Talk:Nick Rahall

Re-Worked the "Tenure" Section

Previously many of Rahall's issue positions and legislative accomplishments had been crammed together under the "tenure" section. I have renamed the section "Issues" (a much more appropriate name for the info that is there) and broken each issue out by section, i also added a few in an earlier edit. i did not remove/add any information when doing this.

i think the section is much more manageable now and easier to find info on an issue as it relates to his position.

More Speculation and Opinion than Facts

In the second paragraph of this article, it is speculated that Congressman Rahall dropped out of George Washington University purely because of the ending of the draft but no source is given to confirm if that is a fact or pure coincidence.

Also, it is speculated in the second paragraph of this article that just because Congressman Rahall worked under Senator Byrd, that he is "racist", but of course just as before, there is no source to verify this statement. Working under Senator Byrd is not enough evidence to claim that Rahall shares his views in itself. On that same note, just because Rahall is of Lebanese decent does not mean that is the motivation behind is voting record on the Middle East. All of these above statements would be fine if there were sources to back them up.

I feel these statements should be removed from this "article" if sources cannot be cited to support these claims...if there are no sources to support these claims, then it is apparent that this is not an article, but instead it's someone's opinion piece.

--Caponer 06:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Caponer on this. I am going to remove the comment on him agreeing with Byrd's views on race, since there is no evidence that he is racist. Most of the other stuff added recently is mere speculation and should also be tossed. Youngamerican 16:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• I've made adjustments to the article to remove POV statements as much as possible. Would still like to see some sources, however. Youngamerican 16:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

There is way too much that is purposely written in a negative way, irrelevant, or made up. -Ernie

Nick Rahall doesn't really know what is happening in the Middle East. He should get a clue: Israel was attacked and is responding to aggression. Its escaped his notice Israel is still under attack. Its not Israel's responsibility to let Hezbollah go unharmed; its the job of the Lebanese to dismantle the state within a state that keeps them from having a fully normal life. Hezbollah must be destroyed for there to be peace. At the moment, I think the humane solution would be for Israel's Air Force to turn Hezbollahland into good-sized parking lots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoCalJustice (talk • contribs)

I was a little surprised to see that his positions in the Middle East were only briefly mentioned. I know that he is know to have a pretty big interest there. In this article, for instance, he says: "Israel can’t continue to occupy, humiliate and destroy the dreams and spirits of the Palestinian people and continue to call itself a democratic state." 100 red balloons (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Was just reading a news article which states Rahall is a mason and knights templar. If true it ought to be relevent to this page. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090928/pl_politico/27639

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 00:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lebanese Descent

I find it somewhat odd that the second line of his "early life" section is that he is of Lebanese descent. If he was born in the United States (he was) to parents born in the United States (not sure), then it seems extraneous. We don't include that various public figures are of Irish, or English, or German descent at the top of their bios. This particularly caught my notice because attack ads have been run against Rahall recently based on his ethnicity [1]. Arbor832466 (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Rahall as Arab American

See also: WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive207 § Nick_Rahall

Recent edits have added excessive, unsourced text emphasizing Rahall's ethnic background. I am going to revert. This whole page needs a massive overhaul and ought to be referred to the bio page for more intensive edits. Hammerpleasedonthurtem (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Untrue. They are both clearly accurate. And sourced. To RSs. In the text in the body of the article. Where they should be sourced. It is a significant part of his notability, noted in all manner of RSs on him, such as reflected in the article and here and here, and properly therefore reflected in the lede. Please don't again delete appropriate RS-supported material. I understand that you are new, and may have your personal point of view, but we follow the RSs and wikipedia guidelines. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you are experienced, but what significance does links to two Google searches demonstrate about the reliability or notability of your sources? You might refamiliarize yourself with WP:BLP, specifically the points about how these biographies are to be edited conservatively. At present, this article is the epitome of a WP:COAT with the ostensible aim of libeling Rahall and making statements about the Arab-Israeli conflict. There is absolutely no reason to mention his position on Israel in the lede any more than there is to describe his position on mining or TARP, for example. Hammerpleasedonthurtem (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The refs supplied evidence sufficiently the fact that it is an important aspect of his career, covered in the RSs, and therefore appropriate for the lede. The additional google searches reflect amply the broad coverage by many RSs -- in addition to the refs supplied -- of the same. He is a public figure; a politician taking public positions. You do not understand what libel is if you think that reflecting his public positions on facts from his biography -- all as amply covered by RSs -- is "libel". It's not even close. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You linked to a Google search between the terms "Nick","Rahall", and "muslim". What are the 25,000 search results intended to confirm? That the internet has abundant misinformation? Does this referencing "RS" work for you on other talk pages? Hammerpleasedonthurtem (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Came here to take a look from post at WP:BLP/N. I have made a few edits to conform the article to our BLP policies to the best of my ability. See edit summaries for details. Happy editing! - Cwobeel (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your efforts. One point -- you deleted from the lede the fact -- appropriately referenced in the text to an RS -- that he is considered one of the most "endangered" House Democrats by the House Democratic campaign committee. Your edit summary stated: "don't needed either in the lede". The question of course is not whether it is needed in the lede, but whether it is appropriate. The fact is certainly an important aspect of an article on him, and as such appropriate per wp:lede. It relates to the race he is currently in. It is a position taken by his own party's campaign committee. It is RS-supported. It distinguishes him significantly from other House members. It provides important context. I don't see any reason for its deletion. Epeefleche (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What "context" does it provide that is lede worthy? He was labeled endangered in other elections, so 2014 is not any different. It does not belong in the lede. Also I note that your recent edit did not restore that point, but reverted to the far more irrelevant and less lede-worthy text that "He was the only member of the House to oppose the 1993 resolution for an end to the Arab boycott of Israel." Hammerpleasedonthurtem (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hammer -- your assertions of "libel" above are simply baseless. Please stop deleting material from this article, pointing to the conversation here -- where you encourage deletion based on such baseless accusations.

Also, as was explained to you already, material that is reflected in the text is properly reflected in the lede. Stop removing it on the basis that it is already stated in the text below.

Also, as already indicated to you, the refs in the text are sufficient -- they need not be repeated in the lede.

Finally, please stop making deletions of this ilk unless you have consensus for the deletions, as reflecting in the views of editors expressed in this ongoing conversation, and their views as reflected in edit summary comments to revisions to the article.

If you read the articles, he was one of very few Members that the Democrats considered endangered. And if you google it, you will see that in addition to the supplied refs, this has received ample RS attention. That's what makes it an important aspect of an article on him. And that's what makes it appropriate for the lede. The same is true of the fact that he was the only member of the House to oppose the 1993 resolution for an end to the Arab boycott of Israel - also amply covered by RSs, and also an important distinguishing characteristic from most other House members. Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you please respond to the pertinent points, rather than writing comments that are largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand?

Also, as was explained to you already, material that is reflected in the text is properly reflected in the lede. Stop removing it on the basis that it is already stated in the text below.

No, the question is why "He was the only member of the House to oppose the 1993 resolution for an end to the Arab boycott of Israel" belongs in the lede. Yes, it is cited and referenced in the text below. Please provide a justification for why it belongs in the lede, second paragraph of the biography.

Also, as already indicated to you, the refs in the text are sufficient -- they need not be repeated in the lede.

No one has questioned the references. The lede is in question, and why there is WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV throughout the article.

Finally, please stop making deletions of this ilk unless you have consensus for the deletions, as reflecting in the views of editors expressed in this ongoing conversation, and their views as reflected in edit summary comments to revisions to the article.

What Wikipedian, besides you, agrees with the reversion you have made. I hope others will weigh in on this. I find it very difficult to believe that there is any support, let alone consensus, for such a flagrant violation of WP:BLP.

If you read the articles, he was one of very few Members that the Democrats considered endangered. And if you google it, you will see that in addition to the supplied refs, this has received ample RS attention. That's what makes it an important aspect of an article on him. And that's what makes it appropriate for the lede.

What are you telling me to Google? Why would the Google search "Nick", "Rahall", and "Muslim", as you have suggested, have any relevance at all? "Nick", "Rahall", and "Jewish" returns even more results. Are you suggesting that we should include his Jewish heritage in the lede?

The fact of the matter is that his ethnicity and religion (which is Christian) belongs nowhere near the lede. Hammerpleasedonthurtem (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC

While the lede has improved in the current version, the issue has not been fully addressed. The second paragraph, fifth sentence, reads "Rahall is of Lebanese descent, one of five Arab American lawmakers on Capitol Hill." None of the others - Darrell Issa, Charles Boustany, Justin Amash, Richard Hanna - mention that they are one of the five lawmakers and their ethnicity is not mentioned anywhere near the first paragraph. The point that he is one of five Arab-American lawmakers is questionable for inclusion in the article at all (it now appears twice) and there is no reason to mention that he is of Lebanese descent in the lede. Are there objections to this edit? Hammerpleasedonthurtem (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

He is the most senior of them. This was raised at BLPN, and though a fair number of editors commented, none of them supported removal. Seems appropriate. Epeefleche (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any editors directly responding to this point at BLPN. It does not seem appropriate in the lede, and entirely inappropriate to have the point mentioned twice in the article. In addition to the points above, other Congressmen who have seniority for their group such as John Conyers, who is the most senior black Congressmen, do not have it mentioned in the lede. Hammerpleasedonthurtem (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Eh. While it's not outright improper, since ethnicity is at least a part of any figure's overall bio, I'm not sure if discussion in the lede is particularly appropriate. If he was the first, perhaps, or the only one, but being the first elected of just the specific group that is currently in congress is perhaps not significant enough to be one of the most important facts we highlight in the lede.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Vote on Arab Boycott of Israel

The fact that Rahall was the only one of 435 members of the House to vote against the Arab boycott of Israel seems to me to be worthy of mention in the lede to his bio. What's the rationale for exclusion?CFredkin (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I only removed the line from the lead because there was, contrary to what was claimed, clearly no consensus reached to accept the addition. An editor added the information into the lede -- perfectly acceptable. It was then removed by another editor -- again, perfectly acceptable per the principles of WP:BRD. The original editor reverted the revert, after which a third party came in and removed it again. Then a fourth party (you, I believe) re-added the information in, at which point a fifth editor, an IP, again removed it. After all this back and forth the original editor then re-added the line. It's abundantly clear that there is not yet a consensus on its inclusion, and it should be talked out here first, as you are doing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• That being said, I've now actually taken the time to look at the situation, and I would agree with the editors who argue against its inclusion in the lede. This is a politician with a over 3 decades in the house -- it makes little sense to emphasize one vote above all other political experience. The way this article is currently written, and the state it is being pushed into, gives the impression that the most notable achievements and actions of this congressman concern Israel and Arab issues. In truth, however, I'm pretty sure he's most associated with environmental and natural resources issues. This is logical, considering the importance of coal in West Virginia, and is supported by the fact that his time as a committee chair was on the Natural Resources committee, and a look through his notable sponsored bills seems to emphasize EPA and resource issues. Including this statement as the one congressional action worth mentioning in the lede is both misleading and unfortunately smells of POV pushing associated with the upcoming election. --Yaksar (let's chat) 05:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Furthermore, the significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources makes it clear that this factoid is in no way one of the most notable or significant parts of his career. This is not Jeanette Rankin casting the sole vote against WWII. It's not mentioned in the Politico overview of the current race, or on the NRCC's page against him, or in the NY Times profile of him. But, considering that it is evidently one of the most important parts of a 37 year career that you feel should be highlighted in the lede, it's quite odd that the only sources that seem to discuss it at all in the past year, hell the past 5 years, are hyperpartisan blogs or other heavily POV sources. Is it a sourced vote with an interesting element perfectly reasonable for inclusion in the article? Sure. Is it arguably one of the most significant political actions of a multi decade political career, as evidenced by enduring coverage in reliable sources? Absolutely not.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the rationale for inclusion? I have not researched Rahall's voting record, but is this the only measure on which he was the lone dissenter? If there are other votes where he was the only opponent, why wouldn't these be mentioned here, too? I would be interested in seeing other pages of other Congressmen who have individual votes mentioned in the lede. It would be one thing if he were the namesake for the resolution. Or if he'd proposed the resolution. But he voted on it. Once. Out of hundreds of votes, over a career that is more than three decades. This barely merits inclusion in the article and certainly not the lede. Hammerpleasedonthurtem (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with CFredkin and IP 70 and wp:lede. Further background on why the deletion -- from the form it was in when the discussion started -- absent consensus to delete it is here. If Yak wants to add a sentence on some other vote where Rahall was the only member voting against the entire rest of the House, he should add it. If it exists. Or if he has some other lede-notable material. But it smells of POV-pushing to delete from the lede such an RS-covered 1-against-400 vote from the lede. Yak -- in accord with wp:lede, add in similarly notable information; please. Epeefleche (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're being willfully ignorant or if you are actually just unable to such a simple concept. The sentence in question was not in the article 2 days ago. When you added it in, it was removed, not once, not twice, but by 4 separate editors. You're the one that has to seek consensus for its inclusion, as CFredkin is doing here, not the other way around. If you put it back right now, you are not restoring a consensus, you are going further into edit warring.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The article included the sentence in question in the lede. This was the state of the article when Hammer started a discussion at the BLPN. Given that the noticeboard discussion had been kicked off, the sentence should not be deleted (and should not have been deleted) absent consensus to delete it. Which has not arisen.

CFredkin and IP 70 and I all agree that it is appropriate under wp:lede.

You keep on counting IP 70 as a deleter -- but you know (because we've discussed it at length) that after discussion he agreed with CFredkin, and me. So it's quite curious that you again count him on the other side.

And you, of course, reverted my deletion of IP 70 (the last editor to delete it, before my revert). On the basis that I wasn't discussing the matter with him. Which, on your talkpage, I showed to be false. Not only was I discussing it with him. But he understood, having been pointed to wp:lede, that inclusion was correct. So the basis of your revert of me was flawed - completely.

There is one other editor who asked for deletion - the nom of the discussion. But he wants it deleted also based on the same misunderstanding that IP 70 had (people have to read wp:lede). And on the wild baseless assertion that it is libel (seriously? mention of a vote in Congress is libel?). So I see (tell me who I'm missing) three editors think it belongs, you deleted it on a completely wrong misapprehension that I was not discussing it and unclear that I was reverting someone who now agrees with me, and the nom is seeking deletion on the basis that to report a congressman's vote constitutes libel.

And oh -- you are seeking to delete it, even though it was included when discussion started, edit warring against the majority (slim), without consensus for your change. Epeefleche (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Wife

Does anyone have a ref for the name of his first wife (mother of his children)? --Epeefleche (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)