Talk:Curt Weldon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.


Contents

[edit] Seniority?

John Murtha has been in the House since 1974. How is Weldon the most senior memeber of the delegation?--Ieverhart 22:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wojdak & Associates whitewashing article

Be on the lookout: The edits by 209.71.15.194 deleted significant critical content from the article. The IP belongs to S.R. Wojdak & Associates, a Philadelphia PR firm and contributor to Weldon [1]. (However, the proprietor of Wojdak, Stephen Wojdak, has given significantly to Democrats in recent cycles [2].) --User At Work 23:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Those edits were restored in prior versions and much of that information was then edited by other users. (check the history page) User at homes edits again have made piece much too negative and undone the work of five or so contributors over the past week.
Give me a break about whitewashing. Entrees should have as little slant as possible and note both sides of a story. If people want further information, they can click on the links to the articles. User:209.71.15.194 12 May 2006
Alhtough I realize you like inserting as much controversey as you can into politicians pages, it should not dominate the entree. --User:Americapd 14:04, 12 May 2006

[edit] Usage

I fixed up a bit of this page under my collective AOL IP before I remembered to log on; by way of explanation, Wikipedia articles can't use terms like "our nation's first responders," because Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. Avoid using the first person if at all possible. There's still some cleaning up to be done here, mainly in that same vein. BarrettBrown 16:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, can whoever wrote the bulk of this article please refrain from using POV terms like "rogue nations"? That's a very subjective term without a clear definition, and thus doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Thanks. BarrettBrown 16:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 911

See this --Striver 01:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

and check this out. --Striver 05:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Controversies Section"

Why are Congressman Weldon's visits to Korea and Libya labeled under the "Controversies" section? I can understand that there is 'controversy' in the fact that he arranged these trips independently of the White House, even against the wishes of the White House, but that doesn't deserve putting them in the same category of alleged lobbying scandals.

Good point. I've moved the sections. John Broughton 03:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copied?

This article seems to have been copied and pasted from http://www.answers.com/topic/curt-weldon...

I think if you read the fine print at answers.com, you'll find that it's the other way around - they are using wikipedia text. John Broughton | Talk 00:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pov dispute (mostly on FBI investigation)

Article contains many criticisms some of which have little merit and there are no rebuttals the report of an fbi investigation on the top of the page in my opinion is an attempt to sway voters and should be moved elsewhere --Ted-m 00:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have moved FBI investigation to the section on his daughter. This is the second time it has been moved. --Ted-m 00:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Removing the timely and relevant Justice Department investigation in the lede and burying it far down in the article is an obviously biased, POV attempt to cover up reality. The Congressman, not his daughter, is under criminal investigation. It's been a lead story in many newspapers and newscasts in the past two days. Sticking it far down in the article is as biased as removing references to Mark Foley's page scandal. It would be perfectly acceptable to include the Congressman's response to the investigation, if there is one. However, there's no such creature as a "rebuttal" to an FBI investigation. You can't disguise the fact that there is now a major criminal investigation, no matter how much you may not like it. It's biased to keep pulling this out of the article lede and burying down with his daughter. This is the most newsworthy and current issue affecting the Congressman at this time. Hiding this very relevant information dozens of paragraphs into the entry is ludicrously biased and POV. Your user page indicates you're a strong supporter of the Congressman; ergo, you are clearly biased in this matter.--207.69.137.23 01:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Additionally, some of the investigation into Weldon regards possible illegal connections to a pair of Serbians who worked for Slobodan Milosevic, which has nothing to do with his daughter.--207.69.137.23 01:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
My personal bias is that, even by the abysmally low standards set by the House Republicans, Weldon stands out as one who most obviously deserves to be retired. Nevertheless, the investigation does not belong in the introductory section. That it is currently newsworth is immaterial; this is an encyclopedia article about his entire life, not a Wikinews update, and journalistic standards do not govern. The analogy to Foley is inapt. Foley resigned his seat and withdrew from an ongoing campaign a month before the election. Weldon has not resigned, has not abandoned his campaign, has not been convicted, has not been indicted, has not even been formally charged. Those are the sorts of events that would merit consideration for inclusion in the introductory section. The FBI investigation may result in something like that eventually, but it may not. JamesMLane t c 05:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with 207.69.137.23 that this belongs at the top of the article now. Wikipedia is a flexible encyclopedia that rapidly changes with time. It's not like a print encyclopedia. Your point would be correct for a print encyclopedia, JamesMLane, but not for something like Wikipedia, in my opinion. This information is relevant to Mr. Weldon right now. Before Foley resigned but after the page scandal hit the press, the email/IM incident was mentioned even higher in his article. It was within the first paragraph (it's been edited so many times now it's hard to find). Look at the Bob Ney article right now for comparison. His legal problems are mentioned in the first paragraph. Some of the problem may be is that much of this Curt Weldon article is based on a 2004 template and the issues are, misleadingly, discussed under "controversies." It arguably was a controversy then, but it is now a criminal investigation.4.232.201.239 06:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Ney pled guilty to multiple felonies. That's far more important in his bio than a mere investigation is in Weldon's. JamesMLane t c 08:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Before Ney pled guilty, the proceedings against him were nonetheless mentioned in the first few sentences of the article.4.232.111.41 16:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Each article should be measured against wikipedia standards, not against what was done (properly or not) in another article. The FBI investigation is important and well-sourced; it should be in the top section. But I'd personally vote for a bit less text in the top of the article (specifically, deleting the second sentence) and a full paragraph in the middle of the article. The top is really supposed to be a snapshot; the reader then should be able to get more details in the full article below. John Broughton | Talk 11:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed about the snapshot. And agreed this is important. Also, the original complainant, Ted-m, never specified what about the article lacked neutrality. It's a sweeping statement with no specifics.4.232.111.41 16:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to add just one minor point. If this investigation ends up costing him his seat, or leads to an actual indictment, it surely would be a major point in his entire life. Nevertheless, since we can't see into the future, the best we can do is take a snapshot right now, and, indeed, right now this is a fairly important development in his life. -- Sholom 15:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure it's important, and it belongs in the article -- but as of now it's less important than several other subjects that aren't in the introductory section, such as his book. The book produced an actual run-in between him and the CIA. His troubles with the FBI, if any, are still hypothetical. JamesMLane t c 00:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not entirely hypothetical. As Congressman Jefferson can attest, it's never good to have the FBI announce one of these investigations on you. Damn electorate, they'll up and misinterpret it and before you know it it's a real problem.  :) 69.228.201.80 07:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, the potential electoral impact is part of what makes it important, but it still pales beside the objective indicia of importance: the politician decides not to run again because of the scandal, a prosecutor decides there's enough evidence to begin a formal proceeding, etc. I agree with John Broughton that each article should be analyzed according to standards, because what was done in some other article isn't necessarily correct, but you can see a couple of instructive comparisons: (1) Weldon's fellow Pennsylvania Republican reprobate, Don Sherwood, admitted to having had a five-year-long adulterous affair, and was sued by his former mistress for trying to strangle her. This stuff did indeed get "misinterpreted" by some voters. It's the only reason that Sherwood's formerly safe seat is in play. Yet, it's not mentioned in the introductory section. (2) In the example you mention, William J. Jefferson's legal troubles are significant, but they aren't mentioned in the introductory section. JamesMLane t c 08:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
WADR, I don't understand your first point. It doesn't pale in importance if it ends up ending his Congressional career and leads to corruption charges. As for William J. Jefferson's legal troubles, I think they should be mentioned in the intro section (and, in fact, I just went there and added it). -- Sholom 03:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I said that a mere investigation pales in importance beside actual corruption charges or the ending of his career. You're right that it's a different situation if one of those things happens, at which time we can reconsider. I don't think Jefferson's situation should be in is article's intro section, obviously. JamesMLane t c 04:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree this belongs up in the top of the article now. If it was just the bit last Friday about the supposed investigation, then putting it further down was probably warranted. Now with the FBI raids, it's a big national story. It will probably stay that way through the weekend, when it'll be picked over by the talking head shows and will run in national mags like Time and Newsweek. So if somebody's coming to Wiki to learn more about Weldon, the article should reflect Curt Weldon right now. Wikipedia is a wonderful, fluid resource. Articles can be updated within minutes of breaking news. Right now, Curt Weldon isn't just a congressman. He's a congressman facing a criminal investigation and the FBI has raided his family and friends' homes. That's the big story, that's what defines him right now, and that should be right up in the top of the article right now. In a week or two, things might change, and the article can be reassessed and revised. A lot of the arguments I see here about this topic would be valid if this was something being put in a book, but it's not; it's for Wikipedia, which changes by the milisecond. Embrace Wikipedia for what it is and a book is not: a fluid resource which is constantly changing, adapting, and updating. Peace. UncleFester 05:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
You're stressing that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, which is true, but I'm stressing that it's an online encyclopedia. Updating is certainly proper; the recent news reports should be included in the article. That doesn't trump the encyclopedic perspective, though. This biographical article isn't a news story with a "lede". Embrace Wikinews for what it is! JamesMLane t c 15:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Where is it written that an encyclopedia shouldn't have the most relevant and important information in the first few paragraphs? Your logic seems to be: because this information would be at the top of a news story, it must not be at the top of an encyclopedia entry. Looking at Wikipedia's own definition of an encyclopedia, it "conveys the most relevant accumulated knowledge on that subject." Using John Broughton's excellent "snapshot" analogy, the investigation and raid are the most relevant in this snapshot at this time. Why shouldn't the most relevant material be at the top?4.232.201.166 16:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
No, my logic is not that whatever would be in a news story must be excluded from the introductory section. My logic is that the standards for the lede in a news story are completely inapplicable to an encyclopedia article. An introductory section to a Wikipedia article should give the basics about the subject. For many readers who encounter the name "Curt Weldon", their curiosity will be satisfied once they find out he's a Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania. The introductory section isn't a "snapshot" in the sense of "here's what hot this week", but rather a précis of the whole article. If it were to mention the FBI investigation, it should do so only briefly, not with all the detail now present. Furthermore, to avoid overweighting this one aspect of his bio, an introductory section that included it should also include similar summaries of other aspects of his life, such as his book. JamesMLane t c 23:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A précis is "a concise summary of essential facts," per Webster's. Right now, the criminal investigation is an essential fact about Curt Weldon and therefore belongs in an introductory précis. You say, "[a]n introductory section to a Wikipedia article should give the basics about the subject." Right now, the criminal investigation is part of the basics and, accordingly, belongs in the introduction.4.232.195.7 00:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The revelation today that a grand jury has been impaneled and that evidence has been gathered via wiretaps only underscores the importance of keeping an overview about the criminal investigation at the beginning of the article. This thing has gotten bigger every day. 207.69.139.6 21:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography of living persons concerns

I removed the section on Andrew Weldon per BLP concerns. An anon user (likely the subject) attempted to remove this material several times and finally contacted the foundation for assistance. The sources do not support the negative conatation of this text. Please refer to the BLP policy and do not reinsert this information. --FloNight 16:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You better read the sources again. Per the September 21, 2006, issue of The DelCo Times:
"The CREW report compiles news reports in which Weldon, a member of the House since 1987, is described as using his powerful congressional position to help his daughters, Kim and Karen, son Andrew, longtime friend Cecelia "CeCe" Grimes and close political associate Charles Sexton Jr."
In the same article, "Furthermore, the Web site of Harper’s magazine found that Kim Weldon works for AugustaWestland, the helicopter division of Finmeccanica. Weldon reportedly helped the firm beat out a rival for a presidential helicopter bid. The site reported in July that Andrew Weldon, a racecar driver, is sponsored by Schaffer Motorsports, owned by a senior Boeing Co. employee. Boeing is Weldon’s top campaign contributor
Further, Harper's magazine goes into great detail about the Andrew Weldon/Boeing connection in their July 25, 2006, edition, which is linked in this footnote.[3] It states, "Schaffer Motorsports. . .is owned by Tom Schaffer, a senior employee at Boeing. One of the sponsors of Schaffer Motorsports is Boeing Helicopters Credit Union, whose logo appears on the racecar Andrew Weldon drives. Boeing, in turn, is Weldon's top career patron, to the tune of $62,050 in donations." As well, read the original CREW document about Andrew Weldon.
You're needlessly censoring material here in violation of Wikipedia policies. You clearly don't understand the Biography of Living Persons policy. As well, you're basing a lot of your actions on unsubstantiated suppositions, e.g. "an anon user (likely the subject)" -- where's your proof for that? Further, you're potentially violating Federal Election Law by censoring this material. Therefore, the Andrew Weldon material,as I have rewritten it since your removal, is well documented and must remain. If you remove the substantiated material, I will file an FEC complaint against you. Federal law trumps your confused interpretation of Wikipedia policies. 207.69.137.36 16:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The suggestion of a possible violation of federal law in excising this paragraph is preposterous. In this regard, there is nothing in federal law that "trumps" Wikipedia policies. It was on the basis of those policies that I repeatedly restored the material when it was deleted anonymously. I agree with 207.69.137.36 that the paragraph is properly sourced (but please, 207, stop with the silly threats, which are counterproductive). The only problem I saw was that we didn't present Weldon's side. On reading more thoroughly, though, I realized that Weldon's spokesperson issued a blanket response to the CREW report, which is quoted in the general "Criminal investigation and controversies" section; I don't think it needs to be repeated in each subsection. JamesMLane t c 17:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You state, "The suggestion of a possible violation of federal law in excising this paragraph is preposterous." Obviously, I disagree. My statement was not an idle threat and has a basis both in law and in fact. Like you, I am an attorney, and I am well familiar with federal election law. Additionally, I successfully prosecuted a similar complaint in the past. I won't go into greater detail here because, obviously, that would sabotage my own claim should I proceed with it. I don't find such statements as counterproductive; in fact, I see it as high productive because Wikipedia is needlessly exposing itself to liability with its careless and overbroad BLP policy. Too often, Wikipedia administrators overzealously "enforce" Wikipedia policies they do not understand to their own detriment and that certainly seems to be the case here. In attempting to protect itself against defamation claims, Wikipedia in fact broadens its exposure by potentially voiding its 47 USC 230(c)(1) protections. Careless administrative action heightens that liability exposure even further.207.69.137.36 18:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
What 207 says here has some merit. Because the material was removed on apparent behest of the Weldon campaign, equal time and fair access considerations may come into play. This is a highly contested race and everyone needs to edit with care. Full sourcing is imperative. I also agree that the section is now properly sourced. Every sentence is documented.--4.232.6.83 23:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

207 - Two statements, Wikipedia is needlessly exposing itself to liability with its careless and overbroad BLP policy, and In attempting to protect itself against defamation claims, Wikipedia in fact broadens its exposure by potentially voiding its 47 USC 230(c)(1) protections, certainly merit further explanation. This page is the wrong place to do so. I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate your comments about problems with the BLP policy if you posted them at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons instead.

The responsibility of editors of THIS page is to follow wikipedia policies as we understand them, and let the Wikipedia foundation deal with the consequences. Please do not violate Wikipedia:No legal threats; if you do not think that is an acceptable policy, please stop editing articles here. John Broughton | Talk 19:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If I believe the law has been violated here, I have a duty to report such actions. Wikipedia's "No Legal Threats" policy relates to threatened tort actions; that is not the situation here. As to whether Wikipedia can attempt to prevent anyone from reporting potentially unlawful activity, I suggest you discuss with your attorney the concepts of "obstruction of justice" and "accessory after the fact." Wikipedia needs to develop a policy about editing pages with information about active elections and candidates. There's a lot of sloppy and possibly actionable behavior on all sides in regards to a number of races. While the Internet is not as tightly regulated by election law as, say, the broadcast media, it is not a blank slate, either. At the corporate level, Wikipedia needs to familiarize itself with what it can and cannot do when federal elections are involved.--207.69.137.26 21:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with John Broughton about the placement of these comments. This page is for discussing the content of the Curt Weldon article, and I appreciate your contributions in that respect in your detailed response to FloNight, above. As John says, however, general discussion of the BLP policy should be at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. It may well be that we should have a separate policy or guideline about matters relating to contested elections, perhaps with subsections for different countries. The best place to raise that suggestion is probably Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
I called your approach counterproductive based on my experience with Wikipedia (more than two years and 10,000 edits). Seeing a post like yours, some people will favor deleting the disputed material just to show that they can't be pushed around. Of course, this is just a distraction from the merits of the issue, and it shouldn't happen -- but it does. JamesMLane t c 23:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreal how an editable encyclopedia is being used to slander Curt Weldon and his family.

Grasping at straws, this page has become a political Anti-Weldon page. To drag his children into this space, when if you look hard enough, everybody is connected to everybody. This page is less a bio, and more a political knife.--17:20, 21 October 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.165.66 (talk • contribs)

Well, the FBI seems to think Weldon and at least one of his daughters are rather closely connected. In any case, if you think that the article violates one or more Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, feel free to be more specific. John Broughton | Talk 21:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Material in print cannot be slander, which is spoken. Written material, such as what appears on Wikipedia, is within the domain of libel. That notwithstanding, an absolute defense to defamation -- both slander and libel -- is the truth. It is a provable fact that the FBI raided Karen Weldon's home. It is a provable fact that the Justice Department is investigating Mr. Weldon, his family, and his associates, a fact to which Mr. Weldon himself has admitted in public. Ergo, there is no "slander" [sic] of anyone here. The only things being reported here are substantiated facts. Once might say, therefore, that the original unsigned commentary was "grasping at straws" in trying to paint something as "slander" when it was nothing but the provable truth. 207.69.137.27 22:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed POV tag

One user tagged this article for POV issues yet never discussed what his/her problems were. As there seemed to be no genuine POV dispute, and it has sat up there for a week with no discussion, I therefore removed it. 207.69.137.205 04:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hugely biased

I'd only heard Weldon's name a few times before I read this. I note that there's nothing in the entry about any possibility that the raids might have been politicially motivated and I can tell at a glance that, while the entry has a great deal of information, it's hugely biased. A small case in point: there's currently a link to a Rolling Stone page where he's named one of the 10 worst Congressmen. Yet, 9 out of 10 are Democrats, and the only entry I analyzed [4] was highly misleading. Perhaps in the interest of credibility WP might consider trying to tell the whole story. As for what that is, I don't know, but I do know I'm not going to get it from this entry.07:22, 1 November 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.202.242.192 (talk • contribs)

I don't see the value of quoting Rolling Stone here, but neither do I see the value of anything from conspiracy theorists here. There is, clearly, circumstantial evidence, and the FBI followed up on it. As of todady, there are also 18 other sitting congressman who are under federal investigation, many of them receiving subpoenas and so forth. -- Sholom 13:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Sholom has removed your addition of the cite to Weyrich. That was an editorial. There wasn't a single new fact in it, just pure speculation. The FBI has (if you read the newspapers - just follow the links) plenty of reason to investigate Weldon: some of the stuff he and his daughter have done jointly, extracting large amounts of money from those interested in getting contracts or pardons or whatever from the U.S. government - is the sort of thing ones reads about in third-world countries, The investigation has nothing to do with Able Danger, and if you think that Karl Rove would work with the Democrats to unseat even a single Republican Congressman, you really should (re)read conspiracy theory.
I've also taken the liberty of removing the text on the Rolling Stone list; the article is long enough without it, and (as I noted in my edit summary) I think this sets a bad precedent.
If you have other SPECIFIC text that you believe makes the article "hugely biased", please note it here. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 13:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree about removing the Rolling Stone mention. That's not reportage as much as it's an editorial and doesn't really belong here.207.69.137.201 18:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
According to WP:NPOV, an article should report facts about opinions from prominent spokespersons. There's nothing wrong with citing an editorial if it's clear that it's being presented as the opinion of a named source, not as a view that Wikipedia is adopting. Weldon's pursuit of conspiracy theories is one of the notable facets of his Congressional career, and the criticism that it's occasioned is a legitimate part of his bio. If there's some notable right-wing POV praising him as the lone voice of vigilance in a complacent Congress, that should also be reported in this article. JamesMLane t c 02:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The Weyrich material was reverted again by 144.202.242.192 without discussion. As the consensus here was that it was POV and unsubstantiated editorial material that did not belong in the article, I reverted back to the last JamesMLane version. Seemingly, discussion of Weyrich's unsubstantiated theories about Weldon could go into the Paul Weyrich article. 4.232.201.138 19:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You state, "I note that there's nothing in the entry about any possibility that the raids might have been politicially motivated." There is utterly no proof for that allegation. The only "proof" are the statements Weldon has made himself, but he has offered no proof other than the "Grumpy at the gym" explanation, which was then debunked by the DelCo Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer when they reported that the person who circulated the "proof" was, in fact, a paid Weldon campaign consultant. There's nothing in the article, either, about Curt Weldon being from Mars, so one could say it was "hugely biased" against Martians, but since there's no proof of Mr. Weldon being from Mars, it therefore does not belong in this article, either.207.69.137.201 18:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is ridiculously biased. I don't have any particular love for Weldon, but an "encyclopedia" article should attempt to be unslanted- I say "attempt" because it's an incredibly difficult thing to do, but really, there's no excuse for such bias in an entry. 19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.26.117.1 (talk • contribs)

Repeatedly saying over and over that something is biased, without providing a shred of documentation, does not prove something is biased. "Wear down the opposition by constantly planting suggestions" tactics might work well for spin, but they have no place in an encyclopedia article. Until and unless you substantiate your claims, it merely looks like POV ax-grinding. I also removed the new subheader for redundancy, as the previous subheader is perfectly sufficient for this topic.207.69.137.7 20:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Term expires January 2007

Someone had edited as if tonight's election meant Weldon was out. He still serves until January 2007. 207.69.137.43 04:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad links - Andrew Weldon section

Under Andrew Weldon, some of the links do not work, that info needs to be removed, I tried to remove it but it keeps poping back up. 22:03, 4 February 2007 {{|unsigned|71.230.133.211}}

If some links go bad, the first thing an editor should do is try to find replacement links. Second, if the information in the article did have a linked source at some point, then the informtation is still valid even if the source is now inaccessible - there is no basis for removing it. If you can't find a replacement source, put a {{fact}} tag on it or post something in the talk section (encouraging other editors to fix the problem, not complaining about why you can't make the text disappear. Third, the reason that it keeps "poping back up" is because other editors recognize that the information should stay, and are reverting your deletions. If you would use an edit summary on your edits to explain why you are trying to delete something, then other editors would at least understand you had some reason for thinking the information should be deleted, other than that you or your friends or whomever didn't want it in Wikipedia because it is embarrassing to Andrew or Curt Weldon.
Please read Wikipedia:Dead external links and Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine for information on how to fix bad links and follow the instructions there, rather than deleting valid information that is without an active link. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 15:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)