Talk:Barney Frank/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Barney Frank's father

For some reason a couple of editors are going ballistic over Frank's well sourced statement that his father was involved with the mafia. What's the big deal? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank's dad in the Mafia

One or more editors wants to put this fact in. The source is Frank himself, as stated in his book. Can we please be careful so as not to suggest that Frank is corrupt by association with his father, or that Frank is somehow connected. Also, what are some thoughts as to what weight, if any, this should receive in the article, so as to maintain WP:NPOV? MichaelLNorth (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the placement and wording needs to be managed and not sensationalized, but such family associations—no matter how loose or old—are in fact matters that the public cares about —if not innuendo and rumor—are appropriate for biographies of politicians. ^Bongo_matic 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is Beck? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed MichaelLNorth (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Beck is an American musician, singer-songwriter, and multi-instrumentalist. You could have found that out on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. ^Bongo_matic 04:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Already in the Early life section is a more neutral statement of Frank's dad's refusal to testify against his brother and consequent prison term. Also the phrase that Frank uses about the Jersey City being "totally corrupt". This captures the whole fact in question without the incendiary insinuation that CoM tries, in bad faith, to create as a slander against Frank. LotLE×talk 06:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the same thing that bothered me. There are six sentences that right now (with disputed "mafia" phrase removed) comprise his "early life" section, which cover roughly ages 1-30. Adding the disputed content would make 2/7 = 29% of the section about his early life talking about how his dad was involved in crime. I feel that devoting nearly one third of the section to this is a WP:WEIGHT violation, and since the article is about a living person (even if the sentence isn't), a WP:BLP violation. To those who are confused about this concept, The biography is about Frank, and the biography is what is protected by the BLP policy, even if some sections talk about his cat and his dad and so on. MichaelLNorth (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That is an argument for expanding the early life section, not for making it less rather than more informative. UNDUE should be read in light of the appropriate weight for all factors, not only the one being considered for pruning. ^Bongo_matic 07:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The central part of WP:UNDUE is the first sentence:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each....Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

How many sources report on Frank's dad being in the mafia? How many report on his activity since being in congress? What's the argument for making the early life section long enough to warrant a significant amount of information about his dad's criminal activity? MichaelLNorth (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

By way of comparison, I note that Rudy Giuliani#Early life and education has precisely one sentence about Giuliani's father's criminal career. The comparable sentence in this article seems adequate. Who came to Frank's brother's bar mitzvah is completely tangential. In terms of Frank's own bio, however, we could reasonably add the information from this sentence in the New Yorker article: "Sam Frank died at the age of fifty-three, while Barney was an undergraduate at Harvard, and Barney took a year off to help resolve the family’s tangled financial affairs." JamesMLane t c 08:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This sentence in Giuliani's article "Harold Giuliani had trouble holding a job and had been convicted of felony assault and robbery and served time in Sing Sing;[6] after his release he served as an enforcer for his brother-in-law Leo D'Avanzo, who ran an organized crime operation involved in loan sharking and gambling at a restaurant in Brooklyn.[7]"? I wonder why Lulu isn't freaking out about that sentence? Why can't Lulu and North be honest that they don't want this article to be truthful, they just want some sort of puff piece to make a politician they like look good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Why can't Lulu and North be honest that they don't want this article to be truthful, they just want some sort of puff piece to make a politician they like look good." I'll remind you that this is a place to discuss content, not editors. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not grounds for violating WP:UNDUE.MichaelLNorth (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As to CoM's specific comment, I think the two sentences (re Giuliani and Frank) are comparable. Both give the essential facts. Frank's has the detail of the length of the father's prison term, while Giuliani's says merely "served time", but both present the fact of the imprisonment and the crime. There is nothing in Giuliani's article, or, I'll wager, in any other Wikipedia article, about who attended the bio subject's brother's bar mitzvah. JamesMLane t c 18:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I have never edited, nor even read, the Giuliani article, as JamesMLane comments the coverage indeed seems comparable between the two biographies. At first brush, it looks like Harold Giuliani's involvement with organized crime was considerably more significant than was Sam Frank's. Assuming "served as enforcer" is true, that's certainly far more than what sounds like paying kickbacks that Sam Frank seems to have done. In either case, the matter warrants a sentence in the biographies of the politician sons, but not belaboring past that. LotLE×talk 20:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we remove all the fluffery sourced to press releases?

Or should we include the opinions of people other than Frank like this editorial from the Boston Globe that was removed by Lulu [1]? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, when did you stop beating your wife?

Seriously, just because you couldn't get your "Mafia" edit inserted doesn't mean you get to get to snip things you don't want in a tit-for-tat move. As for the OpEd, you know we don't use those for sources, and it serves even less of a point as an external link. Tarc (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please refactor your offensive question. I'm well aware of what a loaded question is. We're here to discuss content and to focus on improving articles, not to be pointy and nasty. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You begun this section with a ridiculous premise, which I highlighted with the classic analogy of such; it was not a literal question, as you well know. As for the article, what is there to discuss? You are comparing the removal of an OpEd link to the removal of perfectly sourced and appropriate material. Apples to oranges. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We are permitted to quote opinions from a WP:NPOV stance. For obvious reasons, there is a much higher requirement for neutrality, accuracy and notability when it comes to criticism. Speaking of loaded questions, I disagree with the assertion in your question, that properly-sourced opinions constitute "puffery". Tit-for-tat editing makes for poor articles. — Mike :  tlk  16:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the placement of the External Link to a controversial Op-Ed piece, I do not agree that it is allowed.

1. Per WP:RS#News organizations, "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text". The External Link was not so attributed, and I am uncertain that it is possible to appropriately attribute "in-text" an external link.
2. Per WP:RS#Biographies of living persons, "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. 'This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space [emphasis added]'". For WP:BLP, the restriction on sources of materiel extends to any namespace - there is no exception for external links.
3. Per WP:BLP#External links, "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on WP:External links [emphasis added]" - not only is there not anexception for the quality of External Links, but the standard is higher for WP:BLPs than for other articles.
4. Finally, per WP:External Links, the closest this external link comes to meeting the criteria for inclusion is "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons". However,

• Previously referenced items do not support the use of OpEd materiel as being "neutral", nor to being accurate as more than the opinion of the author, nor to be appropriate without attribution in-line, nor to being appropriate for a WP:BLP, and,
• The referenced materiel is not externally linked because it cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article, rather the materiel could be added to the article if appropriate sources were referenced and appropriate text written.

External Link sections are not a loophole to add otherwise inappropriate materiel, sorry. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• If it's not appropriate to include opinions that are critical of Frank's, I think we should clean up the plethora of spin and fluff sourced to press releases. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It most certainly is appropriate to add materiel to the article that is critical of the subject of the article, as long as the various guidelines (some referenced by me, earlier in this section) are followed. Similarly, materiel that doesn't meet the guidelines should be removed (I'll review the external links in this article, and come back and offer my opinion in that regard; you might consider doing the same). However, removing appropriate text or links (regardless of how appropriate or well-sourced) as a response to removal of a link you want added (regardless of how it fails important WP guidelines) is far from "focus{ing} on what needs to be done to improve the encyclopedia". Regarding the external link in question:

• As more than one editor has noted, either here or in edit summaries, the link was not removed because it was "critical of Frank's {sic}" - rather, it was removed because it failed to meet more than one WP guideline that applies to articles' external links and BLP's. This should be very clear now.
• Someone (yourself, perhaps?) could update the article to include new text based on the context of the link, but if the only reference is that link itself, then the information would fail WP:RS. Find other sources (both reliable and not OpEd pieces), and write text that in an appropriate place in the article that does not fail WP:UNDUE, either. If such references don't exist, then the information does not deserve to be added.
• I respectfully suggest that this discussion be closed soon. It is not clear there is more that can be accomplished on this topic. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comment seems to imply that I tried to remove something appropriate in a tit for tat. This is absolutely false. I don't edit that way. Trying to improve this article has been a frustrating process because of the POV pushing that has been allowed to go on and the abusive practices of policy violators like Tarc, who I see restored his abusive, hateful and misogynistic comment. He may think it's appropriate to make light of domestic abuse, rape and violence against women, but that kind of insinuation is not acceptable or helpful to encyclopedia building.

The last sentence of the opening paragraphs has been contested repeatedly by numerous editors. It misrepresents the source, is one partisan person's opinion, and violates the undue weight guideline.

I'm less worried about the external links then the text of the article, much of which is spin doctoring from Frank's office. I was under the impression that we base articles on reliable independent sources. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, your editing was indeed tit-for-tat, please don't try to lie about you actions now when your own edit summary if we can't have accurate encyclopedic statements then there's no room for this bullshit puffery in the opening paragraphs shows the truth of the matter. Like in many other political articles, your concerns about undue weight have been found by other editors to be without merit or substance. Edit warring to get your minority POV into an article is counter-productive and disruptive. And finally, please, enough wit the faux drama/outrage. A classic example of a logically fallacious question is not "abusive, hateful and misogynistic". Stop with the absurdities. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to be very flexible Tarc. So if opinion pieces in favor of Frank included (as they are) that's okay with me as long as there's balance. It's not tit for tat. It's basic common sense. We don't build an article around opinion pieces and press release puffery and then object to differing opinions being included. Comprende? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Balance is not achieved by equal parts positive and negative links. It would seem that you have not learned much about what WP:NPOV actually is since your ArbCom censure. Tarc (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks very much like an ad hominem attack. Surely you aren't resorting to desperate measures because your argument has been exposed as being absurd and ridiculous when the opinion of Bill Clinton's speechwriter is included in the opening paragraphs of the article? Do we need to request arbcom enforcement for your continuing pattern of incivility and the edit warring you were recently blocked for? Shape up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

When you repeat an editorial assumption..."NPOV means having postive and negative sources"...most commonly made by new and inexperienced editors, it is not an ad hominem attack to point out that you are wrong. Since you are neither new nor inexperienced, one has to wonder how you arrived at such a misunderstanding of NPOV. As to the "edit warring" assertion, that'd be an interesting one to file on since I have only made one edit to this article in recent months. But if you feel you have an WP:AE case to make, that is certainly within your right to do. Good luck.

Moving on, Barney Frank has long been identified with civil rights issues, much as Teddy Kennedy was to health care issues. I do not feel that it is unreasonable to include an attestation to that effect (affect? I always get those mixed up) in the lead of Frank's bio. You are trying to draw comparisons to a) an OpEd by a conservative pundit and b) a blurb about Frank's father's alleged mafia ties, but these comparisons do not hold water. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, is your point that that sentence is an extraordinary statement? Are you stating that you believe there to be a significant contradictory opinion on Frank's civil rights record relative to other major civil rights defenders of our time? I don't perceive you saying either of those things, and I don't believe either of those things is so. All I'm getting is that you want to remove a succinct and accurate statement on the grounds that it is sourced to something published by someone presumably in the same party as Frank—yet, contrary to the statement in your heading, the quote comes from a book, not a press release. The issue of civil rights is a substantive one in U.S. (and world) politics; Frank is a U.S. politician lauded as a proponent of civil rights not merely from his personal gay rights perspective, where he's not only inarguably "The leading champion of gay rights in Congress" (San Francisco Chronicle), but also a staunch defender with regard to women's rights and the rights of people of color and of people around the world. If you can find a better quote on his broader civil rights record, I'm sure editors would welcome it for consideration. A quick Google search brings up this list of ratings from civil rights organizations supporting my obervation that he's not single-minded on gay issues when it comes to civil rights. (Though, of course, if he were focused on his own plight, that wouldn't preclude general recognition, as a good many civil rights proponents have understandably focused their efforts on a particular segment of the population.) Abrazame (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hallelujah, an honest to goodness effort to actually discuss the content of the article instead of getting side tracked by Tarc's disruptive incivility.

Civil rights are a very broad subject. Frank is certainly not an advocate of gun rights, and yet many consider gun rights a civil right protected under the second amendment. Frank is also a supporter of campaign finance reforms and (probably) the "fairness doctrine" which many would consider infringements on free speech, a civil right. As we are an encyclopedia, it is very important to be accurate and clear.

Frank is most notable as an advocate for gay rights and this is discussed extensively in the article. There was, rather inexplicably, opposition to noting this in the opening paragraphs just as there was opposition to noting his support for the legalization of medical marijuana (also discussed in the article).

If you want to develop a sourced section on his civil rights positions by all means do it. If there is the proper sourcing for it, I won't oppose a statement that accurately notes his positions in the introduction. The problem is that we have a sentence misrepresenting a source that makes a very broad claim based on an opinion piece from a partisan. This isn't appropriate. Or, if we're going to include opinion pieces and press releases, then we should balance them from various perspectives per the neutral point of view core policy.

Cheers. Thanks again for the discussion of article content and editing issues, it is oh so refreshing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC) (Full disclosure: I also corrected a minor spelling issue in good faith. Feel free to do the same for my comments I frequently type too fast and make typos)

CoM, you may consider Tarc's comment to be an "ad hominem attack", but when you flatly deny [something you have been known to do, by saying

"Your comment seems to imply that I tried to remove something appropriate in a tit for tat. This is absolutely false."

what do you expect? You seem to have this idea that articles should have a balance of criticism and praise (and because a piece of criticism is removed, you lobby to remove some praise for "balance"), but this is not what WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT mean. — Mike :  tlk  20:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tarc's comment is an ad hominem attack and it he has continued to disrupt discussion repeatedly. If he can't behave appropriately further action to rein his inappropriate and policy violating behavior may be needed. The neutral point of view core policy is quite clear that various points of view are to be included, and it's common sense that an article based mostly on press releases and accolades from partisan supporters isn't encyclopedic.ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, you are cordially and formally requested to stop dropping insinuations and threats regarding other users in every post you make, as you have been dragged before WP:AN/I for this very behavior on several occasions in the past. If you have a complaint, about myself or anyone else, then take it to the appropriate board.

WP:NPOV does not state that "various points of view are to be included", it states that significant points of view are to be included. Mafioso claims are insignificant. A piece from the opinion pages, dropped into the external links section no less, is insignificant. Are we clear now? Tarc (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, please stop disrupting discussion of article content with these irrelevant asides. Your incivility and personal attacks are a big distraction and are instigating tension while causing an unnecesarily adversarial editing environment. If you're not mature enough to work collaboratively and collegially, I suggest you simply leave off working on political subjects all together. Your semantic distinction between "various points of view" and "significant points of view" seems utterly meaningless since we are comparing two opinion pieces. A liberal opinion is as significant (or less so in this case as it's self published) compared with a conservative opinion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, there seems to be some confusion regarding Wikipedia policies. The difference between "signifiant" (Tarc's quote from WP:NPOV, where the word is italicized) and "various" (your quote from ?) is clearly and precisely explained in WP:WEIGHT. If one of your "various" POVs is not documented by many (or any) reliable sources, it is not "significant" in the eyes of WP:WEIGHT, which requires that we devote article space in proportion to the coverage in reliable sources. So, while the POV that Barney Frank is solely responsible for the 2008 financial crisis is one of "various" POVs regarding Frank, it is not one of the "significant" ones due to no (or virtually no) attention from reliable sources, and thus should receive little or no weight.— Mike :  tlk  22:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet again I note that you seem to be trying to make a distinction where there isn't any. We have a source with one person's opinion and we have another with another person's opinion. Arguing that one is good to include and the other inappropriate to include because you don't like that one doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm okay with including opinions, or excluding them. If we're going to demand good sourcing then let's get rid of all the puffery sourced to press releases. If we're going to be inclusive of opinion and looser on sourcing standards, then let's include opinions that are crtical as well as those that are laudatory. It's fairly simple really. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't seem like Tarc is creating an "adversarial editing environment" to me. It seems like you feel that the article is not critical enough of Frank, and are acting like it's a clear violation, not just your opinion. While WP:UNDUE is a legitimate concern, whether something violates it or not is entirely subjective when it comes to the weight given to various topics within an article. If someone were to paint such a concern as "clear as day" or anything other than their own personal opinion, it would be misleading. — Mike :  tlk  22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You think it's critical to note that Frank is an advocate for gay rights and medical marijuana in the introduction? How so? I support using the most accurate and encyclopedic descriptions based on the best sources. Which is why I've noted repeatedly that including Bill Clinton's speech writer's opinion out of context and without attribution in the opening paragraph isn't helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the context you think that sentence needs? It's footnoted for attribution. I could certainly respond to what you wrote to me above, but I don't see how that's going to do anything but take us away from a productive editorial discussion about the topic at hand, which as I understand it is about the sentence "He has been described as 'one of the brightest and most energetic defenders of civil rights issues'.[8]" Would you like to give another go at responding to what I wrote in the previous post instead, and ending with your answer to my question at the head of this post? Abrazame (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, please don't put words in my mouth. I only said that you are describing WP:NPOV concerns that are based entirely on your own opinion, as if they are objective clear-cut violations of wikipedia policy. Again, you seem to have a misconception about what WP:NPOV says. Not all POVs are equal, because of WP:BLP (demands that we are more careful and have higher standards with critical viewpoints of living persons) and WP:WEIGHT demands that we "balance" weight in proportion to prevalence of a viewpoint in reliable sources. You're actually arguing for the removal of positive content anyways, saying that it is necessary since your previously proposed negative (critical) content was not added. This is precisely the "tit for tat" editing technique you have been criticized for before, and I don't see how it could possibly improve the quality of this article. — Mike :  tlk  06:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This just spirals down into odd misconceptions and mis-truths. ChildofMidnight acts as if "Bill Clinton's speechwriter" was just snipped from some random newspaper clipping, when in fact it was from the preface of a novel about historic civil rights speeches. Barney Frank is noted leader in advancing civil rights causes (and re: to earlier, "civil rights" is not an umbrella term that covers "gun rights", that appears to be another minor, fringe-ish point-of-view assertion), is covered in a novel about civil rights. This is in no way, shape, or form analogous to a Jeff Jacoby-penned OpEd. Tarc (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Trivia about Josh Gottheimer

Someone added in a biography of Gottheimer to the lead of this article. I'm sure it was well meaning, but it's really absurdly outside scope of this article and disruptive to the lead. The use of the quote is that it is a typical comment that captures and aspect of Frank's career and notability. Beyond that, the citation is all that is relevant. However, if someone feels that they really, really need to give a mini-bio of Gottheimer, within the footnote would be a far less bad place to put it. I would think twice or thrice before adding it even there, but I probably wouldn't personally remove it from within the note itself. LotLE×talk 02:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The article said He has been described as "one of the brightest and most energetic defenders of civil rights issues."[8] This violates WP:SYN and WP:V given that this is the opinion of a person and it should be cited to that person.

I went ahead and changed it to He has been described as "one of the brightest and most energetic defenders of civil rights issues" by U.S. Commission on Civil Rights senior adviser Josh Gottheimer. which sure as freaking heck is not a "biography of Josh Gottheimer" and to label it as such is simply silly. You can't just say Some argue that ___ in a Wikipedia article, opinions must be sourced. And, for goodness sakes, there are only seven words that describe who Gottheimer is. Seven words is not a "mini-biography" by any stretch of the imagination. The Squicks (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to try to get me banned for daring to disagree with you, then why bother with this?

I have no idea why this is something that is so trivial like this is such as an extreme point for you that you take it so personally, but so be it. Scrap this RFC. If you want to ban me, then try. I'm not going to change my editing positions just because of silly threats. The Squicks (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no desire, interest, or ability to "get you banned", Squicks. I feel that some input from outside editors into this content dispute (really, stylistic; I don't dispute the factual bio of Gottheimer) would be helpful. This is pretty cut-and-dry both as to WP:MOS and WP:BRD, and I think a helpful voice from someone else would show this to you. LotLE×talk 02:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no desire, interest, or ability to "get you banned", Squicks. Either your not telling the truth or you have reversed your position. Either way, I welcome your sudden and inexplicable change of heart.

My argument is that seven words are most emphatically not a biography and are thus perfectly acceptable as per WP:LEAD and WP:MOS. As well, the article as it is commits a travesty by making the statement He has been described as "one of the brightest and most energetic defenders of civil rights issues."[8]. This is a galling violation of WP:V and WP:SYN. A reader looks at this and says "WHO?! Who thinks that?" The Squicks (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course readers might, very reasonably, wonder "who said this?" That is what a footnote is for, and why we have one! Seven words (it was slightly more in the version I initially saw) are indeed disruptive to a lead when they are unrelated to the main article topic. The best solution would be if Gottheimer had his own article, which he should. Then we could simply phrase the matter as "Josh Gottheimer called Frank ..." That might even work out to fewer words by avoiding the passive voice, but I wouldn't object too much to two words. The biographical description is just too much though... moreover, it lets editors like CoM quibble over the utterly irrelevant topic of whether the biography is accurate (as his {cn} tag did). There's no reason on god's green earth to get into a dispute about some cited source about whom we don't even have a WP article. LotLE×talk 03:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Goodness. Even two words... just two words is TOO MUCH for you? You honestly believe that "two words = biography"? I am speechless. The Squicks (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Squicks. Why is one non-notable (no article on Wikipedia) person's description of Frank worth including in the introduction? And why wouldn't we name and identify the person we're quoting if they were notable?

Also, the bit seems to violate WP:LEAD as it's not discussed anywhere else in the article. It's also a bit misleading because the source is discussing his work on gay rights, so I think it would be better to be specific rather than vague about what we mean by "civil rights".

Gay rights advocacy is probably what Frank is most notable for and it's discussed in the article. Other issues that are significant and discussed in the article include medical marijuana, abortion and military spending (all have their own section). The LEAD guideline also suggests noting substantial controversies, which are discussed to some extent in the article, but not indicated anywhere in the lead. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice that CoM is emphatically not agreeing with Squicks above. Squicks argues that Gottheimer deserves a biographical description in this article, while CoM argues (here, and many, many times before) that since Gottheimer says something positive about Frank, his comment should be stricken from the article. LotLE×talk 03:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have read and understood my first question but not the second. But this all seems moot now anyway. The bit is still inappropriate for the opening paragraphs, violates undue weight, and goes against wp:lead guidelines, but I can live with it as written.

Now if we can add mention of the other issues I've raised, that would be very helpful in improving the lead. Kudos to Squick for resolving the problem by creating an article on Gottheimer and for helping push this to a satisfactory resolution (at least as far as I'm concerned). Do we still need an RfC? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope that this little spat is concluded. Squicks has written a really excellent article on Gottheimer (room for expansion sure, but solid work in creating it), and I am more than happy to include the general introduction to the lead remark on Frank, "Josh Gottheimer describes Frank as..." I was never trying to hide the attribution, and having a good quality wikilink lets readers explore more about the person making the statement. Thanks again Squicks (as I said on your user talk page). LotLE×talk 07:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Btw, just to give a little more context of my concern: As mentioned, I think wikilinks are great, but those should be the only form of explanation of who sources or non-current-article persons are, at least in the lead (and mostly in the body). For comparison, suppose we had found a remark by Barack Obama on Frank to use in the lead. It would read rather absurdly to circumscribe that as, "Barack Obama, who is the first African American United States president, describes Frank as ..." In this hypothetical, I certainly wouldn't object to wikilinking Obama, but any description of him whatsoever, beyond the name, is just in the wrong place. LotLE×talk 07:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And if Clinton was the one who was quoted about Frank we wouldn't say "Frank has been described as..." without saying by whom. Or, if it was a non-notable individual without an article being quoted, it would look very strange to include their quote and name without saying who they are. Which is why working through the issue was the proper course instead of reverting and attacking those identifying it as a problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is biographical description of Josh Gottheimer useful for lead?

Is biographical description of Josh Gottheimer useful for lead? I believe that information beyond the citation itself is undue weight for a lead of a bio about someone else altogether LotLE×talk 02:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is fine the way it is, we don't need to launch into a mini-bio of one person in the lead of an article about another person. Tarc (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

I entered a section called "controversies" that was reverted. Rather than do a silly edit war, I thought it best to talk about it here. The reversion comment:

09:02, September 23, 2009 Tarc (talk | contribs) (42,772 bytes) (rv: We'll take a pass on a "controversies" section, thanks. If controversial material is relevant to the subject, then work it in to the body of the article, not as stand-alone polemics)

Hafta say the following:

1. Not too excited about one editor saying "we" and implying consensus
2. A "controversies" section is fairly common in many, many articles and helps to establish WP:NPOV
3. I expected the section to be editied and improved (because I did write it fairly quickly and wasn't happy with it myself) but not deleted.

Ideas? Comments?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that a "controversies" section--certainly in the sense of "these people say bad things about the bio subject"--is always a bad thing to have on a Wikipedia biography. It just becomes a magnet and WP:SOAPBOX for random detractors to throw in random "criticisms." For living people, it usually violatates WP:BLP, but even for dead people it is a sign of really crummy writing quality. LotLE×talk 03:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it because it was cherry-picked bellyaching, to put it mildly. A one-liner about a comment on a pastor, and a criticism of, what, Frank's crystal ball not working too well 6 years ago? Please... Tarc (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thinking... Your comment about SOAPBOX is certainly valid, but it also is very possible for information to point out controversies while staying in alignment with NPOV without violating SOAPBOX or BLP. That said, your comments sound more like IDONTLIKEIT than anything else--which runs the risk of pushing SOAPBOX the other way. I put the information in because the items appeared to me to be notable instances of such controversies in the present and past.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

While I entirely agree with Tarc that neither of the two WP:SOAPBOXs you inserted under the suggested "Controversies" section have any place in the article at all, for many WP policy reasons, the specific point about such sections is more general. The relevant guide to understanding why these sections are unencyclopedic is Wikipedia:Criticism (frankly, I think it should be elevated to policy, but it's still worth understanding even as a familiar essay). LotLE×talk

With that (and I'm not necessarily disagreeing) why does this article read like everybody loves the individaul and that he's done nothing wrong or controversial? To me, the article reads more like a campaign statement. There's certainly enough notable material.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess you kinda missed the "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" section and the bit covering his 1990 reprimand, eh? Tarc (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Paulmcdonald might have missed all the other sections as well, actually. There's nothing that "reads like a campaign statement" in this article. It's not a Faux News-style smear piece... instead it's y'know an encyclopedia biography (which seems not to be what Paulmcdonald) wants it to be. LotLE×talk 18:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, Wikipedia does have a clear hipocracy in that articles for Democratic moderates such as Max Baucus are loaded with critical material (just look at Baucus' page! Democracy Now opinion screeds and et cetera are loaded on and on) while articles for liberal or progressive Democrats (like here) tend to be more stringent and more encyclopediac.

My personal feeling is that the solution to Wikipedia's clear left-wing bias (and it is not disputable that the bias exists, it's as obvious as that the earth is round) is to apply the WP policies where people don't want it applied- like taking critical material out of the pages that are being bloated. Going the other way- bloating up pages that currently are stringent- is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. It makes things worse, not better. The Squicks (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think it is both false, and fairly silly, to suggest WP has a left-wing bias. Other than some fringe wingnuts who can never find anything quite right-wing enough, no one could read many articles and come to that belief. In any case, the point is pretty irrelevant, since we are discussing the article this is the talk page of. I had never read Baucus' article until a quick skim right now. On first blush, it doesn't look excessively critical, but I also haven't followed Baucus' career very closely. It does look like the section "Conflict of interest charges" is akin to a "criticism" section; and it definitely looks like more words are devoted to that than topic deserves in Baucus' career. Other than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, however, I'm not sure what point The Squicks is trying to make with the comparison. LotLE×talk 22:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the fact that most WP articles have a left-wing bias (I really am shocked that you deny this) and that policy is dismissed as irrelevant by editors of those articles does not excuse putting right-ring bias into some other article in particular. In fact, that only makes it worse. The solution is to stringently apply policy to all articles (even if the left-wing editors cringe and squirm at this). To violate policy and bloat up an article just as an act of ideological revenge (e.g. making a right-wing bias in one article to 'get back at' or whatever) is silly and stupid. The solution is the strict removal of criticism and controversy sections in all BLP articles. The Squicks (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason I deny it is because the plain and obvious fact is that no such "left-wing bias" exists. I guess it tells me a lot about what you watch and read outside WP, but the claim is just absurd (it's not the first time I've heard it... it seems to be an echo of the trope about "left-wing media", which always misses the point that half the US press is Murdoch-owned).

However, despite the peculiar premise you bring, I definitely agree strongly that tit-for-tat destruction of one article out of a perceived flaw in some unrelated (or even related) article is very bad editing practice. LotLE×talk 22:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being less generous than I should, and you are actually just making a subtle allusion to Stephen Colbert's comment that "Reality has a well known liberal bias." (White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, 4/29/2006).  :-) LotLE×talk 22:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

tit-for-tat destruction of one article out of a perceived flaw in some unrelated (or even related) article is very bad editing practice. Yet this is common. So common, in fact, that it almost makes one sad. Shouldn't all WP editors agree on this?

"Reality has a well known liberal bias." The reality here is that BLP articles for topics that liberals don't like generally have Controversy or Criticism sections whereas articles for topics that liberals like do not have these and instead properly hold to BLP standards. It's a grating hipocracy, and that's why I probably will eventually quit Wikipedia in disgust at some point. Why can't all BLP articles be applied to the high standard? The Squicks (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You have an interesting claim, The Squicks, about the percentages of articles of different persons with a controversy/criticism section. I think your conclusion/belief is wrong, probably out of a selective perception effect; but I am honestly unsure about that. The narrow claim is one that is rather straightforwardly possible to test, however. Many more subjective claims like "the tone of this biography is subtly more negative than in that biography" are harder to measure objectively (though I don't discount the concern, I really just do mean "harder to measure"). If you feel like doing an actual study of your claim, the results would be interesting. You'd need to design criteria in advance: if you look at the articles on politicians first, then decide to include or exclude (even unconsciously) based on whether they confirm your belief, that's no good. But if you were to set the standard as, e.g., the WP article on every member of Congress over the last 20 years, that would be an objective sample. LotLE×talk 22:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And more sources

i don't know how to add a new topic, so i'll put it here. i think it worth adding to the line about Garry Studds being the first openly gay congressman the fact that he was also from Massachussets, i.e., that both Studds and Frank, the first openly gay congressmen, both repressented the same state.

• Barney Frank: Frankly Speaking

• Barney Frank honored for 20 years as out congressman

For when this POV edit-warring ends. -- Banjeboi 12:50, 23 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.

• FRONTLINE: inside the meltdown: interviews: barney frank Ditto.

• TESTING OF A PRESIDENT: PROFILE; Barney Frank NY Times, November 20, 1998. For wit and character content.

• Barney Frank Is Stricken: Representative Barney Frank suffered a mild heart attack while exercising at a health club Saturday night. The 50-year-old Massachusetts Democrat checked himself into Beth Israel Hospital here and was resting comfortably in the intensive care unit today, hospital officials said. AP November 19, 1990.

A few sources that may help. -- Banjeboi 13:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

1991 Controversy over easing of Freddie Mac loans for Triple Deckers

I'm trying to source this claim, which seems to be an attempt to link the easing of loan restrictions to Rep. Frank's former partner's influence in Freddie Mac.

However, the Boston Globe article has language to the effect that "After a nearly three-hour meeting with members of the Home Buyers' Union, a local advocacy group, and representatives of Mayor Flynn and Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy 2d (D-Mass.), Fannie Mae officials agreed to substantially alter rules to allow what one termed "hundreds if not thousands" of buyers a chance to own two-family homes and ... "

I don't have full access to the text, so I'm not quite sure of Barney Frank's role here. If he was not the lead to get the rules altered, why single him out when this was a priority among many Mass Democrats (since the housing stock in Boston area is largely multi-family homes). Most references to this that single Barney Frank seem to have very similar language, limited to the conservative blogosphere. I suspect that this is a political talking point that is only half true (since he was one of many who supported the rule change) and has no provable or reasonable link to his former partner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.232.93 (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's "limited to the conservative blogosphere" that is likely the answer to every question about this content. If it becomes mainstream reported or even widely speculated then we can look to what should be added. Many books will delve into every aspect of the US and world financial meltdowns so whatever prominent role Frank played will be known soon enough. -- Banjeboi 01:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is merit to any of this, perhaps it is in the form of direct quotes by individuals who have made such accusations against Frank. The way that the material is presented in edits such as this are a bit of a distortion, IMO. Tarc (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The content is properly sourced to this article [2]. If you have a reliable source disputing that accoutn pelase provide it. This looks like more censorship and POV pushing along the lines of putting laudatory quotes from partisans in the opening paragraphs and sourcing large sections to press releases form Frank's office. Please keep in mind this is an encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Given your rich and disruptive history in political articles, what it looks like to you re: "censorship" is irrelevant. As I said above, if some of this material is deemed important enough to the subject , then it should be written in a form that quotes the accusers directly, and to not present it in its current form which appears to sell the idea that this is a solid fact. While that is being determined, the material should be removed, per WP:BLP policy, which would be in your best interests to review. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There's also the small matter of the fact that CoM is edit warring in violation of an active topic ban. Given the tenor of his recent edit comments and talk page comment, this sure looks like we're back into actual long block territory. We'll see. LotLE×talk 22:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop lying Lulu. You content removal claimed it was sourced to blogs. Now you are making further misrepresentations. I understand you may be going through personal difficulty, but please don't take it out on good faith editors who are trying to uphold our encyclopedic standards. What is the objection to noting that Frank was involved with an exectutive from Fannie Mae and that some critics called it a conflict of interest? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please redact your uncivil commentary, above. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone going to respond on why they object to noting that Frank had a long term relationship with a Fannie Mae executive while he was legislating on the company's activities? Please let's focus on the article content issues and avoid any more personal attacks, misrepresentations, and other disruptions that violate policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

First off a quick overview on this article shows your actions here have likely been the main source of disruption over many months. You are nearly the sole reason this article had to be fully protected at least twice. So unfortunately you have a legacy here, and apparently on other political subject articles that casts doubt on your efforts - sincere as they may be. Getting back to the subject we have wedged in In 1991, Frank pushed for reduced restrictions on two- and three-family home mortgages. This is coupled with the non-impressive figure of 42K over 8-9 years in donations from the two corporations which conservative critics allege must have influenced Frank. It seems as if we endorse that supposition. If we want to add content like this it should be NPOV and well-sourced. That CoM is pushing for it only makes me more suspicious but there may be some usable content. Likely the entire artile should be restructured to get us out of this issue-area morass. -- Banjeboi 02:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't engage in dishonest smears against me. Let's focus on the content and sourcing. What is the objection to noting Frank's long term relationship with a Fannie Mae executive? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is supported by reliable sources, then there is no reason as to why this should not be included. If you have problems with the sources being quoted, take it up with the WP:RS department. This is Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac we are talking about, and they are big corporations and big things happened to them while he was there so this does not affect WP:UNDUE. Nicholas Tan (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

CoM, you are now personally attacking myself and the other editors who are pointing out your tenditious and edit-warring history. It is not a "dishonest smear" to point out facts; I did not bother to link to the many dramatic discussions your actions have engendered or that you seemed to treat them glibly and dismissively as if causing disruption was just some inconvenience the rest of us should suffer to allow you to push your POV. If you want to proposed some language and that source it would be cited to then please post it here. I imagine there can be a place for it if others agree it seems notable and NPOV. Negatively characterizing those who disagree with you is incredibly defeatist and only perpetuates a battleground mentality which aligns with your track record here. If you restricted your statements and edit summaries to only discussing content I think this whole turn of thread would have been avoided by all those who you feel are opposing you. And Franks involvement with his boyfriend is already in the article, it's bordering on Undue and the lack of reliably sourced content on this suggests it really isn't that big of concern. If the vast majority of news articles of the time speak to this then likely it should be included, if they don't then this might not be the most important issue to push. Is there any reliable sources besides the one? -- Banjeboi 01:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, for the last time, please cease disrupting the discussion of article content and sourcing with smears. Yes, there are other sources. What is undue weight is all the content sourced to press releases from Frank's office and putting an accolade from a partisan in the opening paragraphs. Noting a 10 year personal relationship with a Fannie Mae executive seems very reasonable to me. Is this now resolved? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it is hardly resolved unless you no longer wish to propose content to be added. And you should take your own advice about disruption. You claim offense at the same time insinuating that I smeared you. Sorry, but that's called mythologizing history to twist events casting yourself as a victim of some cabal. Meanwhile you try to again dig up issues that have been resolved for a while. Then you again imply that for some reason the article doesn't already talk about Frank's former boyfriend. It always has yet you seem to want more. If you have something to propose and wish to provide reliable sources and NPOV language then please do so. Otherwise this likely is resolved? -- Banjeboi 07:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed

“ After then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama stated that "people's families are off limits" for political debate, Frank criticized Obama's statement. Frank went on to say that American politicians' families and their family history are "fair game" and should receive negative scrutiny if necessary. ”

I've removed this, it was wedged in the personal life section, where it clearly is misplaced. It also seems to be a dig at Obama when instead the sources are referring more to Frank's stance against hypocrisy - mainly from Republicans pro-family rhetoric while Palin has an un-wed pregnant teen and Cheney's being "upset" over his duaghters being lesbian raised during the 2000 election. This, worded more NPOV to sources, would be good on some article but likely not this one. -- Banjeboi 02:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Barney Frank's long-term relationship with a Fannie Mae executive

Why was this content that's long been in the article removed again despite agreement that it's properly sourced and notable? Here's one of the sources discussing it [3]. If there is an issue of phrasing please present suggestions for revised wording. As it is now there doesn't seem to be any mention of this relationship or criticisms it has received as being a conflict of interest. Please refrain from personal attacks and commenting on other editors, let's stay focused on article content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That article notes the "long-term relationship with a Fannie Mae executive" was, in fact, his boyfriend. It alleges COI, notes that both the men deny it, yet critics still assert their must be. And it offers no proof that any existed. Before delving too far, is there any more mainstream sources that might be helpful here? -- Banjeboi 02:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The relationship is noted in other sources including the Washington Post. If you're not happy with the Fox News source written by a managing editor, you're welcome to see what else you can find. There doesn't seem to be any dispute that it was a 10-year relationship, that is was with a Fannie Mae executive by the name of Herb Moses, and that critics have alleged a COI because the committees Frank worked on oversee that quasi government agency. This certainly seems worth noting, but I don't think it would require more than a sentence or two. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is the Washington Post article? -- Banjeboi 22:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you try Google News? Which part of the statement above and the content I'd like restored are you disputing that it needs additional sources? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You stated that the Washington Post had noted this connection, I asked if you have a particular article. I'm not looking to go on a scavenger hunt to quibble each fact as presented but would like to more fully understand what it is you wish to add. So, in addition to the above source which i pointed out insinuates but does not prove any COI, do you have any more mainstream RS's that also support this? I'm trying to compare what reliable sources state to what we currently have to see what, if anything, should likely change. In this particular case I would expect news articles about an investigation into Frank's COI, his boyfriend's COI, or both. I'm letting the sources lead here and asking you if you have any to support the changes you wish to see. -- Banjeboi 15:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why I have to find more sources for something that was long in the article and is already well sourced. You haven't explained your objections to noting the relationship or that some have criticized it. What's the big deal? Here's another article discussing the relationship [4]. Here's another article (from a left-winger) that notes the accusation of a conflict of interest "Frank’s romantic relationship with Herb Moses, a former Fannie Mae executive, has been cited by some as evidence that Frank had conflicts interests as regards Fannie Mae." [5]. Can we please resolve this? Do you have a suggestion on wording? This is a collaborative process. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

None of the material being proposed by CoM (even if one strips away the surrounding belligerent tone) has any apparent merit for inclusion in this article. It doesn't seem anywhere close to satisfying WP:WEIGHT or relevance, and seems to be one big WP:SOAPBOX to squeeze in vague negative insinuations against the bio subject (without any particular facts... just "someone thought ill of Frank"). LotLE×talk 22:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is contradicted by the reliable sources which note "After more than a decade as Washington's most prominent and influential gay couple, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and his partner, Herb Moses, have separated... Moses was the first partner of an openly gay member of Congress to receive spousal access privileges through the Capitol, although the decision was controversial." ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Although this is the first time you have proposed it, I agree that that sentence about spousal benefits for Moses would be fine in the article, if you can provide a citation for the fact. LotLE×talk 22:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who took this out, but it's relevant. As a member of the house banking committee and ardent supporter of Fannie and Freddie this relationship is important for ethical reasons (i.e., conflict of interest) Furthermore, there should have been discussion among the editors BEFORE it was removed cart blanche. Lordvolton (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I support it's inclusion and and Lulu and Banjeboi eventually acknowledged the relationship is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course Frank's longest romantic relationship is notable and it's included in a NPOV way with due weight. What has been opposed is the OR connecting dots that this constituted a COI. Something that was denied by both and only fringe sources seem to be alleging, without much besides their romantic relationship to hang on it. Out of the mountains of newspaper and magazine articles as well as books devoted to the subject it should be very well sourced or likely not that notable. Perhaps that will change but Wikipedia does not lead, we follow. -- Banjeboi 03:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Relationship with Herb Moses & Fannie Mae

The material added to the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac section is relevant and properly cited. He had a relationship with a top executive of Fannie Mae at the same time he was a member of the committee that regulates them. That is factual and not a soapbox. The ethical red flags are legitimate and a part of his political history as it relates to Fannie Mae. Lordvolton (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The addition is poorly and hastily written and ungrammatical; more importantly, it is given undue weight both by volume and by being the first data point in the section. Allow this to develop a consensus before reverting this material into the article again. Abrazame (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the grammar you can correct it with wording you find more pleasing to the eye. I've added some additional cites. I will give you credit for at least coming to the discussion page. Please allow the discussion to actually take place before removing the material without any discourse, that's just good manners. Lordvolton (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, good manners might also include recognizing that your opinion does not preclude the preference of other editors to discuss the issue and develop a consensus for whatever data points, and whatever version of or context for these data points, are appropriate to and appropriately weighted in the breadth of the subject's involvement with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac as we cover it in this brief biography, if at all. Even in the hypothetical case that the speculation were true and a conflict of interest existed at one point, apparently the relationship, and thereby the alleged conflict, has been over for eleven years. Discussion should happen here before inserting problematic info into a BLP; please engage in such discussion with interested editors here instead of reverting this material into the article again. I presume you're aware of WP:3RR, and that you are one or two reverts beyond that with this one data point at this one article in less than 24 hours already. Abrazame (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Abrazame, part of good manners is offering your own version instead of just objecting to the work of others. Please help improve the article by appropriately working in the content instead of continuing the disruptive reversions without any effort to make the improvements you think are necessary. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Abrazame, in the interest of fairness, the flaw in your logic is assuming that actions taken eleven years ago have no effect today. In fact, if you read the articles, you will see that it's precisely because of lax standards that Fannie Mae ended up in trouble. When regulations are changed their effect is long term and not limited to the day they were modified. The subsection deals specifically with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and it's pertinent that a high ranking executive of Fannie Mae was his significant other which raises an ethical question regarding his objectivity. With respect to "interested editors", given your reverts and related commentary that went along along with them you are clearly an interested editor and that is why I would prefer that you keep the discussion here rather than your past of course of action of unilaterally reverting absent any discussion.

Just to clarify, I am not precluding other editors from discussing the issue, rather, I am inviting them to have an open dialogue, but that cannot occur if other editors are disruptive of that process. For this reason, I would appreciate it if you kept the discussion here and refrained from reverting until we have reached consensus. Thank you. Lordvolton (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As has been discussed in great detail previously (see talk page archives), insertion of WP:SOAPBOX material in violation of WP:BLP is not appropriate. However worded, there is no way this material can hope to fulfill WP:UNDUE, since vague insinuations of malfeasance through "guilt by association" will not be biographically significant to this biographical figure (not even if an editor really, really dislikes the bio subject). LotLE×talk 23:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Your concerns can be addressed through edits rather than wholesale reversion, since it's factually correct that he lived with Herb Moses and the two were lovers while Mr. Moses was an executive of Fannie Mae and Mr. Frank was a member of house financial services committee. And since this subheading deals specifically with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac it is relevant. They lived together for years -- and he claimed spousal privileges for Mr. Moses, so it's not a trivial matter with respect to his relationship with Fannie Mae. Removing pivotal events in his life with respect to Fannie Mae would be a disservice to those attempting to understand the history of Barney Frank as it relates to Fannie Mae and his time in Congress.

Imagine if Ivana Trump were the head of a congressional committee regulating Casinos and in her bio under the Wikipedia heading of "Trump Taj Majal" there were an army of editors reverting any mention of her relationship with Donald Trump. That's basically what is happening here. =-) Lordvolton (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be giving undue weight to what is simply speculative opinion (that his personal life affected his legislative decisions). The fact remains that there is not a single reliable source which states this as fact, not opinion. As for your Trump analogy, frankly it doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Is Moses Ivana? Then that would make Frank...uh, the hotel? Or Donald? I'm baffled. --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not object to a slight expansion of the mention of Moses in Personal life:

Months after coming out he met and fell in love with Herb Moses, an economist and LGBT activist, that lasted for eleven years until an amicable break-up in July 1998. Moses, who was an executive at Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998, was the first partner of an openly gay member of Congress to receive spousal benefits and the two were considered "Washington's most powerful and influential gay couple."

LotLE×talk 00:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Which source discusses it escapes me presently but the spousal benefit started as some sort of "wife's lapel pin" which ruffled other members, it was eventually changed to a spousal benefit card. Not terribly crucial but I think Frank discussed it in the context of them not trying to make a point but by circumstances having to. -- Banjeboi 03:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedias and romance novels

I saw Benjiboi restored the terrible doggerel of "fell in love with". Blech! That unencyclopedic phrasing had really been in my craw for a long time, and I finally changed it when I added the clause about Moses' job. I had first put in "involved with", which is probably the most neutral. But after Benjiboi's revert, I tried "began dating" instead. I don't really care the exact phrase, but let's please avoid the tone of torrid romance novels (we don't do that for any other biographical figures... or at least I sure hope not). LotLE×talk 07:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Some reference points of other famous political couples:

• In the late spring of 1971, she began dating Bill Clinton, also a law student at Yale.
• While at Yale, he began dating law student Hillary Rodham, who was a year ahead of him.
• Notably, she served in this role while dating her future husband, James Carville, who was chief strategist for the Clinton campaign.
• Carville is married to Republican political pundit Mary Matalin, ...
• Amanpour has been married to James Rubin, former Assistant Secretary of State and spokesman for the US State Department, since 1998.
• In 1998 Rubin, who at the time was spokesman for the US State Department, married Christiane Amanpour, chief international correspondent for CNN.

I could find more, but notice the encyclopedic tone of all of them (as aesthetically and ethically disturbing as are the middle ones). LotLE×talk 07:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That you for expressing the pitfalls although done with less drama and personalizing would likely feel less adversarial. Romantically involved with? To me "involved with" seems equally poor so let's find some way that is explicit they weren't conspirators or business partners but actual lovers. This has been a point of dispute that non-heterosexual relationships are diminished and watering down seems to be a step in the wrong direction. -- Banjeboi 12:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The changes look good to me, thanks for making them, except that the additions omit the source and content related to the relationship being criticized in some quarters as a COI. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

House seniority

The opening paragraph says that Frank is the longest serving member of the Massachusetts House delegation, but according to Ed Markey's Wikipedia article Markey has been a House member since 1976 and Frank did not begin his first term until 1981.

Marijuana bust of Frank's partner

For some reason this content is being removed:

In August, 2007, Frank was present at the home of his partner, Jim Ready, when Ready was arrested on charges of marijuana possession, unlawful cultivation, and use of drug paraphernalia. In interviews with local media outlets, Frank expressed surprise that marijuana was being grown in the home while he was present. Although he did not deny seeing marijuana plants at the residence, Frank stated that he is not a "great outdoorsman" and therefore would not have know what the plants were. ref http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/barney-frank-present-during-marijuana-bust /ref

When a congressman's partner is involved in a drug bust, particularly when the politician himself is present, that seems worth noting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

For starters, we discourage "controversies" sections in BLPs. You of all people know this quite well CoM, as it is why you were topic-banned from Obama-related articles awhile back. Second, I fail to see the biographical significance of being somewhere when someone else is arrested; guilt-by-association seems to be a rather tenuous rationale for judging inclusion in an article. If Jim Ready is notable apart from his relationship with a sitting Congressman, then perhaps you can include his arrest there. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was topic banned for daring to take on a pack of the most vile and dishonest POV pushers intent on distorting the encyclopedia for propaganda purposes. What does that dispute about the incivility and disruption caused by you and others have to do with this content?

Frank is a congressman, his partner was arrested for growing illegal drugs while Frank was present, and it's an issue Frank has been outspoken on politically. So it seems entirely relevant to a neutral and encyclopedic article about this biographical subject.

Are you objecting to this for the same reason you don't want Frank's apparent conflict of interest as he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive as he was supposed to be regulating them? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You weren't a victim of anyone; you were the perpetrator. What it has to do with this is that the same behavioral issues that were sanctioned last year are being repeated here; your belligerent and overly-aggressive crusade to "balance" BLPs, stemming from a misguided belief that this is achieved by adding negative information to counter the so-called "liberal bias". Frank's partner being arrested has no bearing on Frank himself. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, not going to mess w/you two, just going to say this isn't the place for this. I don't think it merits inclusion as is. W/a bit more coverage it could be significant enough. Soxwon (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He had no idea his lover was running a brothel... he had no idea his next lover was growing marijuana... he had no idea that Fannie and Freddie were in trouble. Are you his personal publicist Tarc? Give me a break. This is all very relevant since it's the PATTERN OF HIS LIFE. It's time to let his life speak for itself -- rather than selectively editing it.Lordvolton (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You're picking up the scraps of a topic begun months ago by an extremely disruptive, tendentious, and thankfully now-banned user. As I noted back then, guilt-by-association is a tenuous rationale. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Military spending

I'd have to say I agree with this and the IP edits that remove the passage. It comes across as simple advocacy for Frank's position on spending, which is not what we should be doing here. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

But where is the spirit of editorial collegiality — much less adherence to editing guidelines — that prevent either the anon or Soxwon from commenting at this talk page to establish their reason(s) for removal of a data point that has been in the article for over a year? I'm particularly troubled that an established user like Soxwon would reinforce the attitude that edit warring is acceptable and set a tone that dissuades talk page elucidation in the interest of making the edit understood and building consensus. When an editor requests that discussion begin, discussion should begin, and the onus for beginning it is on the part of the person advocating the article change.

To the specific edit, is the argument that we should not present data or references supporting or refuting a subject's claim as presented in the article? Is the argument that this is not a reliable source? Is the argument that the data it presents on this point is erroneous?

Frankly, I'm ambivalent about the inclusion; if we quote the subject on the data point, we could presume that the reader will either take him at his word or can be left to his own devices to track down the raw data themselves. I'm just not entirely clear on how corroborating a claim, with what I'm under the impression is a reliable source, is advocacy of a position about that point.

And I'm pretty clear that the combined behavior of the anon and Soxwon, this sort of edit warring sans talk page discussion when that has been requested not once but twice, goes against both the guidelines of Wikipedia and the spirit of editorial collegiality. Which is also something we should not be doing here. Abrazame (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help to imagine that this sentence instead read, "China has increased its military spending by eleven to eighteen percent every year for the past decade."[6] Sticking closely to the topic is one way to protect ourselves from this kind of editorializing.24.22.141.61 (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:NOR is pretty clear on this; we need sources that discuss military spending in reference to Frank, not sources that don't mention Frank's views at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And why is it sourced to Anup Shah's personal website? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Error in First Paragraph

There's a significant error in the opening paragraph of this article. Frank was elected to a full term in 1980 and was first re-elected in 1982. The article presently states: "In 1982, he won his first full term, and he has been re-elected ever since by wide margins." Unfortunately, I cannot correct this error as the page has been locked. 164.64.74.44 (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that myself, and found it confusing. I'll fix it right now. Eegorr (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Credible Opponent

"won by twenty percentage points. He has not faced credible opposition since"

No longer true. In the current race against Sean Bielat, some polls showed only a 10% lead a few weeks ago, and he has called in Bill Clinton to campaign for him due to serious concern. The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and other media have covered this as the first real challenge he has faced in a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.9.33 (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If by some polls you mean a single poll commissioned by Bielat's own campaign, then that is true. A poll commissioned by Frank's campaign shows Frank with a 24 point lead. Common sense suggests that it is somewhere in between. Regardless, because the campaign has been gathering some interest in the press, it wouldn't be a bad idea to add a section on his 2010 re-election campaign. 24.126.67.45 (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

House seniority

The opening paragraph says that Frank is the longest serving member of the Massachusetts House delegation, but according to Ed Markey's Wikipedia article Markey has been a House member since 1976 and Frank did not begin his first term until 1981. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WrenandStimpy (talk • contribs) 15:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight with blockquote

This edit violates WP:undue in my opinion, as it highlights the quote for special attention not at all representative of the section as a whole. The last paragraph of the section is ripe with much more representative blockquotes. Should this issue be voted upon to reach a consensus? If so, I vote to include it within the text of the section, but not highlight it as a blockquote. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 03:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to get rid of the blockquote then fine, but this quote was very notable back in 2008 during the whole government conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie. Truthsort (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Rollback of Unsourced Edits

Since this article is a biography of a living person, I rolled back the two most recent edits lacking reference citations. Please feel free to add back the rolled-back content, but only if verifiable citations are included. Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 20:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about, that the edits weren't sourced? The first edit was sourced with "A Frank Suggestion: Hookers in the Financial District" (Boston Herald-American, November 25, 1976) and the second edit mentions Stuart Weisberg's biography from which the information about Frank's relationship with Kathleen Sullivan was taken RIGHT IN THE TEXT. (The book is mentioned as a soure for the entire article.) I think is is unbelievable that you can say that sourced material is unsourced. What is your bias here? Does Barney Frank's involvement with the Combat Zone (and prostitution) -- which made his name in Massachusetts in the 1970s as a sort of lefty-libertarian -- and his involvement with a woman in a heterosexual relationship offend you and require "cleansing"?Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No bias. Please use the citation formatting clearly explained here. Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 19:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring over article's lead

On two or three occasions now I've removed material from the article's lead placed there by an enthusiastic editor, one "Munijym," who apparently thinks it proper to be Congressman Frank's Wikipedia publicist. He has more than doubled the size of the preexisting lead with glowingly positive descriptions of the Congressman's achievements and personality and, apparently, has trouble understanding why any fair-minded person would object to such blatant puffery WP:NPOV and excess detail WP:Lead in the article's lead. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. If you look through the logs, I had a similar edit war with him 2 years ago under the User:Benjiboi. Look out for both of them. Seniortrend (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination

I haven't worked on this article but it seems fairly developed. Is anyone interested in getting it to GA status? —Designate (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Lithanus, 16 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In 1985 Frank was still closeted and the "first time he felt good in a relationship" was after he hired Steve Gobie, a male prostitute, they became friends more than sexual partners. Frank did admit paying Gobie for sex.

Lithanus (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The first sentence is already in the article, so I assume you're requesting the addition of the second sentence. The use of "admit" seems contrary to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality; something like "Frank stated he paid Gobie for sex" would be more neutral. But regardless, the second sentence seems redundant to the first; to "hire a prostitute" as a sexual partner implies paying for sex. However, I will fix the comma splice in the first sentence. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from PhelansDad, 4 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please remove references to being presently Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Mr. Frank is now a member, but not the Chairman. He was replaced as Chairman on Jan 3rd, this year. Please see the Wiki page for the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee for details.

thank you,

PhelansDad (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

All the places I notice indicate that he's the former chairman. If one got missed, could you be more specific as to where in the article it still says that he's the current chairman?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Barney Frank/Archive 5/GA1