Talk:Joe Wilson (American politician)/Archive 2

Controversial statements

Hatred of America remark.

Congressman Bob Filmer claimed that the United States gave Iraq chemical and biological weapons - that is a lie.

Why was Congressman Wilson called upon to apologize for saying that Congressman Filmer "hated America" - but Congressman Filmer not called upon to apologize for falsely claiming that the United States gave Iraq chemical and biological weapons?

"You Lie" remark.

During his speech to Congress President Barack Obama made a series of untrue statements. For example, he claimed that the health entitlement would not be given to illegal immigrants - but as a lawyer surrounded by other lawyers he must know that the courts have already ruled that government health benefits CAN NOT be denied to illegal immigrants (see the California case - for which the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal).

So why was Congressmen Wilson called upon to apologize for calling out "you lie", but President Barack Obama not called upon to apologize for lying before Congress?91.107.239.212 (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Paul Marks91.107.239.212 (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.239.212 (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In the course of finding a source to verify the 2002 controversy, I came across a few others and added the most recent, along with its news source. I think they both give some insight into the person, and both very clearly illustrate the boundaries of political polarization in modern America. They were both considered newsworthy and widely reported, and I guess that together they are legitimately encyclopedic. I suspect that Wilson would prefer that the 2002 controversy be omitted, since he later apologized for those remarks, but I think that one says more about his personality as a staunch defender of the military. The 2005 controversy is really just acerbic partisan bickering from a veteran's advocate standpoint. I'm going to leave both of them in, since the rest of the article reads glowingly like an advertisement. Two controversial statements really highlight the real humanity of the person, as well as fully illustrating the partisan polarization of the times. I hope Emily doesn't mind much, and hope she and her boss appreciates all the other improvements. --James S. 09:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

These statements or "controverseys" aren't notable enough for this page. If you are going to put every little detail about the mans life that would malign him to one political side or the other you will have to put in every little detail that would benefit him as well. The main thrust of the bio before the joint session controversy was simple and not in depth. Adding what he said about some other congressman in a debate about Iraq five years ago seems a little much.Onefinalstep (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tags, copy edits

This article is a mess. I've added some tags, and made copy edits. More to come. I'm going to remove some obviously impossible information, as noted above Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rahm Emanuel's name is misspelled. Has an extra M. Datorarbet (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yelling "You Lie" at President Obama's health care speech

Please don't add this until it is reported on by reliable sources, and satisfies WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP requirements. — Mike :  tlk  01:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the AP not reliable? StealthCopyEditor (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

CNN said it, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/09/joe.wilson/index.html Skiendog (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

page should be protected99.241.95.241 (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been reported by the AP: [1] 66.253.36.17 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Page is already getting vandalized, and I'm sure this page is going to have quite a few more views after this. Definitely needs to be protected. BrainDance (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been reported by the AP and sourced by other media. The page should definitely be protected. Vote (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is another one of those "man bites dog" type of news stories. Generally, I would say that Wikipedia is not news, and therefore not every single utterance by a member of congress is notable enough for inclusion. But, this is probably going to get significant RS coverage, so if it's included we definitely need to be mindful of how it is presented. This is no different than many of the audience heckler incidents during the August town hall meetings. Where do you draw the line? If the House of Representatives decides to take formal action on this matter, that would make it more notable. This was an official session of Congress, and behavior like this is prohibited by House rules.DCmacnut<> 01:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is prohibited by the house rules it should be mentioned in the article. Can you find a reference? Reliefappearance (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no way to know whether this is WP:RECENT (and thus a WP:BLP violation) right now. When I said that it wasn't properly sourced, I was referring to when people were trying to cite it with the text of a health care bill, using the reference as a "this is why he's wrong" type of thing. Not appropriate for wikipedia. I'm fine leaving it how it is, and I am personally outraged by the remark but that has nothing to do with wikipedia policies. — Mike :  tlk  01:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggest to Protect this page

After what just happened. --VertigoOne (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is imperative to protect the Wiki brand and insure there is proof this man did in fact yell "that's a lie" to a President, while speaking to the congress. I feel it is deplorable... I've done stupid things like this, myself, and the self-regret is probably killing him... or he's loving it, and finally famous, sort of like Dr. Mudd. SO.... I'm suggesting immediate recognition of the yell and the Question of it having been him, but hold off adding it Definitely Was him, till there is reliable triangulation/film/admission-of-guilt-after-a-stint-on-a-waterboard. Even if it was NOT him, this ranks as his moment in history and it is worth noting in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HermanHusband (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A Concern for Recentism

Should we be waiting at least a day or so rather than within the hour to post this info or should we be putting it up immediately? --kizzle (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's correctly cited from a reliable source, then what's the difference?VatoFirme (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, really. If Wikipedia had existed on November 22, 1963, would people really want to wait a couple of weeks to report that the president had been assassinated?Slagathor (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Reporting on an event and including it in an encyclopedia are two vastly different things. --kizzle (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You're joking, right? I defy you to find any human being who agrees with you on that... MAN LANDS ON MOON... oh wait... wikipedia calls that news.Slagathor (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, no I'm not joking. They're two entirely different things. I don't need to find a human being, I just need Wikipedia policy -- Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS. I'm actually of the opinion that this should be included given the subsequent press coverage, but I think my initial concern for recentism considering the cited policy was a valid one. Like I said, though, for a majority of reasons, WP policy is of a different opinion than your claim. --kizzle (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that you are incorrect. This incident clearly exceeds the standards called for in -- Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS.Slagathor (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that if one week from now nobody cares (and none of us can see into the future), it is just the controversy of the evening and not encyclopedia worthy — Mike :  tlk  02:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

nice try, but this is probably the first time in the last 100 years at least that any member of congress has called the President a liar on the floor of the house. It will be remembered forever.Slagathor (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

IF down the line the coverage is excessive, it will be reduced. However, I see this controversy as continuing, and at least the mention of the incident will almost certainly always be notable enough to keep. JEN9841 (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, I just hope it doesn't balloon into a giant section. --kizzle (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is perhaps the most noted thing this congressman has done, in terms of national and international coverage. Thus it should have appropriate coverage in the bio article about him. It should be an important part of the article, but should not dominate the article. It only needs so many words, and it only needs so many references. Edison (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a controversial statement, and controversies get lots of coverage. But, this is a more appropriate gauge.— Mike :  tlk  03:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The first, and many other entries in your preferred "gauge" is about former Ambassador Joe Wilson, the husband of Valerie Plame. Try again. At this early point in coverage of the shout-out, there are 329 Google News entries for ' "Joe Wilson" "you lie" congressman "south carolina" '. The Google News archive does not yet include the shout-out news stories. In Google News Archive, ' "joe wilson" congressman "south carolina" ' gets 1620 news articles, covering his entire career. So early on, his outburst gets 20% as much coverage as his career got up to that point. Edison (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. My point is not that this event is unimportant, but that it's a terrible idea to want to add an event to Wikipedia 12 minutes after it occurred. This virtually ensures that the story will be only partially developed. — Mike :  tlk  03:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, volunteer editors at Wikipedia are able to edit the article and keep it up to date as more sources become available, and we do not have to wait some long period of time until all sources have published all they are going to publish about the subject and the final version is enshrined in the history books, before we cover it in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. See you in six weeks. We'll see if two words define this guy's life in the long term. — Mike :  tlk  07:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

as he is up for re-election, yes, it will be interesting. It will be the entire focus of the campaign.Slagathor (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This question tends to come up with major recent event. To my knowledge, there's no decision. Articles on recent school shootings are sometimes AfD'd and then speedily kept with great furor. A basic argument against immediate updates seems to be that encyclopedias don't do that, but this is clearly unsatisfactory: encyclopedias have generally been on paper, the first thing to go by such a metric would be the "edit this page" button, and if you ask me, discarding content for the sake of gaining prestige is a sure way to lose both. Unfortunately little discussion seems to have taken place just for the sake of wikiphilosophy: it usually happens on article talk pages when the inclusion of something is contested, so it tends to be partisan and loud. I'm up for probing the issue on our user talk pages if you are, but you must know that I'm increasingly erratic in answering. --Kizor 11:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Kizor I agree with you. I think the speed at which Wikipedia aggregates information is one of it's strengths. I just think recentism is a helpful reminder to consider what deserves a page or not, and in this case I do think it deserves a page. --kizzle (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

It is currently against wikipedia policy to have a controversy section in any article. In the past few weeks there has been a concerted effort to eliminate them in high traffic articles. Controversy sections quickly become a coatracks section for highly biased information and NPOV material. Information needs to be weaved into the rest of the body of the article. EricLeFevre (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would you want wikipedia to be like a paper encyclopedia that only contains old information? The beauty of wikipedia is that new things can be added quickly. It's a joke to suggest current things shouldn't be put onto wikipedia pages. 75.87.130.48 (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not what we're saying here. Ten seconds after some story like this breaks, it seems to be the most important thing in the person's life. People jumped on this article immediately after the AP reporter filed with the name of the person who shouted, and it's a fair bet that the majority of them knew nothing about the topic, other than the recent event. There is absolutely no way anyone has a sense for what the proper WP:WEIGHT should be for this subtopic in the long term, especially if the only thing they know about Joe Wilson is this one thing. You may say that we can trim it down over time, but it is against wikipedia policy to give too much weight to a particular view, especially if it is a critical one. Even in the short term, we must adhere to WP:BLP, and that means erring on the side of caution when considering whether it's relevant to add how quickly he left the house chamber, or how long it took for his webpage to crash. — Mike :  tlk  07:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is getting really lame. That's from the Wikipedia to try to become more lame policy that apparently has been recently enacted.Slagathor (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Eric, the section belongs under the section on his term as a member of the US House.Reliefappearance (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you name the policy? I see these sections all the time. Anyway, an easy solution is to title the section "Heckled the President" or some such thing. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed the section title to "Shouting "You lie!" during Obama address" but someone promptly reverted the it to the noninformative "Controversy." Is there a consensus for the more specific title "Shouting 'You lie!' during Obama address?" Edison (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Since "Controversy" is out, why not: "Outburst During Joint Session of Congress." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefinalstep (talk • contribs) 03:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, wait - what policy? There are whole articles dedicated to "controversies," banning the word seems counterproductive. Could you give a link so that we could see what's been banned and when? --Kizor 06:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the Controversy section is not out. We have someone editing the article who is not reading the talk page.Reliefappearance (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The old section heading, (old as in 20 minutes ago) was good. Words like 'outburst', 'conniption' are all POV. The section heading is staying '2009 Presidential Address' though I would prefer just weaving it into the existing section about his current term in Congress.EricLeFevre (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I felt conniption was an amusing term but ultimately has no place in this context.Reliefappearance (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, no one is removing information, it is just a learned experience that controversy sections are a magnet for NPOV material and such. It is not lame, it is just good editing. Go browse various high traffic articles about political figures and you will not find controversy sections anywhere in them.EricLeFevre (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of this policy change. I apologize for my disruptive edits. (And yes I was not keeping up with the talk page.) JEN9841 (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

They were good faith edits, not disruptive. Just a misunderstanding. Reliefappearance (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In the worldwide news sources covering Obama's address and the Wilson input, they have called it "shouting," "an outburst" or "heckling." We might choose one of these as a descriptor in the section, rather than the noninformative and unencyclopedic "controversy." Edison (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You could add that he has been historically called a "wussy" by colleagues next to the apology, which adds to the character of his remarks and quick backtrack.SCGamecock3k (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It should most certainly be "Heckling during Presidential address", now it sounds like he made a Presidential address in the role of President of some institution. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

question

Just a reminder, WP:BLP applies to defamatory comments on the topic's talk page as well as the article. See: Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article_space. — Mike :  tlk  16:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference on House rules

From http://www.rules.house.gov/POP/house_comm_dec.htm, "Decorum in the House and in Committees":

Decorum in the House and in Committees

Under clause 1(a)(1) of Rule XI .... Members should comport themselves with the rules of decorum and debate in the House and in Committees specifically with regard to references to the President of the United States as stated in Section 370 of the House Rules and Manual.
As stated in Cannon’s Precedents, on January 27, 1909, the House adopted a report in response to improper references in debate to the President. That report read in part as follows:
"It is... the duty of the House to require its Members in speech or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will permit the House to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without unnecessarily and unduly exciting animosity among its Members or antagonism from those other branches of the Government with which the House is correlated."
...
Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:

• refer to the government as "something hated, something oppressive."
• refer to the President as "using legislative or judicial pork."
• refer to a Presidential message as a "disgrace to the country."
• refer to unnamed officials as "our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs."

Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:

• call the President a "liar."
• call the President a "hypocrite."

...

Section 370 of Jefferson’s Manual states that the rule in Parliament prohibiting Members from "speak{ing} irreverently or seditiously against the King" has been interpreted to prohibit personal references against the President. In addition, Speakers of the House have consistently reiterated, and the House has voted, to support the proposition that it is not in order in debate to engage in personalities toward the President.

Of course, it would be WP:OR to state that Wilson broke the rule, until and unless the House decides that he did. But it would not be OR to simply say what the rule states. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 04:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It might still be undue weight to mention the decorum rules angle, but it's no longer original research. Washington Post quotes an unnamed congressman speculating that the House rules had been broken by Wilson.[2]

--Alecmconroy (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Numerous pundits online and elsewhere have pointed out that heckling is common in the British House of Commons. It is therefore useful to note for general reference that while loud heckling does indeed occur in that body, an accusation of lying in the way done by Joe Wilson causes a stop in proceedings by the Speaker; the member who made the accusation is immediately asked to withdraw the remark, and if they do not, they are immediately suspended from the Parliament until they agree to apologize.

--Datorarbet (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Can noone read? t says during debate. This was a speech by the president, not debate, and this is why there is some talk about changing the rules.--Die4Dixie (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of vandalism

Just wanted to issue a heads-up that I am reverting several pieces of blatant vandalism ("adickmove," "first class jerk," etc.) and want to declare my belief that these actions fall under exemptions from the three-revert rule. If anyone takes issue, please discuss here. shultzc (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the page is protected from IP and new editors, you should take the time to report vandals to WP:AN/I. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Third sentence under "Presidential address" is sourced to a link of an article by the Washington Examiner describing that Obama's healthcare plan also covers illegal immigrants. There are two problems with this. The first problem is that what is annotated in the Wikipedia page incorrectly quoted Rep. Henry Waxman as stating that illegal immigrants would have coverage under a public plan. This is incorrect--the 'Health Insurance Exchange' was brainstormed to allow those who wanted a private insurance plan to get it by participating in the Exchange in which the government contracts with various private companies to provide services with competitive prices and quality. Under the Exchange, illegal immigrants will have to find and pay for private insurance--just as they have to right now and had to in the past--but they are not given access to a public plan. The second problem is that the Washington Examiner article itself incorrectly analyzed the Exchange plan, as well as the representative who they were quoting. Wilson has already apologized, but still believed Obama is a liar. lol 69.235.161.177 (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Presidential address

Even though I strongly disagree with what this man did. I do not believe this event should be include is his article. It's completely redundant. Anyone can view this story on any news station in the US and UK. I vote for this to be removed from this article. Dumaka (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are joking right? This is incredibly significant as nothing like this has happened during a presidential speech in over 100 years. As far as "Anyone can view this story on any news station in the US and UK," since when is that the deciding factor for information to be included in Wikipedia? Tgpaul58 (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way I wasn't joking. I am completely serious. This should be added to the article of the speech. But if you all want this to remain then, ok. Dumaka (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Rep. Wilson's outburst is now historical fact. It is significant in that he is the first to do what he did. If this wikipedia is to be of any significance in its existence, then it should not delete facts just because the are politically incorrect for some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.74.70 (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Being the first to do something is not an indicator of significance, or for that matter an indicator that content is appropriate for inclusion in a biography of a living person. This is not the Guiness Book of World Records. Please read the specific policy: WP:BLP if you have any question regarding what is appropriate to include in an article of this type, and how much weight is appropirate for criticisms. — Mike :  tlk  14:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that reporting on the incident is a criticism. It's now on the NYTimes front page, so sourcing shouldn't be a concern. And given the NYTimes article (along with a number of others) mention that behavior of this sort is literally without precedent, it would appear to be notable. Regarding BLP or BLP1E, they don't say that negative events can't be included, merely that they shouldn't be given undue weight, and that we shouldn't create an overwhelmingly negative article based on someone who's only known for one thing. Given that presidential address part is merely a subsection of an article on a sitting congressman, I don't see a problem. --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

While his comment was accurate, it was made at such a poor choice of locations and times that it will be a, if not the, defining moment of his career. Honestly, outside of people in/from SC, how many people knew of this Congressman before last night, compared to how many know him today?68.36.51.89 (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean third and final defining moment of his career - this is his third outbust of this nature [3] is the 2002 episode, another occurred in 2003, although the 2009 violation of house and republican caucus rules is the most publicized. Emotions are running high, but that doesn't excuse the outburst. Watchpup (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What he did is not new to U.S. history. So please, Dems, tone down the hyperbole. Did you even hear of the treatment given the great Republican Charles Sumner, getting almost beat to death on the floor by a slimy Dem? Or slimy Dems booing Bush during his speeches??? It is a small incident that will fade into history. Also, there are arguments to be made that illegal immigrants might be covered by the House bill. Obama does not have a bill. Also, this may or may not be the defining moment of Wilson's career. Try to provide some kind of balance, please.--InaMaka (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please avoid the personal attacks? Dumaka (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Also, we're here to build an encyclopedia, not attempt validation of "they did it to!" by referring to other subjects. Tone down the hostility, please. --kizzle (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

References please, for any incident in which Democrats yelled at Bush like this when he was addressing a joint session. If you can't provide such a reference, we can conclude it did not happen. Edison (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If you actually consider wikipedia to be a "real" encyclopedia, you should probably reconsider the definition of encyclopedia that you're using. It isn't. It's not even remotely reliable on anything, and no one outside of its editorial circles considers it to be in any way legitimate. And I love wikipedia. And I'm being generous.Slagathor (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to add to this particular discussion? --kizzle (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Bloat

I think most of us were of the consensus to include what Wilson said, at what point in the speech he said it, his apology, and maybe a John McCain mention in there. Can we all agree that the debate over whether or not the bill allows illegal immigrants to be covered should be covered on the bill's page, not Wilson's? --kizzle (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kizzle. We should remove the two paragraphs discussing the congressional research service, factcheck.org, the truth squad, etc. Pdcook (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is bloat. I only added the Congressional Research Service information because someone wanted to add all of the so-called "fact check" pieces that are really just opinion pieces wrapped up as authority. Also, what gives a flying flip how much money the unknown opponent raised last night. That guy is a complete nobody who is going to get beat next November. Also, the amount of money raised in one night is NO indication of that nobody's popularity or ability to win. Is that nobody even deserving of a Wikipedia article?? I don't think so.--InaMaka (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

From the tone of your post, I'd probably find it futile to debate the matter, but there is no "flying flip" guideline for Wikipedia, only notability. As it stands now, Miller has raised over $150,000 within 24 hours of Wilson's remark. This fact is documented by the Wall Street Journal [4], Huffington Post, CNN Political Ticker, and Politico to name a few others. I think it's safe to say that it has some notability. Whether or not "that guy is a complete nobody" is also not criteria for inclusion, nor is an assessment of the efficacy of fund-raising in winning an election. --kizzle (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I more or less agree with kizzle, but what I'd really like to find (if it hasn't been found) is an article comparing the amount donated versus his previous total. While the facts on the web say that its doubled the opponents take, it'd be a SYNTH violation for us to string them together ourselves. Has a RS tried to put the amount donated in context? Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but the amount stated is taken straight from a reputable source so IMHO we're not stringing anything together, we're merely citing and attributing. --kizzle (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not an opinion or a debate. It either does or doesn't cover them, and the reader expects a factual answer from a reliable source like politifact or factcheck. Gamaliel (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Stuff like this is bloat too. "According to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Wilson's Democratic opponent, Rob Miller, received roughly $100,000 in campaign contributions in the 8 hours following the presidential address.[18]" It should be removed as it does not pertain directly to this person's bio. It is a decent contribution for other articles/sections, just not where it is now. It should be in an article about the upcoming 2010 election in his district. 173.30.135.162 (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally disagree but it's a fair argument. What do others think? --kizzle (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's been reverted already. (I'm the one who initally added it), and I'm fine with the reversion, since it does probably belong in an election section. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

We should just stick with the current version, there is no space here to place the reaction of every single politician to this event. I think a description of what happened, the reaction from John Mccain on Larry King Live, and maybe a reaction from a Democrat on a non partisan news show (not Rachel Maddoww Show). Plug into Wilson's apology and that should be good. EricLeFevre (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Miller got 46% of the vote last time, and is expected to be Wilson's opponent next year. A massive boost in his funding (now exceeding total funding of his previous campaign) in response to remarks by Wilson is certainly relevant here. Rd232 ^talk 14:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur. The large number of contributors serve in a sense as a public referendum on Wilson's actions; this has led to considerable coverage. This is notable and relevant. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And yet people keep removing it, [5] along with the note on campaign contributions I added [6]. Rd232 ^talk 15:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Using the restraint called for in WP:BLP, perhaps it would be prudent to just file the sources for now, and wait until it's clearer from multiple RSs how much has been injected into both Mr. Wilson's and Mr. Miller's campaign as a direct outgrowth of the massive national attention received from the outburst. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP is not an excuse to remove valid content. Numbers can be added/updated later. Rd232 ^talk 17:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Contents of bills that prompted Wilson's "You lie" statement

I've added information from Time Magazine on the actual contents of the bills that prompted Wilson's "You lie" statement. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that getting anywhere near whether or not the bill actually helps illegal immigrants doesn't belong on Wilson's bio page... why not put the material on the HR3200 page itself, as I'm looking at it right now and it has no mention. Maybe someone needs to put it up? --kizzle (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It does belong here. I came to this Wikipedia page looking for the substance of Wilson's comments and found the article focused simply on the tone used to deliver his viewpoint. I then looked to see whether reliable sources were covering Wilson's comments by looking at the substance of them, and saw that reliable sources like Time magazine are, so I've added it to the article. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the contents of the bill and do not reside in the United States. However, from an outsider's perspective, the issue of whether or not Congressman Wilson's allegation is based in fact is rather notable in the context of the outburst and the allegation itself. If a portion of the relevant bill(s) can be found that either supports Wilson's assertion or undermines it, a reference to them seems very appropriate, and perhaps crucial, in order to provide essential context for readers to assess Wilson's allegation. DavidGC (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is going to open a can of worms as both sides are going to start putting in what they believe is true until it takes over this article. At most, I'd be for a sentence on each side and a link to the bill's entry in Wikipedia.--kizzle (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Provided that each of those positions would be supported by references to specific portions of the actual bill(s), I think that sort of an addition would be a good improvement on this portion of the article. DavidGC (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the Time article I used as a source by the way, it does reference the specific bills. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I added a single sentence sourced to a reliable source (Time Magazine). If there is a reliable source that contradicts Time, then we could add that and have two sentences. I am not worried that one or two sentences that are reliably sourced is going to "take over this article." If we did somehow end up with a larger, reliably-sourced section on this topic, we could always knock it back to one or two sentences and then move the rest to another article like Illegal Immigrant coverage in Obama health care plan. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Put it this way. I agree with you. I think it enhances the article. Let's just see what happens. :) --kizzle (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A few points:

1) This isn't FactCheck.org. It's setting a dangerous precedent to allow people to "debunk" controversial statements within biographies. Assume for a moment that this is a controversial and/or complicated issue, and that WP:NPOV would require us to present all major points of view with equal weight. For example, let's pretend for a second that this was about "death panels" and not immigration. We'd have people wanting to point out that "there is no death panel", and then others would say "there are doctor incentives for end-of-life care discussions", and then "too many people in hospitals will inevitably lead to care rationing", etc.. etc... Pretty soon the coverage of the various back-and-forth facts dwarfs the controverial event its self, and then the article doesn't even remotely resemble a biography about Joe Wilson.f

2) The controversy, and the reason this is worth including at all was the fact that he shouted "you lie", not his view on whether legislation provides free health care for illegal immigrants. If he had expressed his view via TV interview following the speech, it would have recieved little or no attention here. This is how you know that it's about the outburst its self, and not the reasoning behind it, and whether it's right or wrong. — Mike :  tlk  16:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

1) OK, let's look at "death panels." The Sarah Palin article deals with "death panels" in exactly the brief, reliably sourced way that I am describing. "Palin said that Obama’s plans for health care reform include a “death panel” and are “downright evil.” Although Palin's 'death panel' charge was widely discredited as inaccurate, The Atlantic recognized its political effectiveness." These two sentences are supported by six sources. 2) Your assessment that that the contents of the bills that prompted Wilson's "You lie" statement are unimportant is contradicted by reliable sources like Time magazine. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree. A wikilink to an article on the bill or the controversy regarding it should be sufficient. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mike. I would be fine with one sentence on each side and a link to where the actual debate would be, just for utilitarian concerns to redirect the controversy where it truly belongs, but I do think Mike is right in this case. --kizzle (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sharksaredangerous, you're wrong.. about several things. First, the fact that Time, or any other publication chose to include a "fact check" of the bill does not justify its inclusion in the article. I would think that this is common sense, since we are aiming to devote rougly a paragraph to the event, and they are writing an entire article on it. Second, Sarah Palin pretty much coined the term "death panels", so the issue is relevant to her biography. Third I'm sure you can see that the article documenting her life is more than an order of magnitude longer than this one, meaning that the relative weight of one paragraph there is much smaller than one paragraph here. Fourth, there is virtually no coverage of Joe Wilson's view on health coverage of illegal immigrants from before last night. None of the people trying to add the information now, considered it important enough to add before the "outburst". Why are they now so adamant about its inclusion? Because of the way he expressed his view. THAT is the issue here.

Lastly, on the off chance that you are considering accusing me of political bias, I am a die hard liberal democrat. However, I make a concerted effort not to drag my own bias onto a neutral point of view encyclopedia. — Mike :  tlk  16:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion that I would make a personal accusation about you is an insulting failure on your part to assume good faith. You should comment on content, not contributors, and you should especially not comment on accusations that you imagine contributors might possibly make in the future. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he meant it in a friendly way by saying he wasn't trying to push his own personal POV into the article. --kizzle (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what motivates MichaelLNorth and believe this talk page is for discussing article content rather than speculating about contributor's motivations. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A few things. The HR3200 section already has a list of controversies, so if we were going to create a section, it would probably end up there. Second, at the end of the day, is the viewer serviced by including the information or not? I see both sides on this are equally viable in my mind. On one hand, this is a page about Joe Wilson, not about the debate over HR3200 and illegal immigrants. On the other, I can't see how adding two brief sentences, one for each side, along with a link to where the actual controversy would hurt the article. There would be a potential for bloat as I had mentioned before, but I'm sure this page is getting inundated with traffic and many of them are coming to find out more about why he said what he said. I just personally think that while we need to remember this is a page about Joe Wilson and not the debate, it will enhance the reader's experience if we leave a small indication of what the debate he was referring to that made him call the President a "liar" and then redirect them to the appropriate place to discuss the matter in detail. Just my two cents. --kizzle (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that what Wilson notable with regard to the health care issue is the outburst during a Presidential address. That's what's drawing media attention. One problem with trying to squeeze in a debate about what's "true" about proposed bills is I haven't seen an articulation Wilson about why he's calling it a lie (and even if did, it's not what he's gaining notoriety). For instance, the Time article notes that seeks to give subsidies to illegal immigrants if it specifically prohibits such subsidies but doesn't adopt the specific enforcement provision a given Republican favors. But we don't whether that's Wilson rationale. So I think it would be better to simply link to an immigrant section of a relevant article on the health care debate. And I think an article titled "Illegal Immigrant coverage in Obama health care plan" (mentioned above) would be highly POV and deceptive. Lots of people reading that title would read an implication that there is coverage for illegal immigrants. --JamesAM (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The argument is one that a completely reasonable person is capable of having (I don't share the view, but I know what it is). Wilson's position is that checking for citizenship is not properly enforced, meaning it would be easy for an illegal immigrant to wrongly receive health care intended for citizens only. — Mike :  tlk  17:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

JamesAM writes "we don't [know] whether that's Wilson rationale", but MichaelLNorth writes "Wilson's position is that checking for citizenship is not properly enforced". Neither of you have cited any sources, where I am citing a reliable news magazine (Time). I strongly encourage us to base this article on what reliable sources like Time Magazine say rather than just the unattributed points of view of wikipedia contributors. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, it's not my point of view, it's a talking point for opponents of health care reform. My comment is not in the article, so I don't have to source a thing, and finally as I have described in detail above, it's irrelevant what his view is in the context of the "Shouted" subsection of the article. If he had shouted "you lie" at President Obama arguing that pickles are the most American of all hamburger condiments, it would have scrutinized similarly. — Mike :  tlk  18:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's relish, you commie bastard. ;) --kizzle (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that you "don't have to source a thing." This isn't a discussion forum where you just post your personal beliefs; this is the talk page of an encyclopedia article that requires reliable sources. Talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages. We need reliable sources to improve this article, things like the Time Magazine information on the bills that others agree ought to be in the article. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the number of people brought to this article due to the recent news, perhaps it would be useful to add the following to the article's "See Also" section:

• America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

--4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Heya. I understand you are all having a large debate as to whether his statement was factual or not. Its quite out of hand. It is not appropriate in the context to cite sources disagreeing with the 'You Lie' comment without also citing sources which equivocate with the comment. Both or none. Until Both, none.Yeago (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Although it would be better in the H.R. 3200 article instead. HKT^Talk 00:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• Section 242 of the bill excludes in principle illegal immigrants from individual affordability credit coverage. Illegal immigrants aren't excluded from other coverage (such as the health insurance exchange - see section 202 of the bill).
• House Republicans have repeatedly introduced amendments that would mandate enforcement of section 242's exclusion of affordability credit coverage. Those amendments have been struck down. House Republicans contend that there is nothing in the bill that would in practice exclude illegal immigrants from eligibility for affordability credits.
• House Democrats say that Medicare and Medicaid already require documentation of legal status, and that would keep illegal immigrants from getting section 242 coverage. However...
• The US Dept. of HHS and the GAO have found that states routinely misappropriate Medicaid funds for illegal immigrants.

In sum, it is quite an oversimplification to add that little note in the article in a manner that suggests that Rep. Wilson was flat out wrong on the substance of his complaint. The issue of whether illegal immigrants are covered or not should be in the HR 3200 article. HKT^Talk 00:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Time and Factcheck.org, both non-partisan sources agree that Wilson's statement is false. I don't see why we shouldn't be clear that non-partisan sources say so. At this point the only groups claiming otherwise are some Republicans (not all) and certain anti-immigration groups. At minimum, not making it clear that CNN Truth Squad, PolitiFact, factcheck.org, TIME, etc. all agree his statement is wrong is a violation of NPOV by omission. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How about NPR? [7]. HKT^Talk 01:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting although they clearly use very narrow careful language saying that they "have some ammunition for their charge that illegal aliens would be able to participate" which is a much more narrow claim. And certainly is very different than saying that Obama lied. I'd have no problem including the NPR analysis along with the others. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point I think people interested in the details should focus on adding a relevant section to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. That would then give something to link to, and once it's hashed out a bit, a one or two-sentence summary might work here. Rd232 ^talk 13:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Subheading title

Currently the title "presidential address" is used. I'm suggesting maybe a change to "controversy" would make a better subheading title.  Burningview  ✉ 16:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Boldly done, since "Presidential address" doesn't really provide any insight into what the section might be talking about. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Presidential address controversy" also works:)  Burningview  ✉ 16:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy" sections are very much discouraged in biographies of living persons. See: WP:COATRACK for reasoning. A specific and objective title like "Outburst at the presidential xyz" is what the policy reccomends. — Mike :  tlk  16:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I was initially thinking that, but outburst seemed a bit NPOV to me. But if anyone comes up with better wording, please change it. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Changed to "Shouting during 2009 Presidential address" per Mike's comments. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the title, and if anyone could sum it up in better words please do so.  Burningview  ✉ 16:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a proper section title. Thanks! — Mike :  tlk  17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I misread the consensus here and changed "Shouting" to "outburst" I will correct that asap. EricLeFevre (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouting vs Outburst

• Outburst - Shouting implies a longer occurrence [duration] than Outburst. Outburst also implies an emotional eruption of the moment (which concurs with the wording of the apology). I preemptively disagree there is anything POV about the word "outburst" given the givens. I could go on, but that's enough for now. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Outburst I agree, but I think some people will dispute "Outburst" to have a different meaning, and I think it can be disputed by some to to border on the NPOV.  Burningview  ✉ 22:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to reflect consensus for now  Burningview  ✉ 22:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

consideration

An incensed White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel went up to GOP Reps. Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Paul Ryan (Wis.) to complain about the outburst. "No president has ever had that happen," Emanuel said. "My advice is he apologize immediately. You know my number."

Washington Post

Wilson speaks

Just for consideration, not suggesting we include it. --kizzle (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Also:

On the Internet, where speculation runs rife, tweeters pointed to a comment Wilson posted on Labor Day as evidence that his outburst was planned:

"Happy Labor Day! Wonderful parade at Chapin, many people called out to oppose Obamacare which I assured them would be relayed tomorrow to DC," the tweet from Wilson's account said.

- CNN [8]

--kizzle (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The "in a historic breach of decorum" seems a little WP:CRYSTALBALL to me, especially since none of the three sources mention the historical significance of the event, or even if there is any precedent. Also, WP:COATRACK is an essay, not Wiki policy or guideline. Copana2002 (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I too found that "historic" phrase odd and not appropriate for something less than 24 hours old. I've changed it to "unusual" as a more neutral term, or until someone can quote a reliable source with some weight, as to whether this is in any way historic. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I removed "Unprecedented" as it was the opinion of the House Majority Leader and not neccessarily a fact. I think simply stating that it was a breach of decorum is sufficient without adding an adjective to rate it. Arzel (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The way this article reads it implies that Representative Wilson apologized because Senator McCain asked him to. While this may have been the brokered deal, I think it is our duty to cite reliable sources that "show" all possible courses of event. ie: Emanuel pressured the Republicans, and Senator McCain offered to mediate. Reliefappearance (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that say definitively how things went down, or do we just have the phrasing and spin of various accounts to read into? Last I heard (and the story is obviously still developing), Rahm Emmanuel made a beeline for where Wilson had been sitting and said something like "He should apologize, you guys know my number". Later on, McCain does his thing on Larry King, and then the apology comes out. There's no clear case of any "brokered deal". — Mike :  tlk  21:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

An incensed White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel went up to GOP Reps. Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Paul Ryan (Wis.) to complain about the outburst. "No president has ever had that happen," Emanuel said. "My advice is he apologize immediately. You know my number." - Dana Milbank, Washington Post. I don't think this counts as a brokered deal, but I leave it up to you guys whether it's fit for inclusion. I could see either way. --kizzle (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So should include both items? The Emanuel news item and the McCain statement? Or should we omit both until a cohesive story develops? Reliefappearance (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I still think we have a WP:SYNTH problem here. People will read this and assume that Wilson apologized because McCain demanded that he do, yet our understanding of the situation is ambiguous at best. Although one could argue we make no mention of what happened, just posted 2 facts. Which is why I think the inclusion of the Emanuel comment to Blunt, and Ryan should be included. It warrants discussion, anyway.Reliefappearance (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm...

"According to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Wilson's Democratic opponent, Rob Miller, received roughly $200,000 in campaign contributions from 5,000 different contributors within 24 hours of the presidential address.[19]"

It hasn't been 24 hours since the President's address.  ???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.76.247 (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If the total is more at the expireation of 24 hours, then that can be changed. Note that 12 hours is "within 24 hours." Edison (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Donations of Opponent

The amount of donations to his opponent in the next election is not relevant to Joe Wilson. Perhaps within the 2010 election section of his oppoenent, perhaps a mention in Wilson's 2010 section after due time. The section already reeks of recentism, there is no point in making it worse. Arzel (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My two cents - I think the sheer amount of money raised in such a short period of time that is directly related to the incident is noteworthy. Miller's ActBlue page is currently at $340,000 when it was in the 50's last night. That's pretty noteworthy IMHO and is directly related to the content on this page. --kizzle (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am going to echo Arzel here. Political donations to someone's opponent, regardless of the amount or duration is pretty irrelevant to a biography. Take Barack Obama's bio page. There is no mention of donations there, but there is on the page his election. We are not saying that it is useless, trivial information. On the contrary, what we are saying is that it does not belong on this page. You are more than welcome to add that information on the page describing the upcoming election in his district, or on the bio page of his opponent. However on this page, that information just constitutes bloat. EricLeFevre (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The last campaign saw Wilson's opponent, Rob Miller, collecting about $600,000 in donations during the entire 2008 campaign season. Miller just got one-third of that amount in a single night. It's incredibly relevant to the SC-2nd's 2010 election, which is suddenly a national spotlight issue, rather than just another small local congressional election. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying that it is not relevant information. We are saying that it does not belong on this page. You are correct, it is incredibly relevant to the 2010 election in his district. EricLeFevre (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Insofar as Wilson is the incumbent candidate for the 2010 SC-2nd, it's hard to make an argument that anything incredibly relevant to the election isn't also relevant to Joe Wilson or Rob Miller. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Second'd. There is a media frenzy over this, and much of it that goes beyond the initial significant event will likely be forgotten. Certain sub-topics of this controversy are a no-brainer to leave out (i.e., "elapsed time before his website crashed" or "how fast did he leave the house chamber at the end of the speech") This one is not quite as clear cut, but if we were to err on the side of bloat-prevention, perhaps it's best to leave out — Mike :  tlk  18:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I fervently disagree. The fact was included in the Christian Science Monitor, CNN, AP, and many many other mainstream sources. Campaign balance sheets are typically not worthy of inclusion in biography articles, but we're not documenting the history of his campaign contributions. If he had received $300,000 before yesterday and gotten $20,000 in donations since the remark bringing it to a total of $320,000, I would say it's not notable. But his remarks had a significant effect in that he just became his opponent's biggest fund-raiser. ActBlue is currently at over $350,000 and it hasn't even been 24 hours yet. The consequences of Wilson's actions are directly related to the incident on his bio page and help the reader understand the fallout of his remark, plain and simple. --kizzle (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Kizzle is correct. The freshet of donations demonstrates vividly the consequences of Wilson's outburst in real time. The media has gone into a feeding frenzy, but that shouldn't prevent this entry noting the fallout from the event: most clearly demonstrated in a single figure, the amount raised overnight by an opponent. This is *highly* unusual and should be noted in the bio, along with McCain's comments, and Obama's acceptance of the apology. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Concurred. This is currently the major locus of discussion for the incident Joe Wilson was a part of, and covering the surge in donations to his congressional opponent is one piece in that story.

Eventually, the incident may take on a life of its own and merit its own sub-article which is summarized on Joe Wilson's page and linked to, but I think that a whole article just on the incident might be undue weight at the this time. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is going to be a reference to his opponents contributions, then there should be a reference to the fact that Wilson's website has been overwhelmed with traffic and been unable to gain access. I'm sure this will result in massive contributions to his campaign as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.213.224.54 (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.213.224.36 (talk)

Agreed. Trust me, Joe Wilson is probably getting a lot of money as well, and would receive more if he didn't apologize at all.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 19:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If he got a huge spike in donations and it's part of a mainstream media story, then absolutely, that's relevant to. The website going down isn't, by itself, that clear-cut. How many visitors did it take to bring it down, how long was it down, was it a software problem, hacker attack, or just too much traffic. And most importantly, where people coming to his website to complain, support, or donate. All of the above, I'm sure, but I think if any news organization finds out Wilson had a similarly-sized spike in donations, that would definitely be notable also. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

HELLO? The article is about Joe Wilson, not the other guy. Whatever MIGHT have happened with the other guy is not relevant to this article. If it is relevant then take it to the other guy's article. However, the other guy has not accomplished anything to even warrant a Wikipedia article. I think it is time to question why the other guy even has an article. He is a total nobody. I'm not even sure anyone even knows his name. But at any rate, take the actblue and DNC comments over to that article and try to pitch that propaganda over there--where it MIGHT belong.--InaMaka (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please dial down the antagonism. Notability has been demonstrated already by the plethora of mainstream sources. --kizzle (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources disagree with your personal opinions on the relative importance of these facts. I will reiterate what others have written above suggesting that you tone down the hostility and personal attacks. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Look I just stated exactly what someone stated about Joe Wilson. Someone above stated that no one had heard of Joe Wilson until last night. I'm making the point that if Joe Wilson is not notable then his opponent is even less notable. Also, I have not personally attacked anyone. Please name who I have personally attacked. If you can't name who I personally attacked then you need to stop immediately making that claim, Shark. Also, kizzle, let me point out that notability has not been established yet because it has not been thoroughly questioned. But when I find the time I WILL question his notability. This issue is raised each and every election year on Wikipedia. Someone new comes along and if the guy is a Dem then the Rep question whether he/she meets notability and vice versa. Please see notability debates about current Congressman Pete Olson, for example. You can review the enlightening debate here: [9] In hindsight, it is very, very clear that the Dems who attempted to have the article removed for notability reason were flat out wrong. The Dems tried to have his article removed before the election because they believed, incorrectly I might add, that he did not meet notability. The battle cry was, "He is a nobody until he wins." I am going to make the same argument against the other guy here. It is part of Wikipedia and no amount of your telling me I wrong changes that. So please tone down the know-it-all attitude, which is what you have when you tell me to tone it down. And please tone yourself down.--InaMaka (talk)

Not having been involved in any of the previous notability debates, the notability or lack thereof of Wilson's opponent is something to discuss on that person's bio page. What's at question here is whether the recent controversy is relevant to Wilson (it is, as shown by sources), and whether the huge donation spike to Wilson's 2010 opponent is relevant. (it is).

You seem to be misunderstanding Wikipedia policy. The threshold of notability is not established whether or not it has been "thoroughly questioned." According to WP:NOTABILITY, the threshold of notability is met if an incident has received "significant coverage" from sources that meet WP:RS. From the avalanche of results of mainstream news outlets on a quick Google search, I think it's safe to say the event received "significant coverage." Also, your position is intriguing. You're, in effect, saying that because "The Dems" tried to have an article removed before the election of a Congressman (a practice which you seem to disagree with), you're going to try to do the same thing here even though you don't think it's right as some sort of "tit-for-tat". That's not how Wikipedia works. Just because you received a battle wound from another page doesn't mean you should take that into the discussion on this page. As for "Please tone down the know-it-all attitude," that sounds extremely close to a violation of WP:AGF. --kizzle (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlike kizzle, I was involved in the previous notability debate. In the AfD cited by InaMaka, I !voted for "Keep" -- and I'm a Democrat. So, InaMaka, please don't try to paint it as some partisan subterfuge. Furthermore, the result of that AfD was that the article on Olson stayed, even though he was only a candidate and had never been elected to anything. That's hardly a basis for you to turn around and seek deletion of an article about a Democrat just because you got your nose out of joint that anyone would even dare to question the notability of Pete Olson. On the larger issue, of course the spike in donations is worth a mention. For a comparable incident, see Michele Bachmann#Reaction. JamesMLane t c 00:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone who really thinks that the spike in donations to Wilson's opponent isn't because of Wilson's actions in the last 24 hours???? It's a part of the story, and for better or for worse, the story does exist, and, as of this moment, this is the page on which to document it. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your personal POV about such things as "slimy Dems "[10]and "Rhambo BS"[11] are inappropriate for helping build an encyclopedia. Again, I will reiterate what others have written above suggesting that you tone it down. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Shark, let me help you out, you seem confused. I did make those comments about public figures. I did NOT personally attack any other Wikipedian. So you need to get your understanding of Wikipedian rules straight and I would suggest that you read NY Times vs. Sullivan. I have a First Amendment right to call Rhambo's comments what they are.--InaMaka (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read the First Amendment. The First Amendment doesn't apply to Wikipedia. You can call the comments what you wish, but not necessarily here. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Shark, once again, the sources you are referring to seem to provide media coverage of the issue its self, not a commentary on the relative importance of various nuances involved. It seems that you may be looking at a magazine or newspaper article, seeing the weight that they devote to various sub-topics of this controversy, and then coming here to say that their weight distribution dictates that we should cover those same things. Is this accurate? I don't know any other way to understand this statement of yours

Reliable sources disagree with your personal opinions on the relative importance of these facts.

Perhaps you could explain exactly how you feel these sources comment in any way on the relative importance of various nuances of this event, using excerpts to provide examples. — Mike :  tlk  19:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

When reliable sources like Time Magazine provide context on the contents of the bills that prompted Wilson's "You lie" statement, that means reliable sources believe it is important to provide context on the contents of the bills that prompted Wilson's "You lie" statement. I understand that you personally feel that the contents of the bills are unimportant in this context, but reliable sources disagree with you. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

kizzle, How about simply mentioning this in an enumeration of the repercussions of his remark. For example

"Wilson's remark incited swift criticism, including a demand for an immediate apology from John McCain, a strong and swift surge in campaign contributions for Rob Miller, his likely opponent in the 2010 South Carolina congressional elections, and xyz."

This treats the details as details and is resistant to bloat. — Mike :  tlk  20:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike...first of all I just want to say thanks for being civil and levelheaded about this even if we don't agree on some things. I'm looking at ActBlue and it's now up to $560,000. I heard he raised $600,000 total last time around. So in two words, Wilson helps raise as much money for his opponent in 24 hours as was spent by his opponent in the entire campaign cycle last time. Allocating one simple sentence to me rather than a passing independent clause seems like it's worth it. Either that or to put in the specifics, like $600,000 between 15,000+ contributors (if it gets that high) which is more than his opponent spent in all of the last campaign cycle. --kizzle (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being civil as well Kizzle. It's quite easy to distinguish who is truly interested in developing and refining the article, and you clearly fit into this category. I have no problem with quoting a specific amount, providing it is in an enumerated list as described above. The reason I'm pushing for this format is because it's not as tempting to tack on facts and other commentary regarding each reaction to his outburst.— Mike :  tlk  00:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. How about this phrasing?

"Wilson's remark incited swift criticism, including a demand for an immediate apology from John McCain, over $XXX,XXX raised between XX,XXX+ contributors within 24 hours of the speech for Rob Miller, his likely opponent in the 2010 South Carolina congressional elections, and xyz."

But the only thing is I can't figure out how to also put in that this amount is almost as much as his entire campaign cycle last time, which is the reason why IMHO this is so notable. Care to take a crack at it? --kizzle (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You probably should just find a media source which discusses the spike in donations. It will be much easier on you, and it won't be subject to removal by anyone on grounds of original research and synthesis.Yeago (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We have that already, I believe, using CNN's figure of $200,000 from this morning. We could also use a direct link to the ActBlue, which is the organization that is taking in the donations and has real-time reporting of the numbers. --kizzle (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue there is that ActBlue, while probably accurate, isn't really a non-partisan source. While I trust the numbers there, I'd be much happier if the AP/NYtimes has an article that put the recent donations in perspective. (I think I mentioned this when I first inserted the donations to Miller into this article). --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and its synthesis to connect the figures with the event. Let CNN do it.Yeago (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

CNN makes the connection explicitly here. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And apparently that's been removed now even though it is now up to 700,000 and CNN and other sources explicitly connect it to Wilson's comment. Does anyone at this point seriously think that the spike shouldn't mentioned? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the recent edit summary "Please refer to the talk page before adding material that has been removed multiple times", I think people seem to be objecting out of inertia. Gamaliel (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. Should it may be revered then with something like "See talk"? (Incidentally, here's another source that makes the connection, this one an entire article focusing on what the comment has done for Rob Miller- [12]). JoshuaZ (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the consequences of the outburst are relevant. However, using the restraint called for in WP:BLP, perhaps it would be prudent to just file the sources for now, and wait until it's clearer from multiple RSs how much has been injected into both Mr. Wilson's and Mr. Miller's campaign as a direct outgrowth of the massive national attention received from the outburst. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Kizzle - I still have concerns about people wanting to tack on details that are not significant enough, from a historical perspective, to include in the article. Wilson has experienced a sharp and strong increase in financial support from the far right, so we are obligated to include that if we talk about his opponent's funding. I'm sure people will then want to document where the funding is coming from on both sides (pro-life extremists, Freedomworks, and others), how quickly it came in, and a plethora of other details that will be completely forgotten six weeks from now, and possibly never reported on again. Bloat city. If we continue on this course, this subsection of the article will dwarf everything else. — Mike :  tlk  16:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear: on current event articles BLOAT IS GOOD: it enables information to be collected while minimising conflict. Once the storm subsides, it then gets edited down or summarised, often very radically. That's fine and as it should be: precisely because we don't know what will be more useful further down the line. So instead of second-guessing or not contributing information, we add too much, then simmer, then reduce (like a sauce, if you will). Rd232 ^talk 17:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure how we're going to move forward when your argument is built on assertions of obviousness and "BLOAT IS GOOD". This is not a "current event article", it is a biography. You're essentially saying WP:BOLD, but that doesn't give us license to pile as much junk into the article as we can find and deem to be sourced properly, and then hope in the future to be able to whittle it down. The section is already bloated, and people are lobbying to add more insignificant details like how quickly his webserver went down, or how long it took him to call Rahm Emmanuel. Nobody will care two weeks from now, let alone beyond that, and that doesn't mean add now and delete later. — Mike :  tlk  17:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's built on sources, not an assertion of obviousness. And there are details and there are details - "bloat is good" doesn't mean we should add every trivial detail, it means add everything that at least a couple of people consider important (if it's sourced and done in an NPOV way - we're talking purely about excess of info here), and sort it out later. Rd232 ^talk 17:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wilson has apparently raised some $200,000 since the remark which has been explicitly compared by CNN to what Miller has raised. See this article. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Comments"?

Mr. Wilson's written apology for his outburst on September 9, 2009, includes, "my comments were inappropriate and regrettable." Did he actually say anything beyond the single "comment", "You lie!" (if so, what?), or did the Congressman simply err in writing the plural in his apology? Firstorm (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A thought: the version I just read, included the line "Obama also accepted Wison's apology". I suggest that "also" be removed. Who else accepted it?

Gibbs stated that Emanuel accepted the apology on behalf the the President. So President Obama "also" accepting it I suppose makes sense? Not a big issue for me. 67.248.232.224 (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jhlister (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The fuss is cultural. In some countries, it is acceptable to yell and push other politicians in the parliamentary chamber. In the UK, it is acceptable to jeer in unison when the Prime Minister has his question session. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The "fuss" may be cultural, but we are speaking of US culture after all, not the UK. Also, in the UK, parliamentary procedure forbids someone from accusing anyone of lying, no matter how much they might jeer or shout. Krforce (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Me: Hear, hear, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaye, hear, hear
Wikipedia sargeant at arms: Eject this person, this is not U.S. culture. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Shut up and take your trolling elsewhereYeago (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Suomi makes a valid point, outside the US this comes off rather silly. A Tempest in a teapot if you will. L0b0t (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cultural norms are not directly comparative. I'm sure there are customs in other countries that seem silly to us in the States but are important to them, so by logical extension do we ignore those customs because they aren't notable outside their country? --kizzle (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Congressman Wilson's house.gov website taken down

Congressman Wilson's house.gov website is now inaccessible:

http://www.joewilson.house.gov/

Repeated refresh/F5 will cause connection denial (a "Forbidden" message from house.gov)

Other congressmen's webside on house.gov are accessible and have no access restriction:

http://aderholt.house.gov/index.html

Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you want to include in some article on internet bandwidth??? Not sure what your point is here. Reliefappearance (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he was trying to say that it was taken down intentionally. He actually hit upon something that several sources have commented on but attributed it to load instead. DNS yada yada, servers, blah blah. Sources saying the traffic brought down his site is certainly interesting for a quick line regarding the buzz.Cptnono (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am skeptical. I sincerely doubt that Wilson independently hosts house.gov (and therefore has access to do a takedown similar to that described), but I could be wrong.Yeago (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I spoke with a Democrat collegue of Wilson from SC´s office to see if I could get an email address. The nice young lady said she couldn´t find one and said that she understood that it was intentionally down, but that he would have to get it up in a few days. When I told her it was because I needed to know where to send my campaign donation, she was less helpful. I called the RNC and they sent me to a web site that was up and I was able to make my 100 dlr donation no problem. They also said there was some money flowing into Wilson´s coffers too. I have´nt been to verify it yet.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

John McCain's quote

I've reduced McCain's prominence in the condemnation as several members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and, of course, some politicians in South Carolina have weighed in on the matter. Overall, I still don't like the emphasis given to McCain's quote - I'd rather see it in a quote template somewhere than imbedded in a paragraph especially since, as provided, it isn't justified in its particular importance while in reality, its importance is mainly just that McCain was the first to the microphone. --Forgottenlord (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this places undue weight on John McCain's view. We could just write that "Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle condemned the outburst and said he should apologize." Or "Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle including senators A. B, C and D condemned the outburst and said he should apologize." Then McCain's quote can be in references. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. I think Obama's focus on McCain in the speech also contributed to this. If we can find a RS that says McCain had some actual involvement in Joe Wilson issuing the apology, it should be included, but as it is now I think we should include Emanuel's statement in the chamber to Blunt and Ryan instead or alongside McCain's statement on Larry King.Reliefappearance (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Time Magazine's 2-minute bio on Rep. Joe Wilson

See the lead of 2-MIN. BIO Rep. Joe Wilson, Presidential Heckler for a good brief summary of last night's incident appropriate for a biographical article. It hits the main points: "Rep. Joe Wilson broke the chamber's strict etiquette by yelling out "You lie!" after the President (accurately) noted that his proposed health care benefits would not extend to illegal immigrants. ... At the GOP leadership's behest, Wilson called the White House that night to apologize. Heavy volume knocked out Wilson's web site and phone lines the next day and his Democratic opponent, Rob Miller, reported $400,000 in new contributions in less than 24 hours ... to the reform plan's most combative opponents, Wilson emerged as something of a hero." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A bio that means something

For all you folks who are new to the media, here's a tip: you can't ignore the biggest (media) event of someone's life, omit it from his biography and then pretend the source is worth a damn. Whether you like it or not (depending on your partisan affiliation), yes, Joe Wilson did have an outburst. That fact should be noted in his biography at all costs. Otherwise, this entire wikipedia enterprise begins to look ludicrous – so dumbed down that it risks irrelevancy.

It's touching to see how many folks believe they should be part of the national media. Perhaps more people will appreciate that there is actual training that goes into being a reporter – and not simply a 'blogger'. In the meantime, I would suggest that some of you, instead of engaging in partisan back-and-forth restoring and deleting of the information, sit back and appreciate the fact that no matter what the viewpoint here, the reader *needs to know* that this event happened, and that it had quantifiable results – a broad censure by both parties, as well jumpstarting Wilson's opponent's financing. Both are facts, whether you like it or not.

How this plays out in the future is unknowable. Ignoring that it happened makes all of us (earnest) contributors of wikipedia look like fools. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said my friend :)  Burningview  ✉ 02:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't bloat the section. When posting information, please keep it relevant to Joseph Wilson's bio. We reached an agreement earlier that A: Exact donation totals due to this event or the span in which they are received are not particularly important to his bio. We have an entire election article devoted to that. Three months from now, no one will care about the exact time he apologized, or the exact time Obama accepted his apology. We need to think in the future and avoid recentism. No one is trying to squelch information, but there is a time and a place to post them. EricLeFevre (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion you are using the excuse of 'avoiding bloat' to stifle the posting of this to the Congressman's page. I don't know what your agenda is, but I can assure you that when Joe Wilson passes on to the great House of Representatives in the Sky, his epitaph will read: 'Here layeth the man who accused the President of lying." You seem to believe this is some passing event. What is clear – from listening to even members of his own party – is that it's no such thing. I don't know whether you own a television set, but if you do, and happened to watch tonight's newscasts, you would know this is an unprecedented event. For a wikipedia entry to ignore it means this entire enterprise risks falling into the hands of 'spinmeisters' insisting this is commonplace.MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe consensus on exact figures being excised was ever reached. How can you say that $600,000 raised in one day because of Wilson's comments isn't notable? And how can you truly appreciate how much $600,000 unless you say that it's more than his entire campaign cycle in '08? --kizzle (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I've said this before, but we need a source that says this. We can't string it together ourselves, as that'd be synthesis. If someone (AP/CNN/etc) does come out with an article stating that because of these remarks, his opponent doubled his take, and then comments a bit more on that, I'd include it. But I haven't seen a source that does that well yet (although I could have missed one). --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, see my point below. ActBlue has an automatic counter that updates as people post money to the site, and the total count is over $650,000 right now. But I understand for people who don't want to link to ActBlue, so we can wait until a news outlet posts an updated count, but it can be reasonably assumed that once that article is published, it will be over the $650,000 mark unless ActBlue is blatantly lying about their donation totals. --kizzle (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[13] covers this matter, I believe. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

An Attempt at Consensus

There are many new editors coming to the page and basically ignoring any consensus discussions on this page. I'd like to see if most of us are on the same page on the main points and if so, be vigilant in encouraging new users to participate in discussions here preferably before making unilateral edits. If I'm misrepresenting consensus, please say so before accusing me of misrepresenting people's positions.

1. The statement itself, referred to as an "outburst" and a "breach of decorum" but not "unprecedented" unless cited to Hoyer.
2. The description of the point in the speech at which Wilson made his outburst (Obama talking about illegal immigrants)
3. One sentence on each side for the illegal immigrant debate along with a wikilink to the HR3200 page.
4. A brief mention of the reaction, focusing on McCain's immediate call for apology
5. The apology statement, the call to the White House and Rahm Emmanuel, and Obama accepting the apology the next day
6. A reference to the fund-raising effect Wilson's comments have sourced by a mainstream news outlet rather than the direct number from ActBlue.

Does this sound good to everyone? If so, please try to encourage new users to participate in discussions on the talk page before making unilateral edits to this controversial subject. --kizzle (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with points 1,2,4 and 5. My beef with #3 is that it would lead to article bloat, remember that this section cannot comprise an undo weight of the article. There simply is not room here to cover the illegal immigrant/health care debate. I would prefer just having an internal link to the section of the HR3200 article already devoted to that issue. Remember this is his bio page, not a forum for bashing or supporting health care reform which if #3 is included it will quickly become. Number six is problematic for similar reasons, a snippet about fundraising belongs in the article on his re-election campaign. EricLeFevre (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

For point 3, what if we create a stub section on the HR3200 page about the debate, wikilink the part where Obama talks about illegal immigrants to the stub section? That way, people wanting to know more about the facts behind have an easy way to find out more. --kizzle (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Eric 1,2,4 and 5 are reasonable Onefinalstep (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Eric about bloat. If there were a section in the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 article, perhaps it would include something like this:

PolitiFact.com, run by the St. Petersburg Times, analyzed the question and concluded that Obama did not lie: "When we look at all of this evidence, it seems that health reform leaves in place the status quo on illegal immigration, and certainly does not provide any new benefits particularly for illegal immigrants." By contrast, National Public Radio concluded that "from the Congressional Research Service report it would appear Republicans do have some ammunition for their charge that illegal aliens would be able to participate, at least under HR 3200." The said report determined that "it would appear that unauthorized aliens who meet the substantial presence test would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance" and that "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the [Health Insurance] Exchange." The report had the following to say on the bill's exclusion of unauthorized noncitizens from eligibility for "individual affordability credits":

Some have expressed concerns that since H.R. 3200 does not contain a mechanism to verify immigration status, the prohibitions on certain noncitizens receiving the credits may not be enforced. However, others note that under §142(a)(3) of the bill, it is the responsibility of the Health Choices Commissioner (Commissioner) to administer the “individual affordability credits under subtitle C of title II, including determination of eligibility for such credits.” Thus, it appears, absent of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure, that the Commissioner would be responsible for determining a mechanism to verify the eligibility of noncitizens for the credits.

Wilson defended the content of his statement in part by saying, "My background in that is that I was aware that there were two different amendments on the bill which would have provided for verification of persons having citizenship. One was in the Ways and means committee. One was on energy and commerce committee. And both of those were defeated overwhelmingly. They were almost party-line votes. On one of the amendments, several democrats voted with us."

Thoughts? HKT^Talk 04:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to the inclusion of point #3. His being wrong is not the point, the "outburst" is. — Mike :  tlk  05:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to #3 but I have yet to see it done in a tasteful manner. At this point in time--before Joe has given us an elaboration upon his outburst--its hard to know how to deal with it, in integrating it with the wider immigrant debate. Maybe something like, "As Obama was addressing illegal immigrant eligibility in HR 3200..." Joe outbursted.... blah blah blah

As a side note, for the love of JesusGod, STOP it with that St Petersburg times article! It isn't the only journalism on the internet discussing it. Undue weight already!Yeago (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your phrasing is exactly what I would want to see. Allows users to easily view more about the debate and siphons edits towards that page instead of this. --kizzle (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I dispute that the President was referring specifically to HR 3200. I don't think this sentence should be included:

"during a statement that the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (which specifically excludes illegal immigrants from coverage[15]) would not include coverage for illegal immigrants"

I think we should include Obama's exact quote (that he is promising there will be no coverage for illegals) and Wilson's response of "You Lie" then we should say that Obama paused for a moment as the chamber reacted, then continued his speech.

Also I'm sure you are all aware of the NYTimes blog mentioning our efforts here.[14] Read this comment[15] I don't think that this is a round world vs. flat world issue here. There is sufficient ambiguity here. I feel that 2 concise sentences on it is warranted.

Reliefappearance (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems #6 got largely shouted down here but I'd like to re-raise it. While specific numbers would be pointless, the way it is worded right now referencing that he put out a call for donations left on its own seems to be an almost unfinished thought. Perhaps a note saying that "both he and his Democratic challenger received a general influx of donations in the immediate aftermath of the incident" would work as a sufficiently general while informative statement. There are plenty of news reports noting that both of them have raised considerable funds (last I checked, $200K for Wilson and $750K for the Democrat compared to something like only $50K thus far this year for Wilson - though the specifics might be best left for the page discussing the race). --Forgottenlord (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead needs to mention him calling prez liar on TV

Articles on humans should say why this man is notable. Today, the most notable fact is that he is the first to call the prez a Liar on TV during a prez speech in Congress. 03:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.16.211 (talk)

WP:RECENT. HKT^Talk 04:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This wouldn't be a case of recentism. It's a first and firsts are historical and encyclopedic. If his accomplishments change, the article can be revised. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that it's quite likely that this is what he'll primarily be remembered for, and thus it should be in the lead. Grandmasterka 04:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball Arzel (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it policy to be absolutely neutral in the lede? — Mike :  tlk  05:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. Being neutral has nothing to do with ignoring events. Joe Wilson's actions will be the epitaph for which he'll be known. To not put those in the lede of this piece runs the risk of making this article sheer pablum, which is where it's headed right now. Even students of Journalism 101 know to put the most important events in the lede. MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

All due respect, but I don't believe that I'm confused.

"Joe Wilson's actions will be the epitaph for which he'll be known."

WP:CRYSTALBALL. If you have a source that has this opinion, you need to directly attribute the opinion to that source. Journalism 101 students may not be good wikipedia editors - WP:NOTNEWS. — Mike :  tlk  05:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Michael. You don't believe this to be appropriate for the lede of a biography? That's like saying one should write a biography of FDR without mentioning World War II, or about Richard Nixon without mentioning Watergate. The fact is that these are important events that have brought these people to public attention. I doubt 99.9 percent of the American public had ever heard of Joe Wilson before the other night. It's a service to our readers, as we used to say in the journalism biz, to put the most important information in the lede. The way the article's written now buries it several grafs down – the most cardinal sin in journalism, and besides, it makes for a lousy read. Anyone with a brain is going to wonder why it's not mentioned 'up top.'MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You have decades of historical perspective when you look back on FDR and Nixon, and thus do not need a WP:CRYSTALBALL, to judge the relative importance of WWII and watergate. You have 30 hours of historical perspective in the case of Joe Wilson. I can see it being very reasonable to add the information as the media circus quiets down. My personal opinion is that you are almost definitely right, but wikipedia policies need to be adhered to. WP:CRYSTALBALL bullet point #3 prohibits us from speculating (including whether or not something will be the defining moment/topic of a person's life -- like Watergate and WWII), and WP:NOTSOAP bullet point #3 tells us that articles, especially those about living persons, need to meet an especially high standard when it comes to scandals and gossip. Is there a problem waiting for the media circus to calm down before trying to look at this issue from a historical context? — Mike :  tlk  06:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a side note, I noticed that you seem to believe that Wikipedia either is, or should be part of "the media". This may be why there is some disagreement over policies and standards. Wikipedia is not the news. — Mike :  tlk  06:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe Wikipedia is part of the news media. I believe it should be an authoritative source, with high 'journalistic standards,' which means the content should be well-sourced and reliable. I don't believe that that should make it boring though. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have any position on whether wikipedia is boring or exciting, and I certainly don't think that these concepts should in any way dictate the nature, tone or choice of content. — Mike :  tlk  06:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No one said it should dictate content. But would you prefer to read a well-written piece, or a poorly-written piece? Would you prefer to read something which holds your interest, or doesn't? That's what I meant. I don't know what your background is, but mine was in history, and I prefer to read something historical which grabs me, rather than something flat which doesn't. That doesn't mean reliability must be sacrificed. See David McCullough.MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What I prefer is neither here nor there. There are specific well-defined policies and guidelines, as I'm sure someone with your amount of experience on wikipedia knows. An "attention grabber" is nice, but observing WP:LEAD and WP:BLP is required. The information is already in the article, so it's not as if anything is missing. What you are proposing is to draw attention to it, and to basically make it the dominant section of the article. Doing this 33 hours after the event in question took place is short-sighted. By the way, Richard Nixon and FDR are both dead, and so WP:BLP doesn't apply. Take a look at how objective the lede of George W. Bush is. — Mike :  tlk  06:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand. Placing this in the lede is not 'drawing attention to it,' as you put it. It's simply noting that this is probably why 99.999 percent of the population has heard of this previously obscure South Carolina legislator. Wikipedia is not in the business of making things boring. That's not to say it's sensationalist either. It should take note, in a measured way, of events, both past and current. These are important current events. We should take note of them – and not in a way that insults the intelligence of the reader. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not the first time you've thrown a number out like that. You have added two 9's since your last assertion. At this time, 33 hours after the occurrence of the event, we are in no position to properly gauge its historical significance. I would also ask that you please stop using concepts like "Boring" and "exciting" as they have nothing to do with what is and isn't appropriate, as described by the numerous wikipedia policies I have made reference to above, for inclusion in the lede. It seems that neither of us are making any new points, and I have cited the specific bullet points of the specific policies that indicate that your suggested addition is improper. Why don't we let others weigh in over the next day or two and see where we end up? — Mike :  tlk  07:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You answered your own question. The lede of the George Bush piece explains why the average reader has heard of Bush: he was President of the United States. Why has the average reader heard of Joe Wilson? MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you misread my comment. I said

"Take a look at how objective the lede of George W. Bush is."

You will notice that the numerous controversies that Bush is involved with are not mentioned (i.e,. lying about WMDs, CIA leak, torture, etc...). I can't speak to why the average reader has heard of Joe Wilson in terms of FACTS, which are the only thing that matter here. I can only offer my own personal opinion, which has no place here. This soon after the occurrence of the event, it is virtually certain that the news is still making its way around. To presume that "everyone" (or "99.9999 percent of the population") has even heard of the event at this point is flat out ridiculous. — Mike :  tlk  07:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike is dead-on with this one Marmaduke. Though this event may very well define his career, it's too soon for us to determine that. You're going to be fighting an uphill battle on this one if you persist. --kizzle (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether Joe Wilson is remembered for this – or remembered at all – this story has emerged as a singular sensation. We've already 'buried the lede,' which is bad enough. Now someone has come along and inserted Joe Wilson's patriotic credentials where instead we should be mentioning the event that will cause most readers to google him. Why don't we just post a collection of his service medals right up top alongside his bio too? MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the lead of George W. Bush article mentions no controversies or criticism is incorrect. It plainly states[[16]] "In a close and controversial election, Bush was elected President in 2000 ... the Bush Administration dealt with widespread criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys really still talking about this? No. Crystal ball, etc. Conversation over. Its not like this is the "Don't Tase Me Bro" guy. He's a congressman with plenty of other notable moments besides this one. Enough!Yeago (talk)

As a factual matter, this doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny. His next most notable moment is not very notable. Nonetheless, there is something to the argument that we don't know what the future holds for Joe Wilson. But isn't it Crystal Ballism to claim that this incident will not seem important in the future? That's my view. Let the future decide that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, this will be what he is remembered for. Hitler had many accomplishment but is remembered only by the deaths he caused. So will Wilson , only its Americans without healthcare dying.DarlieB (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

When you say "so will Wilson", this is precisely what the wikipedia policy WP:CRYSTALBALL bullet point #3 prohibits. You have the better part of a century of historical perspective on Adolf Hitler, not to mention the fact that his life has ended. It is speculation that is inappropriate here, and the history of person who died a long time ago requires none. — Mike :  tlk  15:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep it out of the lead. Anyone making claims that two words the guy said on Wednesday is "what he will be remembered for" needs to seriously examine WP:RECENTISM. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Where's the beef ? ". It's amazing what a few words can say =) DarlieB (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment. We're not writing a lede now with the objective that it will still be correct in 50 years' time. We write a lede that is about right now, and when it's not right any more - when the importance of the event disappears into history - the lede will be amended. Frankly the historicalness of the event makes me think it might make it into eventual newspaper obituaries, but we'll see what else he does with his career. Rd232 ^talk 13:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Where do people stand on this issue? --kizzle (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

---

• The incident should be mentioned in the lede.

---

• The incident should not be mentioned in the lede.

--kizzle (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely not, it is in violation of clear WP policies. Article should be written with historical perspective in mind, and if some think that they are boring they should go write for the The National Enquirer. Arzel (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't like this guy anymore than you guys do, but the current lead-in is ridiculously biased. It makes me feel embarrassed as a liberal, and reflects poorly on both Wikipedia and some editors in particular. Like others have said, historical perspective! Jrobinjapan (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• do not include, per Wikipedia policy. Let's be clear, this discussion is about whether to ignore WP:CRYSTALBALL (wikipedia policy), WP:RECENT (wikipedia essay) and WP:BLP (wikipedia policy). I am outraged by my President being called a liar by a member of congress in front of the world, but that's all the more reason to make sure that personal feelings and opinions play no role in deciding the tone or direction of this article. Furthermore, this aticle is getting coverage in the national media, so it is especially important that we adhere to Wikipedia policies, in order to show the world that this can be depended on for reliable information, untainted by public opinion. — Mike :  tlk  16:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I've just read through the above discussion. There is good reasoning on both sides. I would vote *include it* because it's recognition of a historic first. Leaving out his recent actions is a little bit like leaving out someone's death because it only happened this week. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Even if it's not a first in US history (which it might or might not be as far as I know), it certainly is a first in Joe Wilson's life. For better or for worse, the statements Wilson made during presidential address (and since) are how Wilson went from being a little known congressman to being a name known across the US and the world. Whether his political fortunes profit or suffer from these events remains to be seen, whether voters eschew him or rally to him, there is little doubt that Wilson's statements during the address are the most notable actions of his political life. Whether he was being heroic or whether he was being disrespectful may depend on a political point of view-- but the subject is a very highly notable event in Congressman Wilson's life. So I do think a very very neutral mention does merit a short inclusion in the lede. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer waiting to include it in the lede due to RECENTISM concerns. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the event is that Wilson accused the President of lying, that's why everyone was so aghast not that it was an "outburst" or that he was "heckling" If he had yelled "NO" this wouldn't be much of a big deal. Others were also vocal, they just didn't accuse the President of lying. Reliefappearance (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes: that's specifically against section 370 of the House Rules Manual, which enumerates several things that members are not allowed to say about the president in the chamber. Members are not permitted to:

• call the President a "liar."
• call the President a "hypocrite."
• describe the President's veto of a bill as "cowardly."
• charge that the President has been "intellectually dishonest."
• refer to the President as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."
• refer to alleged "sexual misconduct on the President's part."

Those are in normal sessions, however - there are SFAICT no such rules for a joint session, presumably because everyone is on their "best" behavior for such a session and its understood if you don't do it in a regular session, you surely won't do it in a joint session. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

But clearly Pelosi and Biden both looked stunned and within seconds a parlimentarian handed Pelosi a list of possible options she had. She later said that as the President continued his address and Wilson did not persist, she allowed the incident to pass. Basically, she could have brought down the gavel, but didn't. Reliefappearance (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I vote for including it in the lead. He's clearly most known nationally for this. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

People keep re-adding it because it should obviously be there. The suggestion that a well-sourced event which catapults a minor Congressman to global recognition should not be mentioned in the lede of his bio, is just, well, words fail me. Rd232 ^talk 16:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

For example: Spiegel, [17] (German), Le Monde [18] (French - entertainingly dubs him "Joe 'You Lie' Wilson"!!), El Pais, [19] (Spanish). Shall I go on? Rd232 ^talk 16:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This should be obvious, I think. A brief reference to the one big event that made him nationally and internationally famous belongs somewhere around the second sentence of the article. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

While this may seem obvious, perhaps you, or someone else who has the same viewpoint, could address the concerns about violating specific wikipedia policies? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but when I cite policies and the subsection that I believe is being violated, and receive responses that assert the obviousness of the disputed section's appropriateness, I worry that we will never be able to come to a consensus. — Mike :  tlk  17:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't about, as you say, a "viewpoint". It's about basic sensible editing practice. The fellow is far and away most known for only one thing to date. Please go read or re-read WP:LEAD. Notice please that it says, as it has for a long time, right up front in its lead section: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." So, yes, as I said, this should be obvious. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, you cite policy and claim it's being violated, but you seem to be in a minority with that view. In which case, take it to WP:BLPN and see what they say, but stop saying policy means you should get your way. Rd232 ^talk 17:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the lede as it is now (including it in the last sentence in the first paragraph) is appropriate. This will most likely be the one thing that Joe Wilson will be most famous for and including it in the lede seems the correct way to go. Tgpaul58 (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish people would follow WP policy rather than determine what will happen in the future through some all-seeing eye. If for no other reason than that this is a very fluid situation right now there is no point in trying to force a historical perspective when an event is currently happening. Arzel (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that why you removed the lede mention of the incident? [20] Do you think those international newspaper articles are going to get unwritten? Should we wait til he dies so we can fully judge the significance of him jumping from obscurity to international recognition? Rd232 ^talk 19:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that waiting until he dies is unreasonable, but waiting until next week would allow us to have much better perspective. If allowing the media frenzy to calm down before evaluating proper weight (placement in lede = more weight) is unacceptable, then what is the reason for urgency? — Mike :  tlk  20:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. What's the rush? Let's wait until we get just a little bit beyond the news cycle and see then? --kizzle (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The rush, if you like, is that whilst he's in the news, there are lots of people coming here, and will be surprised not to see a mention of the only reason they've heard of him, a reason which is significant enough that I'd lay bets on it being mentioned in his obituary if he lives to 90 and gets elected President. Stats, for those who care: 1125 visits to this page in August 2009; 250,000+ to date in September.[21]. Rd232 ^talk 20:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I came to the opposite conclusion. More visits to the page is, in my opinion, even more reason to get this article right, and to strictly adhere to WP:BLP. — Mike :  tlk  04:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If you explained how omitting from the lede the most notable fact about him by a country mile, (WP:LEAD by the way) and how doing so has anything to do with BLP policy, I missed it. Rd232 ^talk 07:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have explained it several times, but will do so again since it seems that some think I'm using WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:BLP to keep completely agreeable material, whose level of importance we have all come to a consensus about, out of the article. Assigning undue weight to contentious or controversial information is a clear WP:BLP violation, I'm sure I don't need to explain that to you. Putting a sub-topic in the lede is giving it extra weight (in fact I think that your argument boils down to the same thing, except you think it's weighty enough to be mentioned). All I am really asking for (without success) is for us to wait until the media is covering some other topic, before judging how important this really is. I'm not asking to wait until he dies, but only long enough that 1) the emotion of the issue doesn't affect coverage (ours or the articles we are using as references), 2) very few new stories about it are coming out.. When I cite WP:CRYSTALBALL, I am saying that while some may believe this to be the transgression of the year, others (myself included) think that this will be largely forgotten in two weeks, even in articles about Joe Wilson. When I cite WP:BLP, it is the section that requires contentious unsourced information be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I realize that the source for the fact is sourced, but it is still a contentious sentence, since there's no agreement over whether it is appropriate to include without getting proper historical perspective.

At least the most recent sentences to make their way into the lede were directly attributed opinions, which I'm sure you know is expressly described in WP:BLP as the appropriate way to document this type of thing. Previously, TIME magazine's opinion was stated as a fact with a reference, which is a violation. — Mike :  tlk  16:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Utterly abandonable topic and unfair to his character.Yeago (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel that if it should be tin the first line. People are talking about him being made president now.. It is his claim to fame.

FactCheck on bill

Kizzle removed this citing consensus - while I see a great deal of discussion, I see no such consensus. I am questioning specifically the one parenthetical sentence, sourced to FactCheck.org:

(In fact, as the non-partisan site Factcheck.org reveals, the bill has a specific clause stating that this plan will not cover illegal immigrants: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.") ref= http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/

I personally think if the statement remains, it needs a little rephrasing and should not be parenthetical. I do, however, note that this is relevant to the "lie" allegation and should be included. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Erm, you seem to have missed that I re-added it as a footnote in that paragraph? Rd232 ^talk 12:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I did indeed miss that; thank you. This makes it clear, if nothing else, that there is not much consensus on how to handle this data. I have no strong objection to any handling at this time; I support Rd232's edit but am open to other ideas; I reject utterly Kizzle's premature declaration that there is "consensus" to exclude this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I mistook consensus. --kizzle (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No apology necessary; it may have been that strong feeling supported the removal - as it happens, that was not the case. I merely questioned your conclusion that such consensus existed; I in no way meant to imply that your view was due to anything other than a sincere desire to correctly apply consensus as you thought it existed. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

factcheck.org is lying left-wing bullshit obama tied political hack organziation that provides no real evidence to counter Wilson's correct charge. There were stipulations to make it illegal for illegal aliens to be included by proper vetting and security measures, they were voted down. There is nothing in this bill that excludes or prevents them from receiving subsized unpaid for "hellcare" which they are gonna receive anyway another leak in the fre lunch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Despite your eloquence, we're still going to use it in the article, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

New York Times Blog Mentions this page

[22] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizzle (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 September 2009

LOL. Now we can loop back and forth from this talk page to the NYT and back again while typing nary a keystroke in the URL bar, and from here to the Wilson article via the NYT article. Interesting comments by the NYTimes writer. I appreciated seeing a media perspective on WP editors' and admins' diligence w.r.t. verifiability and reliable sourcing, rather than about lack of adequate diligence as has sometimes been the case in the past. Good work, everybody. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You think that's bad? I once planned to add a reference to an article by citing an academic publication, which in turn cited that article. Fortunately, before I could get this to work I was distracted by something shiny and forgot the matter. --Kizor 19:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

PoV pushing

Blanket accusation during a content dispute. Closed. Do not re-engage with these type attacks; comment on the content not the contributor.
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
This feels like the 10th time I have said this on the talk page, and about the 20th time I have reverted PoV editing on the main page. I am hoping this will be the last time. Facts about the immigration debate as it pertains to health care reform need to be left out of this article. Wikipedia has very, very strict rules regarding what kind of material can be added to the biography of living people and instructs all editors to err on the side of caution when adding material to bio pages. Because this is a bio page, *A*L*L* information regarding the health care debate needs to be left off unless it is information directly pertaining to the personal position of Rep. Williams, not his opponents. That includes whatever facts people write about the illegal immigration debate on any side of the issue unless Rep Williams has specifically come out in favor or opposed to them. Information about his positions on health care debate should be limited directly to statements put out by his office or direct quotations by Rep Wilson from reputable, verifiable sources. To some, this might seem like "omg a hard-core right-winger is censoring wikipedia!!!11!!!!1" (I am a liberal democrat). Its not, this is an attempt to maintain and uphold official wikipedia policies designed to govern situations exactly like this one. Lets look at will inevitably happen if the immigration debate is allowed to be mentioned here. " (insert description of shoutdown), however [insert favored source by biased editor] states that this is in fact false, [plug to statement supporting the bill]. But according to [insert favored source by another biased editor] Rep Wilson's challenge was correct because [plug to obscure statement in the bill] clearly states that [insert biased paraphrasing of HR3200] thus he was factually correct. Not so says [different source 3] those arguments are [misleading/biased/fallacies/fear-mongering] when in fact the bill ...(this continues on for another 3 or 4 paragraphs where Rep Wilson is not even mentioned anymore in his own bio page)." This is but one of many examples of PoV pushing I have reverted. Others include descriptions of amounts of campaign donations from whatever source, weasel words, and much more. For example, I deleted this statement, "The two largest sectors contributing to Wilson's funding are "Finance, Insurance & Real Estate" and "Health", together contributing around $900,000 of his total $3.5m funds raised 2001 - 2010" For PoV pushing. Where someone gets donations from is only notable if the editor already believes that raising money from these sources is a good or bad thing. That is PoV pushing. On other articles it is acceptable to post information like this (for example an article on health care debate) however posting that on a bio page is PoV pushing plain and simple for reasons stated above. Stop with the PoV pushing. EricLeFevre (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC) With all due respect, you are wrong. There's no POV pushing involved when different reliable sources discuss Wilson's claim in particular. There were POV and OR issues when people tried to do so with sources from before Wilson's remark. However, we now have a large variety of sources discussing the matter in the context of Wilson. Including them is not POV. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Agree with original poster. I find it ironic that many editors are trying to push POV by doing the same thing as Rep. Wilson is accused of -- being disrespectful. (I too am a liberal democrat. Try not to make us look bad.) When someone is being followed so closely like this in the news, it brings an undue amount of edits to things off-topic. Let it simmer a bit more before deciding how to word this stuff, this isn't WikiNews. Please remember to be extra careful when editing articles for living persons. Jrobinjapan (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC) First, talking about "POV pushing" is a violation of WP:AGF. Don't do that. Second, what justification is there for removing the donations to his future opponent (bottom of this revert)? Miller got 46% of the vote last time, and is expected to be Wilson's opponent next year. A massive boost in his funding (now exceeding total funding of his previous campaign) in response to remarks by Wilson is certainly relevant here. Third, I agree that details on the health debate should be kept to a minimum. I said above that people interested in the details should focus on adding a relevant section to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. That would then give something to link to, and once it's hashed out a bit, a one or two-sentence summary might work here. That said, the simple version currently there [23] seems perhaps widely acceptable, for now. Fourth, the contributions are reliably sourced to Center for Responsive Politics [24], and I selected the top two industries. Who funds politicians is important, and this information is a start. Rd232 talk 16:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I agree with your comments about WP:AGF, but mostly when directed at specific editor(s). I don't think it is wrong to comment on a general trend in the discussion. I (for what its worth) think the original poster made some good points that aren't particularly inflammatory. Jrobinjapan (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC) He's not making general points about the discussion, he's making comments about edits he reverted, and implies violating AGF towards the people who made those edits. Rd232 talk 16:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Concur with JoshuaZ and rd232 regarding this - I find your blanket accusation that those who have made edits which you do not support are "POV Pushing" to be offensive at best, and transparently manipulative wiki-lawyering at worst. Your "THEY're POV pushing, I'm NPOV" framing of a content dispute is disruptive and non-productive. I am closing this section as non-helpful, and caution EricLeFevre to comment on the content, not the contributors. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

On whether to include any information on HR3200 and illegal immigration in *this* article

There seems to be vociferous debate on whether or not to include information about the legitimacy of Wilson's remark on this page. As both the New York Times blog and many others have said, the language in the bill explicitly forbids illegal immigrants receiving benefits. Those that state the other side are (unless I'm mistaken) citing FAIR, National Review, or other partisan sources. These are facts, and they are crystal clear. But whether these should be included on Wilson's bio page rather than under a section in the bill is a legitimate debate in my mind. As I've said before, if we put FactCheck in, others will want to include enforcement woes, Wilson's response about the two amendments requiring ID being shot down by Democrats, and the section faces a significant possibility for bloat.

Ideally, I'd like to simply state at what point he made the outburst in the speech, and wikilink it to the actual bill's page and a controversy sub-section dealing with it where all the aforementioned links can be placed. What do others think? --kizzle (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree I think that is appropriate. Jrobinjapan (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this section, as the discussion about this is a bit scattered. I'll reiterate what I said before. This is a matter of fact, and not Wilson's opinion, and we should report the facts. It either covers them or it doesn't, and the reader expects and deserves an answer to that question. There are plenty of reliable sources about this, and there is no SYNTH issue as there are plenty of reliable sources addressing the factual nature of Wilson's comment - politifact, factcheck, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel you know me, so I'm not trying to push a POV here. As I said, the language is explicit in the bill so it's not a matter of opinion. But what about the enforcement angle? What about the amendments Wilson is referring to that got shot down? Would those be germane to the discussion? As a result, would they be included here? --kizzle (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, that thought didn't even cross my mind. I say keep it simple as possible, a sentence at most summarizing whatever editors think the salient points are. I'm leaning towards the view that amendments not in the bill and worries about enforcement are tangential and should not be included. Gamaliel (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Repeating myself: I agree that details on the health debate should be kept to a minimum. I said above that people interested in the details should focus on adding a relevant section to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. That would then give something to link to, and once it's hashed out a bit, a one or two-sentence summary might work here. That said, the simple version currently there [25] seems perhaps widely acceptable, for now. Rd232 ^talk 16:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We should briefly include this important context that the outburst occurred in. A good example is the way reliable sources like Time magazine have done in the second sentence of their bio on Wilson:[26] "Joe Wilson broke the chamber's strict etiquette by yelling out "You lie!" after the President (accurately) noted that his proposed health care benefits would not extend to illegal immigrants." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Include briefly with link. I don't see how we can cover Wilson's statement without also summarizing the facts (if any) about the veracity of his Wilson's statement. But I definitely agree this page shouldn't devolve into being a central locus for the discussion. Wilson's claim is by no means unique to Wilson, so it should be discussed in-depth on a health care reform article. But if there really is a consensus among non-partisan media that Wilson's claim is false, we do have to mention that, if only to balance Wilson's own initial claim. --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Should include. The argument to not include is weak since many sources have discussed the validity of the claim in the particular context of Wilson's remark rather than as part of the general health care debate. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so we have JoshuaZ, Alecmconroy, Sharksaredangerous, Gamaliel, and myself that are now OK with one sentence on each position along with a link to the bill. I'm assuming you guys want to use the FactCheck mention, so what link are we going to use for the other side if it's going to be in the article? --kizzle (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I would err on the side of not bringing it up here at all. The current version obliquely accuses Rep Wilson of lying (see the BLP policy). It starts with "in fact..." citing a source, then moves to a statement on language in the bill. The implication is, that since Rep Wilson was contrary to the truth, he must have been lying.

It is also significant that no explanation of his position or what motivated it are given. We could fix that by mentioning that he was objecting to the defeat of two Republican-backed amendments, but then we would have to cite our sources and provide an explanation of their significance. It is only natural that the proponents get a rejoinder to refute arguments made by Joe Wilson.

And then at that point, the section is no longer about what Rep Wilson said, Rep Wilson's apology, or even about Rep Wilson at all. It is a debate on the status of illegal immigrants in HR3200.

That is exactly why no mention of it should be made, simply because we cannot present the arguments in a fair and balanced way without disrupting the flow of the biographical narrative of the event in question. EricLeFevre (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with EricLeFevre. Simply state that Wilson shouted "You lie!" after Obama stated the bill would not cover illegal immigrants. Let readers link to the article for info on whether, in fact, the bill does or does not. Eseymour (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this a problem if the bill changes form? Secondly, Wilson's state of mind was based on something he heard or read before the speech that may or may not have had something to do with the contents of a certain document that the president may or may not have been referring to in the way that Wilson understood, rightly or wrongly. The encyclopedia should stay away from all that. Give it time. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems like the majority of editors wants to put in one sentence on each side... so what is the next step to try and reach consensus. Are we taking a vote on which one? Is there anything left to hash out or other proposals? --kizzle (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would not go nearly as far to say a majority. Remember this his bio page, the only information about health care reform that belongs on here is material that directly pertains to the position of Representative Wilson and no more. Where do you draw the line otherwise?

I would ask that people look what happened when the snippet about donations recieved by his opponent were added. That one line is now three paragraphs. That is called article bloat.

I am holding fast to my original position, that none of that belongs in this article, for reasons that are literally on display in the section right now. EricLeFevre (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Snippet about donations is now three paragraphs?? What article are you reading? this one has the same two sentences about Miller's donation, and an additional para mixing apology issue with Wilson support and fundraising. Rd232 ^talk 20:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I also still agree with EricLeFevre. The following would be an accurate, concise, NPOV way of summarizing the incident:

Wilson interrupted the President's address during a statement that the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would not include coverage for illegal immigrants. In a breach of decorum, Wilson interrupted by pointing and shouting, "You lie!"

Anything else, and we bring a debate over the bill onto this biography page. Eseymour (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. BLP applies to Obama too, and if you leave too little context, you're left with just Wilson's accusation that Obama was lying. Rd232 ^talk 22:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. The apples belong in a bio page with details not pertaining to the life story of Joseph Wilson kept to a minimum, oranges belong on policy debate pages such as the one on HR3200 where there is no narrative to interupt. Here is how that section needs to read.

During President Obama's September 9, 2009 speech to a joint session of Congress, in which he discussed health care reform, Wilson interrupted the President's address during a statement that the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would not include coverage for illegal immigrants. In a breach of decorum, Wilson interrupted by pointing and shouting, "You lie!". Wilson gained national and international[25] attention for the incident.

After the session, members of Congress from both Republican and Democratic parties condemned the outburst, with John McCain saying it was "Totally disrespectful. No place for it in that setting or any other and he should apologize immediately." Later that night, Wilson's office issued an official statement saying, "This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.” President Obama accepted Wilson's apology, saying, "I’m a big believer that we all make mistakes. He apologized quickly and without equivocation and I’m appreciative of that."

However the incident proved to be a fundraising boon for his upcoming election, raising nearly $300,000 from his supporters. He later refused to apologize on the House floor.

Voila, no PoV, all details pertain directly to his bio, internal links direct viewers to relevant sections where they can recieve a more complete picture of the context of this debate.EricLeFevre (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the phrase "You Lie" clearly expresses a POV. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So? Is there some policy or guideline that proscribes the inclusion of a quote (POV or not) from the subject of an article? L0b0t (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are Wikipedia policies that prohibit this type of labeling people, and especially living people, as liars in articles. Those policies include WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Reporting that a politician shouted "you lie" is not tantamount to labeling the President a liar. It's a stretch to assume that, left to their own devices, people will uncritically accept that outburst. It's also a stretch to suggest that omitting clarification is tantamount to agreeing with Wilson. Nonetheless, I think the following ought to satisfy everyone: Report that Wilson shouted "you lie!" and then report that the President responded "that's not true." That way, you have both sides covered and no one can assume that Wikipedia is making a judgment by omission. HKT^Talk 00:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

With Rd232, that brings it to about 6 editors who want a link for each side added. Eric and Eseymour seem to be in the minority on this, and at some point we're going to have to move on. --kizzle (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Content disputes are not settled by majority rule. They are settled by consensus. See WP:WHATISCONSENSUS. That said, I am not opposed to the current wording of that section. I do think the version backed by EricLeFevre and myself (and HKT as well, I think) is superior in terms of article quality, but in the interest of consensus I'm OK with the current version. Eseymour (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course they're not settled by majority rule. But they're not settled by unanimity either. See WP:WHATISCONSENSUS#Not_unanimity. If you take a look at this discussion I have been soliciting how various editors think. I didn't try to do a straw poll to justify this, but at some point, there needs to be a decision made. --kizzle (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about unanimity, but you twice offered a count of editors who wanted one version versus another, which sounds an awful lot like at attempt to say "we have the majority, so we get our way." I'm glad that was not your attempt. Yes, there has to be a decision made at some point, but why so quickly? As far as I can tell, this particular content dispute is less than 24 hours old. I also haven't seen a good reason offered as to why simply reporting what the President said and what Wilson said and leaving it at that would not be sufficient. There has been some suggestion that if the article says "The President stated X, but Wilson claimed he was lying" then people will conclude Wilson was right and the President was wrong. In fact, I think the opposite is likely to be true, but either way the link to the article on the bill is right there and people can refer to that for more information. The notable thing here is the outburst itself, not who was right or wrong. Eseymour (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

Look at the times I've encouraged discussion or asked what other people thought, so please continue your assumption I'm not trying to ram a 51% supported conclusion down people's throats. As for your suggestion to simply report, initially that's what I wanted as well. State when he said it, wikilink the "illegal immigrant" part to a controversy section on the bill itself, but the significant majority of editors here want a very brief mention of where the controversy stands. If you still are OK with the current version [27] that mentions both FactCheck and the ability to take place in the Exchange, we're on the same page. --kizzle (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to not be yet another forum for the health care debate. Including one sentence of each side is simply opening the gate to further edits for and against. Also, the articles in question are only in disagreement over the general prospect of immigration in relation to healthcare--they do not address Wilson's specific grievances. In fact, I haven't seen any source that gives us any useful insight into what was in Joe Wilson's heart at the time of his outburst, and therefore bringing up factcheck.org to 'debunk' his claims is synthesis.Yeago (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A thought process on talking about the veracity of the "you lie" claim

Mr. W claims Mr. O is lying. It now being a foregone conclusion that the claim is notable, how do we handle it?

Options:

1. Quote the claim and move on. Address responses to it but don't delve into the veracity of the claim.

2. Quote the claim and give short summary of why people say the claim is true and why other people say the claim is false.

3. Quote the claim and summarize the verifiable facts about the claim's veracity.

My thinking is-- if the claim is well-known and virtually undisputed, you can do #1. If there is a overall consensus among non-partisan reliable sources that the claim is true (or false), then you just report the verified facts and cite the sources. If the reliable sources disagree (or more likely, if they decline to report the claim as either true or false), then you do option #2, the paired quotes.

My questions therefore are:

Are there any non-partisan reliable sources that outright say the claim was true?

Are there any non-partisan reliable sources that outright say the claim was false?

Is there a relative consensus among sources about the claim's veracity?

--Alecmconroy (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. FactCheck, a respected non-partisan source says Wilson's claim was false. I don't think we can count FAIR as a non-partisan reliable source, but a report on CNN by Joe Johns just called the matter "debatable". There is a significant majority of mainstream sources that say the claim is false. --kizzle (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say if the consensus of mainstream reliable sources agree the claim was false, just state that and link to the main article. If mainstream sources are split, have a brief "side one says x, but side two says y" summary and link. So, is there a consensus of reliable sources? I'm hearing that Factcheck and Time has officially called it false? I know of course that MSNBC's editorial people are saying false, and FoxNews is calling it not false. Based just on that, I'd go with the 2 sentence model. But if we ever determine that that the bulk of the reliable sources are straight out reporting it as false, so should we. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is the Congressional Research Service, which notes that there is no restriction on non-citizens participating in the Health Insurance Exchange. Also, there is a report by the Center for Immigration Studies which notes the same thing and also points out that the AAHCA lacks any provision to enforce the statement that illegal immigrants will not receive "affordability credits." FactCheck and other sources (many of which simply refer to FactCheck) are focusing only on the language on affordability credits (again, despite the fact that there's no mechanism for enforcement of that language). Personally, I think it comes down to Obama stating the intent that the bill would not benefit illegal immigrants, while Wilson was pointing out concerns about loopholes that may nevertheless allow them to benefit from the bill. Neither one was actually true or false, per se. Eseymour (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

Another complicating factor is it is not at all clear that HR3200 is what Obama was referring to. The real bill will be whatever compromise is made in the Senate, so that makes it all the harder to claim lying, since nobody knows what the actual bill that gets signed into law is going to look like. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Get past "veracity of the claim" and report the criticism

Certain undisputed facts are important here. It's known that Wilson was contemporaneously criticized, primarily for the manner of his, uh, critique of the bill (the issue of shouting at the President during a formal address to Congress), but also for the substance (plenty of sources, as noted above, have criticized Wilson on the ground of factual inaccuracy). A Congressman is being widely lambasted in the mainstream media for making a false statement about a major piece of pending legislation. This is Wilson's 15 minutes. Many people are reading about this fracas who never even heard of Wilson before this week. The fact of the widespread criticism is significant enough in Wilson's life to merit a mention in his bio, regardless of what happens hereafter.

Hence, it's not so much that our article should address the veracity of Wilson's statement, but that we should report the prevalence in the media of attacks on Wilson for not being truthful. For example, after noting the controversy about his breach of decorum: "In addition, Wilson was widely criticized for inaccuracy, because the principal bills being discussed expressly exclude coverage for undocumented aliens."

Now, what about the other side? Wikipedians sometimes carry NPOV too far, into the realm of "Shape of the Earth: opinions differ". There's no credible case to be made that Wilson's statement, as it would most commonly be understood, was true. (If Wilson had criticized a planned space mission with a comment that implicitly assumed the Earth to be flat, we wouldn't need to quote anyone contending that he was right. Views of manifest silliness need not be presented.) In this case, however, Wilson's statement isn't a barefaced lie; it's a lightly whiskered lie. My judgment is that there's enough substance to what his defenders are saying that it rises beyond flat-Earthism and so should be reported (again, briefly). Nevertheless, our article shouldn't give the impression that opinions differ about the language of the bill concerning illegal aliens. The summary of the pro-Wilson argument must make clear that there's no contest to Obama's statement about the bill, and that the defense being mustered is that the bill might not be enforced properly. The distinction is important, because, to many readers, Obama's statement would be true (and Wilson's outburst wrong in substance) because Obama accurately described the bill, even if critics would also be correct in predicting enforcement problems. Our second sentence might be something like: "Wilson and his defenders responded that those provisions of the bill might not be adequately enforced."

I agree with kizzle and others who say that this article needs only a brief summary of the tenor of the common criticism of and defense of Wilson, with details about the effect of the bill on undocumented aliens being left to the article about the bill. JamesMLane t c 08:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I remain unconvinced. Yeago is getting it about right. The substance is not notable, we know, because the same substance sans outburst would not be discussed. Since it's not notable, let's not note it. That substance is not right for the bio. 2) I didn't propose a substitution for the two sentence summary because there shouldn't be such a summary. What matters is that Wilson made his outburst in a certain place and time. The most neutral take on that is to restrict ourselves to just that. The inclusion of the two sentences implies that this bio is a place for the political argument. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The shout "you lie!" carries along with it the question whether the president did indeed lie, misspeak, or otherwise misrepresent. In addition to the well sourced fact that it was a severe procedural breach, numerous RSs have discussed the issue of the substance of the outburst, whether Wilson was correct or not. According to the RSs, it turns out Wilson was both procedurally and substantively incorrect... Kenosis (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You make a great point. I may be wrong, but I thought there was significant disagreement on Wilson's accuracy. Have I missed a big discussion on this that seems definitive? If so, I apologize. Who's got this lined up nicely without the sound and fury? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, AFAIK there's nothing that seems definitively settled between the two political parties and their respective supporters. Republicans essentially have argued that the enforcement provisions in the bill are inadequate. As to the accusation that Obama was lying when he said the bill wouldn't provide coverage for those in the country illegally, see [28] and [29]. The former is a neutral and highly reliable fact checker; the latter is known to lean somewhat towards a liberal/progressive slant because of what they tend to choose to fact check, but is also highly reliable as a fact checker w.r.t. issues they choose to examine. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I would find it problematic if you did not include the line of reasoning for why Wilson thought the President was lying after you allow a discussion of the truth of the matter on his own bio page. If you are going to claim Wilson was wrong and cite sources, you should also allow claims that he was right with sources. Onefinalstep (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Already done, as of [30]. Hopefully it can kept to a brief summary of what the substantive disagreement actually was-- specifically involving Republican-proposed enforcement provisions. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Support for Joe Wilson

This POV needs to be properly represented in this article.

Possible sources:

• "I have been overwhelmed by supportive phone calls" - Talking Points Memo
• "I will not be muzzled" - Talking Points Memo
• "Wilson refuses to apologize on the house floor" - Roll Call (newspaper)
• "Rep. Joe Wilson Talks With Sean Hannity, Stands By His Comments" - The Washington Independent
• "Suppport Joe Wilson Rally Scheduled for Friday - The Palmetto Scoop

— Mike :  tlk  17:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It seems important that he refused to apologize on the House floor and is now using the incident to help fund-raise himself. --kizzle (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that such support, insofar as it actually materialises, is described based on reliable sources and can be described without WP:Synthesis, should be mentioned. But not because it's "a POV that needs to be properly represented", rather because it's significant (if it is shown to be significant). Rd232 ^talk 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Rob Miller donations

According to AP, Wilson's remark has now helped Miller raise $700,000 which is more than Miller raised in the entire 2008 cycle. I can't see how this wouldn't be considered notable. I'm going to put it back in if nobody has any problem. --kizzle (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be in, but we should also add a sentence noting that Wilson's own donations have done well as well according to this CNN article. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Added. Good idea Joshua. --kizzle (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Both of them raised more than Wilson made in the entire cycle, and Wilson was late in getting his rally going so it's up in the air at this point about which is going to make it first. Attributing that note in the same paragraph as Miller's income while having Wilson's in the previous paragraph, I feel, puts too much emphasis on Miller's success when both have profited here. Actually....I think I know how to change that. --Forgottenlord (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I got that wrong. I confused myself with Time's figure of something like 50K that Wilson has raised thus far this year --Forgottenlord (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Misc. Word 'Verbage' in this area, should read 'verbiage". MKohut (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)MKohut

Confederate flag vote

JoshuaZ re-added this paragraph which was originally added by Swpb:

In 2000, Wilson was one of seven Republicans in the South Carolina Senate to vote to continue flying the Confederate battle flag over the state house, saying, "The Southern heritage, the Confederate heritage is very honourable." The Senate voted 36-7 to take down the flag.

Are we going to include a paragraph about every S. Carolina Senate vote where Wilson was in the minority? I think not. The only reason for including this paragraph is to insinuate that Wilson is a racist. Eseymour (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I reinserted part of what was removed. I agree that two paragraphs was too much. I don't however see anything wrong with covering the more significant votes he made while in the state senate. The solution here is to add more than just this vote but to add details about others as well. We have a section on his early political career for a reason. Incidentally, the notion that discussing this vote somehow implies he is a racist only works if one buys into a very specific POV. Without that POV, that's not an implication. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This was a huge national event that even received some international coverage judging from the BBC article I just saw, and thus possibly the most important vote of Wilson's state house career. The fact that he was in a tiny minority makes it even more notable. Gamaliel (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In principle, a balanced section on significant votes could be appropriate. In practice, I don't see how we could ever come up with a neutral decision on which votes were and were not "significant." One could argue that since the vote on the Confederate flag was so lopsided, Wilson's vote was not significant. It's only the POV that holds the Confederate flag to be offensive (a POV which I personally sympathize with, BTW), that makes voting against taking it down "significant." I'm sure that the 36 Senators who voted in favor of taking down the flag don't have this vote noted in their bio.

Also, a section which lists all significant votes could become very cumbersome. And this article would get very long if we listed all of Wilson's significant votes throughout his career. Eseymour (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't list all the votes, but none isn't a good option either. Secondary sources should guide us, such as the international coverage of the flag vote or the profile I read of Wilson that listed three significant votes. Gamaliel (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. What was the profile? Rd232 ^talk 19:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if the profile was published by a reliable source, that would be perfect. Otherwise, it would be original research to come up with a list on our own. Eseymour (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The profile is from The State, an SC newspaper, based on something from the McClatchy wire service. I've added some info to the article as well as a link to the profile. Gamaliel (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Although that is a useful addition to the article, it concerns his career in the US House. Since the paragraph in question is in the section about his state senate career, that does not resolve the problem that the confederate flag vote is given undue weight in contrast to the rest of his state senate tenure. Eseymour (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does, but it goes to the larger point of how to handle bills in general. In the case of the confederate flag vote, as I noted earlier, the fact that it received international coverage is more than enough to justify our coverage here. Gamaliel (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you could call one BBC article that mentions him by name "international coverage", but I don't think that one article demonstrates enough notability to justify inclusion. If you could find other national or international news articles from that time (1999) that also mentioned Wilson specifically, I would agree that it merits inclusion. HKT^Talk 21:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if Wilson was mentioned in the context of an article about the Confederate flag vote, it doesn't mean that vote was the only, or even the most notable vote of his tenure in the SC Senate. (It might qualify Wilson to be mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the SC Confederate flag controversy, if there is one, but not vice versa.) What we need is a biographical article about Wilson by a reliable source which mentions that vote among other important votes. Eseymour (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Eseymour. However, if several news articles from 1999 indeed exist that cast Wilson as a major spokesman for keeping the flag, then that would certainly be notable along with any other notable SC Senate votes. HKT^Talk 21:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Such a thing would be great, but not required. Sufficient news coverage of Wilson's role would be enough here. Gamaliel (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that inclusion should hang on one single BBC article. (link for those who haven't seen it) There's plenty of coverage of the flag issue. As I pointed out it was a major national issue at the time. Gamaliel (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of coverage of the issue, but not plenty of coverage yet shown of Wilson as a spokesman for the issue. He voted for keeping the flag, but that alone isn't more notable that the other six people who voted likewise. No doubt, he voted on other notable issues as well. HKT^Talk 21:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if more than one article can be found which describes Wilson as a prominent spokesperson for keeping the flag, that would make it notable. (BTW, I've already done a quick Google search for a profile of Wilson's state senate career, but didn't find anything. If someone else could give it a try, I would greatly appreciate it.) Eseymour (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You might as well insinuate that he's racist. The Black Publishers and NAACP are calling him racist for his comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.197.32.56 (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a shame that juicy stuff gets the coverage. For example, his sponsored and co sponsored bills has 0 relatively little information while controversies receive three expanded subsections (the hatred for America one has a terrible header and the paragraph is nothing). Following that is another under represented section. Has he done anything important in committee? Where does or did he rank in those committees?

I understand that it is more fun and easier to find sources on controversial topics but some readers are more interested in his career than a couple of incidents. If things that good be looked at as positive (or at least of more interest to people researching politics instead of sensationalism) received more weight I see no concern with adding info about the flag vote.Cptnono (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are guided by secondary sources. If the secondary sources are talking about the controversies and not the obscure bills, so must we. I've added info about controversies, but also about bills about student loans for teachers when I can find that information discussed in sources. Gamaliel (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam War

Although Mr. Wilson's official Congressional bio shows that he served in the U.S. Army Reserves in the early 70's, there is no reference to service in Vietnam. How did he avoid service in that war?

Lahaun (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

He served in the AR from 1972-1975 then the SC National Guard from 1975-2003. The US had most of it's ground forces out of 'Nam by 1973 and brought the last units home 1975. As a lawyer in the Army Reserve Judge Advocate General's Corps he, in all likelihood, would not have been deployed to Vietnam and if he was, it would not have been in a combat role. L0b0t (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

LeHaun, if you want to go down that route you will need to find a reliable source. Reliefappearance (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson's House page...

http://www.joewilson.house.gov/

Is it notable that all contact information has been wiped, all sections have been removed, and everything has been replaced with a brief bio? Also, does anyone have contact information for this guy? Coolgamer (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

New fundraising totals.

Miller's at $1 million, Wilson's at $700,000.[31] --kizzle (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice you didn't point out that Wilson's page was taken down by hackers repeatedly preventing people from donating. In fact I don't see this listed on the wikipedia article. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/13/hackers-imperil-wilson-campaign-web-site/

Oh, the irony. [32]

in 2003, Wilson voted to provide federal funds for illegal immigrants’ healthcare. The vote came on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, which contained Sec. 1011 authorizing $250,000 annually between 2003 and 2008 for government reimbursements to hospitals who provide treatment for uninsured illegal immigrants. The program has been extended through 2009 and there is currently a bipartisan bill in Congress to make it permanent.

--kizzle (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What is your point? Reliefappearance (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Reimbursing hospitals for indigent care is not the same thing as paying for health care for undocumented guests. In the US, hospitals are required, by Federal law, to treat anyone who shows up, irrespective of gender, ethnicity, age, faith, or their ability to pay. To turn any patient (citizen, visitor, insured or uninsured) away from the hospital is against the law. This costs hospitals a great deal of money. Those costs are passed on to paying customers (which is one of the reasons health insurance is rather costly). Section 1011 provides for Federal funding to reimburse some of those costs. To mislabel that as funding illegal immigrant's health care strikes me as rather disingenuous. L0b0t (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

On Crystal Ball and BLP bugbears

As of this posting, the lede make no reference whatsoever to the outburst. This strikes me as unusual, and if you will, permit me to explain.

Right now, every media outlet in the US is covering the incident. Just in the past few days, it has already become, by far, the most notable thing to ever happen to him in his life so far. If you take a random sampling of stories that mention the congressman, virtually all will have been written as coverage for incident. The man was discussed on David Letterman, Jimmy Fallon, and other late night comics-- even for a congressman, that's incredibly rare.

Wilson's website AND Wilson's opponents website have both intermittently crashed due to the unexpected jump in traffic-- that alone should suggest that yes, within Wilson's life so far, this is the most notable portion.

But I see many saying that WP:RECENT and CRYSTALBALL and BLP prohibits a mention in the lede.

The purpose of WP:RECENT is to avoid any undeserved bias in favor of covering recent events. But the goal of WP:RECENT is to avoid bias in order to create the most informative article-- it doesn't mean you should have an anti-recent bias either. Weighed on the impartial scales of notability, without a thumb on either side of the scale.

As of this moment, the outburst is the most notable thing that has ever happened to him. We're not just biased because it's recent, it really is, by the numbers, THE most notable event in his life. We even have reliable sources that say as much.

Is Crystal Ball relevant? Yes! For you see, in this discussion, a lot of people have speculated that one day, in the future, this incident will be very obscure when compared with the whole of Wilson's life. and the might well be right, but they might well be wrong. It's speculation either way, and we can't even get into imagining how a future historian may cover this event.

Fortunately, we don't need to write for a future audience. We are not a print encyclopedia, and so our audience doesn't include people living 20 years from now. We just have to write for today, and save tomorrow for tomorrow.

As to BLP, no worries. None of the direct facts about what happened Wednesday are disputed-- the camera were rolling, reliable sources galore. Did any media outlets mention Wilson's actions? Yes, in fact, I'd wager that just about every single news source in the country covered it-- from the FoxNews to college newspapers, and back again. BLP draws a sharp line in the sand and warns us not to cross it. Fortunately, in mentioning the incident, we are insanely far from BLP's line in the sand-- if BLP draws a line in the sand to prevent libel, we would be located somewhere in the pacific ocean. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So whenever anyone is in the news their lead should reflect that event because that is what people will know most about them at that particular point in time? My answer is No. Wikipedia has Wikinews for just that type of event. Articles are designed to be written from a HISTORICAL point of view. If we cannot imagine how a future historian may cover this event then we have no reason to put it into the lead at this time. Additionally, you non-worries about BLP don't just apply to factual incidents, they also apply to the other core elements of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Do not fall into the trap of causality by showing an extreme bias to a current event defining the rather long lifetime of a human being. Arzel (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're way off base. WP:NOTNEWS (which is essentially your argument) is relevant as to whether articles should be made on particular events, and on whether events should be mentioned in existing articles. It has ZERO relevance as to whether a subject covered in an article should be mentioned in the lede. WP:LEAD covers that, and it says "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." Does the lede currently do that? No. So unless you're willing to extend your argument and say that the incident shouldn't be mentioned at all, you should just concede that it belongs in the lede, along with some other details, to give a summary of the article. Rd232 ^talk 16:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Arz-- well, if we are trying to write articles from a future historian style point of view, then it makes sense why you have such concerns. After all, there are many conceivable futures where this incident might wind up being a tiny footnote. If Wilson rebounds and later goes on to be elected president, for example. But my whole reading of RECENT and CRYSTALBALL is that we shouldn't do that sort of speculative balancing. Instead, we just look at reliable secondary source and take our cues from them.

Which is to say-- WP:RECENT is a good caution, but it is only a caution. No one means for it to trump Notability, RS, V, NPOV, and whatever else.

And intuitively, doesn't that make sense? Any few days where your opponent raises a million dollars is a notable event. Any time your name is on basically every paper in the english speaking world-- that's a notable event. Any time multiple reliable sources describe someone as a relative unknown who was suddenly thrust into the spotlight by his actions Wednesday-- that's a notable day in your life.

--Alecmconroy (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly why most people make intuitive mistakes. We have no way to know if this event will be a defining moment in his life a year from now, or even 6 months from now. And if you think you can predict what will happen in the future please let me know what the powerball numbers will be tonight. I would much rather spend my time scuba diving. Arzel (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WTF? We don't care what happens in a year's time - that's the essence of WP:CRYSTAL. Right now this is undisputably something that needs to go in the lede, because the lede is supposed to summarise the article (WP:LEAD), and this is a key part of it. Rd232 ^talk 19:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rd232, Alecmconroy and others and see no consensus for removal of the most notable facts from the lead at this point. Ignatzkirby (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What Obama actually said

As far as I can tell, Obama did not reference a specific bill.

Thus I feel this line needs to go/be changed:

"he stated that the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would not include coverage for illegal immigrants. (The bill specifically excludes illegal immigrants from receiving affordability credits,[20] but does not restrict noncitizens from participating in the separate, Health Insurance Exchange.)[21]"

Here is what Obama actually said:

"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

Reliefappearance (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Handling the lede

Should the lede, which currently says little more than that Joe Wilson is a Congressman, be expanded to summarise the article (WP:LEAD)? As part of such an expansion, should the recent comments he made which launched him from relative obscurity to international attention (France's Le Monde dubbed him "Joe 'You Lie' Wilson" [33]) be included in the lede? Rd232 ^talk 19:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Do the international articles specifically state that there is international attention or are you just showing the article as evidence of that? If so, I would think that is original research.Reliefappearance (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not showing one article, there are three mentioned in the article at the moment - major newspapers in three languages (I selected those for their majorness, there are loads more - I'm sure the incident has been mentioned in every major European newspaper). Here's another one, specifically on Wilson (Die Welt): [34] "Bis zum Mittwochabend gegen 20 Uhr Ostküstenzeit war Joe Wilson außerhalb seines Wahlkreises so bekannt wie ein "Angestellter des Monats" im nächstbesten McDonald's." (Until about 8pm Wednesday Joe Wilson was as well known outside his district as an 'Employee of the Month' at the local McDonald's.) He was unknown, and now Die Welt has an article all about him and the incident. Rd232 ^talk 22:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you 100 percent. Problem is, that is original research. Reliefappearance (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't WP:OR - it's based on a reliable source. Nor is it WP:Synthesis. It is a fact supportable by that article alone. Rd232 ^talk 03:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia. I don't know what the article says, therefore I am assuming that you cite the article as evidence of international coverage. That is original research. Reliefappearance (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. It's common sense. He's accurately characterizing the media response, not synthesizing primary sources together. Also, it doesn't help your argument when you admit you haven't read the article in question. --kizzle (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• No. This is a clear case of recentism, there is no reason to violate WP policies by biasing the lead towards current events. Arzel (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, the "You lie!" incident should be in the lead according to the WP:LEAD guideline "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article ... explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." Clearly, based on the international attention it has received, the "You lie!" outburst is the most notable part of this topic. As reliable sources call this unprecedented and of historical significance, including this in the lead is not counter to the advice given in the WP:RECENT essay, which encourages "edit[ing] articles with[] regard to long-term historical perspective." Ignatzkirby (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• No. WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT. If later, reliable sources report that this incident is a major defining incident in the Congressman's career, then the lede can be updated. It would be premature to do so now. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

*No Textbook case of WP:RECENTism. L0b0t (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes kizzle made a most convincing argument below L0b0t (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. WP:RECENT is an important essay to keep in mind, but it certainly doesn't prohibit mention of a recent event in the lead, especially when WP:LEAD compels us to note "significant controversies" in the lead. Note the mention of recent controversies in the leads of these articles: Mark Sanford, Eliot Spitzer, Michael D. Duvall. When Wlison's name is on heavy rotation in the news for days, then we can safely conclude that this is a significant, lead-worthy event in the life of an otherwise undistinguished backbencher. Given the unprecedented nature of this event in modern history and the media coverage it has received so far, you don't need a crystal ball to see that this will be event will be mentioned constantly in discussions of presidential addresses and will feature prominently in the lead column of all of his obituaries. If, for some miraculous reason, this event fades into the mists of obscurity, we can reassess the lead at that time. Gamaliel (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. Wilson is described by reliable sources as an "unknown South Carolina congressman" before this event. The rude outburst made him famous around the world and belongs in the lead. Wilson's bad behavior has the force of tradition and history behind it, with South Carolina politicians John C. Calhoun and Preston Brooks both famously attacking American politicans and being chiefly remembered for those attacks. And like Calhoun and Brooks, this is what Joe Wilson will be forever remembered for in the history books. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• No, thank you per above--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: This is not a vote, and those who merely refer to an essay (WP:Recentism) without even attempting to address the requirements of the WP:LEAD guideline to summarise the article are doing nothing to advance their position within this debate. Nor does a reference to that essay justify exclusion of an event of such magnitude, regardless of how recently it happened. (We would not exclude Wilson's death if it happened recently, would we? So how is this any different?) Rd232 ^talk 03:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A few notes about the arguments presented above. WP:RECENTISM is an essay, not a guideline. Even the essay itself says it's a highly debatable issue. But if we are to follow the spirit of the essay and apply the 10-year test, I can easily see that in 10 years, Wilson's remark will join the ranks of "There you go again" and "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." For those who are going to cite WP:LEAD, you can't just substitute a cogent argument with a wikilink to the page. The very introduction of the guideline states "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points — including any notable controversies". If you are to use WP:LEAD as a reason for exclusion, it is incumbent upon you to explicitly demonstrate that this controversy is not notable. When two words from a senator garner international coverage from newspapers in different languages, you're going to be fighting an uphill battle to claim the incident does not satisfy "notability" as present within the explicit language of the guideline. --kizzle (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it belongs in the lead, we just have to agree on wording. I undid an edit I felt was improperly worded.Reliefappearance (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop playing childish games. The version you whitewashed was properly worded according to reliable sources Wilson did not just interrupt the President. He called him a liar. That's a very important fact you deleted. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page where you posted as well, why summarize when you can quote? It's not like it's a long sentence. And how is changing "calling him a liar" to "said 'You lie!'" whitewashing? It was just a minor fix, but if it has you all bent out of shape I don't have a problem with your version. --kizzle (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Now the wording is just atrocious. Worse than it was last night. Reliefappearance (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

He may very well become Infamous You Lie Joe (and maybe one day his article will be renamed to that), but the passions and buzz of the moment is not the appropriate time to decide. Wikipedia has no duty to include with swiftness the nuances of a particular news cycle, much less promote to the opening description of a living person.Yeago (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this a "notable controversy"? --kizzle (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

????? Of course its notable. But a greater length of time will tell if it is so pertinent it needs to go in the lead, or if its on the same level as the other sections of the article.Yeago (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Of course it's notable." - Yeago
• "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points — including any notable controversies" - Wikipedia explicit policy language regarding leads: WP:LEAD

--kizzle (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're interpreting that policy correctly. For instance, is the birth certificate stuff a "notable controversy" over Barack Obama? I would say yes, based on the amount of media attention it has received. Should it go in the lead to the President's WP biography? Absolutely not. Eseymour (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say unequivocally that the birth certificate is not a notable controversy, especially for a U.S. President as compared to a mere Congressman. --kizzle (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How can you conclude that the birth certificate flap is not notable? It has received at least as much media attention as the Wilson outburst. However, your response does acknowledge that it is notability in the relevant context which matters. The fact that there are recent news articles about the Wilson outburst does not establish that it is notable in a biographical context. Show me an article at some point in the future which is not primarily about the ouburst, yet references it as an important fact about Wilson, and then we can conclude that it's biographically notable.Eseymour (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama is known for so many other things than a widely-debunked half-baked theory. I've listed three mainstream WP:RS's that state Wilson was an obscure senator Congressman before this incident brought him to the forefront of politics. It's not a partisan thing, as I wouldn't say George W. Bush's intro should include "He led the country into a war on false pretenses" and that controversy was waaay more notable than a fringe "birther" theory. I know you'll never admit this, but I bet you that 3 weeks ago you never even heard of Congressman Wilson before this. And like James said, if he later cures cancer and that's what is most notable about him, we can always change the lead later. --kizzle (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would hope you wouldn't say that about Bush, because that is a matter of opinion, not of fact. Anyway, I'll gladly admit that I hadn't heard of Rep. Wilson 3 weeks ago. I looked up his Wikipedia article to find out what 'else' he has done in his career. Just because some event draws a lot of attention to a person over a period of several days doesn't necessarily mean that event belongs in a 1-paragraph summary of their entire life.Eseymour (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• No Beware recentism. If this is more than a 15 minutes wonder a month or three from now, we may reconsider. Ray^Talk 17:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarify for me-- Are you suggesting that this article's lede shouldn't summarize the body of the article or are you saying that the entirety of the article shouldn't cover such a recent outburst at this point in time? --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that the current outburst is not significant enough to merit prominent mention in the lead of the article. To do so would be giving current events undue weight. Indeed, the section describing the outburst is perhaps overly long. Ray^Talk 21:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Per the guideline WP:LEDE, the lede reflects the relative emphasis the article itself gives to various topics, and it should stand alone as a summary of the article. And I don't think you're going to see an article that doesn't cover this subject any time soon. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course we should cover the incident. We're not in the business of pretending facts didn't happen. But that's no requirement for a summary of the article to include mention of it. Small events do not get included in broad summaries. I see nobody suggesting that we include details of his family life, nor his electoral campaigns, in the lead, despite their getting several paragraphs in the article. Writing a summary requires us to be alert to questions of relative significance, which is where the specter or recentism rears its ugly head. Ray^Talk 21:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If Wilson has ever raised $750,000 during any other 48 period in his entire lifetime, then by all means, let's add that event to the lede too. That should solve the recentism concerns. If there is ever another event in his life in which he raises even more than that, then maybe we might want to revisit the relative notability of this current "lifetime best" in fundraising for Wilson. (We could also use other standards like "Covered on every media outlet in the US" or even "Spoke during a broadcast that received 32 million viewers"-- all those objective measure of notability are by this incident and ONLY by this incident).

WP:RECENT will never be a concern when we're discussing the most notable, by far, event in the already-notable individual's entire life. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Now we are finally, and properly, engaged in a discussion of the significance of the event to a person's life, which should be the measure by which inclusion in the summary should be judged. And to that, I repeat my initial statement: "Beware recentism. If this is more than a 15 minutes wonder a month or three from now, we may reconsider." Its relative significance cannot be judged right away, as passing events always seem more important when they are happening. There's no hurry. If this still seems like a big deal a good period of time later, we can consider it then. Ray^Talk 22:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere in Wikpedia policy do I find evidence that the notability of a recent event is unjudgeable. If you want an up-to-three-months embargo on events that meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards, you should propose a new policy. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere in Wikipedia policy do I find evidence that we must immediately rush to judgment on passing news items. In fact, Wikipedia policy is full of sensible admonitions to avoid unwonted urgency (see, for example, the spirit of WP:DISENGAGE). A request for comment was made - my reply is that its relative significance is not easy to judge right away as the event is too recent, that no harm will come to Wikipedia of waiting until a more considered judgment can be made, and that such respect for the distorting effect of recent events on the mind is only sensible. Why do you insist on such a mention, and so soon? Ray^Talk 22:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In my eyes, Verifiability, Reliable Sources, Notability, NPOV, and ISAENCYCLOPEDIA all say we should include all notable facts that are backed up by reliable sources. One could make a good argument that Wikipedia should only cover events that are sufficiently far removed in time as to give us proper perspective-- but that isn't our policy at this time. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, include it, as part of the summary of the current article. If, at some point in the future, Wilson becomes better known for discovering a cure for cancer, that will be included in his article, and the introductory section will be modified to be a summary of the article as it then stands. JamesMLane t c 01:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, include it. - per reasons I've already stated above. --kizzle (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and properly cite/directly attribute the opinion of "this is why he gained attention/notoriety, etc.." to the source, as is required by WP:BLP. I still maintain that it was absolutely inappropriate to try to gauge appropriate weight of this controversy mere hours after the occurrence of the event. Several days have passed now, and at least Wilson has been given an opportunity to make a statement in his own defense. I still think that it's borderline defamatory to give so much weight to the juicy gossip, but at this point any policy violations are subjective (i.e., "how important is this issue, quantitatively?"). — Mike :  tlk  15:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "In less than 48 hours, Rep. Joe Wilson's two little words have lifted the relatively obscure congressman into what could only be called Sarah Palin Status." - The Atlantic Monthly
  • "The congressman, who has been catapulted onto the national stage in the past few days from a relatively obscure role as a lawmaker..." - New York Times
  • "For his temerity, the obscure representative is obscure no more." - CBSNews
  • --kizzle (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And an example of direct attribution would be "According to the New York Times, the congressman, who has been....". Finding a reliable source does not give us license to assert opinion as fact. Since you have three sources, I am tempted to say "According to various news organizations", if not for WP:WEASEL ("various" is bad). — Mike :  tlk  18:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, so attributing either NYTimes or "Various news sources" and then you're ok with it, right? --kizzle (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• No (wait) Right now everyone is too caught up in the frenzy over this 15-second event to determine objectively whether it is a defining moment in Wilson's career (I would guess that it will, but I don't have a crystal ball). Sure, right now if you say the name "Joe Wilson," people are going to think about "You lie!" But if you say "The Beatles," a lot of people are going to think about the recent release of the re-mastered albums and video game, but does that mean that should be mentioned in the lead paragraph? I think not. As Yeago said, Wikipedia has no duty to include with swiftness the nuances of a particular news cycle, much less promote to the opening description of a living person.Eseymour (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeago also said this is a "notable controversy". The explicit language of WP:LEAD says right in the beginning that the lead should contain "any notable controversies." And with CBSNews, NYTimes, and many many others saying this event brought the Congressman out of obscurity, I think it's safe to say the event satisfies the "notable controversy" clause in WP:LEAD. --kizzle (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • As I explained above, you are misinterpreting the WP guideline. Just because something is currently notable in any way doesn't mean it belongs in the lead paragraph. Other guidelines and policies must be taken into account, such as WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. (In fact, the latter two are policies, which are more important than guidelines.) Eseymour (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Can you please couch your response with specific passages from WP:BLP or WP:WEIGHT rather than just saying they support your argument? Also, I'm just letting you know your post did not refute the point that WP:LEAD explicitly states "notable controversies" may be included in the lead. If you are referring to other policy or guideline language that mitigates this, please provide it in explicit form. --kizzle (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree that "notable controversies" may be included in the lead, but what I'm saying here is that just because something is a "notable controversy" from a certain perspective doesn't mean it automatically gets included in the lead. IOW, the phrase you've been quoting from WP:LEAD doesn't really get us anywhere. I agree the outburst belongs in the article, but we don't have enough perspective to know if it belongs in the lead. Show me a news article that is not primarily about the ouburst but which identifies wilson as "the guy who yelled 'you lie'", and I'll agree it belongs in the lead. Eseymour (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I posted three links right above this from mainstream WP:RS's that says the Congressman was "obscure" until the incident made him a household name. --kizzle (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes -- the goal of a lead is to summarize the article (WP:LEAD). Any rational review of the coverage would suggest that this incident is a significant moment in the congressman's career. (A lexis or googlenews search for articles about him before and after will back this up). And honestly, it's hard to see how a realistic future in which the event in question would not be a significant part (as opposed to the beatles argument posed above). As long as the lead is NPOV, there shouldn't be a problem with including this event. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• yes. As I mentioned in a prior talk section regarding the lead of this article, the primary notability of this person today is his outburst. If it's any help at this stage of discussion, this article had roughly 200 edits starting from the time of its inception in 2004 to just prior to the Sept 9 outburst accusing the US president of lying in front of a joint session of the US Congress. In the past five days or so, this article's edit history has exploded to nearly a thousand edits, very roughly a 500% increase in total five-year traffic in just a few days. This immediate and drastic increase is, it seems to to me, unquestionably a consequence of the increased national attention, and also worldwide attention to what the international community increasingly appears to regard as a, might I say?, a prurient spectacle of sorts. But either way, the headlines in the newspapers in other nations than the US in the past several days refer directly to Wilson. Quoting the guideline WP:LEAD:

  The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible.

  So, yes, it should be in the lead, according to WP guidelines, probably right in the first or second sentence of the article. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• NO. This should not be in the lead of the article. If that is ultimately what he is historically famous for, but right now no. Besides it is a violation of the WP: BLP isn't it? Congressman Preston Brooks has the beating he delivered to Charles Sumner in the lede of his article but that is a story that has stood the test of time. What is it with South Carolina congressmen? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you please state the explicit language in WP:BLP that you believe is being violated? --kizzle (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality tagged

I had to put a neutrality tag on the section about the outburst.

1)The article implies Joe Wilson was wrong, but there was a loophole that would allow illegas to use the services, so Wilson was not wrong.

2)The Denial-of-service allegation should be mentioned, as without it leftists can claim that their 2010 candidate got a windfall that WIlson didn't, wheras the DOS attack would indicate why the disparity.

Until these are added and stay added, the article is not neutral.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 17:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"without it leftists can claim that their 2010 candidate got a windfall that WIlson didn't, wheras the DOS attack would indicate why the disparity." So far the only source talking about that is a campaign staffer for Wilson and a mention on Fox News. A DDoS attack would have knocked out the server or prevented incoming connections... so tell me Bedford how were they able to keep a message up with Wilson's bio and a message saying the site is temporarily down due to heavy traffic? --kizzle (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You slap an NPOV tag on the article, and when that is challenged you demand edit changes without even attempting to persuade your fellow editors, on a highly visible BLP? This is nonsensical enough for me to consider that perhaps your autoreviewer flag should be removed, as it displays an alarming lack of respect for your fellow editors, and an impressive display of rank arrogance and certainty that your POV is the only possible correct one. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

and now I find that Bedford has been edit warring to include this, with no discussion until prompted, and that on his last edit to revert and replace this, he used the argument that its true. Allow me to remind you, Bedford, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the alleged DOS attack-- I think that if it did occur, then it probably be relevant to an article that covers of post-outburst donations. But did it occur? Right now, we don't have a reliable source that it did. So far as I know, Joe Wilson hasn't said he was victimized, it hasn't been discussed by anyone in the federal government (which ran the allegedly attacked computers), and it hasn't been discussed by law enforcement. Nor is there any suggestion that the anonymous staffer has the knowledge in computer forensics necessary to even be able to distinguish an intentional DOS attack from a benign slashdot effect like those invariably seen after a sudden spike in traffic. After all, Wilson's 2010 opponent also had extended web outages without any criminal involvement. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I recommend removing the neutrality tag. On the DDOS matter, Bedford appears to be repeating a claim that has yet to be mentioned except in partisan speculation, let alone objectively studied to see if there had been any quantitative effects.

Bedford's first point, even without knowing the subject matter itself, has notable logical flaw in it: "..article implies Joe was *wrong," but "there was a loophole," so "Joe was not wrong." Classic example of circular reasoning largely because Bedford is not clear about what he means by *wrong, and is confusing the issue of wrongness for the outburst with wrongness on the substance. Perhaps Factcheck.org says that Bedford is right:[35]:

Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

False: "That’s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes "SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we’ve said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs."

Actually, it doesn't. It says that Wilson was wrong. Therefore Bedford's claim that "Wilson was not wrong" is unsubstantiated, and unless he cites sources that explain how Wilson "was not wrong", I don't see how else his comments can be interpreted except as pushing a POV usage of the neutrality tag. The point is that even if Wilson *is "not wrong" about the issue, it doesn't affect one way or another how he *was not "right" to make the outburst. -Stevertigo 18:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Bedford has been edit warring to include poorly sourced and inaccurate information, and not getting his way by edit warring, has tagged the article with an inappropriate tag. I suggest we be done with this subject. Bedford, consider yourself warned for disruption. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

One thing, though, the matter has been reported by Fox News. So the question is, is Fox News a WP:RS? --kizzle (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RS is defined relative to an alleged fact, so we'll never be able to neatly segment sources into inherently reliable and inherently unreliable. Even a flat earth website can be a reliable source as to its author's personal opinions, whereas even Time Magazine can never be a reliable source for whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream is inherently the best. Regarding the Fox DOS attack claim, my own view would be that Fox might well be a reliable source for the fact that a campaign staffer was willing to say that an attack occurred so long as Fox promised not to reveal the staffer's name.

So while it might be reliably sourced that "Lone staffer makes currently-unsubstantiated allegation to Fox News", a staffer's anonymous claim isn't a notable fact. Conversely, "Wilson victim of a crime" has not yet been reliable sourced.

Good news is though, if it's true, this won't won't be a close call for Wikipedia. If there was a crime, we'll all be hearing about it on mainstream media and law enforcement will be getting involved. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I would consider Fox News an extremely reliable source on a negative take on a Republican person and by similar logic extremely unreliable in defending Republicans, et al. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have consistently argued here that debate over the details of this health care should be completely left out of this article. This is a biography on Joe Wilson, not a forum to air out arguments over health care reform. Here is how that section should read.

During President Obama's September 9, 2009 speech to a joint session of Congress, in which he discussed health care reform, Wilson interrupted the speech during a statement that the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would not include coverage for illegal immigrants. In a breach of decorum, Wilson interrupted by shouting, "You lie!". After the session, members of Congress from both Republican and Democratic parties condemned the outburst, with John McCain saying it was "Totally disrespectful. No place for it in that setting or any other and he should apologize immediately." Later that night, Wilson's office issued an official statement saying, "This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.” President Obama accepted Wilson's apology, saying, "I’m a big believer that we all make mistakes. He apologized quickly and without equivocation and I’m appreciative of that." However the incident proved to be a fundraising boon for his upcoming election. He later refused to apologize again on the House floor.

Internal links direct viewers to relevant articles where they can view the details of the matter. Every statement in that paragraph is a statement of fact, and all of it directly pertains to Rep Wilson. No unnecessary details and the section does not take up an undue weight of the article. EricLeFevre (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The last two sentences are dubious. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least the rest of it is passable. How should those last two sentences be worded? I was against including them at all, but other editors insisted that fundraising totals from supporters be included thus those two sentences are there. EricLeFevre (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A lot of controversial choices in the above text:

• Wilson didn't say anything about "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009", nor did Obama.
• The exact quote from Obama that prompted Wilson's response has been deleted, despite it being a notable and undisputed fact.
• The fundraising boon of Wilson's opponent has been deleted, making it appear that the even was a political win, despite the funding and polling evidence that suggests it's mixed.
• Repeating Wilson's accusation but deleting the fact that the accusation has been widely reported to be false is a violation of NPOV at a minimum.
• Wilson's "shall not be muzzled" fundraising video has been widely discussed in the media-- without it, one is left with the impression that Wilson doesn't stand by his initial "You Lie" statement, when in fact, he does stand by it (albeit he has apologized for the time and manner of their delivery).

I could go on, but I think those are probably enough sticking points that there will be plenty of discussion before that text gets used. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The deal is, this is a bio page. In my proposed wording, all details have been removed. Obama said yyy (paraphrased due to length), Wilson shouted "You Lie." After that, it flows into condemnations of what he said, immediate effects. I will say it again, this is a biography page. Joe Wilson this, Joe Wilson that, anything that does not pertain to Joe Wilson does not belong here. That includes the factual accuracy of both Obama and Wilson (note that neither of their views were supported or defended), details of what the legislation does or does not do, and actions that other people did to support someone else who happens to be running against wilson next year. This is not a place to detail exactly what happened in this event. EricLeFevre (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If I correctly understand the reasoning of the editors who appear to have arrived at a preliminary consensus to include the additional brief statements about the immediate aftermath, the direct consequences if you will, of Wilson's outburst, which apparently are cited to reliable sources: One aspect of the aftermath has to do with widespread debate about the factual accuracy, or lack thereof, of Wilson's outburst that Obama was lying in his summary of one provision of the bill. Another direct consequence has to do with Congress's response to the outburst. As Stevertigo alluded to just above, the former is a substantive analysis, the latter is a procedural analysis-- but both issues are direct consequences that have been widely discussed in the media. I happen to agree with the editors who included these statements in this BLP article about the immediate aftermath of Mr. Wilson's now internationally famous outburst, for the reason that Mr. Wilson's outburst was a proximate cause of these things mentioned in the section about the outburst. Same goes for the immediate infusion of substantial contributions into both Wilson's and his political opponent Mr. Miller's campaign funds-- the outburst is a proximate cause of these developments. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2009 (UT

To say that whether or not Wilson's statement - the most famous of his life - is actually true has nothing to do with Wilson is absurd. Gamaliel (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think KillerChihuahua proved me right, as she accused me of edit-warring when I hadn't. Then again, she probably has hatred for me for counteracting a friend's abuse of admin powers a year ago.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 22:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV tag isn't correctly used as an attention getter or as leverage in content disputes. The issues you brought up at the top of this section aren't WP:NPOV issues, at least not in the sense the WP community generally understands and uses the concept. (Please see, e.g., the policy itself and the essay WP:Core content policies.) ... Kenosis (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As EricLeFevre might say, if it doesn't have anything to do with Wilson, it doesn't belong here. Please don't import conflicts from other pages. Take them to user talk pages or admin noticeboards. Gamaliel (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, Bedford, nor what you think I've proved. The only thing I remember about you is that Jimbo desysopped you, and I don't even remember for what. Your attempt to somehow smear me is both inappropriate, as Gamaliel notes, and ineffectual. Be done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wilson achieved notoriety with a loud interruption of the president during a September 9, 2009 joint session of Congress convened in the midst of the health care reform debate. After President Obama claimed that it was untrue that his health care reform included coverage for illegal immigrants, Wilson loudly interrupted by shouting "You lie!" After the session, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle condemned the breach of decorum, with John McCain (AZ-R) saying it was "totally disrespectful. No place for it in that setting or any other and he should apologize immediately." Later that night, Wilson's office issued an official statement saying, "This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.” President Obama accepted Wilson's apology, saying, "I’m a big believer that we all make mistakes. He apologized quickly and without equivocation and I’m appreciative of that." However, the incident was followed by a rise in the levels of fundraising in his congressional district.

--Ring Cinema (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Eric LeFevre writes above:

In my proposed wording, all details have been removed. Obama said yyy (paraphrased due to length), Wilson shouted "You Lie." After that, it flows into condemnations of what he said, immediate effects. I will say it again, this is a biography page. Joe Wilson this, Joe Wilson that, anything that does not pertain to Joe Wilson does not belong here. That includes the factual accuracy of both Obama and Wilson....

The trouble is that Eric's proposed wording, like that of Ring Cinema above, does not flow into the condemnations. Both of them report the condemnations of the manner of Wilson's comment but omit the condemnations of the substance of Wilson's comment. The latter, although less prominent, were also significant enough to merit a sentence in the article. They can't be ignored simply because they refer to the factual accuracy of the competing statements. I suggest something like:

In addition, Wilson was widely criticized for inaccuracy, because the principal bill being discussed expressly excludes coverage for undocumented aliens. Wilson and his defenders responded that those provisions of the bill might not be adequately enforced.

I'm not sure about the wording of the second sentence of this addition, but I think that Wilson himself has indeed offered that defense, and his position (whatever it actually is) should be included. JamesMLane t c 01:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your take on the condemnations. I am careful to be neutral on the point, which is fine for right now. 2) The factual accuracy of Wilson's remark is subject to too many subjective uncertainties. For example, James, you make the common mistake of specifying to which document the president referred; be aware that you could be wrong about that and also be wrong about whether or not Wilson believed that was what Obama meant. So let's just set that issue aside for this draft as I did. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the second sentence summarizing Wilson's assumed POV. I'll just say-- this may be one of those rare instances where the NPOV is the Factual POV. The mainstream media has been reporting Wilson's inaccuracy as a fact-- maybe this is one of those cases where you just quote the media and let it stand. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Alec I don't know what you mean. Which second sentence? "Wilson's inaccuracy" = what? I can think of a lot of things Wilson could have been inaccurate about. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, sorry about that. Reading it over now, it wouldn't make sense to me either if I hadn't written it.

Basically what I was trying to say is that-- usually we do a "one line from each side" style of the sort JamesMLane used above:

Wilson was widely criticized for inaccuracy, because the principal bill being discussed expressly excludes coverage for undocumented aliens. Wilson and his defenders responded that those provisions of the bill might not be adequately enforced.

But in some instances where there is consensus among reliable sources, we can just quote some of the reliable sources instead, as we do here:

The non-partisan Factcheck.org noted that "the President was correct". The Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact said Wilson's claim was false.

So, essentially I was saying that this may be a case where we should employ this second strategy, rather than try to open the can of worms ourselves. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that the FactCheck article does not say Wilson was wrong about enforcement, only that the bill's language was explicit regarding illegal immigrants.

However, conservative critics object to a lack of specific enforcement measures in the bill. They argue that the lack of a specific verification mechanism constitutes a loophole that would allow illegal immigrants to get benefits despite the legal prohibition. Republican Rep. Dean Heller of Nevada proposed an amendment to the bill that would have required the use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program to check the citizenship of anyone applying for federal coverage or affordability credits. SAVE is the program used by Medicaid and similar entitlement programs. That amendment was voted down along party lines by the House Ways and Means Committee. Republicans have a point here: More could be done to enforce the ban. But it’s worth remembering that, as a spokesperson for the American Immigration Lawyers Association told us, attempting to get a health care credit would have legal repercussions. "Making a fraudulent claim to an entitlement program when you’re not actually entitled to it would have serious consequences for any person," the spokesperson told us, "but especially if it’s considered a false claim to citizenship, that would have serious immigration consequences that could ultimately lead to deportation." And Rep. Wilson certainly was out of bounds to call the president’s statement a "lie." He later issued a statement apologizing for his "inappropriate and regrettable" comments.

So your own source says that "Republicans have a point" when it comes to enforcement. --kizzle (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally fine with Eric's version + James's modification + a mention that the incident raised almost double the funds that Wilson's opponent raised in the entire 2008 campaign cycle. --kizzle (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ring Cinema writes: "James, you make the common mistake of specifying to which document the president referred; be aware that you could be wrong about that and also be wrong about whether or not Wilson believed that was what Obama meant." No, I'm not making any assumptions about what anyone thought. My wording reflects the objective fact that many commentators analyzed Wilson's outburst by looking at HR 3200 and its provisions re immigrants. We can report that that approach was common. If there's some RS about what Wilson thought, we can report that, too.

Even if you believe that "The factual accuracy of Wilson's remark is subject to too many subjective uncertainties," there is no uncertainty about the prevalence of the criticism of Wilson as inaccurate. Per WP:NPOV, we can and should report facts about notable opinions. There's a notable body of opinion that says Wilson wasn't just a jerk, he was an inaccurate jerk. JamesMLane t c 07:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response. To me it appears that Wilson was unjustified, but that is different from being inaccurate. I don't think it's worth spending much time on either question, though, since the real point of the offense was the place and time of the outburst. Wilson would not have been much noticed making a similar charge in his home district on a Saturday night. Since the place and time are the heart of the matter, that is what should be emphasized in the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with emphasizing the time and place. I said that the criticism of the substance of his remark was less prominent than the criticism of its manner. Nevertheless, simply because his statement wasn't made in his district on Saturday night, its substance received far more attention than it otherwise would have, and that level of attention for the substance of a remark by a junior Congressman is noteworthy. We can continue to emphasize the issue about the place and time but include one sentence about the charge that he was inaccurate, and then (per NPOV) one sentence about the other side. JamesMLane t c 15:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

James states better than I did what I was trying to state above about just calling a fact a fact. The majority of new sources appear to mostly be reporting Wilson's comment as factually incorrect, and this may be one of those instances like truthers or birthers, where we just report the comment along with reporting the media's assessment of it as factually inaccurate.

Actually, I'm having a problem with the two sentence form that James proposes above, with its implication that this is the entirety of the dispute in a nutshell. That's why I'd like to see it linked outside Wikipeda to that fantastic place where both sides have their say. Am I alone with that little problem? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My two-sentence form would include a wikilink to the article about HR 3200. That's the article where both sides should be presented fully and fairly. Right now there is such a section in that article, but it's very terse and should be expanded. Furthermore, even without the wikilink, I don't think any reader would get an implication that, in a bio of one individual Congressman, a passing reference to an issue means that the entirety of the dispute about that issue has for some reason been incorporated in that one bio. JamesMLane t c 18:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Note of course that saying Wilson was wrong is a very different thing from saying, for example, that illegal immigrants will benefit from health care reform or that a specific bill in the house wouldn't do enough for enforcement. There are no shortage of points that could be made-- but the precise wording and timing used by Obama and Wilson makes this a narrow instance where, since no one is actually proposing the govt insure illegal immigrants, it's easier to report as inaccurate.

Do we have a better article we can direct people to about the details? It does seem like this should flow into the large question of the health care reform debate, though via link rather than a fully detailed discussion here. --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with directing people to the article about the principal bill? That's where the details should be examined. JamesMLane t c 17:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. One sentence on each side with a wikilink to HR3200 -- Wilson was widely criticized because the bill's language explicitly forbids, and Wilson and supporters defend because of enforcement issues... Ring Cinema above states that he has a problem with these two sentences but failed to give an alternative that he/she believes better encapsulates the debate in a nutshell. --kizzle (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Breach of Decorum?"

Should be re-worded. A bit biased don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkderick (talk • contribs) 03:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It was not just a breach of some amorphous, arbitrarily invented sin called "decorum" in the generic sense, but rather was, according to reliable sources, a breach of previously established behavioral rules in the US Congress which use the word "decorum" as an official term of art with a set of available sanctions, perhaps ironically including reprimand, censure and/or expulsion. For the Congressional rules, see, e.g., this source ... Kenosis (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't require rewording. Perfectly accurate naming of the nature of the action. You make the point rather well, Kenosis, that it was a breach of decorum. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Less than 45 seconds before Joe Wilson's outburst (2:13), BHO said, unreservedly and to Democratic applause, about another of the conservatives' talking points, "It is a lie, plain and simple" (1:30). True, BHO never says "YOU lie" or "YOU, Such-n-Such, are a liar", but the general effect, after a history of uncountable repetitions against conservatives (just the same day, in the same speech, he was speaking of "bogus claims", falsehoods [both of which are equivalent to saying lie, in — granted — a polite way] and "bickering" [which says that other people's arguments are not arguments, but simply misinformation — lies? — because "true" opinions can only be from the left] as well as "all the misinformation that has been spread over the past few months"), is quite similar… I would write much more, but it'll become argument; still, maybe some of this — double standards and conservative frustration thereat — should be added to the article. Asteriks (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought you misspelled HBO for a second... I've never heard of BHO as an acronym except by people who want to childishly remind others that his middle name resembles that of a toppled dictator. Feel free to propose specific passages to be included, but it's hard to comment on such amorphous suggestions as you're making. --kizzle (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps also it was missed that what the president said is not a direct and specific breach of section 370 of the House Rules Manual, which enumerates several things that members are not allowed to say about the president in the chamber. Members are not permitted to, among other things, "call the President a "liar." There is respect for the office, you see. He's President. No one else is. Its not the person, its the office. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still rolling over how much this flimsy little thing called decorum is being trumpeted around this week. Because, obviously it wasn't a breach of decorum to march members of Code Pink around the house, use any number of real-life sock puppets to attack Bush during the bulk of his presidency. This is just another example of the pot calling the kettle black while we get whiplash from how fast house democrats go from the caring, compassionate horse refuse and whip out the torches and pitchforks. I suppose compassion only applies to people you can profit from? I would definately say re-word it :/ 68.44.212.4 (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

IP 68.44.212.4, members of Code Pink are not members of the United States Congress and therefore are not subject to the same rules and regulations as Congressmen/women. Decorum, as described (and cited) over and over again in this discussion, is an official set of rules that governs the behavior of members of Congress. When a member of Congress violates these rules it is significant and noteworthy, especially in the unprecedented manner in which this Congressman violated the rules. Observing your comments here, on Rush Limbaugh's page, and thoughts about Michael Moore - it is clear that your comments are politically motivated and do nothing to add to the value of this entry. --Aristotle1776 (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll also notice that I don't actually edit any articles, either. I'm more interested in taking part in the discussion that forms articles than physically changing them, so don't you worry your pretty little head about me firestorm editing something I disagree with~ 68.44.212.4 (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The language you use in your discussions is not indicative of someone looking to take part, moreover, it is language that clearly imposes your views on a discussion without regard for the logical conclusions already reached. As a matter of example in this article, if you read any of the discussion, there was concession from both 'sides' of the argument that Decorum constitutes a set of rules that applies to members of Congress. Notwithstanding this conclusion, you still go on to mention that members of Code Pink breached decorum as if it in any way applied to them. All you did was make a nonsensical assertion. This does not contribute to the forming of this article, if anything it adds a few lines of partisan/POV perspective for the Editors to sift through and quickly refute as useless to the forming of the article.--Aristotle1776 (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right and I apologize~ I'll take a broader stance on discussions and review it's progression before inserting my thoughts. (This is the IP, btw) Girasoleil (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Decorum" is sourced from the article.[36] That's why it is there. It is not editorial language by any of us. Also, I believe it has been discussed already on this talk page. Reliefappearance (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

immigration lawyer and other bio info

“I’m for immigration,” he said, adding that he had been an immigration lawyer, although he did not specify exactly what he had done. “But people who come to our country and violated our laws, we should not be providing full services.”[37]

The sprawling district runs from the lower tip of South Carolina to encompass parts of Columbia. It includes Beaufort County, where an influx of Mexican immigrants has made it the fastest-growing part of the state.

Former Senator Max Cleland, Democrat of Georgia, said Mr. Wilson was a “chicken hawk” who had received a student deferment and not gone to war himself.

When Mr. Wilson made his outburst, Mrs. Pelosi, who was seated behind Mr. Obama, was visibly stunned.

“It was stunning to hear such a statement made on the floor of the House when the president of the United States was speaking,” she said, noting that it was against House rules for one member to say on the floor to another that he or she was “not telling the truth,” let alone lying. Asked if she had considered gaveling Mr. Wilson out of order, she said: “No. Well, the — if he had continued. But the sergeant-at-arms — you know, the parliamentarian passed me a piece of paper that said what the options were, and I said we’re just going to move on.”

also [38]

After the speech, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff who sat a few rows in front of Mr. Wilson, said he immediately approached senior Republican lawmakers to encourage them to identify the heckler and urge him to issue an apology quickly.[39]

Republicans also said the heckling was out of line. “I think we ought to treat the president with respect,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, “and anything other than that is not appropriate.”

And the House Republican whip, Eric I. Cantor of Virginia, told ABC on Thursday: “Obviously, the president of the United States is always welcome on Capitol Hill. He deserves respect and decorum.” He said that Mr. Wilson’s apology “was the appropriate thing to do.”

Reliefappearance (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

stats

http://stats.grok.se/en/200909/Joe_Wilson_%28U.S._politician%29

Reliefappearance (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Context of the outburst - the president's choice of phrasing: "a lie," "false" (and interruptions by chamber)

(Enhanced outburst context)

Let us perhaps acknowledge the context that is missing: this section of the president's speech was a litany of accusations of misrepresentations: beginning with an emphatic, crowd-pleasing, rhetorical choice to use the word "lie." (Click "show" for "enhanced" transcript)

(ENHANCED - Outburst context)

Outburst during 2009 Presidential address On September 9, 2009, President Barack Obama addressed a joint session of Congress to outline his proposal for reforming health care. During his address, the President said: Still, given all the misinformation that's been spread over the past few months, I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight I'd like to address some of the key controversies that are still out there. Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but (YOUTUBE) prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple. [20 SECONDS OF MOSTLY DEMOCRATIC APPLAUSE/STANDING OVATION] Now ... Now ... There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms [LOUD NEGATIVE RESPONSE FROM REPUBLICAN SIDE; PRESIDENT HESITATES, GESTURING WITH REPUBLICAN-SIDE INDEX FINGER, REPEATS LAST TWO WORDS (YOUTUBE)] the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. In a breach of decorum, Wilson pointed at the President and shouted, "You lie!" (extending the president's after-sentence pause to approximately five seconds while the reaction to the outburst subsided) which he later said reflected his view that the bill would provide government-subsidized benefits to illegal immigrants. Wilson attracted national and international attention for the incident.

Discussion

While Wilson did not mention this to explain the emotional state which caused him to breach protocol, Sarah Palin has responded to the accusation:

“ He called these concerns “bogus,” “irresponsible,” and “a lie” -- so much for civility._{(Facebook via opinion ref below)} ”

Yes, liberals like myself LOL'd to ourselves when Obama called Palin a liar about death panels, while assiduously avoiding saying "Sarah Palin" or (exactly) "death panel," but ...

"By saying his opponents are liars, the president risks going down a slippery slope that could result in more unfortunate outbursts in the future." (Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist)

THE WIKIPEDIA POINT is not, of course, whether the president's (emphatic) "a lie, plain and simple" and (equally emphatic) "that, too, is false" was an acceptable excuse for Wilson's outburst, but whether an accurate description of the occurrence of the "You lie!" outburst would include the fact that it took place during a speech in which the president had (just) made the rhetorical choice to use the (provocative) word "lie" himself; and then "false" (to which Republicans reacted loudly enough to cause the president to restart the sentence that Wilson would shout two words at the end of).

While we might expect Fox News would highlight this fact (and frame it as an ill-timed act of passionate chivalry in defense of Palin), that does not mean an encyclopedic article would not mention it (the president emphatically saying "lie" to much applause, and "false" to some boos, not Palin) ... as context.

Now, as to the question of WP:RS ... there's actually an interesting question about what WP:PRIMARY would allow to be said about a video fragment much discussed in general ... but let us not pick that nit too hard for the moment. (Blog links are findable, of course.)

(ASIDE: Are you sure the "You lie!" article should not exist? :)

But how to describe what happened? :)

“ Wilson received international attention in September 2009 after shouting "You lie!" after the president made his second rhetorically emphatic accusation of Republican falsehoods about health care during a speech to a joint session of Congress (the first, "A LIE, plain and simple," having received a Democratic standing ovation half a minute earlier) causing a five-second interruption as the chamber reacted to the breach of protocol because Wilson did not shout it in a timely manner while the Republicans were providing negative feedback en masse moments before, but in the silence when the president had paused but the Republicans did not renew their booing, leaving Wilson to shout feedback by his lonesome (echoing the president's rhetorical choice "LIE," but improvising his own preamble "YOU," while mirroring but amplifying the president's index finger usage) making him a star, rather than merely temporarily red-faced (for whatever reasons). Ado continues apace. ”

I suspect this phrasing will be unacceptable in the lede :) ... but perhaps let it be a gesture toward what is missing in an accurate description of what happened. TO WIT: The context of the shout was a part of the speech where the president made the rhetorical choice to lecture the liars opposing him with emphatic language and vocal emphasis.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with inserting a description of the tone of Obama's speech. Any attempt to insert additional context of the Wilson outburst will only invite more and more editing conflicts as people on different sides try to insert something they feel was left out. We should leave it as "Obama said {sentence from speech}, and Wilson shouted 'You lie!'" Eseymour (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: There is no mention of the "tone" of the speech in the above comments (e.g., Obama gave an angry, conciliatory etc speech).

REPEATING/HOPEFULLY CONDENSING MYSELF: The president had rhetorically emphasized two phrases in the minute before Wilson's outburst: "a lie,plain and simple," and "That, too, is false." Both of these created reactions in the chamber. Wilson's shout appeared in that context (and in close proximity to the Republican vocal negative reaction to the president's labeling as "false" something many believed was true). To simply say that the president said sentence X (when he, in fact, had to restart the sentence due to negative Republican response) then Wilson shouted Y, is not to accurately describe what happened. If there must be discussion of how to say that, so be it. :)

RHETORICAL QUESTION: Suppose Wilson was "put on trial" for the outburst. Would the chamber's reactions to the president's use of "a lie" and "false" in the moments before the outburst be mentioned?

ARTICLE COMMENT: It appears that the current consensus is that the primary coverage of the "You lie!" incident will be this section of the Joe Wilson article. If so, then it should include sufficient context to understand what happened.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You have some interesting theories about what Wilson's reasons for his outburst could have been, but I do not see any reliable sources cited which support your theories. The sources we have where Wilson explains himself do not support your theories. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"It is a lie, plain and simple. (Applause) There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms (Negative response) the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. (Wilson: "You lie!") (Negative response)

Note the "too" in there. :) It is of little consequence if today's talk page consensus chooses to not include the first sentence. History will, I assure you. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

References (for proximity of president's "a lie" to "You lie" outburst)

(potential references re context)

An un-usable reference :) but worth pondering re "context"

“ But the howling from the Right has a point, too. Because any Democrat condemning Wilson today for calling Obama a liar should stop and think about the fact that Obama himself was calling a lot of Republicans (not by name, but by blatant inference) liars as well, during the same speech. He did so a number of times, actually. Instead of the forceful and active-voice "You lie!" however, Obama used a more passive phraseology: "It is a lie, plain and simple."

Obama uttered this line -- which a lot of people have refrained from putting into context -- immediately before he said the following: "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." This is the point where Wilson chimed in. Huffington Post

”

And a (strangely phrased:) "usable" one

“ Wilson shouted "you lie" after Obama laid out what the congressman said were "bogus claims" about health care reform "spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost."

"The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens," Obama said in his speech. "Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

"There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally," Obama said.

It was at that point Wilson made his now-infamous exclamation, sparking boos and Obama's retort: "It's not true." CNN

”

Better [EDIT TO ADD THIS ITEM Proofreader77 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)]

“ And there, for a moment, the nation watched two men, elected to lead, call each other the worst thing in politics — dishonorable deceivers. ...

Clyburn's own outrage was a bit overdrawn. Just before Wilson's scream, Obama himself had accused his unnamed opponents of offering "a lie, plain and simple." He was responding to the claim by some critics that Obama wanted panels of scientists empowered to deny health care to the ill and infirm, or as the President put it, "to kill off senior citizens." On this point, there is some discussion that could reasonably take place, if people agreed to speak reasonably. TIME

”

"the President stated emphatically"

“ Several Republican lawmakers booed Mr. Obama when he dismissed the notion that so-called death panels would deny care to the elderly. "It is a lie, plain and simple," the President stated emphatically. When he added that it was also not true the proposed plans would cover illegal immigrants, Congressman Joe Wilson from South Carolina yelled back, "You lie."

VERMONT PUBLIC RADIO/COMMENTARY

”

Rep. Steve King's letter (note preamble to letter seeking signatures) See POLITICO for clarification [EDIT TO ADD/EDIT THIS ITEM Proofreader77 (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)]

“ A letter King is circulating states that Wilson's initial apology was appropriate, that one apology is enough, and that Obama had accepted the apology.

“We urge that you hold your ground against those who seek partisan advantage and reject all demands for additional redress,” King's letter reads.

The letter goes on to contend that Obama was the one who first started slinging accusations of lying: “We had just heard President Obama declare ‘prominent politicians' to be liars for disagreeing with him on health care. (MORE) OMAHA WORLD HERALD

”

Rep. Trent Franks (on Hardball with Chris Matthews)

“ FRANKS: I truly believe that the affront was toward the president...

MATTHEWS: OK.

FRANKS: ... because he spoke to the president there. And he knows he did the wrong thing. But I have to say to you, Chris, if you examine the reality, the president‘s the first one to utter the word “lie” here, and Joe was sort of responding. It was only a minute earlier that the president had...

MATTHEWS: OK.

FRANKS: ... used that word and called a lot of us in the House really indirectly liars. And so the whole process has, indeed, been—like the president says, it‘s been coarsened, but the president has to take responsibility for his part in coarsening this debate...

MATTHEWS: Yes. He...

FRANKS: ... because (INAUDIBLE) people that disagree with him on the health care plan. MSNBC/Transcript

”

Rep. Mark Souter ("baited")

“ The congressman who yelled “You lie!” during President Obama’s speech last week shouldn’t have done that, Rep. Mark Souder, R-3rd, said Tuesday.

But Obama “baited” Republicans who oppose his health care legislation, insulted their integrity and in effect called them liars, Souder said.

“He came to Congress and was dishonest with us and called us liars. In my opinion, he should be, then, reprimanded, too, for using that language,” Souder said about Obama in an interview before the House voted 240-179 on a resolution to admonish Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. The Journal Gazette, Fort Wayne, IN

”

"seconds before"

“ It's nothing new for one elected official to accuse another of telling lies. In fact, seconds before Wilson shouted himself into infamy, President Barack Obama had described one criticism of his health-care initiative as follows: "It is a lie, plain and simple."

Wilson, R-S.C., just picked the wrong way to tell Obama, "You lie!" — interrupting the president's speech before a joint session of Congress, and at the top of his lungs. It was neither the time nor the place to say, "I know you are, but what am I?" Green Bay Press-Gazette Editorial

”

"Obama shouldn't use fighting words" (editorial)

“ Obama must share the blame for it. [...] If he had left it at that, he would have been fine. Palin’s brand of politics deserves all the civil criticism it can get.

But Obama continued, "It’s a lie, plain and simple."

That language went too far, and one Republican wasn’t going to take it.

The president’s next point was to deny that his healthcare plan would insure illegal immigrants at public expense.

"You lie," yelled Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina. Ft Worth Star-Telegraph editorial

”

(ALSO) LA Times blogs notes Wilson's (written) support for Palin's highlighting death panels (2 days earlier)

“ It was Rep. Wilson who had been reinforcing the belief that the healthcare reform would include the so-called Death Panels. He called it an "end-of-life counseling program, which has been correctly highlighted by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a program which could lead to seniors being encouraged to seek less care in order to protect the government´s bottom line."

Minutes before Wilson's wail, the president had debunked the theory that grandma's plug would be pulled in order to save federal dollars. "It's a lie, plain and simple," he said, which brought most of the attendees to their feet. LA Times blogs

”

Commentary by Linda Chavez: "had just finished declaring ... critics were telling lies"

“ Let's take a deep breath and go back to what actually happened in the House chamber when the president addressed a joint session of Congress to promote health care reform. Ironically, President Obama had just finished declaring that critics were telling lies about his health care proposals. ... He then went on to say that the claim was "a lie, plain and simple."

I can't remember the last president who called his opponents liars -- at least to their faces. TOWN HALL

”

Comments (on refs above and implications for mentioning more context)

• There are plenty of blogs noting and commenting on this, but, it is true, the mainstream media (almost always, except in that semi-strange CNN one) have carefully avoided quoting the president's "A lie, plain and simple" anywhere near mentioning the "You lie!" outburst. Although the sentence comes immediately before what we quote here, society says (for the moment—until some books get written), there must be no connection alluded to by the sequential arrangement of these utterances. So for now, Wikipedia is quite right to not expand that quote one sentence more—that context is not allowed, at this time. (LOL) As I was saying about History ... Proofreader77 (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• FOLLOW UP TO MY PREVIOUS COMMENT: There may now be sufficient sources to allow some mention of what was happening in the minute before the outburst (rather than simply the last sentence the president said—noting the for-print paragraphed teleprompter version we have now does not include the as-delivered repeating of the words "the reforms" because of loud negative response to the first assertion concluding "this, too, is false" ). It is understood the matter is contentious—this is simply noting that there may be sufficient RS to support such an inclusion. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo

File:091009 Wilson.jpg

(Groggy): I uploaded the image file to the right and as its fair use, it requires a rationale. Given the limted time contraints I'm wondering if someone(s) here could write one up? If there are dissenters, then they can list their objections so that we can deal with those upfront. It is my sense that its a kind of historic photo, and should be kept under fair use until perhaps a free near-exact alternative can be found. -Stevertigo 21:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve, even if it's fair use in the article, it is certainly not on the talkpage. The world is watching. Cheers,  Skomorokh  22:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, though if fair use was actually nullified then the image would be deleted. Distinctions between fair use on articles and talk pages has to be mitigated for discussion purposes, on a basis of short-term usage, or else hidden/collapsed usage. (Note that it is in an above, collapsed div).

On a side note, we should make efforts to identify exactly the other two in the photograph. They should perhaps be notable, if not for their anticipating smirks (the image is showing the exact moment of his outburst isn't it?), then at least for their notability as government representatives in very nice clothes. -Stevertigo 00:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: Which reminds me: We should have articles for "the cat that swallowed the canary" and "Ain't No Way to Hide Your Lying Eyes." -Stevertigo 01:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[EDIT: Moved Die4Dixie's comment re fair use rationale below beneath bold Proofreader77 (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)]

The guy to Joe Wilson's left (our right) is my representative, former ambulance chaser, now-tort reform advocate Peter Roskam. — goethean ॐ 20:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

For a second there I thought you said "former skirt chaser," to which I was going to reply 'there's nothing wrong with being a "skirt chaser."' ;-) -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 21:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC) PS: Now I guess we need to figure out what Representative "Canary"s given name is, before we add them both to the caption. It's not "Barney Frank" is it? -SV

Adrian M. Smith [40] — goethean ॐ 21:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Nice work. Representation, apparently, is still a fairly straightforward business. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 21:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio photo

(removed photo)

Your fair use rationale is less than convincing. I have removed the blatant copyright vio and nominated for speedy deletion.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In this matter neither of you appear to be at all.. correct. Hang-on rationale copied here from image page:

Reason: Several problems with this nomination. Speedy delete is inappropriate, photo has been here for three days, and discussion is warranted. Deletion is also inappropriate, per the fair use argument below. The person who filed this speedy flag did not give any rationale other than CSD F9. Note that CSD F9 "Unambiguous copyright infringement" states that it applies to only: "Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case... This does not include images used under a claim of fair use." Hence any basis for speedy deletion is nullified. Anyone other than the image uploader may now remove the speedy tag.

-Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 21:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use cannot apply in this instance. See the Licensing box:

“ Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). ”

This photo is clearly copyrighted (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images). We are using it merely to illustrate the event (the photo itself is not controversial, which would be the basis for fair use). I will leave it to more experienced hands to determine the form of the deletion which should be used (although it would seem to be Speedy to me) ... but clearly it was correct to remove it from this page article. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that at least appears to be an actual argument. It could be that "fair use" has a time limitation, such that puts restrictions on continuity. We agree that your current argument might hold plausiblity. Still one wonders why the earlier speedy argument was even mentioned, and why anyone would support it. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 22:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: I have added a "disputed fair use" tag to the file page (with explanation above). Given my strong belief that reasoning applies—and hence a clear copyvio, I have removed the image from the article. (Given the serious nature of copyvio, the image should not be re-added without consensus that fair use applies). Proofreader77 (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Proof, can you please give a link to reference the policy you claim forbids is usage here under fair use? You wrote:

"Fair use" does not apply to copyrighted photos unless the photo itself is the subject of controversy. This is merely an illustration of the event.

Noting however that the "historic" categorization may not be accurate, I will change the current tag from historical to template:Non-free fair use in, which is article specific. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 23:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

See the quote I provided above from the "License" copyright box. The wording I have underlined is in the sentence which is the basis for my edit summary.

To clarify the issue, consider cases which WOULD be allowed under fair use for a photo). HYPOTHETICAL: Suppose there was an allegation in the media that the photo of "You lie!" was not taken during the event, but posed for afterward. THEN the photo would be the subject of controversy, SO "fair use" would allow it to be used.

While the underlined wording is specifically about using copyrighted images from "press agencies," it certainly would apply no less to images produced by a photographer for Getty Images. There is a BIG RED © on that image. We cannot just use it until a fair use image appears. If one appears, we can add to article. (There is no "can be used free for a little while" rule to copyright.:) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: the change from {{Non-free historic image}} to {Non-free fair use in|...)}} template

The constraint I was following is the wording from the result of the "historic" template. The change to the "Non-free fair use" template produces a copyright box without that specific wording ... and a refocusing of attention on the full criteria that should be taken into account. I am therefore going to make the next step asking for comments below. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on "fair use" of "You lie!" photo

re File:091009_Wilson.jpg

• I hereby (now) express confusion over conflicting things I've read. The wording in the copyright (License) box for historic images (See "Licensing" in this version) implies one thing which I was going by ... but with the change of templates from "historic" to simply "Non-free fair use ... there appears to be other things that you could read and get another answer. Comments? Proofreader77 (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I will get in touch with the owner of the copyright and see what they think tomorrow. Copy rights exist to protect the owners interests. Perhaps they will release it. Until then, it should be deleted--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(NOTE: I undid my removal and added a deletion template to caption before I saw your comment.) Since I am now no longer sure it must be deleted, I undid my removal. LOL Yes, if Getty Images would give permission, it would be much simpler. Thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That is if Carl retained rights and they haven't passed to the AFP--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the Getty Images catalog info "Editorial image #90534255 / 09 Sep 2009 / President Addresses Joint Session Of Congress O... By: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images" Proofreader77 (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was still trying to get there! saved me some time.--Die4Dixie (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome ... And see "Notice" below. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If the image is to be kept for any length of time, it'll at least need to fulfill the 10 WP:NFCC (policy) and probably will need to pass muster with all related WP:NFC guidelines as well. This is typically a tall order with photos such as these, as opponents of "fair use" in WP interpret these rules quite tightly, and normally are quite persistent once an image is targeted for deletion. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. (I see why I usually stay out of such issues ... but it's been "informative" to explore it once. :) And yes, see below. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(Notice) This file has been listed at Files for deletion

Contributions

[41], at the end , gives new figures for the amount raised by both Miller and wilson. Should we update the article?--128.186.243.210 (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you can find a reliable source. WaltBren (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean a reliable source for the numbers, or for the assertion that the numbers on both sides are still being significantly increased by the shouted-charge incident? At some point, updates on fundraising should go in the section about the 2010 campaign, not in the section about his shout. JamesMLane t c 02:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} I believe that this article is very much slanted AGAINST Congressman Joe Wilson. Especially, in regards to the "you lie" comment, it should be added, after the sentence noting, to the effect, that "many" regard his comment as inaccurate, that many people regard his comment as very accurate, depending on what version of the bill we are speaking about, and, further, that the Obama administration, in conjunction with some "leading" Republicans, like John McCain (who immediately attacked Joe Wilson), still have plans to legalize many, if not all, illegal aliens in this Nation, thus making them eligible for health care under the proposed Health Care Reform Bill. 24.102.236.242 (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Shalom. If you wish an edit to be made to the article, please give a specific description of it. Thanks,  Skomorokh  06:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, no such edit would be even considered without reliable sources. The assertion that Obama plans to legalize all illegal aliens in the U.S. is probably irrelevant to Wilson's bio but would certainly need to be sourced. JamesMLane t c 14:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You and your "sourcing" and using "reliable sources" and trying to write a "neutral" article. You're just like our fascist-in-chief Osama. ;) --kizzle (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

More on the Shouting

I removed the second line - "Section 246 of the bill specifically bars illegal immigrants from receiving government subsidies: 'Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits'" - because it just restates the sentence directly preceding it but draws a conclusion that isn't inferred by the text to which it refers (not qualifying for 'affodability credits' is not 'barring from receiving subsidies' of all types). This was added back in, and I appreciate that the other editor is working to balance the article, but I maintain that this sentence is both repetitive and factually incorrect and urge it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fight the bias (talk • contribs) 00:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Since almost all of the cost of the proposed legislation HR3200 is in the affordability credits, I'd appreciate seeing one or more reliable sources stating what other subsidies are claimed to be at issue here. Is the assertion, for instance, that at the time of Obama's speech the bill failed to require proof of legal residence before being treated in an emergency room of any hospital that receives federal money? Or something else? ... Kenosis (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

But it all falls to pieces when in light of the fact that the final bill still hasn't taken shape, and there's no indication that Obama was speaking specifically about HR3200. The "Reforms he is proposing" is not the necessarily the same thing as HR3200. He might, for example, propose that stronger enforcement measures be added to the bill, or he might accept weaker enforcement provisions but propose congress later adopt stronger ones, etc etc etc. The phrasing is such that Obama might as well have said "I do not propose that we insure illegal aliens" and it would have been almost equivalent in meaning. So even if it turned out HR3200 would somehow benefit illegal aliens, that still wouldn't mean Obama was a proponent of that aspect. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Candidate fundraising

As James mentioned earlier, at what point do we cutoff the fundraising totals? Updating the numbers all the way into the 2010 election isn't ideal to say the least. --kizzle (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there'll be a point where this spree will sizzle out a bit as Wilson stops becoming so notable and his campaign donations will noticeably drop. --Forgottenlord (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement

I noticed that the thorny issue of enforcement for illegal immigrants is absent from the text. The FactCheck article mentions that "Republicans have a point" when it comes to enforcement, and it's a reason Joe Wilson later pointed to in trying to justify the content of his remarks. --kizzle (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It was removed earlier today. I've replaced the material on the underlying substantive disagreement, here. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Racism charge

Racism is a very, very serious charge. Regardless of how well sourced it is (and the accusation is not well sourced at all, it was Jimmy Carter running his mouth with no evidence), those kind of charges violate the WP:BLP policy. I think it is notable that Barack Obama denies that this kind of opposition is racism, which alone is enough grounds to have it removed from the article. Remember that Op-Ed articles do not constitute a Wikipedia:Reliable sources as wiki defines them. While they can be used for a under under certain circumstances, this is not one of them. I also think that until any kind of consensus is reached here, that charge should not be included in the article. EricLeFevre (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama does not dictate the contents of Wikipedia articles. Carter's charge has been widely reported in the mainstream media and so it is incumbent upon us to report it as well, regardless of how accurate we feel those charges are. Accurately reporting opinions in this manner does not violate BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, will please stop wildly throwing around WP:BLP when referencing vague violations of said policy? If you're going to say it violates, please provide the explicit language. --kizzle (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Although unfortunate in my opinion, having looked the sources over and without making any personal judgment about the former president's comments, I agree as well. It's our task as WP editors to report reliable sources from an NPOV perspective. It's not our job to censor or whitewash things for the reader. Numerous WP:RSs have reported the former president's remarks directly pertinent to Wilson's outburst, and a highly notable personality (Cosby) and highly visible national commentator (Dowd) apparently have echoed the opinion. Counterarguments too should be reported, so long as they're significant and relevant to the same issue. IMO, So long as Carter's and other notable remarks are included, Obama's counterargument should probably be included as well. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to join the chorus of voices disagreeing with this. The charge of 'racism' has been thrown around countless times in our society, along with other slanders. Generally, in order to rise to the level of documentation, one needs to show that there is sufficient reason to believe the charge. Here we just have a few people speaking off-the-cuff saying "it's racist!" with no proof or justification whatsoever. Dowd even found it necessary to add an imagined word to Wilson's comment to make it 'racist'. It's sheer speculation, no matter who said it, and if some editors are going to allow an unfounded accusation like this to tarnish this man's name, we'll have to add refutation of this opinion - something like Jonah Goldberg's excellent article pointing out that if Dowd hears racism where there is none, this means she is prejudiced. This could quickly devolve. So why not just remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fight the bias (talk • contribs) 18:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Our job as Wikipedia editors is not to evaluate whether Wilson is racist (my personal belief is that he is not), but if Carter, a former president, is mentioning it and it has been picked up by mainstream outlets, then it merits the potential to be included. Whether or not it belongs in a section that has already ballooned beyond the initial consensus reached on this page is a debatable point, but Kenosis said it best. It's our job to report reliable sources in a NPOV manner while making sure counterarguments are reported as well. Personally, if this hyper focus on the events continue and the section gets larger, we might want to consider splitting it off into a daughter article. --kizzle (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is us deciding if he's racist, it's repeating unfounded accusations. In particular the charge of 'racism' is very inflammatory, and justification for that claim should be required. Just repeating it lends it unjustified credence. So if it is kept it will require context - when I add the documented evidence that Carter himself worked against integration of schools in Georgia, will that be excised? Or when I add the qualification that, in order for Dowd to call Wilson's remarks 'racist', she had to add an imagined word? I think it's more than evident that this section does not meet Wikipedia standards. I also feel it shows a continuing and frustrating double-standard on Wikipedia - many articles have had sections removed or trimmed b/c editors felt 'recent events' were 'too heavily emphasized', yet this single event in Wilson's career takes up a substantial chunk of the page and includes irrelevant, libelous 'thoughts and feelings' from people not even involved in the affair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fight the bias (talk • contribs) 21:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If it was just Dowd, I'd agree. I just think a former president coming forth along with the associated media coverage is a different question. I'm not for it or against it necessarily, I just see the media coverage as notable. I'll leave it up to you guys. --kizzle (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, when a former president makes a serious allegation about you and multiple major news organizations cover it, that's definitely notable. Ignatzkirby (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure bringing race into the issue is good for anyone involved-- but we don't get to make that decision. We're just a mirror that reflect back a sourced and summarized treatment of mainstream media coverage-- and Carter's (and others') take on this has definitely become part of the narrative. Obviously, we can never never even think of writing that Wilson is a racist-- but nor can we ignore the fact that race has become part of the discussion. But, when Wilson or one of his representatives rebuts the claim, I think we should give a fair amount of latitude in quoting him to make sure it's perfectly clear that he disputes the claim that race figured into his actions. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

For the hundredth time, this does not rise to encyclopedic standards. It is mere speculation no matter who said it, it would not appear in a published encyclopedia, and everyone who keeps re-adding it knows it. The people re-adding it are clearly doing it for partisan reasons. We should refer this to an admin to prevent this from continuing to be an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fight the bias (talk • contribs) 22:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The only salient rationale that guides my entire being is to modify every sentence, every minutiae to make Joe Wilson look bad. That is the driving force not only behind my edits here on Wikipedia, but in life as well. In doing so, I hope that I, along with the rest of the liberal cabal here on Wikipedia, can upset Joe Wilson and throw him out of office. If only it wasn't for you meddlesome kids, I would have gotten away with it. --kizzle (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fightthebias, let's bullet point your concerns:

• "Not up to encyclopedia standards"-- why not? The claims are high-profile, notable, and reliably sourced. Whether we personally think the claims are true or not doesn't enter into it.

The prominence of the person making an unfounded claim is irrelevant. I do not see Ben Stein's claims that evolution is 'false' on the evolution page. Ben Stein is famous. That doesn't make his idiotic, unfounded assertions on the matter more believable.

• "Mere speculation". Our article won't contain speculation, it should contains facts. Some of those facts may include the prominent speculation of others (e.g. Carter). We cannot and should not report that Joe Wilson is (or isn't) a racist, but no one proposes including speculation like that. But when someone as notable Carter et. al. speculates, we have a new fact: Carter gave an interview speculating that was widely covered. That isn't a speculation, that is a verifiable fact, and part of the narrative.

Carter was engaging in speculation. See above.

• "Re-adding are doing so for partisan reasons". Not useful line of discussion for a Wikipedia article talk page. We can't know our fellow editors' motives any more than I, sitting here in my study, could spontaneously know Wilson's motivations.

The only reason someone would want to label Wilson as a racist would be because they want to marginalize or discredit him.

• "WE should refer this to an admin". Admins don't really work that way around here-- aside from the respect of their peers based on any past good judgments, admins have extra standing in a content dispute. More eyeballs are always welcome though. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. This should be referred to an admin. There is no way adding unjustified, wild accusations of 'racism' would stand by any Wikipedia standard. 22:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Carter's comments: serious?

A few lines above here, Ignatzkirby says "I agree, when a former president makes a serious allegation about you and multiple major news organizations cover it, that's definitely notable." But here is why I think that is wrong: Although racism is definitely a serious charge, it would not be correct to say that Carter leveled the accusation in a serious manner. It was an offhand comment, speculation. It was not a direct accusation, nor was it sustained. It does not even appear that he mentioned Wilson by name. The context of his remarks and subsequent discussions are clearly not about Wilson, but Carter's belief that there is a general racist animus in the U.S. and the South particularly directed at President Obama. While it does seem from the reportage that he implicated Wilson in this, Carter's comments are not really about him. So that is why I think it should go. The only reason why this discussion is happening is because Mr. Carter is a former president. That doesn't necessarily mean every utterance out of his mouth is significant. Perhaps a discussion of this belongs on Carter's article or one of the several articles about Obama's presidency -- but I think Wikipedia does a disservice to readers and to Rep. Wilson by including this baseless, one-off, speculation. I think its current inclusion is also an obvious case of recentism, and another reason why we should hold off on considering whether to include it. I welcome a substantive disagreement/discussion. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

After the paragraph was inserted and removed several times, I did some slightly more detailed research on this and unfortunately could not find a full written transcript of Carter's remarks in Atlanta and in his subsequent interview with Brian Williams. Having listened to a video of the Williams interview, it appears to me to be true that Carter was talking about what he sees as a broader issue. His comments, though, both at the Carter Center in Atlanta and in the Williams interview, specifically referred to Wilson's outburst. Here are three samples of the widespread mainstream media coverage:
-from a politically left-leaning source: "Jimmy Carter: Wilson's Outburst 'Based On Racism'" (Huffington Post);
-from a centrist source: "Jimmy Carter: Wilson's Outburst Was Racist" (NBC Washington);
-from a politically right-leaning source: "Carter: Wilson's outburst 'based on racism'" (Washington Times).
....... As to Mr. Bergstrom's statement about "this baseless, one-off, speculation": Please see WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation
....... As to "recentism": WP:RECENTISM is one of countless Wikipedia essays, an opinion piece that carries no weight whatsoever as a policy or guideline in WP. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It isnotable, but that doesn´t trump WP:BLP.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP? Seriously? We're merely reporting the fact that Carter said these things. This hasn't been an obscure issue, plenty of news outlets have discussed these. So we're going to substitute our judgment for theirs and say "oh, it's not important, eh?" To do that is overstepping our editorial bounds and passing judgment on an issue. Gamaliel (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please suggest how we not arbitrarily implement WP:BLPif not by the means that you just condemned, seriously?--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying we don't enforce BLP, I'm saying that enforcing BLP does not extend to overruling reliable secondary sources and saying that a particular factual matter is unfit for inclusion because we personally think it's too mean or unflattering. Gamaliel (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The MSNBC analysis is contentious, and says something that Carter never said. It is a questionable source. Less this contentious source, the mention does not meet BLP standards and is a violation of OR and SYNTH.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of sources mention this matter. I'm sure we could swap them out for whatever particular sources you find unsatisfactory. Gamaliel (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

MSNBC¨´s misquoting Carter should go. Please make it happen , or should I do it and you add it back with out a contentious source?--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Already taken care of. The MSNBC commentary has been removed and replaced with several other reliable sources. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I see your point Dixie that the actual MSNBC piece that everyone is referring to doesn't specifically say Congressman Wilson in it. We don't know whether Williams asked Carter about Wilson specifically or not. But either way, it doesn't matter. The MSNBC piece says Carter was referring to Wilson. Many other mainstream news outlets have said the same thing. MSNBC is not a "contentious" source. If Wilson was questioning whether Carter was referring to him, then we'd add it to the piece as well but even Wilson's family in the response was working under the assumption that Carter was referring to Wilson. --kizzle (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Expanded lede

Whoever has expanded the lede is doing the readers a disservice. It was tighter and cleaner before. There is room lower down for all Wilson's various appointments; there's no need to clutter up the lede with them. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree it was better as it was before. WP:BRD suggests the change be reverted, and then discussed here. --4wajzkd02 (talk)

I will revert because the lede, as written, is wordy and overburdened with facts. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

? You're talking about the changes I made? I refer you to WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." If anything the lede still pretty bare-bones, but it's OK now, whereas before it was clearly inadequate and had extraneous detail. Rd232 ^talk 00:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm referring to the changes you made. I don't need a referral to a wikipedia summary on how to write ledes. As written now, it's wordy, unwieldy and overlong. It needs improvement. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Marmaduke, would you like to propose an alternative lede here on the talk page that we can discuss? If the lede needs improvement, we need editors like you to help make constructive edits to improve the article, and it helps to discuss those edits rather than just saying "It needs improvement" without providing specific examples of how it can be improved. --kizzle (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

MarmadukePercy stated "the lede... was tighter and cleaner before [it was expanded]. I stated that I agreed that "it was better as it was before" and suggested the change be reverted per WP:BRD. So, click on this link to see a "specific example". Note, once the bold change is reverted (again, read WP:BRD, the onus is on the editor(s) who want a change to discuss here their proposed changes from the original version. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

While WP:BRD is a nice read, it's neither policy, nor guideline, nor a reason that such a discussion on specifics can't be initiated by other parties on the talk page. The onus is on all of us to facilitate communication. --kizzle (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we revert to the original. It was clean and tight, hit the high points, without getting bogged down. It survived many edits without undue tinkering. (Actually, some of the tinkering was incorporated as we went along, but the product read smoothly, I thought.) Simply revert, as 4wajzkd02 says, to what it was before the recent change, which renders the graf cumbersome. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong feeling either way, I was just curious as to what specific part you had a problem with besides size... was every sentence that was added beyond your version bad? Were some of them OK? --kizzle (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of the main points of the article and the current lead does a much better job of fulfilling this than the earlier one which merely mentioned his district and the "You lie!" incident. Copana2002 (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fundraising wording

Alright, Miller raised $500k in the previous election (according to Miller's page) while Wilson had raised almost double this. The fundraising section notes that Miller's current 1.6 spree is more than he raised in the last election when (A) it's more noteworthy that he raised more than Wilson had raised in the last election and (B) the flow of the sentence by using the word "while" directly after implies that Wilson's number is less.....even though it's actually more. The problem I'm having is "both raising more than either had raised in the 2008 campaign" just sounds....stupid. Putting the comment after Wilson as worded implies Miller's contribution is below Wilson's 2008 total. Ok, I'm having a grammar Nazi freakout but it's driving me nuts (then again, it was this exact section that made me run away from this page a week ago because it drove me nuts trying to figure out how best to put it...). Anyways, if anyone has an idea on how to remedy this problem that only the most insane people would care about, please fix it. What might make it easier is if some news agency just pointed out that they were both above their combined total from 2008, that would probably solve a few issues.

On a completely different note, as impressive as it is that they're both eclipsing the last election cycle, it might also be equally worth noting how far these contributions exceed what the two had raised YTD prior to the speech. I'm not sure about Miller, but I recall seeing Wilson's number on the CNN ticker around the time he first sent out his plea for help (might be hard to find though) and it was, like, $60K or something (I could be way off, it's been a while). As impressive as eclipsing last round's numbers are, increasing your warchest 30 fold after a week just seems a more impressive in some ways. --Forgottenlord (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

For the YTD, I don't think it's particularly notable because we're only in 2009 and it hasn't kicked into campaign mode yet, so comparing fundraising numbers in an off-year is not exactly helpful. --kizzle (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying YTD compared to last year but rather YTD compared to right now. As you said, he's not in campaign mode so it helps underline how much his contributions exploded thanks to this incident. --Forgottenlord (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The non-mentioning of moments immediately before the "You lie!"

I have reverted the addition of the words "in the midst of a chorus of booing." Yes, I understand the matter well (see topic higher up the page re Context of outburst ... and look inside the "extended context.")

Most mainstream coverage does not frame the "You lie" in the context of the president's sentences just before and chamber response. (Let me skip why that is at this time. :) I have been adding references in that direction, but the most reliable sources do not frame the outburst as having come AFTER a negative audience response (that may well have had an earlier "you lie" in it that Pelosi jerked her head in response to). The accepted social story is simply that Wilson shouted inappropriately at the president. Perhaps in the future that will be adjusted—but that moment is not yet. (Sadly:) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• FOLLOW-UP I have made a second revert of reference to the booing. See above. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC) [Undo myself to avoid edit warring. Someone else may revert if they believe sources do not support phrasing.] Proofreader77 (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What's needed if it's to be included is a reliable source that states in writing that "in the midst of a chorus of booing" (or other similar characterization) was the environment in which Wilson's outburst occurred. I don't have one handy at the moment, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if a good source is available. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Most RS (at this stage: news coverage) are social signaling that nothing mitigates Wilson's shout and so don't say much about context. But I have been gathering references that mention something (Un-collapse reference section up the page). The interesting WP question is whether what is obvious in WP:PRIMARY (e.g., the video of event), can be mentioned at all unless a reliable secondary says that. NOTE: It isn't really booing, but a mix of negative response. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Obama's comments regarding this issue were met with a chorus of boos." (unsourced)

FOLLOW UP: After carefully reading WP:PRIMARY, it seems clear (to me) that we cannot describe what we (perceive) from a primary source. So, after removing it, then undoing myself yesterday, I hereby undo my undoing (lol)—removing the description inserted without source(diff). Proofreader77 (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference (transcription from primary/video)

• CSPAN 25m37s into video (20 minutes into speech, near midpoint) "MISINFORMATION" section [assertion of bad faith of some critics, including "prominent politicians" BEGINS: "Still ..."]
  
• FOX NEWS/From lower-angle, includes Biden/Pelosi faces (beginning with "is false.," to focus on chamber reaction at that point)

Transcription from primary/video

Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple. (LONG APPLAUSE/OVATION) Now... (APPLAUSE CONCLUDING) Now ... (APPLAUSE CONCLUDING) There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false— the reforms ... (DISAGREEMENT: STRONG, BUT MOMENTARY) ... the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. (WILSON: YOU LIE!) (STRONG DISAPPROVAL/BOOS) OBAMA: That's not true.

Is there a secondary RS for the negative reaction by many after "This too is false. The reforms"

Apparently not (not that I've been able to find)

I have been carefully reading RS descriptions, and the media appears to have been careful to (mostly) avoid describing the situation in any way that would appear to mitigate Wilson's fault. (For example, not mentioning the president's emphatic "A lie plain and simple" having come just before what we quote—i.e, not saying, the president said "lie" first.) On the video there is definitely a commotion after "This too is false," (and perhaps another "You lie" amidst the negative crowd noise—which by the way does not sound like a chorus of boos, but a mixture of negative reactions punctuated with, the aforementioned, possible earlier shout of "lie" that Pelosi reacted to before the famous one). BUT we can't describe what we see on video (WP:PRIMARY). Can anyone find such a source? Proofreader77 (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources found

• NPR NPR discussion including "boos" after "false" (NOTE: The radio commenter actually says that shout of "You lie!" was amidst the booing rather than in the silence of the next pause, but it clearly mentions the booing after "false," which is what some of us were looking for). Proofreader77 (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Esquire Coverage for illegal immigrants? "This too is false." That was too much for the GOP side, which spontaneously rained down catcalls — including South Carolina's Joe Wilson and his instantly infamous, censor-worthy slander. It was just enough of an ugly moment to momentarily startle Obama, but his inner Reagan took over and he simply moved on. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Charges of Racism and inclusion in a BLP

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Joe_Wilson_,_Politician

please see discussion here[[42]].--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"You Lie" out of the opening statement

Honestly, this can go under a different section; this is not a notable event that people only know him for this action. It most certainly should be under only the body of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

We've been discussing this already, see the above sections. Gamaliel (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

SYNTH problem

"Totally disrespectful," said Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) of Wilson's utterance. "No place for it in that setting or any other and he should apologize immediately."[39][40] Wilson said later in a statement, "While I disagree with the President's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility."[41

As far as I can tell Wilson didn't apologize because McCain said he should.

Reliefappearance (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The prose does not suggest he did, they are just two facts next to each other. Maybe split it up into different paras? --kizzle (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It does suggest he did, IMO. Reliefappearance (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is problematic. McCain said this on the first night. Wilson did in fact apologize shortly thereafter, but this doesn't do justice to the chain of events. A related problem I have with this is that McCain here is being used to represent the views of the Republican party overall, when the actual GOP response was more nuanced. Yes, Wilson's comments drew some mild criticism from House Republicans, but they also mentioned that they agreed with his underlying point. Meanwhile, McCain is well-known for speaking his own mind, and despite being the presidential nominee, is hardly a spokesman for the party. Here is a suggestion:

Members of Congress from both parties criticized Wilson's outburst, while House Republicans supported his criticism of Obama's plan.[43] Sen. John McCain called on Wilson to apologize, calling his actions "totally disrespectful."

My main concern here is noting that the substance of Wilson's critique is one shared by House Republicans. This is not clear in the current version. What do others think of this suggestion?--Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget that after the address, on the floor, before McCain's statement, Rahm Emanuel told 2 Republican House members that Wilson should apologize. McCain's comment is notable because he was the GOP candidate in 2008 and remember Obama mentioned him more than once in the address. Emanuel's action is notable because he was an influential House member before coming to the White House where he is now Chief of Staff I believe. I don't feel like combing RS on this issue as I don't think it's a huge deal, but I just think we should be mindful of SYNTH. Actually this has bothered me since day 1, and I brought it up previously on the talk page which is now archived. Nothing was resolved at the time. Also I don't think McCain really disagreed with what Wilson said, he just said that the outburst itself was unacceptable. He's a long-time veteran of the Congress. Basically if he says yelling You Lie at the President is unacceptable that basically makes it unacceptable. Reliefappearance (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that McCain's comment is notable, and you will see I have left part of it in my suggestion. Two things, however: I think it is wrong to let his comment speak for the entire GOP. While some did criticize Wilson, it was not with the same force, as the Greenville Online link in my proposed text indicates. And you may be right about McCain possibly agreeing with Wilson. I do not know because I haven't seen his comments on this matter. However, you are definitely right that there is a clear distinction between agreeing/disagreeing with Wilson's critique and Wilson's behavior. This is what I would like to see worked into the section. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The new phrasing of first sentence of "Outburst ..." section (topic sentence vs narrative order)

“ On September 9, 2009, Wilson shouted at President Barack Obama while Obama addressed a joint session of Congress to outline his proposal for reforming health care. ”

(Issue) Topic sentence vs narrative order paragraph

The new first sentence was shaped to create an appropriate 'topic sentence. While I understand the (topic sentence) logic, it is also true I see that other sections appear to follow what might be called narrative order. (Whether the existence of a bold topic above first paragraph allows some flexibility with regard to choice, I don't know.)

Question: Should the first sentence in a section always be a "topic sentence" for the section (or can sentences sometimes follow narrative order, perhaps relying on the topic title to carry the framing duty of a topic sentence in first position)? Proofreader77 (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Image for "Outburst ..." section: how best to convey the incident? (shout + reaction?)

The image originally on the page is currently under discussion for deletion (we'll see). But in any case, perhaps we should consider how the incident is best captured. Let us note that the incident is "a breach of protocol" not just "a shout."

I have created this low-res composite image (fair use asserted for discussion of image, yes, whether anything can be used in the article with respect to fair use is still an issue—but it is not an issue of whether we can temporarily use that low res copy for discussion) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Composite of 2 images: outburst + reaction

Comments on image possibilities for incident (including, "don't need")

• Fair use is a complex issue—and any image use here may not meet all criteria. In any case, if some image is used, I suggest that the moment in history as experienced was the reaction to the outburst as a breach of protocol. (Much more to be said, but I'll stop there for now as the first comment.) Please use bullets to state preferences your comments, unless you specifically want to argue with me:) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about fair use etc.. but it would certainly be nice to use the image. Reliefappearance (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There may be no legal validity to this, but it is worth noting that all the events took place in the US Capitol building, which to my thinking, is yet another thumb on the scales toward any use being fair. The building itself is public property, and there is an overwhelming public interest in distributing the images of what happened in chamber. We're as non-profit as they come, there is no direct consumer purchasing of the images to interfere with, and the images are already licensed via numerous news outlets to be distributed on the internet to readers free of charge. I'm not a lawyer, but a non-profit educational institution distributing, for the purpose of commentary, already-widely-available images of elected officials during a government meeting on public property has to be one of the easiest cases I could imagine to justify as fair. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Displaying that composite on this page?

I have avoided this particular conversation prior to now, but the recent insertion of this image into the article and subsequent removal of it by Proofreader77 brings to mind another of the often contentious WP:NFCC, which in this instance is #9: "Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles ..." Therefore, I imagine it will only be a relatively short matter of time before one or more of the WP anti-fair-use advocates either remove it from this talk page and/or put it up for deletion under WP:FFD. Sorry to break this news. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

SKIP DOWN TO BOTTOM LINE lol

In this case, the rationale was explicitly written for a temporary use for discussion of (small low-res composite) image (I take personal responsibility for deleting this one within a reasonable span of time) while we determine if that is what we want, and if so determine if "fair use" within Wikipedia rules will be allowed ... and perhaps if explicit permission should be sought ... OR that we don't need to waste our time, etc. etc.

(We could place it in a collapsible box here, but it's fine for it to be deleted from this page. And fine for it to be deleted from Wikipedia. If we decide both images are needed to capture the moment, and that we really need them ... and the rules of Wikipedia would allow it (not sure it will, still working that out -- I voted to delete the large finger-point shout — see deletion discussion of first image) ... THEN we can upload suitably small images separately and perhaps seek permission from the Washington Post and AP ... or Getty images if the other finger-point is desired instead. LOL (so simple)

What we absolutely can't do is leave that image permanently on any page but an article. (Nor let it be archived from this one.)

BOTTOM LINE: I have only placed this here (visible) so that all editors will see it and grasp the idea in a glance and discuss whether that image pair is sufficiently valuable in understanding the moment to justify rule #8 under WP:NFCC. We can probably assume they have seen it and remove it ... but we should keep in mind that fair use would absolutely grant fair use for this image for what we're doing with it temporarily on the talk page—but perhaps not global digital distribution for perpetuity in the article. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ivan Marte reference

Suggest it remain removed permanently. Supporting URL was dead, and the resignation of a minor politician from Rhode Island has no bearing on either the national dialogue surrounding Senator Wilson's outburst, or South Carolina politics. Jun Kayama (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. He was a complete unknown outside his local area until this event made brief news, and it is unlikely he will be heard from again. Not significant. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The length of the "You lie" mention in the introduction (and undue)

I have (after hard consideration) performed an undo that perhaps should have more graciously been an edit— however the matter is much more clearly illuminated for discussion by undoing. :) This has been much discussed in scattered spots above, but let us revisit it here (in this specific case) for clarity.

The matter of whether to mention the incident in the lede [introduction] appears to have consensus—but it appears that there is not consensus on how to mention it. I reverted the change to the shorter form which used the phrase "subject to controversy" because the result is not sufficiently shorter ... not enough to justify forcing a reader to have to read further to determine what that means. But I may be wrong. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Preferences for mentioning outburst?

• I prefer the longer version. Since I may be wrong:), I have reverted my undoing back to Juliancolton's version until consensus chooses. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• There's no need to be coy about the incident, especially since so little space is saved. More specific and direct is always better. Gamaliel (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• My reasoning for cutting down on the info was that despite all the events of Wilson's life, the three-second outburst took up 25% of the lead. Therefore, it seemed to be given undue weight. I think it should definitely be mentioned, but there's no need for such detail in the lead. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight? The fellow became world famous overnight as a result of this incident. Some of the many international newspaper headlines are noted above on the talk page. Please also note WP:LEAD (quoted in relevant part at least a couple times on this talk page) and perhaps also read the relevant part of the article and note that the arguments about this incident became quite involved and the public discussion extremely widespread. (Of course even in the body text they're reduced to WP:Summary style.) Perhaps also note that this article had been edited roughly a couple hundred times prior to the "outburst" and has since been edited well over a thousand times, an over-500% increase even with semi-protection in place until a couple days ago-- in other words, the vast majority of the attention to this article has been given to it as a result of this incident. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. He was an "obscure" congressman until his outburst. Questions of weight are valid, but should probably be addressed by adding a bit more to the other parts if we're going to do it rather than lessen the outburst, IMHO. --kizzle (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Characterization of Accuracy of Obama's Speech

I just took out a sentence at the end of the second paragraph in the "outburst" section that went over the National Review's assessment of Obama's speech. That paragraph largely dealt with whether Wilson's outburst comment was accurate or not, so it didn't seem appropriate to have a sentence tacked on that discussed whether the the broader speech (outside of the context of immigrants and health care) was misleading. In any case, I'm not sure that including an assessment by the National Review (while reliable, definitely partisan) would be the way to do so. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)