Talk:Bill Sali

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

Contents

[edit] Balance

While I don't think this should be a political ad (as some edits today have attempted), there's a need for balance here. We need to keep the Newcomb comments but also add something to the effect that Sali's supporters tend to be pretty hard core for him. --Faustus37 20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff from official webpage

The following text (below) was taken verbatum from Bill Sali's official biography [1] and put on the wikipedia page. I am not sure if we can use it with proper attribution and citation. Any other thoughts? Remember 20:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Bill Sali was born on Feb. 17, 1954 in Portsmouth, Ohio. His father Gregory Sali worked in the nuclear industry. In 1957 his family moved to East Granby, Connecticut where his father worked for Combustion Engineering.

In 1962 his family moved to Boise, Idaho when his father pursued the first of several mining ventures. Bill attended Hawthorne elementary school, then after his family moved attended Koelsch elementary, West Junior High and Capital High School, graduating in 1972. In school he enjoyed music playing drums with school marching, concert and Pep bands.

Boise State University was attended beginning with the fall semester 1972 studying engineering and industrial business up until the fall semester of 1974. He was a member of the student chapter of the Society of Professional Engineers.

While working for his father in American Triticale, Inc., a grain seed business, Bill met Terry Sue Petersen and they were married August 20, 1976 in Boise, Idaho and later raised six children together. They made their home in the Boise, Idaho area where he played music professionally and worked at various jobs, including farming and a Caterpillar dealership.

Bill then returned to Boise State University in January 1979 majoring in Economics. He was a member of Omicron Delta Epsilon, an Economics Honor Society.

After graduating from BSU in 1981, Bill and Terry moved to Moscow, Idaho where Bill began law school at the University of Idaho. While there Bill was a founding member of the U of I chapter of Delta Theta Phi, a law Fraternity and was elected the chapter’s first Bailiff. Bill continued performance in popular swing music with the Blue County band and also as a member of Willard and the Rats, a 10-piece classic rock band made of law students, spouses and instructors. He graduated in 1984 and they moved back to the Boise area while preparing for the bar exam. In September 1984, after passing the bar exam, Bill began a solo law practice.

While establishing his legal practice, Bill continued performing music. After winning local and regional levels of the True Value Hardware Country Showdown, “Idaho the band” became one of 6 national finalists and in December 1987 and performed live on nationally broadcast TV show Nashville Now on TNN. Bill continued to perform with two other Boise-based groups, Cimarron and Redstone. Redstone enjoyed success from Calgary Canada to Denver Colorado and the group shared the stage with a number of artists, including Billy Ray Cyrus, Waylon Jennings, Asleep At The Wheel, Doug Stone and the Gibson Miller Band.

In early 1990 Bill was asked to enter politics and in May 1990 won the Republican primary election to a seat in the House of Representatives in the Idaho Legislature. After the defeated incumbent resigned, Bill was appointed in August 1990 to fill the remainder of that term. The general election in November of that year was won handily as well. In December he was appointed to the House Health and Welfare Committee and in 1993 was appointed as its vice-chairman. Later that year he was also appointed to the Special Committee on Health Care. He served as Chairman of that Committee from 2003 to 2004. Bill served on the Commerce, Industry and Tourism Committee in 1991 and 1992, and then 2 years on the Human Resources Committees. Bill was moved to the Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee in 1995.

--anonymous

You're absolutely right, that can't be used. It's banned by Wikipedia, I believe. Wiki is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a propaganda machine. Besides, if you google Sali, all that will be on the first page that comes up. Why duplicate it when it's so easily available anyways?

I've severely overhauled the page, and included some of the same facts, with attribution. --texasmusician 3:51 PM, 06 November 2006 (Pacific)

[edit] Overhaul, Bias

I just severely overhauld the article, adding quite a bit of content and improving the layout. I admit that my additions are severely biased against Sali, highlighting criticisms, stupid statements, and controversies. As most Idaho residents know, there's not been a lot of positive things said about Sali - which is why a Republican is struggling in Idaho for once. Everything I've cited is accepted fact, and I've cited all my sources. Given their factual and accepted nature, I would appreciate it if my additions were not deleted. However, balance is important: I certainly hope a Sali supporter will add more to the article. It could use some details on his actual issue positions and on any bills he's sponsored in the legislature. I did try to put in some of that information, and I highlighted some of the national support he's recieved (Mehlman, Hastert, Cheney, Club for Growth, RCCC, National Right to Life, etc.). I've left out current poll numbers between Sali and Grant, since after tomorrow they'll be irrelevant.

--texasmusician 3:48 PM, 06 November 2006 (Pacific)

So it would be too difficult for you to write a balanced article, but you will take the time to use a man's biography to push your own political agenda? Furthermore, your section on his career in the state legislature gives no explanation as to exactly what he has done. It mostly includes a collection of negative quotes, which should be under their own section. What if we described Bill Clinton's political career by using quotes from his critics? Would you consider this to be fair? This is exactly what Sali has done, it is the facts, so the bias agruement should be saved fro Faux News. --Anonymous

I didn't push my own agenda. I listed the groups I know of that endorsed him, and I added some info on his basic positions (pro-life, that sort of thing). I added what I know, but because most of the news surrounding the campaign was negative, what I know doesn't reflect well on Mr. Sali. If I was trying to push my own agenda, I wouldn't have come to the discussion page to encourage people who know other, more positive info to post it, as well. I would have stayed silent on the subject. You're right, I didn't include "exactly what he has done" - because I don't know. But if you do, please, post it. However, merely reposting non-encylcopediac copyrighted propaganada from an official website is not appropriate - not for this entry, and not for the entries of politicians I like, either. It's called plagiarism, and it's unacceptable. Also, thanks for staying anonymous, and not publishing your user name. Heightened mystery - or at least wasted time spent looking at the history page - brightens everyone's day. --texasmusician 8:19 PM, 15 November 2006 (Pacific)

[edit] Anonymous User 66.233.250.90

I have reverted 66.233.250.90's most recent edits. This is the second time he has vandalized the page with his views. I'll admit that most of the FACTS I put in the article do not reflect well on Sali; I have put in few facts that do make him look good because I myself don't know those facts. But one thing I have not done is to try and charactize the information myself with unflattering adjectives and commentary, something 66.233.250.90 does often. Some of his edits - particularly to "religion" in the info box - were good ones, and I redid them. Most were not. For instance, he likes to change the line "The third place finisher, moderate Sheila Sorensen, said of Sali," to "said moderately." Her quote has nothing to do with liberal, conservative, or moderate. It's character-based, not issue-based. And it's wrong to use Wikipedia to mock her political stances. He also changed the line "Many of these papers, such as the Spokesman Review, typically endorse Republicans, giving their anti-Sali endorsments of Grant added weight." to "Many of these papers, such as the Idaho Statesman, rarely endorse conservative Republicans, giving their anti-Sali endorsments of Grant dubious credibility." First of all, "weight" is different than "credibility." How much credibility an endorsement has is not the same as its weight and its importance; credibility is an opinion issue, and does NOT belong in a Wikipedia ENCYCLOPEDIA article. It is also silly to delete the line about the Spokesman. Finall, 66.233.250.90 changed "anti-gay marriage" to "affirms the heterosexual definition of marriage" - another opinion. Unfortunately, I don't think 66.233.250.90 reads the discussion page, as suggested by his anonymity, so please keep an eye out for him. I'm unfamiliar with some of Wiki's editorial policies, so if you know an editor or whatever they're called, let him know. I'm certainly not against putting in facts that make Sali look good, such as a list of his legislative accomplishments, but personal opinion is a whole different story. --texasmusician 7:09 PM, 16 November 2006 (Pacific)

This article, in its current form, appears not much more than texasmusician's lopsided collection of the most negative quotes he could find against Bill Sali. The article content has less to do with Bill Sali and more to do with what his political opponents think of him. It reads like a Democratic op-ed piece. Rather than simply remove the quote by Sheila Sorensen (as the irrelevant opinion that it is), I decided to leave it in as a sample of the shameless bias of the entire article. Adding the adjective "moderate" next to Sheila's quote contrasts beautifully with the content of her statement, which is anything but moderate. If there were a list of RINO politicians for the state of Idaho, Sheila would be at the top of it. As for the newspaper endorsements, there is no citation which supports the claim that any of them "typically endorse Republicans". The Idaho Statesman, in particular, is quite out of step with the political views of the state. If they ever endorse a Republican candidate, it is either because there is no Democrat running on the ballot, or because the endorsement of a RINO is better than endorsing a real conservative. But rather than remove the irrelevant topic from the article, I simply inverted the erroneous statement to correctly indicate the fact that these papers rarely endorse conservative Republicans. I left the remaining (and also irrelevant) description of their coverage unchanged, as evidence of this fact. Sadly, it seems texasmusician is intent on hovering over this article to make sure that it continues to reflect his openly admitted bias. --66.233.250.90 06:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

--Her quote is not moderate, nor is it liberal or conservative - a description of someone's personal character has nothing to do with any of those labels. And if you think moderates are RINOs, fine, but she was a close third in the primary, so her comments do reflect a split within the state party on Sali, as do Vasquez's, the close second. And intra-party splits like that matter in election coverage. As to the Idaho Statesman, if you want to point out that it usually endorses Democrats, fine, but don't say it has no credibility - that's a matter of opinion. But cite a source when you point out who it usually endorses (for instance, dig up an older endorsement of a liberal and link to it). And I have known the Spokesman Review to endorse conservative Republicans numerous times - it's my local paper. But you're right, I should cite it. Mea culpa, I'll dig something up. So don't delete the line about the Spokesman when you add the line about the Statesman, as you did. Finally, you're right, there's not much more the article right now than the well-publicized quotes about Mr. Sali, but if you'd like to add info about his legislative record, go for it! The article needs it! I would add it if I knew it, but I don't. The article could certainly use more info on his stances (as long as it's not biased language like "affirms the same-sex definiton of marriage" - we could say he supports a Constitutional amendment defining marriage that way), what bills he's sponsored, and his committee work. I'd add it if I knew it - the article is biased only because of what I know, but at least it's not biased in how it words those facts. I'm happy to include facts that make him look good: I do have a bias, yes, but the article shouldn't reflect my bias. Find facts to cover up the bias. Your info is fine, the problem is how you word it. You should also set up an actual account (or log into one you already have) rather than remaining and anonymous IP address. Thanks for doing what you think is right as far as thje article goes. Maybe if we work together rather than wacking away at one another's edits, we can work something positive out. --texasmusician 16:28 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Since this article more closely resembled a Democratic op-ed piece than an encyclopedia entry, I decided to separate the personal opinions about Sali and put them under their own heading (appropriately labeling them as opinion). I also added a hint of balance to the article by quoting some prominent Idahoans who have held opinions in support of Bill Sali. Not surprisingly, they weren't hard to find, assuming texasmusician even bothered to look for any. We'll see how long these updates last. --66.233.250.90 08:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I rearranged things to make more organizational sense, but I didn't delete anything. Do you agree with the way I relabeled them? If not, we can continue to tinker with it. And by "not hard to find," I see your source is Sali's webpage. Of course they weren't hard to find when you go the propaganda page (though I am leaving them in the article, quotes are quotes). And I point out I am the one who added info about which PACs donated to Sali and which national figures cam to stump for him, as well as info on which committees he sat on and that quote about the Founding Fathers. But I didn't look too hard for positive info, just as you didn't look too hard for negative info. That doesn't mean I'll delete the positive info (when worded objectively, as you finally did this time) when added by others. --texasmusician 14:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering, why do you stay anonymous? If you were just tinkering with spelling and grammar, I'd understand, but since you're pretty active with at least one page, why not set up an account? --texasmusician 14:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with the relabeling. The usual pro-life vs abortion debate is a debate. People disagree strongly and say strong words in that fight. That's barely newsworthy, or deep controversy, let alone encyclopedia worthy. When that debate spills over into personal attacks, it's usually considered bad form. Yet you and the papers seem to be completely captivated by the ad hom statements against Sali's person. Why am I not surprised? Your chosen quotations do not inform us about Sali, and contribute zero insight into Sali's views or methods or tactics. What data indicates that Sali is an idiot? What did he lie about? Why should he be thrown out a window? There is no context here. As such it's just a collection of personal opinions. They should be labeled for what they are, assuming they even belong in an encyclopedia article. Also, Bill Sali's web site is already referenced more than once by the article-- or is it only a propaganda page when I reference it? These quotes are intended for public record anyway, they just happen to be conveniently available in one place, which simplifies citation. You say yourself that quotes are quotes, and I fail to see how the personal opinions that I quoted are any less relevant than the ones you quoted (assuming any of them are relevant to an encyclopedia article). So I'm not giving you any points for generosity. --66.233.250.90 18:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The attacks aganist Sali's person have little to do with the abortion debate - they come from other pro-life people (and this may come as a surprise to you, but I myself am pro-life). The reason I and the newspapers are "captivated" by these attacks are because of their sources. You won't find another Congressional race in the country this year where two former state speakers, same-party legislature collegagues, and numerous primary opponents criticized their party's nominee as much as Idaho's first. I deleted your line about Sorensen and Vasquez criticizng Sali BECAUSE they lost to him for two reasons: 1) in most states (CT is an obvious exception), party primary competitors endorse one another in the General. See the Maryland Senate race. And 2) The candidates themselves TOLD US why they wouldn't endorse Sali. I take them at their word on that score. I referenced Sali's webpage myself, in listing his Committee assignments. It's a propaganda page, but as I said, propaganda can be facts. Selective facts are still facts, which is why I didn't delete your quotes from that page. I never said your quotes were less relevant than mine - take a look, I left them in the article. I'm sure you noticed. Finally, I relabeld "public opinion" again because I don't think the people you or I are quoting count as the general public. Can we agree at least on that? Reread all my posts. I never once asked for "points for generosity." What I did ask was why you don't set up an account, and I noticed you chose to ignore me there. AGAIN. --texasmusician 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You're in Bella Vista, Arkansas. Are you a displaced Idahoan? Why your acute interest in Bill Sali? --texasmusician 16:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion/Breast Cancer

Our anonymous friend, 66.233.250.90, is right - if the abortion/breast cancer link quotes are to be mentioned, Sali should be credited for citing actual studies and not making stuff up. The other anonymous fellow was wrong to revert it, and I'm sorry I didn't catch the missing studies earlier. However, it is also true that the major cancer groups (particularly the American Cancer Society) all disagree with those findings, and that should be mentioned as well. BEcause Sali is so well nown for the remarks, and because they played such a role in the debate, I feel they merit their own special section. Thanks, 66.233.250.90, for inserting the links to the studies Sali cites. I hope you find the further changes acceptable as well. On another note, shame on Jidlla the Killa for the vandalism, and thank you Wknight94 for catching it. Lordkate, good minor edits. Hope you all had a happy Thanksgiving!

--texasmusician 01:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Immigration

This enrty states that Sali is "in favor of immigration law overhaul". That's a rather vague description. Since the Republican Party is split between those who favor the bi-partisan, comprehensive approach and those who favor an enforcement-only approach, clarity is needed. The current language doesn't really tell the reader anything about the Rep.-elect's position. I'll do a quick edit to that section, if there's no objections.

--Wgbc2032 02:47, 26 December 2006 (MTC)


As long as you cite your sources and use objective language, go for it! Thanks!

--texasmusician 05:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Still Biased?

If there are no objections, I'd like to remove the biased tag from the article. After my little back-and-forth with our anonymous friend, I think the article has balanced out a lot more. Our joint efforts helped that front, I think - he would add balancing information to my admittedly-biased knowledge; I would tone down his biased language. Does the article still seem one-sided? If not, let's get rid of that tag.

--texasmusician 18:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Yes, still biased. It was pretty clever how you slipped the ad hominem remarks back out of the opinion section. Did you suddenly forget your own words above when you said, "The attacks aganist Sali's person have little to do with the abortion debate"? If the attacks against Sali's person have little to do with the abortion debate, why did you move them out of the opinion section and into a new section specifically on the abortion debate? Do tell. Although, I agree that it could be useful to have a separate section on the Abortion issue. It would be a good place to flesh out the details from the studies. Almost like what happened with Sali. Abortionists raised a fuss in the media and suddenly people became aware of the studies. Oops. The data got discussed and people started to ask questions. Maybe Sali isn't as dumb as you want to paint him. Or maybe he's dumb like a fox, even though the reasons for Sali's opposition to abortion go much deeper than breast cancer rates.

--66.233.250.90 19:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted about the abortion section on November 27. Why would you take this long to complain about it? And why are you griping about the quotes being moved? They're still there; they just have more context.

--texasmusician 01:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Made some changes. I deleted much of the info you inserted explaining the studies and the details and numbers behind them. Although that's very valuable information, this is not the article for them. This is an article about Bill Sali - full in-depth analysis of everything related to his life or any particular issue doesn't actually belong in this particular article. This needs to stay focused on Mr. Sali himself. I didn't delete everything you inserted, nor did I insert such qualifying info about the pro-link studies. But I did shorten things to keep this a Sali article. I also moved the quotes about Sali's abortion stance back to the abortion section. That puts them in context. I don't understand why you moved them back to the opinion section - they're specifically relevant to the abortion section, and putting them in context doesn't hide them or make them more obvious to the reader.

If you'd like, start another article on the question about breast cancer-abortion and like this article to that article. Don't like that suggestion? Tough. You'll find that's generally the accepted ruled across Wikipedia - not that you would know that, since you hide behind the mask of anonymity and refuse to answer me when I ask about that, so my guess is you don't do much on Wiki beyond the Sali article. --texasmusician 01:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no strong complaint with an abortion section, as such. But I do find it hilarious that you actually have no interest in factual information pertaining to the studies that Sali relied on for his abortion/breast-cancer (ABC) position. Rather you seem only interested in proudly placing the ad hominem personal opinions from Sali's detractors, as if they contribute any understanding of Sali's positions. Are you sure that your true calling is not in journalism? In any case, you can't have it both ways. You can't raise the ABC controversy and then try to censor factual information. If you didn't want to see this data, then you shouldn't have created a section for it. I'll remind you that you were the one who said that, "The attacks aganist Sali's person have little to do with the abortion debate", so it is odd that you still insist on pulling them out of the personal opinion section. When you publish your real name and address for everyone to see, then you can complain about others being anonymous. --66.233.250.90 03:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved the comments about Sali's abortion position BACK to the abortion section. The comments may not play a role in understanding Sali's actual position, but they do play a role in understanding how that position has affected his career, his effectiveness in state politics, and how he is viewed by the rest of the state, subjects this article is to address. Furthermore, most Wiki articles don't even HAVE "outside opinion" sections. Putting comments about a subject next to other info on that subject is a typical Wiki action, something I'm guessing you don't know since, again, you remain anonymous and refuse to even ackowledgethe existence of my repeated inquiries as to why.

Also, I again deleted most of the info on the abortion studies - both the studies you prefer and the studies I prefer - but did place a prominent link to that information. Your ad hominem attack (I love the fact that you keep critizing such quotes from others about Sali but repeatedly make them about me) that I "have no interest in factual information pertaining to the studies" is untrue; I just don't think an article on Sali is the same thing as an article on the studies. But it is relevant, a prominent link is appropriate. And thanks for the info on his committee requests and adding a link to the new official website. --texasmusician 16:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This page has been dorment for weeks now. I'm going to remove the neutrality boxes, unless somebody objects. --Wgbc2032 20:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I erased changes earlier today, explaining myself. You changed it back, but didn't explain yourself here as I did, so I reverted. Why don't we seek a third opinion through the formal Wiki process? (Honestly, I don't see the problem with a prominent link and putting like with like, but I guess you do and just don't want to explain why. Did you file your rational for it away with your refusal to discuss anonymity?) --texasmusician 02:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to keep explaining myself over and over, so this will probably be the last time. Before texasmusician yanked my edits, I had already explained why the ad hominem verbal attacks against Sali belong under a personal opinion section (assuming there should even be one). If someone wants to lose control and fly off the handle at Sali, that is their problem, not his. I also explained why the specific data is important to the ABC debate and the issue Sali is raising about the studies. Trying to censor the factual data after texasmusician made a section for the abortion controversy is just that, biased censorship. It's really too bad that Wikipedia is subject to such bias, and is too backlogged to deal with it. I guess that's the failure of this kind of medium. I already addressed the anonymity issue as well. Our anonymous friend can complain about others being anonymous when he posts his name and address for all to see.

--66.233.250.90 06:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise Needed

I propose that this article on Sali be reformatted into a true biographical form, rather than continue on in some attempt to balance glowing praise from his allies and ad hominem outburts from his opposition. A list of opinions about Sali is not contributing much either way. I realize that texasmusician is in love with the nasty quotes that he's found against Sali, but I propose that those be moved off to other articles that could be linked from Sali's main biographical page. This is similar to how other political pages are handled, such as Ronald Reagan's page, where scandals during his administration are described and linked in a separate article. You'll also notice that even on pages like those of Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney, their controversies are discussed mainly in their own words, and do not become a free-for-all to quote every nasty outburst made against them in the media.

So I would be willing to drop the "Outside opinion" section entirely (or move it to other articles, assuming texasmusician is willing to compromise. What I'm not offering is to let texasmusicion scatter the irrelevant ad hominems throughout the article that should be a biography on Sali, not a stage for all the nasty remarks of his political enemies. The article should not be formatted as if it were a political campaign or op-ed piece. If someone is to be quoted, it should be mainly Sali, describing his own views.

If Newcomb wants to call Sali an idiot, put that opinion on Newcomb's article, not Sali's. If Vasquez thinks Sali is a liar, put that in an article for Vasquez. If Simpson wants to throw Sali out a window, put that opinion on Simpson's page. Their lack of self-control is not Sali's problem, and if they aren't worthy of their own wikipedia articles, then that might be a clue that their opinions aren't worth as much as texasmusician thinks they are.

--66.233.250.90 07:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Curious, do you live in Idaho? 'Cause if you did you'd know that Rep. Sali didn't get much favorable press during his House campaign. And by the way, Speaker Newcomb and former Speaker Simpson's remarks were considered a big deal during the campaign. It was debated whether someone as polarizing as Sali could win, even in a district as Republican as Idaho's 1st. So those quotations are hardly irrelevent because they were quoted repeatedly and often during the race. That said I agree with your general premise that the article currently reads like an opinion page. It's sad my congressman, Rep. Mike Simpson gets barely a paragraph and Sali gets an elongated list of quotations.
All in all, this page needs to be edited, badly. I'm going to attempt to trim some of the fat. All comments and suggestions on how best to overhaul the page are welcome. --Wgbc2032 09:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
There, I've shortened the article considerably and tried to remove biased language. Feel free to add or subtract language/sources if they can be improved, although I'd urge all who are active in editing this page to keep the article relativley small; he's a rural congressman, not Condoleezza Rice. --Wgbc2032 10:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

Quotes to Wikiquote, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote is a place to find quotes. Encyclopedia articles aren't completely devoid of them. The goal of encyclopedia articles is to provide a concise look at the subject, and alternative viewpoints are a part of that. ~~texasmusician 05:42, 4 July 2007(UTC)
If the reader wants to see the Bill Sali-related quotes, the link to Wikiquote is available in the External Links. As for the quotes by others regarding Mr. Sali, they should be removed, and possibly only used as references for a section on others' views of this politician. --健次(derumi)talk 05:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Derumi. I would appreciate someone taking a look at the unconstructive, pointless, anti-Sali soundbites that Texasmusician seems to have fallen in love with. Such outbursts have no context here and simply tell us about the lack of self-control exhibited by Sali's political rivals. They contribute nothing informative about Sali and don't belong on Sali's page. Rather they belong on negative campaign advertisements, which is where Texasmusician found them. 66.233.250.90 06:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

66.233, how petty of you. I did not get those quotes from campaign ads. I got them from the Idaho Statesman and the Spokesman Review BEFORE there were campaign ads. And if you paid any attention, you'd see I'm also the one who put in the positive Dick Cheney quote, objective info on what Sali has done in DC (like getting elected president of his class), and the fact that Mehlman and Hastert campaigned for him. I'm out for a complete, objective article that incorporates both sides. You, on the other hand, routinely delete any info that doesn't make Sali look like the next Larry Craig. You're the biased one. And Derumi, good thinking, I'll go ahead and write a quick blurb about all this in the campaign section, but I doubt our anonymous friend will let it stand. That's the way the article started out, and he kept deleting that, too. Objectivism is not his goal - making Bill Sali look good is. Take a look at his IP addy's history page. Sali is the only article there. This guy's a troll. --texasmusician 17:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a brief glance at his (or her) contributions and gave him some helpful links about Wikipedia. While this user may have an agenda, I think he can still be a useful contributor with some better knowledge of policy. People can have strong opinions and yet understand the need to maintain a neutral and objective point of view. We do have to be careful with this article since it is a biography of a living person. --健次(derumi)talk 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Derumi, normally I would agree, but if you look back over the talk section, you'll see this guy and I have been going at it for awhile. All he's ever done are delete my edits and, at one point, add a long diatribe in the article explaining the supposed link between breast cancer and abortion (and refused to let me delete it but link to the studies). I've tried to compromise several times, never with any success. But thank you for your objective and helpful approach and mediation. You I can trust. :) BTW, my new edits are up. --texasmusician 17:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Cleanup of references

I've gone through all the references and updated them. Some of them had changed or cannot be found; applicable edits to the article were made in those cases. Some new references need to be found as Sali's campaign site no longer contains his biographical information (family, previous jobs, etc). --健次(derumi)talk 16:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Incendiary quotes

We should avoid using the nastier quotes directly. It can be pointed out that a smear campaign was being run on Bill Sali concerning his views and opinions, and that there are those who maintain low opinions of him. Repeating those smear quotes themselves would be to continue the campaign, in my opinion. --健次(derumi)talk 16:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for bringing a voice of sanity, and I certainly agree with you. Texasmusician has been carrying the torch against Sali and even admits his bias. Any political figure will have their personal opponents with strong negative opinions (which isn't newsworthy or encyclopedia worthy), but this handpicked collection of outbursts shows lack of self-control on their part and should not be made to reflect on Sali himself. Texasmusician argues that these quotes are somehow noteworthy because they come from Republicans, but Texasmusician seems to be unaware that running on the Democratic ticket in Idaho is not a winning strategy. In fact, the Democrats argue that Sali won his congressional seat, not on his platform or credentials, but simply because he was on the ballot as a Republican. Unscrupulous Democrats and liberals have figured this out and run as Republicans themselves (aka Rhinos). As a result, the Republican party in Idaho is more diverse and rancorous than in other states. But none of this tells us anything about Sali himself, so thank you again. - 66.233.250.90 07:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment on anyone's biases here. As this is a live person's biography, we have to make sure it's neutral and conservative (in tone, not conservative/political bias). We can't have it slanted over into a cheerleading or demonization article — we might as well re-run all of the campaign adverts (which aren't reliable source as they're biased to sell or unsell a candidate or issue). --健次(derumi)talk 18:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's try not to see each other here as rivals or enemies, but as fellow editors. Differing opinions can lend huge insights when debated in a civil manner. A lot of good contributions have already been made to this article. --健次(derumi)talk 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sali staff whitewashing this article?

I hae reason to believe that the 'anonymous friend' who has been making all the changes to this entry is actually on Sali's staff, perhaps his spokesman Wayne Hoffman. There is an anonymous blog called The Idahoan that was recently revealed (http://www.idahostatesman.com/richert/story/123153.html) to be registered in Hoffman's name, and the blog contains an entry making reference to repeated efforts to change this wiki entry (http://theidahoan.com/2007/07/15/psst-can-you-help-me-fool-the-public-thanks-much-.aspx ). I thought that it was frowned on for politicians' staff to turn Wiki entries into propaganda in this way. 71.209.17.152 12:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)slfisher

It's quite possible (Sali's a controversial figure, and politicians have censored their own articles at WP before), but there is also WP:BLP to adhere to. Biographies for people currently living need to be conservative (ie., not flashy or sensationalist) and information would need to be backed up with reliable sources (newspapers articles yes, campaign adverts no, etc). If there's gloss on this article, it needs to be removed. If there is reason to believe that this article does not adhere to a neutral point of view, it needs to be pointed out and taken care of. --健次(derumi)talk 17:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can start with the fact that all the negative quotes about Sali -- from members of his own party, I might add -- have been removed, with the statement that those quotes should be in those individuals' entries and not in Sali's, and yet all the positive quotes about Sali remain. 71.209.17.152 21:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)slfisher

That's just what this article needs-- a good conspiracy theory. It's too bad that I'm not Wayne Hoffman. Maybe slfisher was referring to some other anonymous poster (or Texasmusician himself) who added the most recent positive quotes about Sali. Hint: it wasn't me. In fact, Texasmusician admitted his negative bias when he first brought his campaign against Sali to wikipedia. Texasmusician invited others to come up with some positive quotes about Sali on their own if they felt like it. I originally took up Texasmusician's offer and posted some positive quotes about Sali. However, it soon became obvious that this was simply not appropriate for wiki and I said so previously in this very discussion page. I said the page had become an op ed piece, or war of quotations, rather than a biography. I even suggested removing the entire section of quotations pro or con, and just leave quotes by Sali himself. Texasmusician apparently rejected such a compromise, but someone else came in and thinned the article out considerably. Since then Texasmusician has been the one smuggling the bias back into the article, with a smattering of positive quotes to divert some suspicion. If someone wants to take out the Sali endorsement quotations, I'm fine with that, as I've said before. Thanks again to Derumi for bringing some sanity to the article. -- 66.233.250.90 19:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Texasmusician is not anonymous; he is registered and has references to other places he blogs. We may not know his real name, but he is a specific identified individual. More to the point, he works on many wikipedia entries, whereas 66.233.250.90 seems to work only on Bill Sali's wikipedia entry. Whether or not you are specifically Wayne Hoffman, I still contend that you are on Bill Sali's staff.71.33.31.140 01:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)slfisher

I am also suspicious of 66.233... in his defense however, that IP address originates from Springdale, Arkansas. If it really is someone on the staff, then they're being very careful. --Shadowlink1014 22:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget about WP:AFG. Perhaps he is only interested in Bill Sali and thus he only edits Sali's page? Also, Shadowlink1014, why do you say the IP originates from Springdale, Arkansas. I thought it was Kirkland, Washington. --Alexc3 (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he's on a staff - you're right, he is probably just interested in Sali. It's interesting now that you bring up the IP address... this website [2] (which is what I originally used) returns Springdale, Arkansas. However now that you say it, I've tried the other sites and they all say Kirkland, Washington. Huh... --Shadowlink1014 21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, that's odd. According to my search, his ISP is Clearwire, which is, apparently, located in Kirkland, Washington (according the the Wikipedia page). I think it's likely he's in Arkansas. It doesn't really matter though. Either way, I think it's unlikely he's part of Sali's staff. Even if he is, he might actually be able to make good contributions, but it's up to him to decide that. --Alexc3 (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph misrepresents Sali's position on Ellison

Sali's actual statements express his concerns about multiculturalism in US politics, which may be similar to views and arguments held by Pat Buchanan and others. Where does Sali propose a religious test? No such reference is given. Where does Sali ignore the US Constitution? No reference is given. Where does Sali suggest that Ellison should be prevented from holding office? Again, no reference is given. What Sali actually says is that we are seeing a change (which we are) from the nation's historic Christian heritage, a heritage which Sali associates with the blessings we have experienced as a nation. Sali is offering his analysis of this change and what it might mean for our nation. Sali holds that rapid change from a Western and Christian paradigm wasn't anticipated by the founding fathers. Sali is reiterating the views of men quoted below. -- 66.233.250.90 18:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." -- John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court
"It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." -- Patrick Henry, May 1765, Speech to the House of Burgesses
"And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord." -– Abraham Lincoln
"Let us look forward to the time when we can take the flag of our country and nail it below the Cross, and there let it wave as it waved in the olden times, and let us gather around it and inscribed for our motto: 'Liberty and Union, one and inseparable, now and forever,’ and exclaim, ‘Christ first, our country next!'" -– Andrew Johnson
"We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation, without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity." -– Franklin Roosevelt
"Without God, there is no virtue, because there’s no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under." -– Ronald Reagan
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." -– Thomas Jefferson
Any discussion of Sali's recent comments is bound to be controversial, because his comments seemed to imply that Rep. Keith Ellison did not belong in congress because of his religion. Then Sali clarified that's not what he meant. So what exactly did he mean, and how should we characterize it here? Your current revision is innapropriate because it assumes that America's heritage is Christian, and it is deteriorating. This is a point of view and Wikipedia is not a place for opinion. I will attempt to rewrite this section to make it as neutral as possible.--Wgbc2032 18:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
My revision did not assume America's heritage is Christian (even though only a revisionist would try to deny it). Rather I stated it as Sali's position and his concern-- which it is. I'll try to make that more clear. Sali's statements are consistent with a long tradition of men who have expressed the exact same concerns and warnings about multiculturalism and the need to honor Christ as a nation (see quotes above). Some may disagree with Sali's views, but they are Sali's, and he does not appear to be hiding them. Since these are not my conjectures about Sali's convictions, they are quite appropriate for Wikipedia. -- 66.233.250.90 22:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the revision is inappropriate... We can say that Sali believes that alleged Christian heritage is being deteriorated, but we may not state that heritage as factual. Also, IP user, the issue on which you are quoting is a controversy, thus it is not appropriate to post evidence on the talk page and then make a statement one way or the other, as fact, in the article. Even if it was, this activity would qualify as original research. --Shadowlink1014 23:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Debating whether the United States has a Christian heritage is akin to debating whether the U.S. has a Western heritage. But, aside from some people's need to debate the obvious, Sali's position is not an alleged position. I didn't state the particulars of Sali's position as facts, but plainly labeled them as Sali's position/perception in the article. However, Sali believes that the U.S. has a Christian heritage, Sali does not allegedly believe so. Sali isn't concerned about a deterioration of an alleged Christian heritage, rather Sali is concerned about a deterioration of an actual Christian heritage. If a homosexual politician expresses their concern about a deterioration of gay rights, would we have to report that they have concerns over alleged gay rights instead? Would controversy somewhere else suddenly turn their view on gay rights into a view on alleged gay rights? If a Darwinist expresses their concern about the quality of teaching on evolution in public schools, do we have to correct their concern by inserting "alleged" before the word evolution, just because there is controvery somewhere else? I've tried to make it clear that Sali's statements come out of his own concerns, and his own perceptions. I'm not sure how to state that any more clearly, but dropping the word "alleged" in front of Christian heritage seems like an attempt to try to correct Sali's own position on that heritage. -- 66.233.250.90 06:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that Sali's position is alleged -- indeed it is well publicized. However, when making a reference to "Christian heritage" of the U.S., we cannot state it in an off-hand manner that would suggest that this heritage is well established. Your analogies to gay rights are invalid: gay rights is a current issue that does not relate to historical, factual things, but rather is a debate about what should or should not be, today and in the future. Your comparison to Darwinism is also invalid, as the issue is not a controversy in the scientific community. --Shadowlink1014 12:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so because something is not controversial to you then it's not the same. I get it now. Thank you for admitting your bias. -- 66.233.250.90 13:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. --Shadowlink1014 16:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Let's try to keep to facts. Facts include what Sali said, either quoted or paraphrased. And if what Sali said was taken as controversial by others, then that is also a fact, which needs to be mentioned, without giving undue weight to critics. Beyond that, let's not go.

Also, quoting prominent (and dead) Americans to show that Sali isn't saying anything particularly unusual is an interesting approach, but borders on original research (it doesn't cross the line until someone tries to put it into the article). We don't need such quotes (and arguments) if editors stick to facts from news stories, per WP:V. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This last paragraph really needs to be rewritten. We should rely more on what he actually said instead of trying to interpret what he said or else we'll get trolls. Also, sorry for my previous edit, I was in a rush and I was annoyed at how people came here to vandalize this article. --Alexc3 (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As long as we're trying to interpret what Bill Sali meant with his comments we're just going to end up arguing. I've since removed references to "America's Western and Christian heritage" and "multiculturalism". --Wgbc2032 16:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not original research or interpreting

Alexc3 and Wgbc2032 need to get out more. This is not a matter of interpreting Sali. This is Sali's own point. I'm sorry some can't see that with their petty attempts to put scare quotes around any mention of the nation's Christian heritage. And accusations of vandalism? Please. If I wanted to vandalize the page, I wouldn't be pointing out the real issues behind the attempts to misconstrue Sali. Anyway I'm putting in some more quotes by Sali regarding his point about multiculturalism, in case there is any doubt. If someone just deletes them, then it will be pretty obvious who's really trying to vandalize the page. -- 66.233.250.90 07:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

First, let me explain to you my edits you keep reverting.
  • If we do not put quotes around Christian heritage, then we are stating the United States is of Christian heritage. Besides being untrue[3], we need to make it clear it is his view.
You seem to have a serious lack of discernment of issues. The Christian heritage of the U.S. is not a claim about the Founding Fathers and their intent or lack of intent. That's a completely separate issue. You may as well be disputing that the U.S. has a Western heritage (maybe you are disputing that). Regardless, the statement is already clearly labeled as Sali's perception. Read it again, it says it's Sali's perception.
  • I removed "Western heritage" because he doesn't even say anything about that.
Are you setting new policy that we can't use words in a bio unless the subject has used them? Besides, Sali's examples are of Eastern influence (Islamic congressman and Hindu prayers).
  • I changed the link for multiculturalism because there's no need to link to that section, it's better to just link to the article itself. Although I can understand why you would link to it, because of the context, it's really unnecessary. If the article stated, "Sali is opposed to multiculturalism" it would be good to link "opposed to multiculturalism" to that section of the Multiculturalism article, but just linking the word "multiculturalism" to that article is bad practice.
No need? You say you understand why I linked directly to the section that I linked to, yet you remove it anyway. Exactly what is your agenda?
  • I changed the " -- " to an em dash, so I have no idea why you would you revert that.
This is the most constructive edit you appear to have made.

I'm busy right now, so I'll work on what you added some other time. It really needs to be shortened down. --Alexc3 (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, where's my apology for you being such a jerk saying that I was vandalizing the page? -- 66.233.250.90 15:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You were vandalizing the page. It shouldn't be taken as offensive. Vandalism does not mean blanking everything on the page and leaving only the words "YOU'RE STUPID," it can be and often is more subtle than that. Did you read WP:VAND? You might also want to read WP:AGF because right now I'm trying to have good faith in the fact that you didn't know what you were doing in considered vandalism. --Alexc3 (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
And why did you revert my edits again? I gave you my reasons, so there's no reason to revert them. --Alexc3 (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Face it, you accused me of interpreting Sali simply because you were ignorant of the connection to multiculturalism that Sali himself has made reference to. That was your problem, not mine. I don't hear you complaining about the word multiculturalism anymore. You were a bit too quick with your vandalism charges. Now you keep trying to put scare quotes around Christian heritage even though we already discussed this and the statement is clearly labeled as Sali's perception. Whether you are in denial that the U.S. has a Christian heritage or not, the article labels it as Sali's concern, and Sali's perception. Then you whine over the way I linked to multiculturalism and the reference to Western heritage. Talk about petty. Are you trying to set a new policy for Wiki that we can't use a word in a bio unless the subject has used the exact same word? Sali is broadly speaking about our Christian and Western heritage, which he believes is being diluted. Sali used examples of Eastern influence. The specific examples given are Ellis's Islam and the Hindu prayer. It seems you just want to accuse people of vandalism out of pettiness, and now are trying to save face. Threatening to block me in private seems like an abuse of authority as well. -- 66.233.250.90 23:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I was never complaining about using the word multiculturalism... No, I was not "quick with my vandalism charges" and I've given you significant warning. The wording of the article does not make it obvious that it is his view. What is obvious is that he perceives a deterioration of that heritage, but the wording is such that we are stating it as a fact that the U.S. has a Christian and Western heritage that Sali believes is deteriorating due to multiculturalism in the government. Originally I put "supposed" before "Christian heritage," so that wouldn't be the case, but Wgbc2032 thought quotes would be better. Possibly to make it obvious those were his words, though I can't speak for him (that's what I thought anyways). It's not a policy, it's just good practice. I don't see why you care so much about where it's linked to. I only care because I'm very meticulous about that sort of thing, for example I try to make sure any webpages I make are 100% XHTML valid, even if I don't have to. It's just good practice to (what happens when you don't use good practice: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/goto.png ); see my reasons above as to why it's good practice. You really should read WP:AGF, there's some really good reasons as to why we have that policy. You seem to be pretty upset with the vandalism thing. It's like if I said the Qur'an was a myth, that isn't meant to be insulting, but it is, by definition, a myth. The same is true for vandalism on Wikipedia. In popular usage, it may mean writing on walls, breaking windows, etc., but on Wikipedia you're edits are considered vandalism per WP:VAND since you have been persisting after you've been warned. Thanks for pointing that out to me, I didn't notice that's why you put the part about Western culture there, but that's still a matter of interpreting what he said since he doesn't mention that he is worried about the deterioration of the U.S.'s Western heritage and, as was said before, we shouldn't be trying to interpret what he says unless it is blatantly obvious. It could just be because Islam and Hinduism are non-Judeo-Christian religions that Sali is upset, for example. How did I threaten to block you in private? You mean on your talk page? You don't put vandalism warnings on the talk page of an article and your talk page isn't private either. --Alexc3 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

66.233, why do you keep insisting on wording the article your way? If you feel my edits are in some way unfair to the congressman please tell me and we'll try to work out a compromise. I'm uninterested in fighting over this and am trying to work towards something we can all agree on. --Wgbc2032 20:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine now. =D --Alexc3 (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Remember to assume good faith all you nublets out thereNinja337 02:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)