made grainy from the resolution change.  I've discovered though, that the template is a generalized form of previously existing templates specific to political office, e.g., , etc.  Those ones thumbnail the images too, but only specify one dimension.  I don't know enough about templates and images to fool around with it tonight, but maybe over the weekend.  This page should probably use the congressman infobox instead of the politician one.  I'll give that a go tomorrow if someone else doesn't beat me to it.  -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 07:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "congressman infobox"? Drat! I just started using the politician box, but only on 2 or 3 congresscritters so far. Live and learns, I guess. I gotta spend more time skimming the project pages. studerby 08:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't discover it myself until I was going through what links here for Infobox Politician, and found a TfD discussion that its creator put up for Infobox President and others. He had a strange argument, but I guess the infobox does have some value for generic politicians.  -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 15:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
This article reads like an attack on the politician. Undue weight and content is provided on negative aspects of this biography, far in excess of any sense of balance. - Amgine 02:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please specify. NatusRoma | Talk 02:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A conservative, DeLay was elected to the House in 1984. He became known as "The Hammer" for his enforcement of party discipline in close votes and his reputation for exacting political retribution on opponents . He was appointed Deputy Minority Whip in 1988 and was elected House Majority Whip in 1995 after helping Newt Gingrich to lead the Republican Revolution . In the 1990s, he helped to start the K Street Project, an effort to pressure lobbying firms to hire Republicans to top positions . He was also a driving force behind President Bill Clinton's impeachment in 1998 . DeLay was elected House Majority Leader after the 2002 midterm elections, and was credited in recent years with compelling House Republicans to march in lock step, especially in support of President George W. Bush's agenda .


 * All elements underlined in this second paragraph are written in a non-neutral manner, and/or are included to provide negative coverage of the gentlman's career in the introduction - giving them undue weight. The balance of the article, likewise, is skewed. - Amgine 03:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Undue weight and content is provided on negative aspects of this biography, far in excess of any sense of balance.


 * Which sections or major parts of sections do you think should be reduced in size, and what sections do you think should be enlarged or added? (You don't need to respond with every instance; four or five examples, if there are that many, would certainly suffice.)  Thanks. John Broughton 03:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * All sections should be trimmed; most should be removed completely and/or collapsed. Sections which appear to be completely missing: committees and positions at the State House, committees and positions at the Federal House, current employment/lobby firm?, bills authored at the state level, bills authored at the federal level. You might also look at this wikien-l msg for a very short version of this article. - Amgine 03:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article does include descriptions of some of DeLay's congressional committee appointments. Please see for a discussion of the relative absence of meaningful federal legislation authored. I have seen no information on what DeLay has done since leaving Congress. Why should so many of the existing sections be removed? NatusRoma | Talk 03:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that terms such as "enforcement of party discipline", "political retribution", "pressure", "driving force", and "compelling...to march in lock step" are strong words, but I believe that they are born out by the body of the article and by the sources on which it rests. Could you please explain what you feel is unbalanced about the body of the article? NatusRoma | Talk 03:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They are not neutral; they are in fact interpretive. While you and I may be in agreement as to what the facts mean, it is not our job (nor that of Wikipedia) to interpret those facts, but rather to report them fairly, neutrally, and completely. - Amgine 03:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * All words are in fact interpretive. The facts state that DeLay did all of the things that the article says that he did, for good or for ill. NatusRoma | Talk 03:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny, I don't recall seeing Republicans "marching in lock step." Although I do know what kinds of images the authors of those words would like the audience to imagine. These terms are not only POV terms, they are partisan talking points.  I would prefer interpretive terms like "Delay's job as Majorty Whip was to unify the party's  response" rather than DLC talking points like "forcing the caucus to march in lock step."  Amgine is correct and the terms in her list are not Neutral.  Authors can use interpretive words but they should be neutral in tone.  Even if the source is not neutral. Otherwise it is opinion.--Tbeatty 04:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Democratic Leadership Council talking points? That's outlandish. I suppose you're right that some readers might take that phrase the wrong way (I didn't write it in the first place), and FAC reviewers have complained about that very sentence on stylistic grounds, so I've changed it to something that neutrally conveys the unprecedented nature of Republican unity during the period in question. NatusRoma | Talk 06:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is no question that language can be improved to make it more NPOV - that's probably true of most articles on active politicians, and there seems to be a constructive discussion going on here about that. More examples, or constructive editing, are certainly helpful.

As for All sections should be trimmed; most should be removed completely and/or collapsed - you seem to be saying that controversies have little or no place in wikipedia articles on politicians. That seems to me a completely different view of what wikipedia articles should be from what is currently the case. As such, I suggest taking it to the talk/discussion page of Biographies of living persons, because this article is NOT the best place to discuss general wikipedia policy. And if you think this does not represent a radical change from current wikipedia policy, it would be great if you could point to an article or two where what you want has in fact been done.

As for what is missing, I certainly encourage you to research these and, if interesting, to add them to wikipedia. My experience has been that just requesting others to add the material tends to lead to nothing happening. John Broughton 16:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying "all sections" should be trimmed needs to qualified with what and why. Please post your recommendations here, and examples that sections are POV. It is not simply correct to claim they are POV people offer sources/evidence that they are biased. Arbusto 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Trimming and consoloadating on bios has been around for a while. I have even seen it referenced on an ArbCom decision and they aren't supposed to get involved in content.  Namely, sections should not go into "blow by blow" accounts of every controversy.  If the controversy is notable enough, it should have it's own article.  If it already does have it's own article, just reference it and move on.  Otherwise briefly mention it.  Article quality suffers greatly when sections get bogged down in excruciating detail that is out of balance with the rest of the article and the subject.    --Tbeatty 05:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really. All sections I have examined of the article are, uniformly, over-long or not a large enough topic for an encyclopedia to cover at that level of detail. Furthermore, inclusion of, quite literally, more than a dozen POV scandals while not equally covering POV accomplishments/BAU... well, it merely underscores the imbalance of this article.


 * Controversies should have little or no place in wikipedia articles on politicians. The net result of those controversies has a place on Wikipedia. - Amgine 06:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If the controversy is notable enough, it should have it's own article. If it already does have it's own article, just reference it and move on.  Otherwise briefly mention it.  Sounds like a wikipedia policy to me - except that I don't know of any policy that states this.  Is this your interpretation of what wikipedia should be? Or is this taken from an existing, agreed-upon policy?  If the latter, a link would really be appreciated.


 * Controversies should have little or no place in wikipedia articles on politicians. The net result of those controversies has a place on Wikipedia. Another policy?  Again, if so, please cite.  And if this is in fact not yet a policy, perhaps this discussion should be taking place at Biographies of living persons?  John Broughton 13:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course the article should include relevant, sourced facts about Tom DeLay. The tone is suboptimal, but the idea to stub the article down to a bare skeleton, as Amgine suggests in his e-mail, is completely outlandish. NPOV should not be confused with "no POV"; it merely means that opinions and controversial claims need to be attributed and sourced, and must never be linked to Wikipedia itself. As for balance, please see NPOV tutorial.

Biographies about living persons are only special insofar as we must pay close attention to their content; there is no special policy about the inclusion of facts. The core policies that are applicable to all articles apply here as well. And of course that makes perfect sense. After all, an article about a company's products that includes libelous information is just as bad as one about their CEO that does so, and potentially much more harmful to them. The reason we don't have a special policy about companies' products is that most complaints and threats come, understandably, from living persons. It's therefore a matter of prioritization to treat them differently. But we don't sanitize articles to avoid getting into trouble or offending people.--Eloquence* 11:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not true, Eloquence. Living persons have different protections and rights from products, for starters. In some states, for example, it is theoretically possible for a person to require Wikipedia to remove any article about them unless they qualify as a public person under their judicial tests. Such a comparison is particular simplistic, and troubling from you especially.


 * Stubbish articles are not preferred on Wikipedia, but they have two primary benefits: They do not foreclose future actions by the subject, and they avoid disputes - within and without the community. Wikipedia will be around far longer than the subjects of the articles; let future wikipedians decide the fate of these articles when they can be viewed dispassionately as distant history. - Amgine 04:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So far, the only policy I've seen cited here is by Eloquence, regarding space and balance, which does NOT support statements such as let future wikipedians decide the fate of these articles when they can be viewed dispassionately as distant history. I will say again, since there has been no response to date - why don't you either cite wikipedia POLICY that supports your beliefs about removing sourced information about controversial matters, or take the discussion to the policy page on biographies of living persons, where you can attempt to convince the entire wikipedian community of the validity of your arguments?   John Broughton 12:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Kevin Baastalk 16:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think, instead, I will stop dealing with en.wp-related legal inquiries. I'm sure en.wp will be happy to provide volunteers to cover those queues and inquiries (who will then come try to talk to people who will tell them they won't removed obvious bias in content, and they'll quit too...) - Amgine 18:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP quotes:
 * Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
 * The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
 * The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material.
 * - Amgine 18:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And one more:
 * Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted in a commonsense way to achieve the purpose of the policy or help dispute resolution.  - WP:LAWYER - Amgine 19:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think "so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material." is putting the cart before the horse. What would the article on science be if the material was not written in a manner that overwhelms the article with the idea that it's based on empirical evidence or didn't appear to side with the presumption that unfalsifiable claims have no logical validity? Kevin Baastalk 17:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawal from ballot
A document from the office of the Texas Secretary of State date September 6 2006 doesn't list DeLay's name as a candidate for the general election for District 22, which means that he withdrew from the ballot. NatusRoma | Talk 05:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've updated the article. The legal battle was over whether the Republicans could select someone to replace DeLay on the ballot; they lost that.  But DeLay was able to get his name OFF the ballot, which will help the Republicans, who are now doing a write-in.  John Broughton 18:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm making a distinction between the strict decision of the court in the court case, and the results of the more metaphorical "court battle", which is the language that the article uses. NatusRoma | Talk 04:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There should be some mention that Shelley Sekula-Gibbs did win a special election to fill DeLay's unexpired term. As of this moment (12/18/2006), she is technically a member of the House of Representatives, serving Delay's Texas district. Her term expires when Lampson is sworn in next month. 66.158.35.253 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Domestic and foreign policy sections
I have thought for some time now that the "Domestic policy" and "Foreign policy" sections (particularly the former) depend on a patchwork of votes and ratings instead of a synthesized narrative. I would appreciate anyone adding content or sources that provide a more complete picture of DeLay's views. NatusRoma | Talk 04:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Brent Wilkes
I think someone should add a paragraph about DeLay's connections to Brent Wilkes, if I remember correctly, was one of the biggest beneficiaries of campaign contributions from Wilkes and figures prominently in the investigation of Wilkes.
 * I've looked into it a bit, and it looks like Brent's real connections were with ASG (in addition, of course, to his connections with Duke Cunningham). It doesn't seem like there's enough information about a specific relationship between Wilkes and DeLay for this article to mention anything. Yes, Wilkes let DeLay use his jet (paying Wilkes the required costs), and yes, Earle subpoenaed Wilkes, but the sum of the information is simply too circumstantial. NatusRoma | Talk 06:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

the truth
This article makes Tom DeLay, a Senator who would win the Most Corrupt Man in Politics award, look like just a regular old Senetor, even one who made improvemennts to our Constitution. HE IS NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE. There is a major difference beetween hurting someone's feelings and withholding the truth. It makes the horrible crime he commited seem like a tiny flaw in a holy man. It also makes it seem like impeaching Clinton was a high and noble deed, even though no one died when he lied, whereas thousands have died because of Bush's lies. This man was a criminal, not an angel. 24.14.33.61 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Erik Baker 1/3/07


 * Well, that's your opinion. In the meanwhile, get your facts straight. DeLay was in the House of Representatives, not in the Senate. I agree with your viewpoint, he seems to withhold the truth, BUT it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Save the political rants for your own personal blog or user page, please.crazyviolinist 03:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem a bit unhinged. To what crime are you referring?  DeLay is not being implicated in the Abramhoff scandal, it looks like it really was just his aides, and the money laundering charges really do seem politically motivated.  As far as I know no one indicted has actually been convicted of anything related to TRMPAC.--Littleman_ TAMU  (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, A "lie" is something that is intentionally untrue. It would be a lie to say, "I have four sisters", when you really have two. When Bush said his "16 words" about British intelligence, it was in fact, true. Not a lie, because British intelligence really did say what Bush said they did. Even if the information turned out to be false, that ain't a lie. If I were to say "No one I know has ever robbed a bank", but it turned out my 5th grade teacher was a bank robber, that wouldn't make it a lie. Also, as to whether or not anyone died because of Bill, that's debatable. I do agree impeaching him over 'what' he lied about was silly, but still, the fact that he did lie... (just look at poor ol' Scooter Libby, he "lied" about something that wasn't a crime, but he was convicted).

Infobox Criminal
Does anyone else think that Infobox Criminal is a bit of a NPOV violation? They fact that it says "Still at large" is ridiculous. Plus, any article with two similar infoboxes seems over the top (as Infobox Criminal and Infobox Congressperson [or whatever its title is] appear similar). Other thoughts on this? --Daysleeper47 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have any idea on this, but "Still at large" sounds ridiculous, and I'm a liberal. He was arrested, and is free on bail. It should be more like "awaiting trial" or "free pending trial" or some variant of those statements. crazyviolinist 19:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have fixed the box into "free on bail, pending trial." Thanks! Wooyi 19:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism
Has anyone looked at the article's history recently? There's been a lot of vandalism to this site ever since the protection template was removed. Just this morning, I removed a doctored photo of DeLay from the site. I suggest reenabling protection. Any thoughts on this idea? crazyviolinist 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The edit summary should have read on vandalism, not of. Sorry. crazyviolinist 14:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think this article should be protected. Since Crazyviolinist posted this, only 3 edits out of 10-15 have not been vandalism (ignoring the reverts) and the vast majority of edits since unprotection have been vandalism or reverting vandalism.--Littleman_ TAMU  (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the following from the first paragraph as I did not see it as being very essential introductory information:

"In May 2007, a New Yorker profile of Delay quoted him saying that God spoke to him -- and told him to be more like MoveOn.org."

Link to video of Delay speaking about his book
I believe that this video adds to the value of the article and should be published in the external links section

Tom Delay Discusses his book No Retreat, No Surrender: One American's Fight 3/20/2007

--Uschris 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

GA review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

An excellent, well-written article. I do have a few suggestions though: The article should be a bit shorter (perhaps split-off long sections), simultaneously reducing the table of contents. The article has a few minor edit wars (due to his notability), but good enough for GA. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Mugshot
Why is that the best looking photo in this article? Are there any others available? His arrest picture is way better than the one that leads thea article. Jiffypopmetaltop 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The half-face picture was not suppose to be there in the infobox, there should be the congressional official portrait. But the article was vandalized, I have reverted it back to a stable version. WooyiTalk, Editor review 21:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop vandalize this article
There has been heavy anon vandalism on this article, adding silly stuff such as "satanist", and such. Please stop. And please do not change the infobox picture (which is official) to the half-face picture. WooyiTalk, Editor review 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sugarland Bug Man
Was Tom a pest exterminator prior to his entering politics? Is this why he is referred to as 'the Bug Man from Sugarland'? Chris66 0831, 20 June 2007

Yes and it's included in the article, I just read it. I will refrain from removing your comment though, I invite you to re-read the page and remove your comment yourself; when you do so, you can also remove this one of mine. Dave 20:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesilvan (talk • contribs)

Recent edits
As of this series of edits - these - the entire section of Grand Jury Indictments has been removed. I don't know whether this is correct or not, so I thought I'd make a note of it on the talk page. Request someone more familiar with the article to please have a look. xC | ☎  06:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The edits are not vandalism at all but designed to reduce length and clutter in the already large article. The intent was to have material on the corruption investigation put all into a separate article with a link from the main article for quick reference 128.253.43.21 06:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying. No doubt that would improve the article (it is way too long as is), however changes as large as these require consensus among the editors. May I suggest you add a proposal on this page for the changes? What are the page titles you want to shift the content to, and which sections do you believe should be shifted there? xC | ☎  06:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently you don't want to discuss these largescale changes before implementing them. Good luck with it all, xC | ☎  06:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 128.253.43.21 was moving things to other articles. You can hardly blame him/her for not checking the talk page again after answering your question.  I would like summaries of the events left in the original article.  I don't like just having the link to the other articles.  Yes, it would've been nice if he'd mentioned it in a talk page, but it's not a big deal, the information's still there.


 * That said, anonymous user, could you please leave a summary of the events under the links to the articles with all the info?--Littleman_ TAMU (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Reduce the length and clutter by removing all negative material? Give me a break.  That's an obvious violation of POV forks.  More importantly, though, anyone who really cares about NPOV should know that was wrong already.  It's called Summary style, not Remove all the facts that happen to shed a negative light on the subject of the article style.  You have to leave a proportionate summary, not just a see tag.  Moving "all into a separate article with a link from the main article for quick reference " is totally unacceptable.  It seems like people have been asleep at the wheel on this article.  The mysterious moving of nearly all information about the indictments, resulting failed election, cigars etc. began (well, someone tried before but it failed) with this edit, continued with, then , then , then , then , then , then   References were also repeatedly removed for unstated or spurious reasons, as with ,


 * I will be watching this article, and these types of edits will be reverted on sight. The indictments section as of has been put back.  Feel free to edit it, and/or use actual summary style.  Again, removing entire sections with a see tag is not summarizing.  It's POV forking.  Superm401 - Talk 11:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to know why there's no mention of his homosexual escapades with congressional pages who were also minors. This is not something that can be forgotten, as well as the fact that FOX 'News' labeled him as a Democrat when the story broke that he was targeting a male page (i.e. staffer). My mistake, I confused him with Mark Foley; Foley was the one FOX news labeled as a Democrat when the story broke. I'm trying to sign these, using both the 4 tildes and the signature button in the control bar across the top and I keep seeing it labeled as unsigned comment, so... yeah. Dave 20:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

related website
Poemisaglock 00:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC) you can add this: http://www.rense.com/general68/10mind.htm

Needs An Electoral History section
--Robert Waalk (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I need help with it. Started, but would like some help, especially in making the format look better, look more seamless. Got a couple of years down, a the starting template and all the basic,s b ut it took me forever and a ton of edits to boot.--Robert Waalk (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I could still use some help, please, smoothing the format.

Dani DeLay Ferro
Following Articles for deletion/Dani DeLay Ferro (2nd nomination), the content of Dani DeLay Ferro has been merged to this article. fish &amp;karate 11:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Status of TX State Prosecution
Does anyone know (cited or uncited) what is going on with the case against Tom Delay? Ronnie Earle is no longer DA (doesn't the law permit to be PA in this case anyway?) WHY has this case gone on this long? And is this our future? Weak cases against high-profile people that continue indefinitely? Jessemckay (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with editor Jessemckay. Why is there ZERO mention of the Ronnie Earle initiated indictments of DeLay?  Let alone the disposition of said indictments.  This is a serious defect in the article.  The fact that DeLay is going to appear on Dancing with the Stars would seem to indicate a resolution in his favor.  How many people facing trial on felony charges appear on a variety TV show?  Reading this article, however, won't tell you.


 * PainMan (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

page layout issues
It seems that the entire beginning of the article isn't showing on the page, but it appears in the page's source. Instead of the infobox and first paragraphs, it says only "citation needed" before the table of contents. I can't figure out if this is a bug, or something I may be overlooking, or what. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

re "tone" & "neutrality" tags
re 03:53, 1 October 2009 Moxfyre (talk | contribs) (76,358 bytes) (→Dancing with the Stars: the tone is funny and irreverant, possibly not appropriate?)

i'm open to suggestions, but. ..

re tone tag: well, ;), if the facts are funny, then the facts are funny, que no? And who says we have to be "reverant"? (WP:"Reverance"?) ;)

re neutrality tag: "neutrality" toward a crazy conspiracy theory? "Fair and balanced"? Isn't this wikipedia, not fox news?

Beansandveggies (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Beansandveggies! Personally, I think that these paragraphs are factually correct, and funny to boot, I'm just not sure about the tone.  Maybe the NPOV tag was a bit harsh, but I wasn't sure what else to call it.
 * Under "Revelation as Obama Birther Conspiracy Theorist", for example, we have:
 * The false "conspiracy theory" has been widely and thoroughly debunked—among other things, President Obama and the Hawaii Department of Public Health have made public his "Certificate of Live Birth" from August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii, and two contemporaneous newspaper articles from Hawaii in August 1961 show birth announcements for Barack Obama—yet "birthers" like DeLay continue to either believe in, or at least tout, the conspiracy theory.
 * I think there should be a couple references in here, or perhaps just a link to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article. And later, the part that I have emphasized in bold, that strongly implies bad faith and political opportunism on the part of the birthers.  I don't doubt it, but with that kind of pointed statement about anyone's motivations, there need to be some verifiable references. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 23:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Moxfyre :) I'll take what u've said as personal compliments, as i've written/edited most of the stuff in these sub-sections. In fact, i think one of the things u're picking up as pov is the fact that basically just one wiki editor has been at work here (me), so, as time goes on and more edits by others come in, whatever is of my "voice" will recede, and gradually be paved over ;) But i too have been wanting to add and change some things, and will; and will continue to contribute to the article, as i hope others will too.

An easy thing i'll do right now is put in a "see also" wiki link to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article in the subsection re it & DeLay. I wiki-linked it thru (first mention of) the word "birther" in the graf, but people may not click on it, and i agree we should make it more explicitly avail for people to reference.

As far as "birther" motives go, we might directly ref it to certain subsections of the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (e.g. Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories, or ref & link to other sources online. Until then, I'll change to something like "yet the 'birther' phenomenon persists" and elim the "oblivious to or scheming" phrase, but I included the phrases . ..

"either believe in, or at least tout, the conspiracy theory"

and

"oblivious to or scheming against the facts"

because i think it's imp to alert the (non-politically sophisticated/knowledgable) rdr to what's going on with birthism, and the only 2 possibs with sophisticated politicos who r birthers like DeLay. Either a given sophisticated politico is stupid, or cynical. Either he or she believes in the birther garbage themselves, or they see the political benefit in continuing to promote the conspiracy theory. As many other political observers have noted (for whom we can go fetch refs if we wish), those r the only 2 explanations for soph politicos like DeLay. Since we can't get inside the mind of DeLay, I offered both possiblities in those 2 phrases. Beansandveggies (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the points here is that we are an online encyclopedia - that means we don't need to explain the details about 'birther' conspiracy theories in an article about Tom DeLay. We write as if people know what it is, and provide links for people to follow if they want to know more. I've remove some extraneous explanation from the birther section.
 * We also need to beware of repeating ourselves - the 'birther' thing is mentioned three times in the article, based on a single interview - that might be giving it too much prominence. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Re recent vandalism by "birthers" and recent edits by DJ Clayworth:

Unsurprisingly, in order to promote their conspiracy theory, or make it or Mr. DeLay look less bad (by bad i mean kooky-- or cynical, take your pick), "birther" vandals have attempted to add or remove things from the subsection: "Revelation as Obama 'Birther' Conspiracy Theorist." DJ Clayworth, who, by dint of his user page, contribs and talk page would seem an unlikely birther or birther sympathizer, nevertheless has made edits (which i have mostly undone) that would put a smile on any birther's face (and perhaps make them blush).

The tweaks on which i have come to agree with DJ involve two phrases that seemed to unnecessarily antagonize the birthers and incite their vandalism-- the "established fact" phrase (which had been "watered-down" previously from "well-est fact") and the phrase "comparing the president to an illegal alien" in introducing the DeLay quote in which the former congressman does just that. As the two and a half sentences briefly explaining (and debunking) the "birther" conspiracy theory "establish," it is an "(well-)established fact" that President Obama is a "natural-born citizen," so use of the term "established fact" is, by exposition, redundant. Re the "illegal alien" phrase, we can let Mr. DeLay's words (and comparison) speak for itself; introducing it as such, obviously, becomes unnnecessary then. Therefore, I have removed those two phrases (the "est fact" and "comparing him to an illegal alien").

However, I do not agree with DJ's (or birther vandals') removal of the brief, 2 1/2 sent explan (and debunking) of birtherism. For those readers who don't follow politics (or political conspiracy theories) closely, it is necessary for us to briefly explain what the terms "birther" and "birtherism" mean, and state that the conspiracy theory has been "widely and thoroughly debunked," which it has. For us to mention the conspiracy theory and its adherents & proponents, and not mention that it and they have been thoroughly disproven, is to do Wikipedia readers an utter disservice, by depriving them of the facts, of the "full story," albeit in a short 2 1/2 sentences. To let a conspiracy theory be "put out there" and aired in the public domain (in no bigger a forum than Wikipedia), and not to shoot it immediately down with the facts that completely refute it, gives conspiracy theorists exactly what they want-- air time, a debate, the guise that there is anything actually to debate, and questions left lingering in the reader's mind: "Could 9/11 really have been an inside job?", or, in the case of our article, "Could Barack Obama really be ineligible to be president?" And the conspiracy theorist loves nothing more than a famous figure like Tom DeLay to vouch for the theory, so that even just a relative few casual, non-politically sophisticated readers might wonder that night, "Gee, if someone like (as big, famous, smart, politically plugged in as) Tom DeLay wonders about the president('s eligibility, legitimacy, openness & transparency), then maybe there's something to the conspiracy theory." That's all the conspiracy theorist needs to win; to prevail over the truth that is supposed to be represented by Wikipedia-- leaving doubt in the mind of the reader; not necessarily conversion, but at least doubt, at least questions. We at Wikipedia should leave no such doubt and no such questions when, in a mere 2 1/2 sentences, we can inform the reader with the facts instead. We should not rely on hoping the reader clicks on "Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories" to learn more, when we can tell him or her the essential truth about the untruth that is the conspiracy theory in a mere 2 1/2 sentences.

Beansandveggies (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(and p.s. re DJ's claim that the 3 mentions of DeLay as a birther might be "repeating ourselves": we mention it briefly in introducing the article as a whole (in the intro); briefly in introducing the section "Life after Congress"; and we dedicate a subsection to it. That completely conforms to all appropriate Wikipedia conventions (and all standards of good writing). And we also follow that same formula with all manner of subjects in this article: DeLay's "birtherism" is not treated any differently.

(and finally, re DJ's claim that this birtherism stuff is "based on a single interview" and "that we're perhaps giving this too much prominence," I'd refer him (and anyone else who wonders similarly) to Al Campanis (i confess, that's the first one that came to mind as a Dodger fan on tonite's big nite for the team ;-) or any number of other people and pols who said amazingly revealing things about themselves in a single, memorable, (in)famous interview. I'd also refer people to the Barack Obama Citizenship Conspiracy Theories article, in which other prominent pols make DeLay-like statements in support of birtherism, and then try back-tracking away from them later (just like Campanis, and the vast majority of people who make outrageous statements, once they realize how foolish they look to the vast majority of the sane). I would also remind people that many political observers believe this is precisely the strategy of people and pols like DeLay (and Blunt and Schmidt and Shelby and et. al.) in discussing the theory: to mollify the Republican base (most of whom believe in or wonder about the theory), sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of the general public (and hopefully win over a few, non-sophisticated converts), and then, to reassure the rest of (sane) America, back-track away from their original statements and deny they're ACTUALLY birthers themselves-- they just want Obama to be "fully transparent and open." That, of course, is the (charitable? ;-) cynical explanation. The (less-charitable?? or) non-cynical explanation is that we are witnessing the descent of a once bright political star into lunacy, or, another way, his implosion into a black hole; both possibilties, and explanations, of which I explore earlier in my first comments in this subsection (another thing to please refer to before making any further changes on the article's "birther" subsection). Either way you look at it, it's a story worth (at least briefly) telling, and an item worth noting, in a person's (wikipedia or other) biography.

Beansandveggies (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am interested in neither supporting nor opposing 'birthers', but I am interested in writing a good Wikipedia article. When you write about what we should say, you use the key word briefly, and briefly is what we don't have. We have ''at length. You argument above goes on at length about what you think is happening to DeLay, all of which is irrelevant. Our aim is to just report the facts in a balanced way. I repeat what I said above. We do not need a detailed explanation of what a Birther is, and we do not need a detailed refuation of birther theories. Anyone interested in reading those can go to the appropriate article.DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Briefly," DJ, my Talk page posts were "at-length" and "detailed," which is perfectly acceptable for a Talk page. However, the subsection-- a paragraph in length-- is brief. Also brief-- 2 and 1/2 sentences-- was what I had placed in the paragraph to define and explain the term "birther" for the non-politically engaged reader, who may not see the link to, or have time to read, the much longer and more thorough article on "birtherism." I have now removed the formal def of "birther," kept one of my two (brief) parenthetical phrases, and inserted two more quotes, inc the final exchange between Matthews and DeLay, which was formerly covered (appx 1 line of text more briefly) by my first parenthetical statement. The paragraph still "reports the facts," as you say and as is our mission as Wiki editors, and my revisions still allow the previously unaware rdr to briefly know what "birtherism" is and why it's relevant (both in politics and in this article). But re "balance" and "neither supporting nor opposing birthers": would you say the same, DJ, of flat-earthers, fake moon landers, and assorted other conspiracy theorists? Shall we really start pretending it's a 50-50 proposition, and "balance" the truth equally against lunacy? Truth is what's most important, DJ, not "balance." When the facts on one side so greatly-- or completely-- outweigh the other (kooky, in this case) side, we shouldn't do (il)logical backflips or add weight to the empty side of the see-saw (or remove weight from the truthful side, as you repeatedly did in your edits) to achieve "balance" and coddle the conspiracy theorists. The truth is, simply (briefly ;-), the truth.

Beansandveggies (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was of course talking about the article, not your talk page posts. However you seem to have removed the stuff I was objecting to, so thanks for that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

re "intro too long" tag
re: 04:30, 4 October 2009 DMCer (talk | contribs) (76,321 bytes) (moved TV show appearance paragraphs to respective section. birther claim already has a section. intro is way too long and filled with fluff, adding tag.) (undo)

I disagree that the intro is "way too long and filled with fluff." The intro conforms to the standards on length and content as laid out in WP:Lead section, to which the "too long" tag is linked. Therefore, I'm a bit puzzled by the tag. I'll leave the tag up for now, in case DMCer (or someone else) wishes to disagree, but I think it should be taken down. While the intro can be tweaked, there are actually a few things that we should add to the intro to better reflect the article as a whole (and Mr. DeLay). As WP:Lead section explains, noteworthy things from the body of the article should be included in the intro, which is why I'm also reverting the removal of the Dancing items, inc. the "birther" mention. While I am admittedly a Dancing fan and political junkie ;-), both Dancing and birthism belong in the intro on their own merits (and not because of my personal tastes ;-)

[Dancing with the Stars is consistently the 2nd highest rated show on television in the U.S., after only American Idol. Drawing in over 10 million viewers each week every fall and spring, it is not overstating things to say it is a cultural and national phenomenon, and has been so since it premiered in the U.S. in 2005. (It is also an int'l phenomenon, as numerous other nations belong to the intl Dancing franchise and produce their own super highly-rated national versions of Dancing.) It also may not be exaggerating things to say more Americans know of Tom DeLay from his d/Dancing, than from his political career. Mr. DeLay, like all Dancing participants, is also being highly compensated (to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars) for his work on the show. Yes, it is a job for Mr. DeLay, and we should prob mention that in the Dancing subsection of the body. (Mr. DeLay has even publicly joked about "doing it for the money.") Therefore, given the prominence of the show and DeLay's prominent role as a participant on it (his participation is a quite a national and political story, esp since he is the first politician to ever appear [perhaps we should add that "first" to the article]), since it is a job for our subject, and since it is the highest Mr. DeLay's profile has been at least since leaving Congress (and perhaps ever, or perhaps ever will be the remainder of his life), we definitely should mention it in the intro.

Along these same Dancing lines, but also because they stand on their own accord too, DeLay's Sara Evans Dancing controversy, and the revelation of himself as a birther while making the media rounds promoting his Dancing participation, deserve mention in the intro as well.

Sara Evans is one of country music's biggest stars, and one of the GOP's biggest entertainment stars as well, as relatively few high-profile entertainers are Republican, or at least publicly Republican. When DeLay reemerged onto the public stage, in his (up-to-then) most prominent way since resigning from Congress in June '06, to launch a public campaign urging people to vote for Ms. Evans when she participated in season three of Dancing in the fall of 2006, it was national news. Then, midway thru the season, Evans' sudden departure from the show due to a very ugly divorce from her Republican politico husband became an even bigger national news story.

Finally, DeLay's public outing of himself as a "birther" on national television, while promoting his participation on Dancing, not only became a national news story because Mr. DeLay is perhaps the most high-profile current or former Republican to promote this conspiracy theory, but because we may be looking at {perhaps along with his [antics on] Dancing ;-)} the descent into the loony bin of formerly one of the most powerful men in America. Yes, this may prove he was crazy all along (and there is certainly ample evidence to support that, although some may contend that somewhat depends on one's political persuasion perhaps), but from his (forced, by his own Republican Party) resignation from Congress in '06 after his indictment to his now latching onto "birther" conspiracy theory (not to mention some of the strange, crazy allegations he made about "liberals" and the Clintons in his '07 memoir), we may be looking at the implosion of a once very bright, very powerful star; that is, formation of a black hole (yes, I enjoy astronomy), or to use my previous metaphor, descent into the loony bin (or at least descent into a very strange, sad personal and/or political desperation). No, I am not a psychologist making a psychological evaluation, but I am a political observer making a political (or political-psychological) evaluation, and we would be remiss not to make mention of the events constituting such formations/descents in a political figure's biographical intro. However, regardless of whether or not you support my "descent" thesis, I hope you will agree DeLay's "birtherism," on its own merits as a national news story and as a stunning admission by arguably the highest-profile Republican yet to sign on to this nutty "theory," merits mention in the intro.

Beansandveggies (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see it's been worked on a lot, and therefor I agree with the tag removal. The intro is much more suitable as it stands now, as it avoids a lot of the recentism that plagued the previous versions. Thanks.— DMCer ™  21:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Texas money laundering scandal template?
How about creating a template (like the one in the Abramoff and Cunningham scandals) containing those charged in connection with TRMPAC? DeLay, Colyandro, Eliis, Robold and possibly others I might have forgotten? I mean even if the trials are still pending, it is gonna be a lot of attention when they do commence and a template like that could improve the quality of information, as it has done in the aforementioned cases.

What is with the cyberdemon picture?

Who wants to be a millionaire
--Cooly123 16:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)On todays episode of Who Wants to be a Millionare? October 29,2009 he stated that he wanted to be a doctor during his turn as a expert, I do not know where to place this information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

August 16th - DOJ "No charges"
Read here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gip-lz16ENl6h1WGTogPuD7JbMjgD9HKQIJ00 98.118.62.140 (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Criminal categories
He is a convicted criminal now. Why are there no categories to reflect this? Merrill Stubing (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the history on Wikipedia to confidently make a unilateral change, but it seems to be fairly common practice to put a felonious conviction in the first sentence. For example, "Tom Delay is a former Congressman...and convicted money launderer." Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LicenseAppliedFor (talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Source
I found:
 * "The real scandal of Tom DeLay." CNN. May 9, 2005. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Legality of Cuban Cigars
The parenthetical "but was, at the time, not illegal for U.S. citizens abroad" referencing smoking of a Cuban cigar in Israel is questionable. I do not believe it has ever been legal for the US to forbid American travelers, including hypocrites, from engaging in activities legal in the nations being visited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.7.196 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Weight of "Participation in Season Nine"
This section is overweighted given the subject of this article. 123.3.92.217 (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say the whole DWTS section is overweighted. Originalname37  (Talk?)  17:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Number of convictions
Regarding this, the sources indicate that DeLay was convicted of two crimes: conspiracy to commit money laundering and money laundering. See the third paragraph of this article, which describes the sentencing possibilities on both counts. If he were not convicted of one of those crimes, then it would be impossible to be sentenced for it (and printing information about it would be irrelevant).--Chaser (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Something about the felony convictions should be in the lead. In the articles of other politicians convicted of felonies, the convictions are mentioned in the lead. FurrySings (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya i think the felony convictions should be in the lead also.Millertime246 (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)