Talk:Rob Wittman

Comment

The Blue Virginia article being used as a source is included in a wide range of blogs the Post lists under the disclaimer "The content is hosted on the Post site but is entirely the creation of individual blogs and, as such, the Post is not responsible for any partisanship or bias present in the posts." Thus, it is not a valid source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.105.112 (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

JNW, no offense to you on this. The edits someone with his opponent's campaign has been making have been against policy. I let my frustration get the better of me when cleaning up the last batch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.105.112 (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You did indeed, and it's far less acceptable than whatever you're attempting to revise. If there's a POV edit war then seek administrative assistance. Otherwise, your actions will be seen as vandalism. Frustration happens; just remove obviously POV stuff, report the accounts, and if necessary request page protection. JNW (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I was actually in the middle of deleting "whooping" when it said it was already in the edit process. It slipped from the last scrub. These specific percentages and dollar figures change daily and will be nearly impossible to maintain, though. ...thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.105.112 (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That's alright. If they're sourced then they're accurate for the specified period, and can be revised to reflect more recent data. The mailing section looks like a minor political tempest, but doesn't need to be deleted, just reworded. It's sourced, and deleting it makes it look like you've got an agenda. JNW (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of changing the start of the percent paragraph from...

Wittman raised $1,208,935 for his campaign. Of that money, $478,541 or 40% came from PAC contributions... to... Wittman raised over a million dollars for his campaign. Of that money, approximately 40% came from PAC contributions.  ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.105.112 (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter much to me, but I'd imagine that if the specific figures are cited, there's no reason not to leave them. And please sign your talk page posts--getting interrupted by edit conflict while your comments are automatically signed is annoying. JNW (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It's just a maintenance nightmare. The figures on that site are already out of date.24.245.105.112 (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)MessageforJNW

I've semi-protected this article because of the continued edit-warring among the IPs. Please resolve your disputes on the talk page. If you all reach consensus for a change to be made, you can request that the article be edited with {{editsemiprotected}}. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

(Previous comments by me deleted because they are no longer necessary due to Dabomb87's awesomeness.)24.245.105.112 (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion changing ||Gail for Rail Parker|| to ||Gail "For Rail" Parker|| to eliminate confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.105.112 (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There are legitimate concerns regarding Wittman's use of his franking privileges - see http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/102010/10292010/585016 - it is in more than just a blog. I believe it should be on the page. The amount of money raised doesn't need to go in here although I do think the fact that 40% of his funds have been donated from corporate pacs. It definitely differentiates him from his opposition.Staal12 (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)staal12

So far every article I've read on the matter says he's been following the letter of the law on this. The law specifies you can't send out 500+, and he been sending out less than that. There are no charges that have been brought against him, just a complaint filed by his opponent party's office. If charges are brought against him, then I would move for inclusion on the page. Until then, it's just campaign time tactics. As for the funding, my concern was specific dollar figures are extremely hard to maintain and immediately out of date. I'm fine with listing a general figure for total amount raised and approximate percentages for the rest (see history of discussion section for my previous suggestion on how this could be incorporated). I believe the term is just PAC, though, not "corporate PAC". And if your purpose in including the stat on his page is to differentiate him from his opponent, then we really need to list the in state and out of state donor percentages, which show a sharp contrast between the candidates. The vast, vast majority of Wittman's funding has come from within Virginia (91%!!); while ~76% of Ball's funding has come from OUT OF STATE. (And this next statement is purely my opinion and should not be included in the article--So the people who will actually be represented by Wittman have chosen him as their preferred recipient of their campaign contributions while Ball's major contributors have come from well outside the voting district. Which I feel speaks VOLUMES.)24.245.105.112 (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

so you don't think that if you send out 4 items at 400 each for a total of 1600 in order to circumvent the law, that that's a problem? His staff admitted to it in the Fredericksburg article. I do - I think that finding a way to ignore the rules shows that he's not ethical. Ethics and legality are two completely different things. And the only way you can say that 91% of his donations have come from in state is if you count all those corporate donations as being in state. I didn't put anything about campaign finances as all in the wikipedia pages, I believe you did. When you went down the road of in state versus out of state, I thought it was important for people to know that a huge percentage of that in- state money was from corporations that have an office in the state but many, if not most of their head offices are out of state - so that statistic is very, very misleading. I think the fact that 40% of his money comes from corporate PACS (open secrets term, not mine) speaks VOLUMES about him. And if you're concerned about the PAC money totals being just a snapshot, the in state versus out of state percentages are just as transitory as the corporate versus private numbers, genius. Neither set of numbers is any more permanent than the other. 70.166.150.69 (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)staal12

I think if they meant 500 total when they placed the law or regulation in place they would have said 500 total and not 500 of each. I have this strange instinct that says laws mean what they say. Right now the entire matter is a campaign time tactic. If that is proven to not be the case by charges being brought up against Wittman or some other similar action, then we should include it. As it stands though, it's just a campaign attack. And, genius, percentages change less quickly than dollar figures.24.245.105.112 (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I said it was unethical, not illegal. There are many other places in Wikipedia that unethical actions are listed, why would this be any different? And I guess if you're rounding off, yes, percentages would change less quickly than exact dollar figures. But since the candidates don't update their contribution figures every day, I don't know what it's an issue. It's not like there's a toteboard somewhere with how much money Wittman takes every day. Staal12 (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)staal12

If for your special bank account your bank has a $1000 daily withdraw limit, and you go in on multiple days and withdraw $1000 dollars each time, would you consider yourself unethical? Also, yes, exactly, those figures aren't updated daily. Thus they're out of date almost as soon as they're posted here, which is a maintenance nightmare. We could just use a general "approximately x.x million dollars" or "over x million" or "approximately 40%" etc without incurring the same automatically-out-of-date nightmare.24.245.105.112 (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture needs to be rotated

Maybe it's just my computer but it looks like Congressman Wittman's picture needs to be rotated. I'll do it later if nobody else does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.141 (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rob Wittman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140614021205/http://www.wittman.house.gov/about-rob/ to http://www.wittman.house.gov/about-rob/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2012/10/09/federal-debt-a-focus-of-1st-district-debate/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131122201604/http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20130914/NEWS05/309140006 to http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20130914/NEWS05/309140006
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140613230718/http://www.wittman.house.gov/latest-news/wittman-chesapeake-bay-legislation-passes-the-house/ to http://www.wittman.house.gov/latest-news/wittman-chesapeake-bay-legislation-passes-the-house/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081129075054/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002640404 to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002640404
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070725184700/http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100617084700/http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Election_Information/Election_Results/Index.html to http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Election_Information/Election_Results/Index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

House investigation of Hunter Biden

There are so many pressing concerns affecting the citizens of Hanover. None which concern Hunter Biden. We care about feeding our children. We care about being able to drive to and from our jobs. We care out our seniors who depend on social security. You were elected to represent all the people, not just a small fraction. Extremism is not on the table. Working to help the people have a decent life is. 2601:5C7:4180:2840:8D90:1974:36A:DF73 (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Biden's inappropriate reimbursement from multiple offshore entities and redistribution to the current president and family have everything to do with our lives. The current president is beholden to offshore entities, and his excessive spending (Inflation Reduction Act???) has caused a significant portion of citizens not to be able to stay financially secure. If it took violation of tax law to put Al Capone in jail, then I am all for prosecuting the greater Biden crime family to improve our lives. 2600:4040:123E:8000:7A35:E3CA:8A69:8234 (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)