Talk:Barney Frank/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Harvard College vs. Harvard University

Re [User:Adam Carr]'s question. Googling for

"Barney Frank" biography Harvard

shows several entries all specifying Harvard College.

Harvard College is the undergraduate institution. I am not an expert on this, but I believe that those who complete the undergraduate program receive their degrees from Harvard College. I don't think there is such a thing as "graduating from Harvard University." You can only graduate from Harvard College, Harvard Law School, etc. And I think Harvard graduates are particular about this. (Though not as particular as graduates of Dartmouth College!)

So I'm changing it back, because I'm pretty sure that Harvard College is correct, and that whoever edited it originally was just being punctilious.

(In other words, no, I don't think it's any sort of subtle deprecation of Barney Frank!)

I could well be wrong (and it's certainly not worth having an edit war over), bu that's what I think. Dpbsmith 16:17, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am happy to take your word for it. I have always assumed that Harvard was Harvard University. Adam 00:27, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Barney Frank's office only accepts emails from constituents (and I don't want to lie about my address!) but I've sent an email to the president of Harvard inquiring on this point... it will be interesting to see whether I get an answer. Dpbsmith 02:06, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It might be better if the article just says he was "educated at Harvard", because a lot of people are going to assume that Harvard College is wrong - it certainly looks wrong. Adam 02:22, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Like other Jewish Democrats, he has been a strong supporter of Israel."

Something doesn't sit right with me about this. --PrinceValium 22:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Because it describes him as a "Jewish Democrat", or because it suggests that all Jewish Democrats are strong supporters of Israel? Adam 01:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The latter. --PrinceValium 07:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you name a Jewish Democratic office-holder who is not a strong supporter of Israel? Adam 21:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

(1) Russ Feingold, who is neutral at best. See this article. (2) That's irrelevant. You should be able to support your factual assertions with outside authority, not ask me to disprove your assertion. (3) "Supporter of Israel" is an empty term. Does it mean "I support Israel's right to exist?" Or "I support every policy decision of the Sharon government." Or if somewhere in between, where? (4) Why say that he supports Israel because he is a Jewish Democrat? Do Jewish Republicans not support Israel? Do non-Jewish Democrats not support Israel? (5) "All X does Y" is a lazy way to write Wikipedia articles because they are essentially hyperbolic statements that are unsupportable by outside authority.

Amazing how when you argue with a Jew, they avid any direct discussion of your points. LOL.

Just because the statement is "mostly right" doesn't make it "all right" nor does it make it appropriate for this article. --PrinceValium 05:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to deleting "Like other Jewish Democrats," since is not essential to the meaning of the sentence. (Note in passing: Feingold's position on the evidence of that article is essentially pro-Israeli but critical of some Israeli policies. So far as I know this is also Frank's position. "Strong supporter" does not mean "uncritical supporter.") Adam 06:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

In the case of politics (and other realms), "strong supporter" is actually often taken to mean "uncritical supporter," so the assertion is misleading and certainly doesn't belong.--Gloriamarie 03:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Gobie scandal

Our article asserts as a fact that Gobie was running a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment. But one of the sources we cite says that Gobie's claims proved false. Is there any support for the accusation? At a minimum, if Frank denies it, his denial should be noted. JamesMLane t c 16:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Frank admitted to the affair. Amazing though, how Wikipedia's amazingly large gay Jew lobby can deny things that have even been admitted too. LOL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read my comment, you'll see that what's at issue isn't whether the two had an affair, but whether Gobie was running a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment. Also, please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA before maligning Wikipedia editors. JamesMLane t c 02:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Classic Re-Direct

I love how this site automatically redirects when one enters "Barney Fag". I expected a list of choices, this page being one of them, but to go straight here?? How do you know I wasn't looking for evidence of an affair between a certain purple dinosaur and a certain purple Telletubie?

"That question's a little too silly for me to answer." - Barney Frank to Stephen Colbert, Better Know A District

If you want to lobby so that "Barney Fag" no longer ends up here, then that is a noble persuit. I, personally, think that is disgraceful. But if that is your intent say so. Don't be silly. (Wikifan999 19:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

openly gay

i had to remove the portion of the intro that mentions Franks sexual orientation. you wouldnt mention a straight person being open about being straight. dthomas—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keltik31 (talk • contribs).

I think it should be in the intro, its very notable. TrevorLSciAct (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the story about Frank hosting a man who ran a gay prostitution business from Frank's home? This was a big story and deserves some attention in such an entry. 89.54.56.159 18:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Steve

Are you serious? The Gobie incident is described in the article—and it has been in the article since November 2003. By the way, it was never proved that Gobie did run a prostitution business from Frank's home. Gobie claimed to have been running such a ring, but the House Ethics Committee determined that Gobie's story was full of inconsistencies, and that much of what he said had been contradicted by third parties and phone records.--RattBoy 14:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; being openly homosexual is both unusual and notable for an active politician in this country, not to mention that frank's rule makes very little sense unless it is known by the reader that Frank himself is an open homosexual. 71.59.142.105 01:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)twelch

FWIW, mention of orientation does not come up on the Liberace page until four subsections down. [[1]], and on Elton John not until the middle of his article. [[2]]. As a compromise, can I suggest that a separate section be set up, above Controversies, discussing his sexual orientation and the effect it has had on his career. It's up to you, but it will match other famous people that way. CodeCarpenter 17:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Gerry_Studds' article openly mentions his orientaion. P.S. don't know the proper way to add something here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.30.76 (talk) 20:50, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

What the Gerry Studds article actually says is, "He was the first openly gay national politician in the U.S." His being the first makes it much more notable, and appropriate for the introductory section. In the case of Barney Frank, the fact should be mentioned in the body of the article, and it is mentioned -- he came out while he was in Congress, so the "National politics" section states, "In 1987, he spoke publicly about his homosexuality for the first time." I don't see the need for the introductory section to mention his orientation, any more than it mentions his religion. JamesMLane t c 21:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually he's not the first just currently the only gay man in congress Gang14 18:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I said Studds was the first, not Frank. I don't think Frank is the only gay man in Congress, though he may well be the only openly gay man in Congress. Tap with your loafers if you agree with me. JamesMLane t c 03:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Key word is openly gay because Mark Foley was gay just not open about it but unlike Larry Craig who denys it even though even his wife knows the truth. Gang14 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And as such, it should be mentioned. Out of a population of 535 + 1, there are only two openly GLBT members of the USC. His orientation should be mentioned in the intro. Krenzer (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Male Prostitutes

For any other politician, this would be included in a seperate controversy section. is MLane working from frank's office? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.77.5 (talk) 23:04, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

No. I am not now nor have I ever been an employee of Barney Frank or the U.S. House of Representatives. The issue of placement of the material was one of the subjects addressed in the RfC, and all the uninvolved editors who commented preferred the version that put it in "National politics" as part of Frank's Congressional career. JamesMLane t c 23:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How come his scandals are deleted? Didn't he run a gay prostitution ring from his home?

No, he didn't. The facts are in the article now, as the third paragraph under "National politics":

In 1990, the House voted to reprimand Frank when it was revealed that Steve Gobie, a male prostitute that Rep. Frank had befriended after hiring him through a personal advertisement, claimed to have conducted a prostitution ring from Frank's apartment when he was not at home. Frank had dismissed Gobie earlier that year, and reported the incident to the House Ethics Committee, after learning of Gobie's activities. After an investigation, the House Ethics Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity.

JamesMLane t c 00:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

--> That's not the whole story. Frank paid $80 for sex from Gobie, a three time convicted felon. (Wasn't one of the convictions the production of child pornography?) Also, the "personal advertisement" was more than just a typical dating service. It was an advertisement for prostitution.

Our current text says that Gobie was a male prostitute and that Frank hired him. That seems to convey that he paid for sex; I don't think any reader would assume from that context that Frank hired Gobie for yard work. Is there any evidence that Frank knew of any illegal activity by Gobie? JamesMLane t c 08:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

--> Yes. He was writing letters to Virginia probation officials on Congressional stationary on Gobie's behalf. You don't get put on probation unless you've engaged in illegal activities. Oh, and prostitution is an illegal activity as well. So obviously Frank knew Gobie was involved in illegal activities WHEN HE PAID HIM FOR SEX! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.223.136 (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a credable source for this? and please sign your posts Gang14 18:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

--> Yes, it's cited right there in the article! It's from the Washington Post, back in 1989. That's where I got my facts and quotes from. Frank has admitted paying for sex with a male prostitute he met through a personal ad in a gay weekly. Frank has admitted to writing letters (on Congressional stationary!) on Gobie's behalf to probation officials in Virginia. This is all public record. It's ridiculous to think that these facts should be excluded from Frank's wikipedia biography. Would you exclude Robert Byrd's KKK membership from his bio? I realize that there are quite a few liberal Democrats who spend a lot of time on wikipedia making their little partisan edits, but any entry on Barney Frank that doesn't include the whole "homosexual pimp and prostitute living in his taxpayer-funded Capitol Hill apartment while being paid for sex and other services by a current member of the Congressional leadership" deal would be an embarrassment to this entire endeavor. Remember, the article PRIOR to my edits made no mention of Frank paying for sex, admitted to writing those letters, having this guy work with him and basically live with him, etc. Before my edits, a reader wouldn't know what the scandal was really about. All a reader would know, basically, is that the House of Representatives refused to seriously punish Frank for some unproven stuff some guy said a long time ago. Oh, and using Media Matters as an "unbiased" source? LOL! The Washington Post is a million times more credible than the left-wing Media Matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.223.136 (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your disparagement of the article, as it stood before your edits, is inaccurate.

• "Remember, the article PRIOR to my edits made no mention of Frank paying for sex...."

It said that Gobie was a male escort and that Frank hired him. I mentioned elsewhere on this page that no one would think Frank hired him to do yard work.

• "admitted to writing those letters...."

The issue of the letters is mentioned in the discussion under the RfC. It's something that can be included if it's significant, but it must be done consistent with WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, and WP:BLP. The Washington Post story says only that Frank "wrote letters on congressional stationery on [Gobie's] behalf to Virginia probation officials...." If you want to include something about it, you'd need to do some actual work to develop information establishing the significance. For example, the Post article says that Frank was paying for Gobie's court-ordered psychiatrist. If Frank merely confirmed that fact to the Virginia officials, I wouldn't see anything notable about his correspondence.

• "having this guy work with him and basically live with him, etc."

The article said that Gobie "claimed to have conducted an escort service from Frank's apartment"

And, by the way, not everyone who disagrees with you can thereby be assumed to be a vandal or biased. Please take a look at WP:AGF. JamesMLane t c 05:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In the context, it should be clear that I was referring to whether Frank knew of illegal activities by Gobie conducted from Frank's apartment. Frank says he didn't know. Gobie says he did. The article reports that the House Ethics Committee agreed with Frank's account but that Gobie disputed it. I think that's about as far as we can go. I can't imagine any kind of source that would support our taking a definitive position about "what did Frank know and when did he know it". JamesMLane t c 03:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

One quote from the very end of the article that you keep citing, "Frank denies that he knew, saying he learned from his landlord and kicked Gobie out in August 1987. Gobie supports this part of Frank's story." Gang14 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus the whole article is an interview with Mr. Gobie of course its going to be bias. Also accorrding to US House Frank is cleared so just because one man says otherwise does not make him right. It makes him a spotlight seeker. Gang14 05:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly has never committed any crimes that I know of, and he isn't an elected public official. Frank, meanwhile, has admitted to committing crimes while a member of Congress. Yet Bill O'Reilly has an entire page dedicated to his "controversies" ... but Barney Frank, who is best known nationally for the Gobie affair, can't even have a "controversies" section??? And then you wonder why so many people think wikipedia has almost no credibility, and has a decidedly leftist slant... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.233.68 (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that, wherever feasible, "controversies" concerning a public official should be integrated with the part of the article to which they most logically relate, not ghettoized in a separate section or a daughter article. If you look at Talk:Rudy Giuliani, you'll see that I've taken the same position there; I'm not trying to treat Republicans and Democrats differently. Anyway, how is it a "leftist slant" to include this information in the principal section about Frank's career in Congress? To my mind, that placement gives the Gobie incident more prominence, not less. It's the section of the article that would be the focus of anyone seeking information about what Frank had done as a public official.

O'Reilly is different because he's not a public official. Both Giuliani and Frank have records in office that should be presented, but O'Reilly doesn't. He's prominent basically because he thrusts himself into controversies. O'Reilly isn't a right-wing Barney Frank; he's more like a right-wing Michael Moore, whose "Controversies" section got so large that it was spun off into a separate article, Michael Moore controversies. JamesMLane t c 03:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

But the way the article was written, prior to my SOURCED AND CITED edits, did not mention the fact that Congressman Barney Frank has admitted to committing a crime (paying for sex). Would the Larry Craig wikipedia article not mention the fact that Craig admitted to a (similar) crime??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.240.230 (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If Barney Frank has entered a plea of guilty in a criminal prosecution, as Craig did, please feel free to add that fact to the article. For that matter, if Barney Frank has even been the subject of a criminal prosecution, as Craig was, feel free to add that.

As to your other point of loud self-congratulation, I refer you to this passage earlier on in this very thread:

Your disparagement of the article, as it stood before your edits, is inaccurate.

• "Remember, the article PRIOR to my edits made no mention of Frank paying for sex...."

It said that Gobie was a male escort and that Frank hired him. I mentioned elsewhere on this page that no one would think Frank hired him to do yard work.

Simply repeating your assertion, without replying to my response, accomplishes nothing. Your use of all caps is no substitute for actually addressing the issues. JamesMLane t c 06:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Gobie Affair

Amazing someone could write an article without mentioning it ... its the only thing I know him for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.35.153 (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2007

But, alas, not amazing that a right-wing ideologue would throw charges of bias without bothering to get the facts straight. The affair is fully discussed in a passage that long predates your edit. JamesMLane t c 02:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And, alas, not amazing that a left-wing ideologue would accept the verdict of a Democratic-controlled Congress' ethics investigation of a Democratic Congressman! To remove any hint of bias on your part, I assume you believe Att. Gen. Alberto Gonzalez is capable of investigating and clearing himself of any wrongdoing!

Wikipedia policy is to report facts, including facts about opinions. We therefore report the fact that the Congressional committee reached a particular conclusion. We also report the fact that Gobie disputes that point. If Gonzales issues a report about any of the significant allegations against him, we certainly would report the fact of his response. JamesMLane t c 02:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalized

Someone wrote "Liberal Faggot" by his name!

Yes and there's a picture of George Michael up there. I'm not sure how to take it down, but I'm hopeful that someone will.

Dating that is all Gang14 18:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Potential Candidacy?

Can someone attest to any source saying that he is considered a potential candidate for the 2008 presidency? Cyby 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt he is a candidate. In fact, I was thinking that the following on his page should be removed "On the 3rd of of February 2007, a group to draft Congressman Frank into the 2008 Presidential Race began. The group's website was launched on that day, and can be viewed at: www.freewebs.com/draftfrank2008". Anyone can set up a web site and have anyone in it to draft for president (Garfield, Mickey Mouse, Dick Cheney, Jimmy Carter), but that should not equate to them being a candidate. Let's face facts, Barney Frank would be carrying some luggage, and would be a RIPE target for a Republican party that has made a career of ripping Massachusetts liberals (Kerry, Dukakis, T. Kennedy). CodeCarpenter 16:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

He's a gay man from massachusetts plus he's only a rep. as much as i'd like to see a rep. make some waves barney just got a new chairship i think he's good where he is now Gang14 19:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Preparing a request for comment

TDC, I'm not going to waste any more time edit warring with a known POV warrior who constantly acts in bad faith. I'm taking this to RfC.

Here's the outline of the RfC, including the current draft of my statement in support of Version 1. If you would like to explain your reasoning in favor of Version 2, please draft something here, and then I'll post the RfC. JamesMLane t c 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"a known POV warrior who constantly acts in bad faith", As the old adage goes: when ya point a finger three are pointing back at you. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to can compare our respective histories of handling editorial disputes. I am completely confident as to how an impartial observer would assess my conduct. JamesMLane t c 20:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

With regard to TDC's good faith (or lack thereof): The version called "Version 1" herein has been in place for some time, but when TDC's unilateral change is reverted, he's unwilling to leave the longstanding version in place during the RfC. I've reverted his POV warring three times already so I'll leave it to someone else -- although, under the circumstances, his edits are arguably vandalism and the current text, in my opinion, violates WP:BLP. Because I'm closely involved in this, however, I won't revert again, but I hope someone else will. JamesMLane t c 00:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Summary

The issue concerns how to discuss Frank's relationship with Steven Gobie. Version 1 has been in place for a while. TDC has replaced it with Version 2. Below is an argument for each version, followed by the full text of each.

Argument in favor of Version 1

• The discussion belongs in "National politics", rather than "Controversies", because the House reprimand made it part of Frank's career record.
• Whether Gobie was actually running a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment is in dispute. Version 1 calls it "alleged", while Version 2 improperly states it as a fact.
• Version 1 reports the House Ethics Committee finding: "After an investigation, the House Ethics Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity." Version 2 omits this important finding, and actually asserts as a fact that Frank did know.
• Version 2 includes a lurid quotation from a personal ad placed by Gobie. It serves no purpose in Frank's bio except as an attempted smear. Version 1 states the fact that Frank answered a personal ad; we can leave the rest to the tabloids. Whether a quotation from an ad placed by Andrew Sullivan belongs in the Andrew Sullivan article sheds no light on whether a quotation from an ad placed by Steven Gobie belongs in the Barney Frank article; statements by a biographical article's subject are obviously on a different footing.

Argument in favor of Version 2

• If this does not qualify as a controversy, then I don’t know what does. There is no duplication of material here, in fact the version of the article with the info in version 2, is actually shorter than version 1.

• To the best of my knowledge, there is no dispute as to whether Gobie ran a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment, only a dispute as to whether Frank knew about it. Version does not alleged that Frank was aware of Gobie’s activities.

• As to the conclusions of the Ethics committee, that can be easily fixed.

• The quote from the personal ad certainly provides some context, and as I mentioned in the edit summary is similar in nature to the material found in the Andrew Sullivan article, where the use of it, especially by the source, is most definitely to slur Sullivan. Sauce for the goose is savory delicious sauce for the gander.

Full text of Version 1

In 1990, the House voted to reprimand Frank when it was revealed that Steve Gobie, a male escort whom Frank had befriended after hiring him through a personal advertisement, claimed to have conducted an escort service from Frank's apartment when he was not at home. Frank had dismissed Gobie earlier that year and reported the incident to the House Ethics Committee after learning of Gobie's activities. After an investigation, the House Ethics Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity. Gobie disputes Frank's account.

The New York Times reported on July 20, 1990 that The House Ethics Committee recommended "that Representative Barney Frank receive a formal reprimand from the House for his relationship with a male prostitute" Attempts to expel or censure Frank failed; instead the House voted 408-18 to reprimand him. This condemnation was not reflected in Frank's district, where he won re-election in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won by larger margins ever since.

Full text of Version 2

In the fall of 1989, Frank acknowledged his sexual involvement with Stephen Gobie, a male escort he met through a personal ad where Gobie described himself as “exceptionally good-looking, personable, muscular athlete is available. Hot bottom plus large endowment equals a good time". Over the next two years, he and Gobie carried on an affair, during which time Frank hired Gobie as a driver using his House privileges to fix Gobie’s parking tickets. After learning that Gobie was running a prostitution ring out of his apartment, Frank fired Gobie and reported the incident to the House Ethics Committee. Frank apologized and defended himself by likening his actions to Henry Higgins in “My Fair Lady”, claiming his intention was to reform Gobie and transform him into a productive member of society. The House Ethics Committee recommended "that Representative Barney Frank receive a formal reprimand from the House for his relationship with a male prostitute" which passed with a vote of 408-18 although attempts to expel or censure Frank failed.

References

Responses

• Version 1 is better, but it needs to include the abuse of power in fixing parking tickets and the use of Congressional stationery to attempt to influence Gobie's probation officials. A more objective source should be found than the one-sided Media Matters. THF 00:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This particular Media Matters piece pulls together information from reputable newspapers (The Guardian, the Boston Globe) and from the House committee report. The citation to Media Matters is the one that's most informative to the reader. Any reader who considers Media Matters unobjective can check the sources for him/herself. JamesMLane t c 02:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The ethics report is not readily available, the LOC's online archives only go back to the 104th congress. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Ditto'ing the above -- the only serious omission I see in Version 1 is the abuse of power, as above. Suggest adding that, and then adding the version. It's nice to see a RfC so well-conducted, by the way -- usually commentators just wade into a slew of confusion and bad faith. This one is quite refreshing. --Haemo 00:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I agree with you about most RfC's, and I'll be quick to jump in here and take credit for setting up this one to accommodate uninvolved editors (with TDC contributing the argument for his version). JamesMLane t c 01:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Also agree that version one is better, and that it could be improved with including the material on abuse of power. The "tabloid tattler" writing style of version two makes it a pretty transparent violation of NPOV. --Marvin Diode 14:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• I'd go with Version 1. This is a pretty easy call to make. The quote from the personal ad is unnecesary to the article and POV. The use of the word affair clearly indicates to me a POV edit, too. The My Fair Lady reference is likewise unnecessary to the article. I'd add the abuse of power from version 2 providing it is well sourced...(but what I don't understand is under what authority a Congressman can fix parking tickets?)JasonCNJ 14:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You're absolutely right that a Congressmember can't fix parking tickets, and our article shouldn't say so. I'll confirm the details, but I think what happened is that Gobie was driving Frank's car and parked it where Gobie wasn't allowed to park, but Frank (as a Congressmember) was allowed to park, and Frank said that he had been driving the car rather than Gobie. If that's correct, Frank made a false statement but his misconduct didn't rise to the level of bribing a judge or threatening to have someone fired. Given the WP:BLP concerns, we'll need to be very sure of exactly what happened before we add it. JamesMLane t c 15:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A few quick things. Why Frank Fired Gobie in the first place.

Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress, confirmed Friday that he paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that clients were visiting the apartment. [3]

Franks own congressional website confirms that he Fired Gobie after he found about Gobie's activities in his place of residence.

The Ethics Committee concluded Mr. Frank was not aware and had no knowledge of any alleged illegal or unseemly activities occurring at his Capitol Hill apartment and also found that Mr. Gobie had exaggerated the facts to news reporters. The Committee reported that as soon as Mr. Frank found out about these activities, he fired Mr. Gobie and severed any ties to him. [4]

I realize that for legalese they have to state “alleged illegal or unseemly activities” as Gobie was never prosecuted/convicted for these, but these two sources would seem to contradict the MMFA statement that Gobie’s activities were never established because Frank himself established these allegations and found them to be credible enough for him to fire Gobie and go the the Ethics Committee .

To say that someone in a position of authority cannot fix a parking ticket is ridiculously naive. Its as easy as saying “I am so and so, I got a parking ticket, traffic ticket, DUI, my son/daughter was nabbed for some weed, please take care of it”. You don’t have to threaten, or coerce anyone to do it. So can a congressman (or cop, or mayor, or councilman) “fix” a ticket, of course they can, it happens every day.

The “My Fair Lady” is a quote directly attributable to Frank. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the tone of Version 1, but Version 2, overall, has better information. Version 1 should mention the parking tickets, and I found it confusing when I read this in the initial article because it says Gobie was fired but it doesn't say what he was ever hired for or what he was fired from! That version makes it seem that he was hired as a personal assistant or something. It's confusing. I also like the My Fair Lady quote; it's informative. If Version 2 is used, the ad should be taken out; that is too tabloid-ish and how can we know that's the ad Frank saw? Secondly, it should say that it's disputed whether Gobie ran the ring from Frank's home or not and that Gobie disputes the House resolution.--Gloriamarie 03:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Major clean-up

I've cleaned up and moved the "controversies" into more appropriate sections - per our WP:NPOV policies - and added structure in hopes to make the article more readable. The lede needs expanding as twelve terms as a Representative undoubtably deserves more content. Please keep all additions neutral and provide sources if at all possible. (And YouTube is a terrible source for most WP:BLP. -- Banjeboi 18:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Still Needs Work

Banjeboi has done some good work (kudos!), but this article needs a lot more attention, particularly the House Finance Committee section. I removed a reference to "Treasury Secretary Tony Snow," who has never been Secretary Treasury. Very little is effectively sourced there, so it's tough to patch up. But, if you feel like an afternoon project, this is a good one to polish up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanp (talk • contribs) 07:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! There's so much work and frankly until after the US elections (4 November) it will remain a heavy vandal target. There's mountains of material on this guy so it does need expanding. -- Banjeboi 16:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think someone just inserted the Tony Snow bit as a joke. -- Banjeboi 16:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Speech impediment?

Shouldn't his speech impediment be noted somewhere in the article? That is a distinction of his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.145.39 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to add it. It's almost like mentioning how ugly Tori Spelling is in her Wiki article. Then again I'm willing to listen to other opinions. If Barney Frank has ever commented on it then you could certainly add his own quote to the article but otherwise I'm not sure it'd be prudent. Plus at what point does a speech issue truly become an impediment? Fatrb38 (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

The first paragraph cites http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all.

The article is quoted, in a way that suggests they are Barney Frank's words or arguments against the Bush administration proposal: "The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part ... by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies ... [it] does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out ... Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws."

The quote doesn't seem to serve much purpose. The intent and impact of the proposal is succinctly described in the first sentence. The quote seems more to describe the proposal by identifying what it is *not,* rather than what it is, or is some compendium of reasons why the proposal may have been ill-conceived in some way, which is not relavent here unless they were Frank's words.

At the end of the paragraph, Frank is quoted "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." The article also quotes him with a prior statement that is just as relavent and applicable, "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," and I think that quote should be added here.

Finally, at the end of the paragraph, the quote "[weaken] the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing" is incorrectly attributed to Frank; it was the words of Representative Melvin L. Watt, and aren't relavent here, so should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raolyn13 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 February 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)

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" and "a key deal-maker, an unlikely bridge between his party’s left-wing base and [...] free-market conservatives". 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"..

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)

• 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)

• • • • • 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)

(unindent) The "reliable sources" which THF points to include an IBD editorial, National Review editorial, and WSJ article. These are publications known for their strong conservative bias and spinning of the facts. The relationship between Frank and Fannie/Freddie is complicated, and more complicated by biased editorials. I'm not confident that this controversy is really significant or that it can be accurately portrayed. As a 2003 WashPost article notes [5], the administration was opposed to the bills to regulate Fannie/Freddie. A Financial Services Committee press release, which is fairly reliable on these issues, said that one bill died because in the words of Oxley, the President gave it the "one-finger salute". GW Bush was a huge proponent of affordable housing. See a 2003 speech where he said:

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...

Wikipedia should not be spreading misinformation. II | (t - c) 23:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

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)— Nathanschmidt5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• 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)

• 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notable content replaced with cheerleading

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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 [6] and [7]. 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" [8] and here "decidedly liberal" [9]. 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)

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)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.