Talk:Chip Roy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Small text

@X4n6: We can further discuss this here. Plain text is all visible text, including abbreviations. Infoboxes, among other places, already use a text that is smaller than 100% default size text, and using a small template on that already smaller text decreases its size to below 85%, at which point it fails MOS:ACCESS. Many pages are out of compliance with this. I've tried requesting a bot to fix this throughout Wikipedia and do so manually at present. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Muboshgu:. I welcome this discussion, because if I'm wrong - which is distinctly possible - I've been guilty of being wrong for a very long time. But I do find the link you sent on plain text to be a bit confusing and perhaps misapplied, because it really references coding, not grammar. I don't code, but I am a grammarian. So I'm just trying to get this right. Is there someplace in the MOS that clearly defines the phrase "plain text?" Even an archived discussion of the wording, or better yet, some consensus on the intended meaning? Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The point is that the MOS guideline is about keeping things easily readable even for the vision-impaired. It's obvious that's equally important for anything in an infobox; it wouldn't make any sense to say otherwise. It's clear that "plain text" reasonably means anything in the "normal" or "default" font, which excludes things like "Incumbent". I assume that the only reason those things are exempt is because they are more difficult to change. That would require changes to template code rather than template tranclusions in articles. That may happen in the future, I don't know, but there is still plenty to occupy us for years without that. There aren't many editors interested in working on this; if they can read it easily, it's good enough for them. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Now two editors within an hour have advised me that I've been doing the Infobox degree abbreviations incorrectly for years. Fair enough and I always appreciate correction. Moving forward, I know better. But I also appreciate understanding the basis. It actually isn't "clear" what "plain text" means, which is why I'm asking. Does it mean code or font size or content? If it means code, that's one thing. If it means font size, then sure. And I take your accessibility concerns, given the MOS is clear about percentage of text size. But it could also mean content, as in words versus symbols, numbers, abbreviations or footnotes. Hence my confusion. But you folks are saying that we're just going to say the MOS is that everything in the Infobox must be the same font size, without exception, correct? Ok, then maybe it would go a long way for folks - and maybe enlist more people to help in understanding and correcting it when we see it - if we slightly tweak the language in the MOS to say "any text", rather than "plain text." Just a thought. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I can see how it could be seen as ambiguous. I also know how it's been interpreted for years. Let's try this. @Jonesey95 and Redrose64: Do you know of any cases where it would be ok to use "small" in an infobox? If not, I don't see what purpose is served by the word "plain" there. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Clarity and simplicity are always the goal. To get there, sometimes less is more. So I think losing "plain" would indeed be useful. As always, I'm grateful for everyone's input. X4n6 (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking of making "plain text" in MOS:ACCESS#Text into a wikilink to the page on plain text. It might be better to drop the word "plain". X4n6, thank you for a good discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to you as well, @Muboshgu: I appreciate this discussion and everyone's willingness to try to improve this. Thanks again to all. X4n6 (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The reason "plain" is there is that it is OK to apply {{small}} to text in the |above= section of infoboxes, or other places within the infobox where text is larger than the default 88% that is applied to most infobox fields. Maybe there is a better word than "plain". – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Jonesey95: So for clarity's sake, where exactly are you suggesting it's ok to use {{small}} in the infobox? In case you haven't read the entire thread, this discussion arose because I used it for the abbreviation of degrees after university in the infobox here. Also, is there another word you might suggest which would be clearer and an improvement over "plain?" I had originally suggested "any" as in "any text," but as you say there are exceptions, that would not be accurate. Or perhaps, we just say "text" with no adjective. Thoughts? Many thanks. X4n6 (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing |above= refers to the area of the infobox above the image, that parameter being used only within the template code. You could use {{small}} for the |title= field since it isn't already reduced; say, if you had a really long title. There may be other fields too, depending on the type of infobox, I don't know. So "plain text" can be interpreted to mean any text that is already reduced. That would seem to conflict with the first sentence at MOS:SMALLFONT, which says don't use small in infoboxes, period. The whole thing is complicated by the fact that we're not just talking about infoboxes. Perhaps SMALLFONT would bear a major rewrite, but I'm not feeling up to it at this point in my biorhythm. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The best I could think of for now was "already-reduced" instead of the ambiguous "plain". I hope that helps. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Not quite sure what our take-away is at this point. Have we resolved anything? X4n6 (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

House walkout

New section? Tinybirdie (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Tinybirdie, pardon? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

is this an encyclopedia or a political hit piece?

I changed the wording to a paragraph about the book “Fed Up!” that he ghost-wrote for Rick Perry.

Remember, a ghost writer for a campaign book is someone who merely writes in the voice of the candidate. Nothing more, nothing less.

But it appeared that whoever wrote that paragraph on this Wikipedia article did so dishonestly and disingenuously, and it appears intentional. Is this an encyclopedia or a political hit job website?? It's an honest question.

For example, the source cited for the passage about the Fed Up! book does NOT say “denounces federal efforts to regulate health care, labor conditions, energy policy, and pollution.” It says “denounced AS OVERREACH federal effort to ….” AS OVERREACH is what was denounced. Not the EXISTENCE of those items. This is extremely disingenuous and dishonest to characterize what the cited reference said in this manner.

This is supposed to be an accurate encyclopedia, not a political hit piece.

Let’s do better, people. --Francisco Fredeye (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The part you took issue with said: The book calls Social Security an unconstitutional Ponzi scheme, calls for the repeal of both the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (which authorizes a federal income tax) and the Seventeenth (which allows direct election of senators), and denounces federal efforts to regulate health care, labor conditions, energy policy, and pollution.

The reference given as the source is an article from The Dallas Morning News by Todd J. Gillman published November 28, 2012 Titled: "Ted Cruz picks chief of staff: Chip Roy, chief ghostwriter on Rick Perry's anti-Washington tome Fed Up!".

• "In a review of Fed Up!, Gene Healy – a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute – credited him as “the guy who did most of the heavy lifting in the book," though it’s hard to know exactly how much influence his views had. In the book, Perry called Social Security unconstitutional and a 'Ponzi scheme.' He called it a mistake to allow direct election of senators, saying it was better to let Legislatures pick. He called for ending life tenure for federal judges and for repeal of the 16th amendment, which authorized a federal income tax. And he denounced as overreach federal efforts to regulate health care, pollution, labor conditions and energy policy."

The article says the book denounces regulation, the addition of "as overreach" is reasoning behind denouncing regulation, one does not find in the passage a claim that he thinks there is some level of Federal regulation on the states that he thinks is acceptable. Your claim that this is some kind of political hit-job is unwarranted. Further any understanding of the Conservative position espoused by both Roy and Perry is that the Federal Government is the problem not the solution - so the idea that they are fine with some Federal meddling in what they hold is solely an area of State's rights is unsupported. Your assigning of ill-will to fellow editors reflects poorly on you. ---Wowaconia (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I notice that rather than add "as overreach" you erased any reference to these positions at all. How is that warranted when the source clearly states it? --Wowaconia (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the information but added the phrasing "overreach" in an effort to address your concerns. -- Wowaconia (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. I wasn't trying to personally insult anyone. I'm just alarmed at the very left-wing bias of Wikipedia when it comes to public officials. (I don't mean Trump, the federal and state legislators). There are definitely whackos out there and their articles, even left-wing, are pretty accurate. I'm personally middle of the road, left on some things, right on others. My issue is I'm constantly picturing a page in an actual encyclopedia, and I don't picture it including every negative thing that has been reported by a newspaper. Does that make sense? I'm trying to appeal to the higher calling of other Wikipedians. I feel that the administrator deck is stacked with people who tear down, and support the tearing down, or any conservative or Republican elected official, with the problem only compounding that admins are like the police - they police themselves. So it can be frustrating. At some point I imagine Wikipedia might split off into left and right, which would be a saddened reflection of our country's news media. But I do appreciate you diving in and helping! --Francisco Fredeye (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Redeleting the one line mention, and making the paragraphs on the same issue a subsegment.

A one line mention of his Capitol Police medal vote has been reposted during the time it took me to make a new subsegment of the information the article already contained on the issue, several paragraphs with historical context of his previous support of a variant bill. The edit line requested that I take to the talk page before redeleting it. So here I am. --Wowaconia (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that it looks like you're burying the incident in endless verbiage; it looks like there's lots of WP:SYN going on as well.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the argument that one line amounting to "he voted no on thing" is more encyclopedic than several lines laying out the context? Context which includes previous support for the very thing he has now turned his back on, and the ongoing divisions in his party around the response to January 6 which the vote concerns. I would say "he voted no on thing" is great for Twitter, this isn't Twitter. --Wowaconia (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

You mention WP:SYN which states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Please point out where there is a violation of the standard. The segment does put forward the conclusion from The Hill that Roy's position and Kizinger's negative response to that position are evidence of divisions within the GOP. A quote from The Hill is provided, if you are suggesting that this is a misreading please present your position. If you hold there is a violation elsewhere that I am missing, please direct me to that.--Wowaconia (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

My main problem with the Chip Roy article as it is on June 18th 2021 is with a section that goes into terrific in-depth, a play-by-play of various stages of a bill, with this happened, then that happened, then that happened, etc etc -- and all of this tends to obscure how Roy voted. Which is the important thing. Roy voted against a bill to honor Washington DC police who protected the Capitol building. Here's the paragraph now...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Bills honoring Capitol Police

Among the bills that were rescheduled due to Roy's procedural protest was one giving Congressional Gold Medals to the Capitol Police and the assisting police forces who withstood the January 6 attack on the Capitol. When the measure received a roll call vote on March 17, it did not pass with unanimous support. Twelve Republicans voted against it, objecting to the use of the word "insurrectionists".[115][116] Rep. Massie also called the bill "sacrilegious" for referring to the Capitol as "the temple of our American Democracy."[117] Rep. Gaetz called the bill "offensive...[due to] editorial comments about the January 6 sequence of events."[116] Roy, who had earlier said, "These words all matter, right? …I have to study the language fully", supported the measure.[114] The final vote tally was 413-12.[116][118] The bill moved to the Senate, which had passed its own version. A new bill was created to resolve the differences between the two versions. The largest change was the addition of having a medal displayed inside the Capitol itself, and lines that added those Capitol Police officers who suffered under the car ramming attack on a Senate security barricade on April 2, 2021. The revised bill returned to the House and was put up for a vote on June 15. Despite his vote in March, Roy joined 20 other Republicans in voting against this version, which passed 406-21. Another House member who voted the same way as Roy, Warren Davidson, said he voted no this time because "it's wrong to conflate 4/2 with 1/6."[119][120] Roy released a statement saying the original "legislation has since been amended to include events that have absolutely nothing to do with January 6th. Instead of honoring our men and women of law enforcement, Democrats are playing political games with the tragedy of April 2, 2021."[121] Among House Republicans who voted for the bill, Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney were outspoken in their critique of the dissenters. Kinzinger tweeted, "How you can vote no to this is beyond me. Then again, denying an insurrection is as well."[119] The Hill cited the vote as evidence of ongoing divisions in the Republican party post-Trump, and that it "marks yet another example of the lack of a unified response to the Jan. 6 attack."[120] -- (text from article)

All this back and forth with extraneous verbiage and irrelevant junk. It tends to obscure the fact that Roy voted against honoring the police officers. The synthesis happens when details are added about how other congresspersons voted, or what they said or did, as if that's relevant. Even look at the title of the subsection -- it says Bills honoring Capitol Police. Wouldn't that lead a casual reader to think that Roy supports a bill to honor the Capitol police? Of course it would; only a careful reader would have to wade through this prose to get the correct conclusion that no, Roy didn't honor the Capitol Police. He voted against it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

You are free to copy edit if you think there is extraneous verbiage or inelegant phrasing. If you think something is irrelevant you can make that argument here as well. WP:SYN is not saying you can't combine more than one source to explain an event, it says you can't make a conclusion that those sources don't put forward. So details about how other members voted isn't a conclusion that is made from giving a spin to the data, its just the data. He doesn't act in a vacuum.

Concerning your point "Wouldn't that lead a casual reader to think that Roy supports a bill " - he did support that bill in March but he didn't in June. So the constant in all this is that we are talking about "Bills honoring Capitol police", if you think "Position change on honoring Capitol Police" or something along those lines works better - than we can change it to that. The fact that his position changed shows that something more complex is going on with Roy than if he had just been consistent the entire time in opposition. I quoted The Hill's analysis of what they, a notable media organization, think is happening. I did not offer up my own non-notable take on things.

If someone sees reading a paragraph as having to "wade through this prose" it is unlikely they are coming to an encyclopedia for information. Concerning your statement "the important thing. Roy voted against a bill", this is covered in the text: "Despite his vote in March, Roy joined 20 other Republicans in voting against this version, which passed 406-21." Again, "He voted no on thing" isn't more encyclopedic than laying out the context, and presenting quotes and critiques from notables on that vote. "He voted no on thing" is a great Tweet, but this isn't Twitter.--Wowaconia (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

So the problem is lots and lots of (extraneous) detail and practically no summaries, practically requiring readers to really have to dig through the verbiage to try to make sense of things. Maybe the article needs another paragraph in the lede section summarizing Roy's main political positions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, if you think there are parts that are irrelevant you can present your case for deleting them here in the talk page. Concerning your comment "to dig through the verbiage to try to make sense of things", you keep repeating that what amounts to about a paragraph is a lot to read through. Seems like your personal preferences in reading would be better served by Twitter rather than a project seeking to present Encyclopedic knowledge. This project doesn't try to compete with Twitter. Focusing on the part of your claim: "to make sense of things" - how without the lines of context would it be possible to make sense of things? This is a biography of a living person, so if we don't present things with neutrality we violate community standards for this type of article. To present it without context would be akin to saying "Yucky Bad Man Roy votes NO on good thing all good people like." We can't do that without violating the projects standards, but Twitter is available for such takes. --Wowaconia (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)