resolved |
|||
Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
:::::::[[WP:WABBITSEASON]] is becoming applicable, by which i refer to you singing the same verse again and again. Your next "verse" needs to come with some Reliable Sources, then maybe we could sing along with you. Otherwise, you're being disruptive. I want this biography to be edited, and i don't want it to be a big piece of [[WP:PUFF]], so i will happily support anything you might wish to present, negative or positive or neither or both, so long as you bring us something tangible with Sources and Verification. I agree the lede paragraphs could be improved, but i am suggesting your approach is not constructive unless you offer us material we can summarize from sources such as the ones Banjeboi has given us below. If your position and POV is so widely held, then it should be easy for you to find something constructive. Otherwise, your next verse in the song of Wabbit Season will be ignored as disruptive. ~<sub>[[User:Teledildonix314|Teledildonix314]]</sub>~[[User Talk:Teledildonix314|<sup>Talk</sup>]]~[[Special:Contributions/Teledildonix314|<sub>4-1-1</sub>]]~ 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC) |
:::::::[[WP:WABBITSEASON]] is becoming applicable, by which i refer to you singing the same verse again and again. Your next "verse" needs to come with some Reliable Sources, then maybe we could sing along with you. Otherwise, you're being disruptive. I want this biography to be edited, and i don't want it to be a big piece of [[WP:PUFF]], so i will happily support anything you might wish to present, negative or positive or neither or both, so long as you bring us something tangible with Sources and Verification. I agree the lede paragraphs could be improved, but i am suggesting your approach is not constructive unless you offer us material we can summarize from sources such as the ones Banjeboi has given us below. If your position and POV is so widely held, then it should be easy for you to find something constructive. Otherwise, your next verse in the song of Wabbit Season will be ignored as disruptive. ~<sub>[[User:Teledildonix314|Teledildonix314]]</sub>~[[User Talk:Teledildonix314|<sup>Talk</sup>]]~[[Special:Contributions/Teledildonix314|<sub>4-1-1</sub>]]~ 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::::::No, no, no my friend, you are mistaken, I say the second paragraph should be moved or removed. The burden of proof is on you. You've given two sources that seem to warrant notability despite having only one [[WP:RS]] each, and with other things more widely cited (role in Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac collapse or his work in gay rights. [[User:Soxwon|Soxwon]] ([[User talk:Soxwon|talk]]) 00:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC) |
::::::::No, no, no my friend, you are mistaken, I say the second paragraph should be moved or removed. The burden of proof is on you. You've given two sources that seem to warrant notability despite having only one [[WP:RS]] each, and with other things more widely cited (role in Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac collapse or his work in gay rights. [[User:Soxwon|Soxwon]] ([[User talk:Soxwon|talk]]) 00:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
Outdent. Soxwon, you are reviving an issue that was already resolved with consensus to re-include it. Your next tactic was to suggest it be removed/mitigate, etc and replaced with disparaging content from opinion sources which violates policy. You then have suggested we somehow found these fringe ideas at the New Yor Times which is rubbish. I've even posted multiple sources that generally praise Frank as one of the most intelligent politicians, a bridge builder, effective, witty and ... a champion on all civil rights. What we have might not be perfect but it is sourced quotes so ''we're'' not saying these things, ''they'' are. The burden of proof has been met already. Unless you want to now, after many requests to do so, provide reliable sourcing that disputes this content or suggests content to be added it's time to end this circular arguing. [[User:Palaboys|Palaboys]] ([[User talk:Palaboys|talk]]) 02:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Possible sources == |
== Possible sources == |
Revision as of 02:05, 9 April 2009
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reference to Gerry Studds' scandle in personal life section
What does mentioning how a former gay guy came out had anything to do with Barney Frank's sexual orientation? If you felt that you must include that information, you can leave out the part where the guy was found out with a page. The fact that the page was added goes back to the homophobic belief that gays are child molestors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.204.75 (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I read this and thought it was weird. It's certainly not relevant to Frank. I've left Studds and the fact he was also from Massachusetts, but removed the reference to the scandle. Shax (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- It actually is but I've restored the footnote that we used before. They are from the same state and each came out due to public pressure involving political scandals. Once the article is better developed this can be revisited. -- Banjeboi 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Sources for LGBT content
- Regarding coming out choices and being an LGBT politician, etc. OUT IN POLITICS: Brother Outsider.
- House Approves Broad Protections for Gay Workers
- EMBATTLED PBS February 18, 2005 (Frank on Postcards_From_Buster#Controversial_episodes)
- 'Being gay shouldn't be shameful': A top American gay magazine has caused uproar by outing film star Jodie Foster and CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. The British editor responsible for this taboo-breaking decision gives his reasons to Andrew Clark
If I find more I'll either post or add them. -- Banjeboi 13:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Effect of Frank's coming out on his electoral results
In the recent flurry over how to deal with Studds, the following passage was deleted without explanation:
Frank's announcement had little impact on his electoral prospects.[1]
(Temporary reflist for convenience:)
- ^ Pierce, Charles P. (Oct. 2, 2005), "To Be Frank", Globe Magazine
{{citation}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
The information that Frank's revelation was largely shrugged off in Massachusetts seems worthwhile, but I'm not sure that "Personal life" is the right section for it. JamesMLane t c 04:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think it was a mistake, everything I've read thus far certainly supports its inclusion. I'm re-adding. -- Banjeboi 09:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Intro Paragraph
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I removed the paragraph in the intro section
The New York Times has called Frank "one of the most powerful members of Congress"[1] and "a key deal-maker, an unlikely bridge between his party’s left-wing base and [...] free-market conservatives".[2] President Bill Clinton's former speechwriter Josh Gottheimer stated Frank is one of the nation's "brightest and most energetic defenders of civil rights issues".[3].
This clearly violates Wikipedia:Wikipuffery clearly. This article is not to praise the guy, and that was just taking 2 opinions of people and making it too apparent. Nicholas.tan (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- You are mistaken and I'd like you to re-read WP:Wikipuffery which starts out - seeking to exaggerate the notability of article subjects to avoid deletion of the article and explains how content should not be used to inflate the importance of a subject and should stick to direct quotes and reliable sources. Let's look at these sources and the quotes.
“ | Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, is a master of the one-liner — a self-described “left-handed, gay Jew” who is not accustomed to being in the majority on anything and yet is one of the most powerful members of Congress. Here are some examples, customarily delivered rapid-fire in his trademark accent, a New Jersey-Boston blend. New York Times - "A Way With Words" | ” |
“ | With relations between the White House and the Democratic Congress growing more acidic as the presidential election approaches, Mr. Frank, 68 and in his 14th term, has emerged as a key deal-maker, an unlikely bridge between his party’s left-wing base and the free-market conservatives in the administration, particularly Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.
In the process, Mr. Frank has won praise, even from some Republican colleagues in the House who generally disagree with his politics but say he has treated them with a fair hand and an eye toward compromise. New York Times - "A Liberal Wit Builds Bridges to the G.O.P." |
” |
“ | After serving in local politics for twelve years, he was elected to the US House of Representatives in 1981, one of the few liberals elected to Congress that year. Frank has since proved to be one of the brightest and most energetic defenders of civil rights issues in the past twenty years. Ripples of Hope: Great American Civil Rights Speeches (2003) | ” |
- Support re-adding them intact, as they were trimmed for brevity but accurately reflect the sources. We could possibly expand but I'm not sure that would help much. This, combined with the persistent effort to paint Frank as somehow responsible for the US housing meltdown and by extension the worldwide economic crisis smells like I don't like it which is a terrible editing guide. -- Banjeboi 20:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support re-adding per Benjiboi. These look like a bad faith, agenda-driven removals, and it doesn't relate to WP:PUFF at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Restore material. per Benjiboi and Scjessey. Characterizing Frank's influence and perception with quotation is good for lead. LotLE×talk 22:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strongest possible oppose Saying he's been an advocate for gay rights is appropriate and I've tried to add that but been reverted several times. Saying what Bill Clinton's speechwriter thinks of him is a joke. A case could be made for the New YOrk Times opinion, but not if we're not going to include something about his role overseeing Fannie and Freddie which is covered at length in the article and in reliable sources. Let's come up with a compromise that's balanced and reasonable and fairly represents Frank's politics and his role. He is not a bridge builder just because one liberal source says so and that's not discussed anywhere in the article and is a bit of a joke really. He's hyper partisan as his recent comment about justice Scalia shows. Let's not pick and choose a couple accolades and stick them in the intro, that's against all sorts of guidelines. We've been over this before, this is an encyclopedia, not a campaign brochure. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- The two highly representative sentences in question are well-sourced, and they do not violate any guidelines I am aware of. Please don't let your personal opinion about a subject guide your editing approach. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- ChildofMidnight, your contributions on this articles have been extremely disruptive and unhelpful. Almost everything has had to be NPOV cleaned up and resourced as you were using opinion pieces to add negative information ... in the lede. You are now accusing me and others of doing exactly what you have been trying to do and your accusations have fallen flat. The compromise is already in the article - we belabor WP:Undue weight on the Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac material. We've had to do this, for the immediate future at least, because of your insistence of adding negative material there. It's also been neutralized and countered with ... wait for it ... reliably sourced and neutral statements plus responses from Frank himself directly answering the sweeping negative and inaccurate statements. As the above quotes show we have generally avoided puffing up anything and have tried to keep it brief and to the point. Frank is hardly just invested in gay rights, nor as your past edits would suggest, extremely interested in marijuana issues. All sources suggest his interest is focussed on civil liberties and human rights of which marijuana legislation and LGBT issues are but examples of his work. We are nowhere near even a good article status on this subject as Frank has been a decent politician longer than many of us have even been alive. You are welcome to make constructive edits here and I ask that you check over WP:NPOV and WP:RS policies especially in regards to our policies on biographies on living people. Negative material that is accurate and well source is already in the article and more is welcome ... but unless you really have an interest in Frank himself, I suggest your energies would benefit everyone on subjects you do like and likely would enjoy writing about. You'll more likely enjoy reading, researching and writing on them and Wikipedia will benefit from your work making articles better. -- Banjeboi 06:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect Benji, you've added a bunch of content (spin) from Frank's press releases. Press releases are not reliable sources, especially not for a prominent Representative when there is lots of coverage in independent media sources. Now you want to add back in a bunch of fluff. Several editors have pointed out how inappropriate that is and it's against policy. If you're going to include it, it needs to be balanced with other notable perspectives. Comments from Clinton's speech writer don't belong in the article at all and definitely not in the intro. Frank's advocacy for gay right and his role overseeing banking and finance and his role taking positions on Fannie and Freddie are very notable and should be included, along with other notable policy and political positions. This is the core of what belongs in an encyclopedia article about a politician, not fluff accolades saying how great he is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Per BLP - Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. They are extensive press releases directly addressing the inflated accusations you've been angling in repeatedly. Your interest in reducing this career politician's decades of work to two issues, one in an effort to again jab at Fannie and Freddie content is again showing what seems to be an inability to edit here objectively. -- Banjeboi 00:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- You left out a key part that says: "it is not unduly self-serving;". Clearly the press release conetent used in the article is self serving and is improperly being used to disptue reliablly sourced content from the New York Times and other independent publications (including those favorable to Democrats). There's no need for them since the events have been widely covered in reliable sources. Your use of the phrase " inflated accusations " shows a clear bias. I suggest you step back from thsi article and work on subjects that you can edit objectively. Frank is most notable for his involvement in overseeing the financial industry, as a gay rights advocate, as a proponent of legalized marijuana, and as a partisan democrat. This is clear from teh reliable sources. Whether you agree or disagree with these positions is irrelevant and the guidelines are clear that we use the best reliable sources wherever possible. Your POV is hurting the encyclopedia, please stop attempting to insert it into articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please stick to the content as you are now veering into personal attacks. You were inserting negative POV material into the lede of a BLP that (i) didn't match what the sources stated and (ii) were from the New York Times but from the opinion page. I hope you can see why that is problematic. No one has suggested that we can't have negative content, simply that controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced violates policies and is supposed to be removed. And Franks own words are actually not unduly self-serving but likely his statements were reprinted by others so we could look to what they printed. -- Banjeboi 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- You left out a key part that says: "it is not unduly self-serving;". Clearly the press release conetent used in the article is self serving and is improperly being used to disptue reliablly sourced content from the New York Times and other independent publications (including those favorable to Democrats). There's no need for them since the events have been widely covered in reliable sources. Your use of the phrase " inflated accusations " shows a clear bias. I suggest you step back from thsi article and work on subjects that you can edit objectively. Frank is most notable for his involvement in overseeing the financial industry, as a gay rights advocate, as a proponent of legalized marijuana, and as a partisan democrat. This is clear from teh reliable sources. Whether you agree or disagree with these positions is irrelevant and the guidelines are clear that we use the best reliable sources wherever possible. Your POV is hurting the encyclopedia, please stop attempting to insert it into articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Per BLP - Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. They are extensive press releases directly addressing the inflated accusations you've been angling in repeatedly. Your interest in reducing this career politician's decades of work to two issues, one in an effort to again jab at Fannie and Freddie content is again showing what seems to be an inability to edit here objectively. -- Banjeboi 00:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect Benji, you've added a bunch of content (spin) from Frank's press releases. Press releases are not reliable sources, especially not for a prominent Representative when there is lots of coverage in independent media sources. Now you want to add back in a bunch of fluff. Several editors have pointed out how inappropriate that is and it's against policy. If you're going to include it, it needs to be balanced with other notable perspectives. Comments from Clinton's speech writer don't belong in the article at all and definitely not in the intro. Frank's advocacy for gay right and his role overseeing banking and finance and his role taking positions on Fannie and Freddie are very notable and should be included, along with other notable policy and political positions. This is the core of what belongs in an encyclopedia article about a politician, not fluff accolades saying how great he is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep removed It seems puffy for the lead. However, I agree with Benji that the dubious right-wing proposition that Frank had anything to do with the housing crisis needs to stay out of the lead and stay restricted, and that CoM's efforts to legitimize the attacks are misplaced. It's delusional on the level of the connection between the Community Reinvestment Act and the housing crisis. Which is unsurprising when one considers that the Republican party is full of delusions. Press releases from the committee which reviews the laws on Fannie/Freddie are plenty reliable, and much more reliable than WSJ editorials, "Foxnews.com" and "Businessandmedia.com". II | (t - c) 22:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- It would seem puffy if it weren't true, see wp:Wikipuffery. -- Banjeboi 00:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- The New York Times quotes are not really a WP:PUFF issue, given that they are a sign of actual notability rather than an inflated one. The Gottheimer quote doesn't belong in the lead, though Frank's role in civil rights issue does: better to mention that role, fn to Gottheimer and others. NB that WP:LEAD does require notable controversies to be included, and Frank's role in the housing crisis is such a controversy. That II doesn't think the critique is accurate is irrelevant -- the point is that some reliable sources do, and that POV is a legitimate one to be included (as is the POV that the critique is inaccurate). (Very remote COI disclosure: Barney Frank yelled at me in a House Subcommittee hearing in 2006.) THF (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- The "controversy" seems rather to expand exponentially to include most every politician and banking enterprise. If there are reliable sources that this indeed is a controversy and Frank is central to it then let's look at them to see what is useable. The editor wishing to remove this information has attempted to remove the verifiable positive material which is sourced reliably and replace it with negative material that isn't. This was never an issue of only presenting glowing information. -- Banjeboi 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- At this point we're talking about optimizing the lead to conform to WP:LEAD. Whether intermediate edits were subpar is irrelevant to that discussion. As for reliable sources on Frank's role in the housing crisis, there are several. THF (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- As stated, I believe this content was targeted directly in retaliation for removing and fixing the overtly negative and non-policy compliant material that editor wished to add, this is a part of their ongoing effort to inject that material although it looks to have been handed off to others to a degree. Per wp:Lede we do summarize what others summarize and this content is not only accurate but trimmed down already. And of those three sources you post? The first is an editorial, the second would likely not hold up to RS standards and the third seems to be a dead link. If you do have some NPOV reliable sources we certainly could look to what they have to say. -- Banjeboi 22:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- At this point we're talking about optimizing the lead to conform to WP:LEAD. Whether intermediate edits were subpar is irrelevant to that discussion. As for reliable sources on Frank's role in the housing crisis, there are several. THF (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- The "controversy" seems rather to expand exponentially to include most every politician and banking enterprise. If there are reliable sources that this indeed is a controversy and Frank is central to it then let's look at them to see what is useable. The editor wishing to remove this information has attempted to remove the verifiable positive material which is sourced reliably and replace it with negative material that isn't. This was never an issue of only presenting glowing information. -- Banjeboi 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- These are all notable points of view from mainstream sources, these are all reliable sources (Thomas Sowell is most certainly a reliable source for the point of view of Thomas Sowell) and it violates NPOV and WEIGHT to omit them. And it violates WP:LEAD to fail to mention notable controversies in the lead. Include the opposite point of view, too, to be sure, but there is no reason to sanitize this article to ignore Frank's role in the housing crisis, as the lead currently does. THF (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be spreading misinformation. II | (t - c) 23:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)We need more capital in the private markets for first-time, low-income buyers. And I'm proud to report that Fannie Mae has heard the call and, as I understand, it's about $440 billion over a period of time. They've used their influence to create that much capital available for the type of home buyer we're talking about here. It's in their charter; it now needs to be implemented...
- Agreed. A lede of a BLP likely should avoid negative op-ed pieces, in fact we are avoiding all op-ed pieces. Again, if there is an actual scandal as noted by reliable sources (no opinion pieces please), and the scandal is quite notable, again by NPOV reliable sources, then I see no problem with reporting them here. If that same scandal is one of the biggest things is the subject's life then, sure, it should go in the lede. But it seems we're dealing with wp:recentism and wp:undue instead with the current banking crisis. And that is all rather a red herring to the actual discussion of removing well sourced and non-negative information. -- Banjeboi 00:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Very Strong removed It reads like an advert. It's cherry-picking basically. It's just as bad as me putting what Bill O'Reilly said of him on the intro paragraph. Nathanschmidt5 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
- Very Strongly opposed to adding material for the record. And no, I am not a homophobe nor do I hate Jews. So stop accusing everyone who has something bad to say about Frank as such. Nicholas.tan (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Huh? Where has anyone accused anyone of antisemitism or being homophobic? -- Banjeboi 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- "These look like a bad faith, agenda-driven removals." Ok puff maybe was wrong, but they were Wikipedia:NPOV or Wikipedia:CHERRY reverts on INTRO paragraphs. If we put that in we should also add how Bill O'Reilly called him a coward for presiding over the biggest collapse in federal history and not admitting fault. I can source it just as well as your NYT article. Keep opinions about the guy in the main article. fair? Nicholas.tan (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- So for the record no one accused anyone of antisemitism or being homophobic? And accusing editors of WP:cherry-picking facts is a bit ironic since that's what we've been preventing. I guess we'll also have to agree to disagree that the New York Times is a wp:reliable source. I'm not sure what Bill O'Reilly thinks of them but Wikipedia generally holds them to be pretty reliable. -- Banjeboi 22:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- But why in the lead paragraphs? these are opinions on him and should be dealt with not in the beginning but the articleNicholas.tan (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Because they speak to his notability and overall impact. The same as we note someone: was awarded the medal of freedom, was the highest paid celebrity in the world of soccer, is the best-selling author of children's books, etc. This is in part what the wp:lede does. The lede is to entice the reader to actually read more than just the lede itself. A great article would be written so compellingly that you would want to read everything about them. Most articles, however, are written organically and by a dissociative committee so slowly build up. No one disputes we could cover negative info in the article, and we do. The issue started with inserting poorly sourced negative material while removing well-sourced positive material. If the negative material is presented NPOV, sourced reliably and meets the standards for a BLP lede then it likely should be included. Otherwise it's fine in the body of the article where it currently sits. -- Banjeboi 00:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- But why in the lead paragraphs? these are opinions on him and should be dealt with not in the beginning but the articleNicholas.tan (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- So for the record no one accused anyone of antisemitism or being homophobic? And accusing editors of WP:cherry-picking facts is a bit ironic since that's what we've been preventing. I guess we'll also have to agree to disagree that the New York Times is a wp:reliable source. I'm not sure what Bill O'Reilly thinks of them but Wikipedia generally holds them to be pretty reliable. -- Banjeboi 22:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- "These look like a bad faith, agenda-driven removals." Ok puff maybe was wrong, but they were Wikipedia:NPOV or Wikipedia:CHERRY reverts on INTRO paragraphs. If we put that in we should also add how Bill O'Reilly called him a coward for presiding over the biggest collapse in federal history and not admitting fault. I can source it just as well as your NYT article. Keep opinions about the guy in the main article. fair? Nicholas.tan (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Huh? Where has anyone accused anyone of antisemitism or being homophobic? -- Banjeboi 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support re-adding It's true I've heard more about Barney Frank than I want to he has been by Nancy Pelosi's side at almost every press conferesnce he's extremely influensial you can't deny that especially now that the Dem's have such huge majorities Gang14 (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
NPOV violation
No credible policy analyst or economist thinks Gramm-Leach-Bliley has any role in the banking crisis (if anything, the bill prevented a far worse catastrophe), yet the article takes the opposite fringe point of view without even mentioning the mainstream position. THF (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Proponents of the view that the GLB had a role in contributing to the banking crisis include the highest-ranked economist on IDEAS, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz [2]. Certainly Gramm's other bill, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, had a bigger influence, but the view is not "fringe". And if you think there's a NPOV violation, fix it. II | (t - c) 23:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- We can simplify this a bit to differing to Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act#Controversy and those editors who are writing that content. What this article states is Franks' referral to the bill and the following explanation:
- The statute, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, has been criticized for having contributed to the proliferation of the complex and opaque financial instruments which are at the heart of the crisis.
- Has, in fact, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act been "criticized for having contributed to the proliferation of the complex and opaque financial instruments which are at the heart of the crisis"? If so, this seems pretty NPOV. If there hasn't been any criticism or this is otherwise false could you explain how it should change so that we are representing that criticism accurately? -- Banjeboi 00:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- We can simplify this a bit to differing to Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act#Controversy and those editors who are writing that content. What this article states is Franks' referral to the bill and the following explanation:
Notable content replaced with cheerleading
Some editors have been removing Frank's most notable work from the introduction and replacing it with non-notable quotes. Frank is one of the most prominent advocates for gay rights (see [3] and [4]. He is also prominent for his role in overseeing Fannie and Freddie. He is also very active as an advocate for medical marijuana. These are all covered in the article and should be included in the introduction. The misleading statements about him being bipartisan should be removed as it is contradicted by numerous reliable sources such as here "partisan legislator... (note this source also calls Frank a "vocal spokesperson for national lesbian/gay constituency" [5] and here "decidedly liberal" [6]. Please respect Wikipedia guidelines and work with me to improve this article. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I really don't think anyone is going to fall for that, CoM. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. If we have reliable sourcing to support that Fannie/Freddie are this big Frank controversy then let's look at them. As has been stated numerous times. Likewise with trying to reinject that he supports marijuana legislation is amongst the biggest issues in his career. You may also want to strike your personal attack of - Some of Wikipedia's most notorious POV pushers have been removing Frank's most notable work. Seems like the pot calling the kettle black. -- Banjeboi 20:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm willing to consider removing that statement, but it seems to be a statement of the obvious. I'm not sure how any editor can argue against the inclusion of the most notable content regarding Barney Frank's career in the introduction of the article. The best sources make clear the prominence of his role as an advocate for gay rights. He's served on the financial or banking or whatever committee and been the Democrat's leader in that position in the house. Whatever we think of the job he's done, these are clearly notable. I'm very concerned that there may be homophobia or other biases at work as I can't see how else to explain censoring his work in this area. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your concern about alleged homophobia is noted. Be assured that you are wrong. There is no further need for you to falsely accuse longtime Wikipedians with good standing of anti-gay bias and claim that they have made improper edits or personal attacks in the hope that administrators will fall for this obvious deflection away from your own disgraceful editing record. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- The personal attacks and other behavior here and elsewhere by ChildofMidnight are completely unacceptable, and make me reluctant to consider this issue at all (in saying that I note that the editor has taken to deleting expressions of concern on his/her own talk page as "trolling" and "harassment", and demands that such conversations be carried out instead on article talk pages). There is no censorship or homophobia among the editors, and that's not a valid subject for consideration here. In the future, please do not wrap content proposals in accusations about other editors with accusatory introductions or subject headings. At the risk of seeing a legitimate content proposal when there is none, like others I oppose repeating here the Republicans' partisan talking point (a rather desperate one at that) that Frank bears responsibility for the global financial crisis. The issue of his opposition to bank regulation is discussed in the body of the article, as it should be, because it is a significant part of his career. And if the article ever works its way up to A, GA, or featured class with a proper four paragraph lead it would make some sense to mention in a neutral fashion that as a major player in banking legislation he acted to oppose tighter regulations in the years leading to the crisis. Regarding whether he is a civil rights crusader or merely an advocate of a cause here and there, I would like to see some better sourcing and only include a pro-Frank partisan source if we can establish that as neutral. In any event, discuss changes here and try to reach consensus. There has already been considerable discussion on these issues so please respect the will of the community. Wikidemon (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your concern about alleged homophobia is noted. Be assured that you are wrong. There is no further need for you to falsely accuse longtime Wikipedians with good standing of anti-gay bias and claim that they have made improper edits or personal attacks in the hope that administrators will fall for this obvious deflection away from your own disgraceful editing record. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm willing to consider removing that statement, but it seems to be a statement of the obvious. I'm not sure how any editor can argue against the inclusion of the most notable content regarding Barney Frank's career in the introduction of the article. The best sources make clear the prominence of his role as an advocate for gay rights. He's served on the financial or banking or whatever committee and been the Democrat's leader in that position in the house. Whatever we think of the job he's done, these are clearly notable. I'm very concerned that there may be homophobia or other biases at work as I can't see how else to explain censoring his work in this area. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd just point out that the some of the editors being called "homophobic" by CoM, are actually some of the flaming-est WikiPedia editors around. Benji knocks lamps over with his swish. APK spits Gucci handbags after snowballing. I like twinks in panty hose. Of course all of this goes well with our "homophobia". Joyyyyyy. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 22:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously I have no way of knowing the sexuality of anyone on Wikipedia (unless they put something on their userpage I suppose). But I find the censorship of Frank's being an advocate for gay rights to be inexplicable. Do you think it violates NPOV to state this very notable and well sourced fact? It seems like these editors may be uncomfortable with a discussion of gay issues. I simply don't know how else to explain their actions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- COM's sudden and unprecedented concern over homophobia, in the midst of a content push that involves edit warring and accusing a lot of established editors of bad faith, incivility, trolling, etc., is weird to say the least. If this were an administrative forum where such behavior is dealt with I would say exactly what I think is going on, which would neither be patient nor kind. However, this is an article talk page so if COM will kindly keep the focus on the edits rather than the editors, we may consider anything serious COM wishes to propose. Wikidemon (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wikidemon please please please focus on article content rather than other editors. I've been exceedingly patient with you, but your personal attacks and inappropriate behavior need to stop. Please focus on the article content that I have attempted to repeatedly discuss only to have the discussion hijacked by more of your soapboxing and personal attacks. Issue number one is why Barney Frank's lifetime of advocacy for gay rights is being removed from the itnroduction? I'm trying to assume good faith and I'd like to collaborate, but I can't see how this notable work that is discussed extensively in the article, that's prominent in the best sources, and that is very notable is being censored. This seems highly inappropriate and contrary to guidelines, inexplicable really. I've even provided substantial coverage in sources to demonstrate the extent of the notability, which I think is quite well known. Please try for once to focus on this content and the guidelines, I'm sure you'll agree that it belongs in the article as is made clear by our guidelines. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- For the record behavior is 100% fine and has always been. I will ask you as kindly as I can, again, to cut it out. Now. Do not make one more accusation against me or any other editors here or we are going straight to AN/I with it. Further, I propose below to the other editors here that we close this discussion as pointless and uncivil. If you want to discuss the matter further without these collateral attacks on other editors, feel free to do so. Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wikidemon please please please focus on article content rather than other editors. I've been exceedingly patient with you, but your personal attacks and inappropriate behavior need to stop. Please focus on the article content that I have attempted to repeatedly discuss only to have the discussion hijacked by more of your soapboxing and personal attacks. Issue number one is why Barney Frank's lifetime of advocacy for gay rights is being removed from the itnroduction? I'm trying to assume good faith and I'd like to collaborate, but I can't see how this notable work that is discussed extensively in the article, that's prominent in the best sources, and that is very notable is being censored. This seems highly inappropriate and contrary to guidelines, inexplicable really. I've even provided substantial coverage in sources to demonstrate the extent of the notability, which I think is quite well known. Please try for once to focus on this content and the guidelines, I'm sure you'll agree that it belongs in the article as is made clear by our guidelines. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- COM's sudden and unprecedented concern over homophobia, in the midst of a content push that involves edit warring and accusing a lot of established editors of bad faith, incivility, trolling, etc., is weird to say the least. If this were an administrative forum where such behavior is dealt with I would say exactly what I think is going on, which would neither be patient nor kind. However, this is an article talk page so if COM will kindly keep the focus on the edits rather than the editors, we may consider anything serious COM wishes to propose. Wikidemon (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Propose to close discussion
Uncivil, unproductive, and unduly tendentious. Content proposals can be re-introduced without accompanying complaints about other editors. Yes? No? Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support. this is awfully unhelpful. -- Banjeboi 00:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I've asked for Admin help at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ChildofMidnight on Barney Frank BLP -- Banjeboi 01:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Image
I just uploaded File:Barney Frank in Congressional office.jpg. I'll let someone else decide where it belongs on the page. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 22:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Shoulda uploaded it on Commons since it's a gov't image and totally free. Durka durka. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 22:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd rather eat dog treats than upload to Commons. Durka burka Al Gayda. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 22:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Problems on Commons, my friend? Do tell! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 22:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Visit my padded cell. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 23:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Problems on Commons, my friend? Do tell! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 22:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd rather eat dog treats than upload to Commons. Durka burka Al Gayda. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 22:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Jewish and gay
How come there is no discussion of Frank's sexuality with regard to his religion? I though the two things were incompatible? Gaytan (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Is this a serious question or some kind of joke? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- ouch, let's all puff on the peacepipe Perhaps what ChildofMidnight meant to say was something like, "your thought about the incompatibility might be relevant to some of these topics, however we do not currently see many Reliable Sources discussing the hypothetical incompatibility." If it's non-existent, or perhaps simply not notable, then we won't bother putting it into this biography. We would only include such a discussion if it were extremely important and if all of our Verifiable sources suggested it was necessary to mention that hypothetical issue for the sake of understanding who is Frank and what matters about him. If you believe it is important, you could possibly do some research, and then come back and boldly edit this biography to include your good research. Otherwise, we can only speculate on the TalkPage, we don't have much else at this time. (And just to show you the measure of my ignorance: i have never even given a thought to Frank's religion or lack thereof.) ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 23:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to be bitey. I just wasn't sure it was a serious question. I've never heard of any conflict in reform Judaism between being gay and being Jewish. Seemed kind of off the wall, so I wasn't sure it was a serious question and given the timing I thought maybe it was just meant as a some kind of sarcastic distraction or from the legitimate proposals to improve the article (see above). ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict, part 2)Probably because the actual subject you're referring to is discussed elsewhere. Whether or not Judaism & homosexuality are compatible is irrelevant to his Wiki bio. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 23:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- ouch, let's all puff on the peacepipe Perhaps what ChildofMidnight meant to say was something like, "your thought about the incompatibility might be relevant to some of these topics, however we do not currently see many Reliable Sources discussing the hypothetical incompatibility." If it's non-existent, or perhaps simply not notable, then we won't bother putting it into this biography. We would only include such a discussion if it were extremely important and if all of our Verifiable sources suggested it was necessary to mention that hypothetical issue for the sake of understanding who is Frank and what matters about him. If you believe it is important, you could possibly do some research, and then come back and boldly edit this biography to include your good research. Otherwise, we can only speculate on the TalkPage, we don't have much else at this time. (And just to show you the measure of my ignorance: i have never even given a thought to Frank's religion or lack thereof.) ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 23:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Frank does discuss this but it just doesn't seem to be that big of an issue. Do you have any reliable sources that it is? -- Banjeboi 00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Protection again
I'm asking for semi-protection again as we have some vandals just popping up again. -- Banjeboi 02:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've full protected for one week because of both the content dispute and the vandalism. I suggest working out the former on this page. LadyofShalott Weave 03:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Who took the POV tag out? there is an edit war at least let the people know.... Nicholas.tan (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think adding a POV or dispute or whatever tag would be appropriate while the article is locked down. This version has serious issues that have been disputed for some time now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Article protection signals that there has been an edit war - a tag is unnecessary. I don't see a bona fide dispute here, either, just edit warring. Neither tags, nor edit wars, are a substitute for honoring a consensus process. Wikidemon (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure it's just an edit war, the article has some issues. Soxwon (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Dispute / POV tags are also not right if the parties are in a good faith productive consensus process - it would be gaming for a party to slap a tag on in the middle of that, a sign that they won't accept not getting their way. There are very few cases where they're really appropriate. Wikidemon (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure it's just an edit war, the article has some issues. Soxwon (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If we're discussing the POV tag that was added yesterday by an anonymous IP, I took it out. Considering the tendentious editing going on at this article, a drive-by POV tagging by an IP address was inappropriate. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 19:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Proposed Edits
I think the article contains more than a little POV. For starters rename or remove the "Free Speech" section, remove his humor bit in LGBT: Frank is known for his witty, self-deprecating sense of humor. He once famously quipped that he was unable to complete his review of the Starr Report detailing President Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, complaining that it was "too much reading about heterosexual sex".[21] In 2004 and again in 2006, a survey of Capitol Hill staffers published in Washingtonian gave Frank the title of the "brainiest", "funniest", and "most eloquent" member of the House.[22] , and take out the second paragraph in the lede. These are all far from NPOV. Soxwon (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- The second lead paragraph is a set of quotes giving a overall portrait of the subject, with a source for each one, as in the above. These are notable points of view and they are credited. It does not violate NPOV to give them. Jonathunder (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- The second paragraph has been discussed above in the "Intro Paragraph" thread and there is no consensus to include promotional quotes in the introduction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- The second paragraph is a clear violation of WP:BLP:
- The second paragraph has been discussed above in the "Intro Paragraph" thread and there is no consensus to include promotional quotes in the introduction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.
The second quote is out of context:
With relations between the White House and the Democratic Congress growing more acidic as the presidential election approaches, Mr. Frank, 68 and in his 14th term, has emerged as a key deal-maker, an unlikely bridge between his party’s left-wing base and the free-market conservatives in the administration, particularly Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.
and comes across as a blanket statement rather than in the scope of the article. The last statement is just praise from a partisan and doesn't belong in the lead. The first statement places on him a designation that apparently is reserved for him alone since it is absent John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and even Nancy Pelosi. Instead of stating something let the facts speak for themselves.
Another suggested edit would be taking out a lot of the quotations for the Political Initiatives and Positions section. Soxwon (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- We are using direct quotes to avoid injecting POV, either for or against the subject. And we use their own words as a person is considered and expert on themselves. This sudden concern here smacks of WP:IDon'tLikeIt and a rally to support editors called for misbehaviour on the Admin notice board. -- Banjeboi 00:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
For instance on negative, a recent article in the Chicago Tribune: Either Frank is an incompetent reader or he is deliberately trying to mislead people into believing that justices vote for results in cases the way legislators vote a bill up or down. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chioped0407gayapr07,0,3951559.story
- From the Boston Globe:
Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/
- The accusations of an affair come up before the material that supposedly frames his character:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958598,00.html
All this was gleaned from a simple Google search and going with the top results. Soxwon (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- You may need to brush up on NPOV and reliable sourcing, the very same issues those other editors have had a problem with here. Editorials and opinion peices are general unhelpful for introducing negative material on BLPs. And that Time article? That content is already neutrally covered in the article and that "supposedly frames his character" article is from 1989. Twenty years is fairly out of date for dredging up mud to sling. Again if you have reliable sources that present criticism that we can present neutrally then please share them so others can see what is possible to use. -- Banjeboi 01:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- You have yet to give reason, however, as to why those statements seem to skirt the ideas of WP:BLP when they seem to praise the ground he walks on. Should they be included, possibly, but why in the lead? Soxwon (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- They have been discuseed, repeatedly, to the same editor who is now apparently got a posse. They speak to Frank's notability and cover his entire career. I'll include my comment directed at ChildofMidnight here as they have removed it from their talkpage - As has been stated, a few times, deleting positive material because you haven't matched it up with negative material is not policy or acceptable nor is it a compromise. In fact you've not shown any signs of compromising until warned with a 3RR block. You then edit warred until the page was fully protected and then edit-warred after the page was unprotected against consensus. You've made precious little help and have continued to fabricate false accusations against other editors including characterizing those who disagree with you as homophobes which is rubbish. Your edits were unreasonable and many editors helped revert them. ChildofMidnight's first level of "compromise" was to delete the information then when called on it to move it into the "Early life" section which is also ridiculous and unhelpful. Let me state this clearly, for the umpteenth time, no one opposes negative information here. It is already in the article in shovel fulls and is neutral and well sourced. That is the compromise, that we follow policies regarding BLPs. This isn't a game that we trade good for bad or anything else. If we had reliable sources that he is the most hated person in the world we'd look to the validity of the claim and how it could be used. No one is stopping negative information. We are stopping ChildofMidnight's campaign to remove well-sourced and positive information from the lede because they apparently don't care for this subject. Our own bias' is not the reason to include or disinclude reliably sourced and appropriate content. It may be wiser to edit on subjects you do approve instead. Likely those articles will improve and positive bbias is less problematic than poorly sourced negative bias. -- Banjeboi 02:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that it's sourced doesn't matter, I repeat from the BLP:
- They have been discuseed, repeatedly, to the same editor who is now apparently got a posse. They speak to Frank's notability and cover his entire career. I'll include my comment directed at ChildofMidnight here as they have removed it from their talkpage - As has been stated, a few times, deleting positive material because you haven't matched it up with negative material is not policy or acceptable nor is it a compromise. In fact you've not shown any signs of compromising until warned with a 3RR block. You then edit warred until the page was fully protected and then edit-warred after the page was unprotected against consensus. You've made precious little help and have continued to fabricate false accusations against other editors including characterizing those who disagree with you as homophobes which is rubbish. Your edits were unreasonable and many editors helped revert them. ChildofMidnight's first level of "compromise" was to delete the information then when called on it to move it into the "Early life" section which is also ridiculous and unhelpful. Let me state this clearly, for the umpteenth time, no one opposes negative information here. It is already in the article in shovel fulls and is neutral and well sourced. That is the compromise, that we follow policies regarding BLPs. This isn't a game that we trade good for bad or anything else. If we had reliable sources that he is the most hated person in the world we'd look to the validity of the claim and how it could be used. No one is stopping negative information. We are stopping ChildofMidnight's campaign to remove well-sourced and positive information from the lede because they apparently don't care for this subject. Our own bias' is not the reason to include or disinclude reliably sourced and appropriate content. It may be wiser to edit on subjects you do approve instead. Likely those articles will improve and positive bbias is less problematic than poorly sourced negative bias. -- Banjeboi 02:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- You have yet to give reason, however, as to why those statements seem to skirt the ideas of WP:BLP when they seem to praise the ground he walks on. Should they be included, possibly, but why in the lead? Soxwon (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. As other editors have commented including myself, Rklawton, and CoM have stated that the opening paragraph is flat out biased. Soxwon (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus has been that those quotes have already been edited down to present the info neutrally and concisely. They hardly overwhelm anything but we can certainly add more neautral and reliably sourced content if you think that's a concern. Simply removing them because they're positive is rubbish. The lede needs to be expanded properly, not gutted of material that fails to mudrake the subject. -- Banjeboi 02:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- It would be alright if they were simply "positive" but they read more fanboy than encyclopedic. And WP:CCC anyone?
- Consensus has been that those quotes have already been edited down to present the info neutrally and concisely. They hardly overwhelm anything but we can certainly add more neautral and reliably sourced content if you think that's a concern. Simply removing them because they're positive is rubbish. The lede needs to be expanded properly, not gutted of material that fails to mudrake the subject. -- Banjeboi 02:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- We'll have to disgaree if they are more positive than needed but the point is that consensus of less than a month ago was they were fine and that was only as a result of ChildofMidnight's edit-warring that it was even an issue. Perhaps consensus will change in time or, just maybe, all this energy being put into this, IMHO, non-issue, will be spent actually finding better content so it bacomes a moot point. -- Banjeboi 03:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Can you show me any other political leader that has that kind of praise in the introduction? Are you suggesting that Frank is better at fashioning compromise than Henry Clay? Also, if it's such a defining characteristic that it belongs in the lede, surely you can come up with more than one source to support it.Soxwon (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- George Washington's lede paragraphs include a quote about "greatest man in the world". That's in a biography about somebody who had no problem about slavery. So, ummm, yes, i can show you other political leaders who have that kind of praise in the introduction. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 04:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Can you show me any other political leader that has that kind of praise in the introduction? Are you suggesting that Frank is better at fashioning compromise than Henry Clay? Also, if it's such a defining characteristic that it belongs in the lede, surely you can come up with more than one source to support it.Soxwon (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Soxwon, we get it, you don't care for the subject, fine. You want to insert negative info in its place citing opinion and op-ed sourcing, not fine. You want to argue about how other articles do or don't do something - also not fine, take it to those articles. You might want to read the note posted at the top of this page - Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. The content we have is sourced fine so there is no need to add more sources to assert what reliable sources have already stated. Again, if you want to find a reliable source that states negative things about this subject then we can certainly look at what they have to offer. This is the exact same issue we're having with ChildofMidnight. Present the compelling reliable sources and we can look to adding them, until then you may want to focus your energies on subjects you do approve. -- Banjeboi 03:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- With all due to respect, no consensus has been reached on the parts that you put into the the artucle, Benjiboi, you are making this article sound like an advertisement. When I first read this article I didn't know if I was reading about the guy who a lot of people consider to have presided over the biggest financial collapse in American history or whether I was reading about the article on Jesus Christ Nicholas.tan (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your POV is clear (although my grandparents might have something to tell you about financial collapses of American history, but that's besides the point). A lot of people consider something? So if that's true, then please give us some Reliable Sources which show us what "a lot of people consider". You can't make the assertion without providing the materials. Period. This is a WP:BLP and there is no way to put something in or take something out unless you have WP:RS and WP:V to support your edits. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 04:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, no, consensus was reached, but now, of course, it's always an ongoing process which can be updated. However, if you want to make changes to the lede, you will need to come up with sources which are equally reliable as the New York Times and present them here for contrast. An op-ed piece from twenty years ago is not acceptable. A partisan sniping in a magazine written by and for conservatives is not acceptable. If the contentious points which you are trying to make are so universally true, then it shouldn't be difficult for you to come up with some strong Reliable Sources to provide us with material. Personally, i don't actually have a very high opinion of Barney Frank regarding most political topics, but that doesn't mean i can just delete other editors' strongly sourced and verifiable material. In some articles it's easier to be Bold, but this is a Biography of a Living Person, so we have a very restrictive editing situation with little leeway. If you want to add something to this article, or subtract something, you are going to need to produce Reliable Sources which are as powerful as those being used here already. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 03:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- With all due to respect, no consensus has been reached on the parts that you put into the the artucle, Benjiboi, you are making this article sound like an advertisement. When I first read this article I didn't know if I was reading about the guy who a lot of people consider to have presided over the biggest financial collapse in American history or whether I was reading about the article on Jesus Christ Nicholas.tan (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Soxwon, we get it, you don't care for the subject, fine. You want to insert negative info in its place citing opinion and op-ed sourcing, not fine. You want to argue about how other articles do or don't do something - also not fine, take it to those articles. You might want to read the note posted at the top of this page - Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. The content we have is sourced fine so there is no need to add more sources to assert what reliable sources have already stated. Again, if you want to find a reliable source that states negative things about this subject then we can certainly look at what they have to offer. This is the exact same issue we're having with ChildofMidnight. Present the compelling reliable sources and we can look to adding them, until then you may want to focus your energies on subjects you do approve. -- Banjeboi 03:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
<outdent>Quotes are rarely included in an introduction and certainly not opinions of random partisan figures like Bill Clinton's speechwriter. All the independent feedback is that these promotional quotes violate various Wikipedia guidelines, particularly when included in the introduction. If an RfC is needed to gather further input let's do it. But there is no policy to support one sided fluff. So if a compromise or alternative can't be reached (and none has been suggested by those who want to include this material) it will have to be removed according to guidelines including undue weight, NPOV, and MOS. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- No. Wrong. It is Reliably Sourced. If you think it is UNDUE weight, then please give us Reliable Sources which provide more information we can include to help keep it from being Undue. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 04:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Clearly an opinion from Bill Clinton's speech writer doesn't belong in the introduction. You've been told this numerous times by numerous editors. The New York Times statement is taken out of context and conflicted by sources I've posted above that call Franks a partisan and a liberal. So there you go. The content doesn't belong. Let's not go round and round. I think most editors are willing to have it be included in the body of the article in appropriate context. But the intro needs to include major issues and content list those in sections of the article: Frank as leading Dem on Financial Services committee, Frank advocating for gay rights, Franks advocating for medical marijuana etc. If you look at the section titles that might give you some ideas on what information actually belongs in the introduction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- gay rights, medical marijuana, and universal healthcare for children in Massachusetts-- those are all examples Civil Rights issues. So we have a very WP:V WP:RS in the lede which says Frank is a leader on Civil Rights issues, and then we elaborate in the subsections of his article. How is that not clear and concise? If we went with your wording, it would simply make his lede paragraphs a portrayal of somebody whose career consists of nothing more important than devotion to gay sex and drugs, at the expense of the national economy. Clearly not acceptable in a BLP. If you want to elaborate further with Reliable Sources giving us more info to include in the subsections, that's fine. But if you want to change the lede paragraphs, i must ask you for the umpteenth time to produce some Reliable Sources which give us accurate information which we can utilize to form a general summary and proceed from there. Simply singing the same refrain over and over is never going to produce results. The next time you propose a change to the lede, please bring something to support the change, preferably something as Reliable and Verifiable as the New York Times, because that's what we're using right now. If your viewpoint about Barney Frank is so commonly held, certainly it should be easy for you to find some Sources. If your viewpoint about what to put in the lede is the viewpoint supported by consensus, then certainly the lede will be updated to reflect that changing consensus. But we can't delete anything Reliably Sourced unless you give us another Reliably Sourced reason to do so. I'm not going to repeat this again. Further expressions indicating a complete failure to understand this basic requirement of WP:BLP will be viewed as Disruptive. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 05:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The point you are ignoring Teledildonix is that while your wording isn't correct, gay rights and the collapse of the economy are linked to him in many sources whilst the stuff sitting there now is confined to three articles and the one about being a dealmaker is out of context, it defines recent times not his whole career. As such, it doesn't belong in the lede as it's not a defining characteristic. Again, IF THEY ARE SUCH LARGE PARTS OF HIS LEGACY TO MENTION WARRANT IN THE LEDE, SURELY YOU CAN FIND OTHER EXAMPLES BESIDES A SINGLE ARTICLE EACH. Soxwon (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Soxwon, you are mistaken and more to the point you're simply arguing on points that have been argues and dismissed by concensus already. If you have reliable sources that counter these statements or have have anything that likely should be included then present those for others to also view. Otherwise your efforts here are in fact disruptive. -- Banjeboi 14:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, WP:CCC. I see a problem and am making an argument for changing it. If other editors agree with me it can change. Soxwon (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- WP:WABBITSEASON is becoming applicable, by which i refer to you singing the same verse again and again. Your next "verse" needs to come with some Reliable Sources, then maybe we could sing along with you. Otherwise, you're being disruptive. I want this biography to be edited, and i don't want it to be a big piece of WP:PUFF, so i will happily support anything you might wish to present, negative or positive or neither or both, so long as you bring us something tangible with Sources and Verification. I agree the lede paragraphs could be improved, but i am suggesting your approach is not constructive unless you offer us material we can summarize from sources such as the ones Banjeboi has given us below. If your position and POV is so widely held, then it should be easy for you to find something constructive. Otherwise, your next verse in the song of Wabbit Season will be ignored as disruptive. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, no, no my friend, you are mistaken, I say the second paragraph should be moved or removed. The burden of proof is on you. You've given two sources that seem to warrant notability despite having only one WP:RS each, and with other things more widely cited (role in Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac collapse or his work in gay rights. Soxwon (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- WP:WABBITSEASON is becoming applicable, by which i refer to you singing the same verse again and again. Your next "verse" needs to come with some Reliable Sources, then maybe we could sing along with you. Otherwise, you're being disruptive. I want this biography to be edited, and i don't want it to be a big piece of WP:PUFF, so i will happily support anything you might wish to present, negative or positive or neither or both, so long as you bring us something tangible with Sources and Verification. I agree the lede paragraphs could be improved, but i am suggesting your approach is not constructive unless you offer us material we can summarize from sources such as the ones Banjeboi has given us below. If your position and POV is so widely held, then it should be easy for you to find something constructive. Otherwise, your next verse in the song of Wabbit Season will be ignored as disruptive. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, WP:CCC. I see a problem and am making an argument for changing it. If other editors agree with me it can change. Soxwon (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Soxwon, you are mistaken and more to the point you're simply arguing on points that have been argues and dismissed by concensus already. If you have reliable sources that counter these statements or have have anything that likely should be included then present those for others to also view. Otherwise your efforts here are in fact disruptive. -- Banjeboi 14:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The point you are ignoring Teledildonix is that while your wording isn't correct, gay rights and the collapse of the economy are linked to him in many sources whilst the stuff sitting there now is confined to three articles and the one about being a dealmaker is out of context, it defines recent times not his whole career. As such, it doesn't belong in the lede as it's not a defining characteristic. Again, IF THEY ARE SUCH LARGE PARTS OF HIS LEGACY TO MENTION WARRANT IN THE LEDE, SURELY YOU CAN FIND OTHER EXAMPLES BESIDES A SINGLE ARTICLE EACH. Soxwon (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- gay rights, medical marijuana, and universal healthcare for children in Massachusetts-- those are all examples Civil Rights issues. So we have a very WP:V WP:RS in the lede which says Frank is a leader on Civil Rights issues, and then we elaborate in the subsections of his article. How is that not clear and concise? If we went with your wording, it would simply make his lede paragraphs a portrayal of somebody whose career consists of nothing more important than devotion to gay sex and drugs, at the expense of the national economy. Clearly not acceptable in a BLP. If you want to elaborate further with Reliable Sources giving us more info to include in the subsections, that's fine. But if you want to change the lede paragraphs, i must ask you for the umpteenth time to produce some Reliable Sources which give us accurate information which we can utilize to form a general summary and proceed from there. Simply singing the same refrain over and over is never going to produce results. The next time you propose a change to the lede, please bring something to support the change, preferably something as Reliable and Verifiable as the New York Times, because that's what we're using right now. If your viewpoint about Barney Frank is so commonly held, certainly it should be easy for you to find some Sources. If your viewpoint about what to put in the lede is the viewpoint supported by consensus, then certainly the lede will be updated to reflect that changing consensus. But we can't delete anything Reliably Sourced unless you give us another Reliably Sourced reason to do so. I'm not going to repeat this again. Further expressions indicating a complete failure to understand this basic requirement of WP:BLP will be viewed as Disruptive. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 05:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Clearly an opinion from Bill Clinton's speech writer doesn't belong in the introduction. You've been told this numerous times by numerous editors. The New York Times statement is taken out of context and conflicted by sources I've posted above that call Franks a partisan and a liberal. So there you go. The content doesn't belong. Let's not go round and round. I think most editors are willing to have it be included in the body of the article in appropriate context. But the intro needs to include major issues and content list those in sections of the article: Frank as leading Dem on Financial Services committee, Frank advocating for gay rights, Franks advocating for medical marijuana etc. If you look at the section titles that might give you some ideas on what information actually belongs in the introduction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Outdent. Soxwon, you are reviving an issue that was already resolved with consensus to re-include it. Your next tactic was to suggest it be removed/mitigate, etc and replaced with disparaging content from opinion sources which violates policy. You then have suggested we somehow found these fringe ideas at the New Yor Times which is rubbish. I've even posted multiple sources that generally praise Frank as one of the most intelligent politicians, a bridge builder, effective, witty and ... a champion on all civil rights. What we have might not be perfect but it is sourced quotes so we're not saying these things, they are. The burden of proof has been met already. Unless you want to now, after many requests to do so, provide reliable sourcing that disputes this content or suggests content to be added it's time to end this circular arguing. Palaboys (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Possible sources
- 10 Things You Didn't Know About Barney Frank By Debra Bell, US News and World Report, March 27, 2009 - Some good early life, early career bits.
- Washington at Work; Barney Frank's Public and Private Lives: Lonely Struggle for Coexistence MICHAEL ORESKES, New York Times, September 15, 1989. Ditto.
- A former aide has written a biography called Barney Frank: The Story of America's Only Left-Handed, Gay, Jewish Congressman. It will be published later this year.
- Frank was active in the Mississippi Freedom Summer of 1964 - in support of voter registration for blacks.
- Barney Frank’s 2009 Congressional Playbook by Luke Mullins, US News and World Report, December 19, 2008. regarding Finance committee issues, if needed.
- Masters of the Universe defend use of US bailout cash The Guardian; - "Barney Frank, who chairs the US House financial services committee, has a reputation as one of Washington's wittiest and brightest politicians."
- Rep. Barney Frank Has Designs On Renovating Fannie & Freddie For helping clean FnF content.
- TESTING OF A PRESIDENT: PROFILE; Barney Frank NY Times, November 20, 1998. For wit and character content.
A few sources that may help. -- Banjeboi 13:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your sources also don't do much for me. The first doesn't address the issues raised, the second is unpublished so it's useless, the third isn't that important (a lot of ppl did), the fourth is a blog (not a WP:RS) and the last one isn't the opinion of the Guardian. You're left with nothing. Soxwon (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, we're trying to avoid opinion peices but thank you for looking for potential sources. -- Banjeboi 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- comment: i would very much like to try to include material from those US News And World Report articles for three reasons: 1)WP:V awesome. 2)WP:RS they do the fact-checking expected of a high-circulation news magazine. 3) US News & World Report is known to be a mouthpiece of the right-wing pro-business pro-big-money interests in America, and their editorial staff has been comprised mainly of right-wing people with traditional American Christian affiliations (e.g. Steve Waldman). This means we can't be accused of using only left-wing sources, if we use the USN&WR material we will be seen as editing more fairly by including WP:RS which are known for their criticism of liberal politicians and their stance against progressive movements supported by gays, atheists, and non-christians. So it will give the whole biography more Neutral style by using some of the USN&WR references. This is most excellent, i usually can't stand to read USN&WR because of their right-wing propaganda, but here we find they are actually very useful for our biography of Barney Frank. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 21:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
CBS ‘60 Minutes’: Barney Frank, ‘The Smartest Guy in Congress’
14 December 2008; Lesley Stahl, produced by Shachar Bar-On
Long article - full transcript and video online.
“ | Barney Frank has been called the "smartest guy in Congress," which is lucky for us since he works on some of the thorniest issues around.
The 14-term, 68-year-old Harvard-educated Democratic congressman from Massachusetts is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which means his portfolio includes banks, housing and now the auto industry. He has been at the center of both the $700-billion dollar rescue for financial institutions, and the bailout attempt for the car companies that failed in the Senate. He worked on both this past week: pressuring Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to deal with home foreclosures, and negotiating with the White House on the loan for GM and Chrysler. True to textbook liberalism, Barney Frank worked hard to keep the carmakers out of Chapter 11. |
” |
Plenty of good content here as well. -- Banjeboi 13:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not much, the first isn't an opinion of CBS and can't be claimed as such, everything else can be construed as postive or negative depending on what you wish to add. Soxwon (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see this instant and disparaging assessment indicative of an inability to seperate a reliable source and potential content from one's bias. There is indeed plenty of good content there, I didn't suggest what could be added. You may note the lede however - Barney Frank has been called the "smartest guy in Congress,". Here is a US national program stating that upfront, how we use it is another issue. Again this speaks to Frank's notability. -- Banjeboi 14:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Possible source
- Congressman Barney Frank Outlines His Priorities November 30, 2006; Washington bureau chief Darren Gersh, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT.
“ | GERSH: You're going to have jurisdiction over many industries in the financial services sector: insurance, banking, housing. What's your top priority?
FRANK: Affordable housing is the single biggest one. We have a terrible housing crisis in this country and I think we now understand that housing is not simply a social good, but it's an economic practice (ph). The biggest difference people will see when we take over from the Republicans is we will reverse their policy of basically letting any affordable housing stock dwindle and not building any new stock. A related issue there is the question of predatory lending. We now have data from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act that my former colleague Joe Kennedy worked so hard to enact. And now it's pretty clear. If you are African- American or Hispanic, you have less chance of getting a mortgage. And if you get one, you have a high chance of paying more even with other factors being equal for some reason. I think that has got to be a very high priority. |
” |
and
“ | I want to say to the business community, look, help us get health care out of the workplace and have a good universal health care system. Let people join unions without being harassed (INAUDIBLE). Raise the minimum wage. Help more people get higher education partly through public spending. In return let's go do trade agreements, although with some environmental and labor protections. | ” |
- From Rep. Frank, a To-Do List for Changing Wall Street By CYRUS SANATI, NY Times, March 25, 2009.
Both for House Financial Services Committee. -- Banjeboi 14:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- So if we're sticking in quotes can we stick in these:
"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." In response to Republicans suggesting more regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all I mean, it's in the article, but in light of his recent calls for sticter oversight and howls at mismanagement, shouldn't that get mentioned in a more prominent place? Soxwon (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I mean after all, you can find his relationship w/the Fannie Mae exec in reliable sources all over the place, that quote and his actions later, and his reign over one of the worst collapse over the internet. Yet it seems they aren't as notable as quotes mentioned in the lead. Soxwon (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do you even know what FannieMae and FreddieMac are? How they work? What Frank does in his relationship with them? I ask these questions because you seem to be throwing out this concept of "his relationship with Fannie Mae" as though there were something sinister and evil going on (and i had to laugh heartily when you said "his reign over one of the worst collapse", really, that's a knee-slapper!). I would recommend that you read some information from people who are actually in the financial industries, preferably from experts on the federal agencies which oversee mortgages, homeowner, and farmowner lending in America, before you continue with this silly buzzword tossing which you seem to think will somehow tar Frank. In case you don't understand what i mean, do some research into Annaly Capital and their associated businesses. Then when you have educated yourself about how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and HUD actually work and what they actually do in the American housing markets and their relationship to the broader economy, you might begin to realize that you're going to have to come up with a much more convincing "brush" with which to tar Barney Frank. We get it-- you don't like fags and liberals, and you want to use freeper buzzwords to smear people, but instead you could actually be learning about how things work in your country. Which would be more constructive?~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 21:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I was commenting on his affair with the Fannie Mae executive if you'd bother to read, and was he or was he not head of the HFSC when the bubble burst? I never said he had anything to Fannie Mae other than the conflict of interest having open relations with the head might have entailed. That last bit is documented and can be seen here: [7], [8] Read for comprehension, it helps. Soxwon (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do you even know what FannieMae and FreddieMac are? How they work? What Frank does in his relationship with them? I ask these questions because you seem to be throwing out this concept of "his relationship with Fannie Mae" as though there were something sinister and evil going on (and i had to laugh heartily when you said "his reign over one of the worst collapse", really, that's a knee-slapper!). I would recommend that you read some information from people who are actually in the financial industries, preferably from experts on the federal agencies which oversee mortgages, homeowner, and farmowner lending in America, before you continue with this silly buzzword tossing which you seem to think will somehow tar Frank. In case you don't understand what i mean, do some research into Annaly Capital and their associated businesses. Then when you have educated yourself about how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and HUD actually work and what they actually do in the American housing markets and their relationship to the broader economy, you might begin to realize that you're going to have to come up with a much more convincing "brush" with which to tar Barney Frank. We get it-- you don't like fags and liberals, and you want to use freeper buzzwords to smear people, but instead you could actually be learning about how things work in your country. Which would be more constructive?~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 21:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I mean after all, you can find his relationship w/the Fannie Mae exec in reliable sources all over the place, that quote and his actions later, and his reign over one of the worst collapse over the internet. Yet it seems they aren't as notable as quotes mentioned in the lead. Soxwon (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)