Talk:Tom Graves/Archive 1

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. I also put a hatnote on the article, pointing to Tom Graves (American football) and Thomas Graves. GTBacchus(talk) 00:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Tom Graves (politician) → Tom Graves – Primary topic. Footballer:98, Politician: 1161. Marcus Qwertyus 07:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, who demonstrates that the politician is the clear primary topic. My own google news archive search got similar results. Also, the dab page can be deleted and a hatnote added to the politician's article if this RM is successful, per WP:TWODABS. Jenks24 (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: order of magnitude more traffic = WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. –CWenger (^ • @ ) 06:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggested updates for this article
Hello, I'm hoping to find some editors that can help me make some improvements to this article. Currently some sections are lacking in detail or WP:RS citations, or both. I also see a few areas where the wording does not conform to the cited source and / or is not encyclopedic. Before proposing my changes, I'd like to let other editors know that I have a conflict of interest as I am working as a consultant to Rep. Graves. Because of this, I won't be making any direct changes to the article. Instead I'm asking that editors review what I have prepared and assist in making the updates to the article if they approve of the changes.

I'd like to start out by with some suggested edits to the Early life, education, and business career section. There's currently just one source for this section of the article and lacks broader detail on his education, as well as clear information about his business career. Specifically, the article doesn't explain what his business entailed, whereas I have been able to find a source to clarify the type of business he ran. Also, I have found secondary sources to support all the information in the section, to replace the official biography currently used:

For the Tenure section under U.S. House of Representatives, the current section is very short considering his four-year term to date and does not cover legislative action he has been involved in. In recent sources he is most commonly referred to as the the congressional representative who has "led the charge to defund Obamacare", however there's no mention of this involvement with defunding efforts in the existing text of the article. Considering this is what Graves has become best known for, I'd like to suggest updating the article to add in detail about this in particular. In the drafted updates below, I've added information about his involvement in various legislative issues to date. Anything from the current section has been retained but may have been reworded to better fit the source:

As always, I'm open to any feedback from editors and welcome your input. If these changes look good as they are, I hope someone will add them into the article. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Just in case anyone misses the closed template above, this has been ✅. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, for my own edification: what sort of review process was undertaken before rewriting our section on Graves' tenure to reflect, verbatim, the wording drafted by Graves' political consultants? MastCell Talk 21:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * OK MastCell, I picked this up from a post at Help desk, pointing out that the requested edit had not been actioned for 4 weeks; and within the normal short timeframe at Help desk, no-one was responding there either! And this is from an editor whose conflict of interest is declared, and who has followed the recommended Requested edit procedure. It seemed to me that some response was called for. What review process, you ask? The additions were to my eye factual and not blatantly promotional or non-neutral; some references were checked to see they supported the suggested text; the edit appeared to be an improvement in terms of providing more detail and being better sourced than what was there before, both in number and quality of references. I'm no expert in US politics, and any other editor is of course welcome to make further improvements to this article; but rather than grilling those who do implement a requested edit, it might be more useful if more editors were to tackle the chronic backlog Noyster (talk),  09:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with U.S. House of Representatives section
Hi all, I'm looking for help with a few additional updates to the U.S. House of Representatives section of this article. Plus, there was a recent change to the Tenure section, which I'd like to discuss with editors. Worth noting again, I am working as a consultant on behalf of Rep. Graves and, considering my financial COI, I won't make any direct edits to the article.

Here is a list of changes for the better my proposed update in the collapse-box below would implement:
 * The 2010 and 2012 subsections both could use some rewording for clarity. Rep. Graves won his seat through a series of primaries and special elections, and the article could be more clear about each one.
 * There current article suffers from a lack of citations to verify information, which I have addressed in my draft.
 * I'd also like to propose a rewrite of the Committee assignments and Caucus memberships sections from bullet points to prose. Per MOS:LIST, bullet points are discouraged in preference for prose.
 * Additionally, within those last two subsections there's some outdated information that can be removed, while the most up-to-date assignments and memberships can be added.

Click below to see the updated sections as I propose, followed by the markup for it:

{{hidden|header=Markup|content= ==U.S. House of Representatives== ===Elections=== ====2010====  In May 2010, Graves won a special election to replace Republican US House Representative Nathan Deal. On June 8, 2010, Graves won the run-off for the special election against former state Senator Lee Hawkins. Graves then faced Hawkins two more times, in another primary election and run off before winning the November 2, 2010 general election unopposed. Upon his election, Graves joined the House Republican Whip team, which he later left in 2011. In January 2013, Graves rejoined the Whip team, and is a member as of 2014.

====2012====  Representative Graves’ home in Ranger was drawn into the newly created 14th district during the 2012 census, and as a result, he elected to run as Representative for the newly created district. Graves won the November 6, 2012 election against Democratic challenger Daniel “Danny” Grant with 73 percent of the vote.

{{xt|

Tenure
}} Omitted since this was previously updated.

===Committee assignments=== Representative Graves is a member of the United States House Committee on Appropriations. In 2014, he was selected to serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch for the 114th Congress. His membership also includes the subcommittees on Defense and Financial Services and General Government.

===Caucus memberships=== Representative Graves is a member of the House Congressional Chicken Caucus, the House General Aviation Caucus, the Joint Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the House Congressional Balanced Budget Amendment Caucus, the House Republican Study Committee and the House Congressional Diabetes Caucus. |headerstyle=background:#ccccff}}

If this all seems reasonable, would anyone be willing to make these changes in the article? As always, I'm open to feedback from all! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Thanks so much for fully-formatted, independent, and secondary sources and attention to tone for the content. Great job!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Carole! I'm glad the edits were acceptable and that you were able to make them so quickly. Just an FYI, it looks like there is now a duplicate Caucus memberships subsection under U.S. House of Representatives. I'd suggest removing the unverified second, with the bullets.


 * Going forward, I've got some suggestions for further edits, in case you'll have time to look again. Hope you'll check in soon! Thanks again, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 01:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * My pleasure,, thanks for the heads-up on the dupe. It's ✅. If you could add another {{tl}request edit}} when you have any additional edits, that would be great! Take care!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Help with Georgia House of Representatives section
Hello again, folks! I've got some additional edits to suggest for the article, and I'm hoping to find interested editors to take a look at them for me. To anyone new to this discussion: I'm looking to discuss changes here rather than making the edits myself due to conflict of interest reasons, as I am a paid consultant to Rep. Graves.

My proposed new version of the Georgia House of Representatives section addresses the following issues with the current section:
 * Updates information on Graves' legislative history by adding the JOBS Act of 2009
 * Re-words the last sentence under Elections to clarify that Graves ran unopposed in 2008, but against Bill Pickett in 2006. The current section says he ran unopposed both times, which wasn't the case in one of the primaries.
 * Adds a new Tenure subsection, which absorbs the existing Endorsements subsection and includes Graves' Guardian of Small Business Award

Click below to see the updated section I propose, followed by the markup:

I'm hoping to find interested editors who are willing to review my suggestions and, if it all looks acceptable, make the proposed changes in the live article. While I drafted up these proposed changes to the article, Tom Graves' team did provide input and review my work, but I have aimed throughout the process to keep these suggested updates to the article objective and neutral. As always, I am happy to receive feedback and discuss these further with anyone. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi again, just dropping a note here to see if anyone is able to help with these updates. Pinging, and , as you have all reviewed or commented on my previous requests and may be able to assist. Let me know if you have any questions or feedback. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 12:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks as if you are doing your best to follow Wikipedia's procedures on conflict-of-interest editing, and a response is due to you. However, my response to one of your previous requested edits was questioned by a Wikipedia administrator, as you will see a little way up this page (see also this). Consequently, I leave this new request to editors with more knowledge of the topic area. Hope it will be dealt with before long. Sorry Noyster (talk),  13:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I understand your reluctance, though I welcome scrutiny of my work, and only wish more editors were available to vet proposals of this sort. I also think these new suggestions are pretty straightforward, not requiring any special knowledge, in case you'll reconsider. If no one else stops by in the next few days, however, I'll start looking again for new editors to review. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 18:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello : I've implemented some of your suggested edits, namely under the Elections and Committee Assignments sections. I have a few questions on the rest of your suggested edits: the tenure section seems a bit promotional to me with the two awards listed. Is there something else we could put in there to balance it out? For the Jobs, Opportunity and Business Success (JOBS) Act of 2009, to show its particular notability, I think we need a better source than a Townhall interview. Perhaps a newspaper article? I'm also curious about the last long paragraph of the article. The material looks out of date, with the last sentence reading "Due to unpaid property taxes going back to 2009, the city may have to seize the property and spend over $100,000 to secure and eventually demolish it." That was last updated in 2011. Do you have any updates on how the story ended? Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , thanks so much for following this up, and for your feedback as well. Regarding Tenure, since it is meant to replace Endorsements, this explains why it features these awards. But you're right, this section would benefit from more information. I'll see what I can do here. I'll also look for another citation for the JOBS Act.


 * As to the long final section—yep, I'll have a suggestion for that section next. As you point out, it's outdated, and I think it's also probably more detailed than is really necessary for a small business dispute of some years back. If you'd be willing to look at that once it's ready, I'd appreciate it. Meantime, thanks again, I'll be back soon. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 20:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, following your suggestions, I'm back with an update on the Tenure subsection and JOBS Act citation, plus a few other small changes.

As for additional information in Tenure, I'm afraid he didn't receive a lot of news coverage at the time—however, I did find a couple of stories along the same lines as the JOBS Act: favoring tax cuts and tax credits. So I've folded the JOBS Act mention into this subsection and, as you suggested, found better sources to support that detail. What do you think?

(Just in case anyone reading this is worried about the survival of information in the Endorsements section that Tenure intends to replace: the ALEC award will stay here in the Georgia House Tenure section, while the Tea Party endorsement (which was actually in 2010, not 2009) is already mentioned in the U.S House Tenure section.)

Full new version with these changes below:

I'm hoping you might take another look at this with me, so let me know if these changes are good. Of course, I'm open any questions about the proposed section, so if others have any feedback I'd be interested to hear that too. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, I hadn't noticed that the Tenure section was meant to replace the Endorsements section. The content makes sense to me then, as the awards were already on the page. I think I have implemented your recommendations. You're right, I've been offline a lot lately, busy with travel, but I still try to check Wikipedia about once per week. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Makes sense, your update to the main article and minor changes look great to me. I've got a couple more requests to post soon for this article; I'll look for others to review, since I don't want this to fall on any one person, but if you're willing to help again, also great! WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 17:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for Calhoun motel dispute
Hello, all. Champaign Supernova asked above about the the Calhoun motel paragraph in Personal life, so I've now looked into it and have come up with a suggested revision. As CS points out, the paragraph is rather long and includes a lot of tedious detail, while not clearly explaining what happened. Also, it currently ends on a forward-looking statement from 2011, leaving the sense that more must have occurred since.

As it turns out, for Rep. Graves, the issue of the bank loan dispute was resolved in August 2011 when both parties dismissed their claims and no further action was taken. At that point, he no longer held ownership in the motel, which was later sold in foreclosure in September 2012. That said, the reason it is in the news is not because it's inherently interesting, but what it may or may not say about his leadership, and that's easily sourced. This article doesn't need to describe it in great detail nor does it need to take a position on it to effectively describe the stakes. Here's what I'd suggest:

Again, a quick note: I won't make any edits to the article myself, due to my financial conflict of interest, but would like to discuss this information with impartial editors here. Let me know what you think, and thanks again, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's too much detail in the current version but your proposed wording is almost a whitewash (presumably not intentional). Could you propose something in the middle? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the proposed text is on the right track, and is definitely better than what's currently in the article. I don't view it as a whitewash, either--it clearly states that Graves was criticized and why. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, both, for the comments. Since I'd seen Short Brigade Harvester Boris's comments this morning, I started working on a revised version, presented below. This is a tricky one to balance exactly right, in terms of relating everything accurately without ending up giving an exhaustive explanation of events. In my version above, I'd hoped to avoid the overkill by keeping it to a short summary, but I understand if you think it went a little too far. Below, I've offered a new proposal that adds back more of the details from the current version, including the claim by the bank that the default contributed to its collapse:


 * Let me know if you feel this works better. Champaign Supernova, if you're OK with the previous version, what do you think of this one? Hopefully between these two, a consensus can be found. And once we have it, would one of you mind adding it into the article in place of the current wording? WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 19:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the re-write, looks good to me. I made the changes to the article. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Terrific, thanks so much! And I've marked the request as closed. Thanks again, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal on Graves' abortion stance
Hi again, everyone! I have just one final change I'd like to propose to the article, regarding Rep. Graves' stance on abortion. Currently the article reads, "He has stated that he opposes abortion 'without exception', including when the mother's life is at stake." Although the statement comes from a good source, it's not quite true. I have another source which clarifies that, in 2013, Graves voted for a bill which allows legal abortions "after 20 weeks post-fertilization if the mother's life is endangered, or in cases of rape and incest reported prior to the abortion to appropriate authorities". In light of this additional information, I'd like to propose replacing the first paragraph of this subsection with the following:

Would anyone be interested in taking a look at this new language and letting me know if it's acceptable? In the interests of clarity at the risk of repetition, I won't be making this edit myself, due to my financial COI. I really appreciate the help. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This source is a login to the site: Please provide an accessible URL -   Cwobeel   (talk)


 * Thanks for following this up, Cwobeel. Interesting about the Almanac of American Politics (National Journal) link you ask about, and which I see you've now removed to replace with a tag. If memory serves, my Graves contact didn't ask to remove it, just to add more context—which you've done, and thanks for doing so. Meanwhile, I didn't think I could challenge it based on the respectability of the source, so I didn't seek to change it. However, given available other facts, the claim seems obviously incorrect, or at least outdated. I also can't find the specific claim elsewhere, whereas this On The Issues roundup of his voting record suggests he has voted for pro-life bills that did include, for example, "exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest; or life-endangering maternal condition". Perhaps the best thing is simply to remove the statement. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 19:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Compromise is fundamental to politics. Thus, voting for bills that include exceptions does not repudiate his statement that he opposes abortion "without exception." We should include both and let the reader decide. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I accept that compromise is fundamental to politics. But without any other clear source, and given the requirements of BLP, isn't it more sensible to remove? If someone can find a source that has Rep. Graves making an emphatic statement that he opposes any exception, I will let the point go, but given other available evidence, it seems more likely to be erroneous. And so I think BLP is the policy to follow here. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 04:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

✅ -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Sorry, but this is textbook WP:OR. You're using one fact to conclude that a particular sourced statement must be incorrect. I am reverting. We are now at the "R" in WP:BRD. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If we don't have an available source, then the content fails Verifiability and should be removed. Champaign Supernova (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Requires login" doesn't equate to "not available." See WP:V, which states "Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." I have accessed the site through my institution's subscription and have verified that the language remains in Graves' profile. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * But the edit you made didn't have a source, accessible or not. It had a "citation needed" tag. I'm familiar with WP:V, but it requires a source. What site have you accessed through your institution's subscription? Add it to the content instead of a "citation needed" tag. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tom Graves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140530152313/http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/attorney-for-graves-rogers-bank-is-at-fault/nQKbg/ to http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/attorney-for-graves-rogers-bank-is-at-fault/nQKbg/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120420204125/http://www.calhountimes.com/view/full_story/15037019/article-UPDATE--Lawsuit-against-Graves-dismissed- to http://www.calhountimes.com/view/full_story/15037019/article-UPDATE--Lawsuit-against-Graves-dismissed-
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150707110141/http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/in-failed-hotel-venture-ga-republicans-appear-to-c/nQSYD/ to http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/in-failed-hotel-venture-ga-republicans-appear-to-c/nQSYD/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tom Graves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403002527/http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/08/10/graves-and-hawkins-face-off-in-georgia-primary to http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/08/10/graves-and-hawkins-face-off-in-georgia-primary
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141107151122/http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/93 to http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/93
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402135720/http://www.voicesforvinyl.uschamberpartners.com/voter-resources/official/211906/Tom/Graves to http://www.voicesforvinyl.uschamberpartners.com/voter-resources/official/211906/Tom/Graves

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)