Talk:Tom Feeney

Electors
This article is linked from the Brad Blog. --DanKeshet

This section needs to be sourced before it can be added:

"In the U.S. presidential election, 2000, as speaker of the Florida House, he wanted to pick 25 Bush electors regardless of the final vote count. The Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision ruled otherwise."

&mdash;Ben 20:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ben do you have sources on this?

Controversies
Feeney traveled to South Korea in 2003, but in violation of House rules, has filed no financial disclouse related ot the trip. Source 12:18, 17 September 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuber eater (talk • contribs)


 * One problem is that the article says "to date", and it's undated. It's a bit of a stretch to assume that he hasn't filed for the 2003 trip as of September 2006.


 * The larger point is that wikipedia articles are, by their nature, summaries, since this is an encyclopedia. The non-filing is a detail that I decided wasn't significant enough to add, but an interested reader can follow the link in the article (the source you noted, above) and find out further details about all the trips, including that one.   John Broughton 17:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"Feeney also sold his soul to Satan for prosperity on Earth in exchange for weekly blowjobs in Hell." - Source please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.179.205 (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page
"Tom Feeney" has over 200,000 google hits; "Tom Feeney" AND "hurler" has under 1,000. I agree with the lack of need at this time for a disambiguation page, or for adding "(politician)" to the title of the attached article. John Broughton 22:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Two sourcing questions
A couple questions:
 * 1) The easiest source for the Tom Feeney taxcutting awards is this Feeney press release. However, I'm not sure Feeney's press releases are a reliable source for awards that other organizations have given him.  Thoughts?
 * 2) I'm not 100% comfortable to sourcing the controversies section to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington without at least some explanation of who they are, but I've been waffling about how to phrase it. I'm willing to accept them as a notable and reliable source, but there seems to be at least serious questions about whether they're completely non-partisan.  Is there a way to flag that without going too far into NPOV on one side or the other?  TheronJ 14:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We use info from Congressional web pages all the time; my sense is that the negative publicity from lying about one's education, awards, etc., is adequate to enforce accuracy on basic facts. (On the other hand, "Congressman X is a strong fighter for motherhood, apple pie, and the American flag" isn't acceptable, of course - so the criteria for what is acceptable is to distinguish facts from assertions about the way the world is.)  So yes, cite the press release.


 * As for CREW, this issue seems to have arisen in most of the biographies of those on the CREW list. The general thinking seems to be that since there is a wikilink to CREW, an interested reader can follow that and decide for him/herself, so CREW doesn't need to be described.  Another acceptable approach is to quote CREW's description of itself (something like which calls itself a .... ).  've seen "left-wing" added recently to at least one bio (and I've deleted that); what we don't want is an edit war over how to characterize the organization - bad precedent (for example, a lot of bios have ratings of Congressfolk by organizations like the NTU and the ACU; those organizations aren't typically described, or, if so, only by an adjective or two, like "conservative"; one can imagine the edit wars over that if bios started characterizing every organziation that is mentioned).   John Broughton  |  Talk 18:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've put in the press release, thanks. I'll keep thinking about CREW.  I agree that inserting "progressive" or "Democratic-funded" ahead of CREW is going to lead to trouble, but leaving out the adjective isn't exactly satisfactory either.  Let's both think about it and see if inspiration strikes.  TheronJ 20:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is trip to Orlando "controversial"?
I'm no fan of Tom Feeney, but I'm very curious as to why a trip Feeney took to Orlando with his wife is considered "controversial" when they live in Orlando? Can someone provide an explanation for that? KyuzoGator 19:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Voting Fraud" Section is bloated and POV
It looks essentially like a cut-n-paste from a critical website. I think the issue definitely should be discussed in this article, but not to this extent. I will be paring this down quite a bit. KyuzoGator (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. First half can be found lots of places on the net, do a google search for "Computer programmer Clinton Curtis testified at the December".Naraht (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 06:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Morgan" :

Copyright violation in "Voting Fraud" section
The bulk of this section appears to be copied from here, in a posting that dates back to 2004. An IP did a nice copy and paste here. The source appears to be a blogger named Flemming Funch, though I also found the text in a few other places. Regardless, unless Mr. Funch has released his work under GFDL (and it doesn't appear that he has), we can't use it. Even if he has, the writing style is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I'm honestly stunned that this has been included since November of last year. A ni  Mate  04:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's another copy and paste from Brad Friedman's blog as seen here. Still, this should have been caught a long time ago. A  ni  Mate  04:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)