Talk:Duke Cunningham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article milestones
August 4, 2004 WikiProject A-class review Not approved
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] NPOV

NPOV not met here: While much of this information is factually correct, it is presented with a clear lack of respect and general bias against Cunningham. Additionally, Cunningham's downing of a Vietnamese ace, who may or may not have been Colonel Toom is not disputed by the US Navy. 153.104.16.114 23:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV is met in this article. "Respect" is not required, and, in fact, is a nice word for bias. If facts are in question, please name them. Col. Toon did not exist. How can one down a mythical ace? Why can't a real NVNAF ace be named? In any case "Col. Toon" or "Tomb" is a myth[http://www.acepilots.com/vietnam/viet_aces.html. Dananderson 04:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Maybe the article was NPOV in Nov 2005, but this, which was at the end of the timeline section-

On a side note Duke Cunningham has got off much lighter then I believe he should because he would of kept on taking bribes because I doubt anyone here thinks he is really sorry. He is just upset he has to go to jail

is very clearly POV, and was removed.

For the record, I happen to agree... but wikipedia is not the place for our opinions.

---


I am neither fan nor foe of Randy Cunningham, but there are NPOV issues here. The only factual point is that who shot down the third MiG that day is not in dispute. The non-existence of Colonel Toon is also not in dispute.

The discussion of the current corruption scandal reads factually, i.e., NPOV. However, much of the other language is not NPOV in style, e.g., "success eluded him in business or teaching" -- need to cite sources for something like that. Also, while "homo" is clearly an epithet, "socialist" (accurate or not) describes an economic orientation, and would only be an epithet among the far right -- even some politicians in the US describe themselves as such. I never heard anyone called a socialist in the schoolyard. "Infamous for outbursts against perceived enemies" is also not NPOV; how about something like "well known for attacking political opponents?"

Also, the inclusion of the "no rocket scientist" award seems inappropriate, like mentioning that someone made the worst-dressed list. Also, the link to Dan Anderson's site is not as useful as a link to a less humorous, more factual criticism.

With minor changes, this page would accurately present the critical reality without sounding biased. rnicameron@yahoo.com


what does the following sentence mean (in quotes), did he literally shoot down a myth that was flying against him? i understand its saying Col. Toon wasn't a real fighter ace and so he couldn't have been shot down, but its a bit confusing on the first read. at least it could be stuctured a better way. "He allegedly downed Col. Nguyen Toon, but it has turned out to be a mythical Vietnamese fighter ace, who flew a MiG-17 against him." -lenny zelig ---

I think the NPOV problem with this page isn't the language. What's presented is factual so far. The problem is that it doesn't detail his accomplishments throughout his career. Someone must make this article well rounded by balancing out the positive accomplishments with his failures.

I don't want to enter the debate other than to comment that citing Diego Zampini as a source for anything dealing with the Air War in Vietnam needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Zampini's documentation relies heavily on Communist source "documentation"/revisionist agenda. Too much of it smacks of propaganda, not scholarship, and at the least, was not checked but taken at face value. I have no problem with that as long as it's understood. Zampini accepts it as gospel. Buckboard 12:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Help! I'm sorry but when I modified the Col Toon/Top Gun sentences, I muffed up the citation numbers to reference a book. Would a more experienced hand please correct my goof (the citation scheme not the info). Thanks! May 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.24.119.89 (talk • contribs) .

It's fixed; what happened was that the "name" parameter caused it to conflict with the one below it (more info at meta:Cite/Cite.php). Thanks for adding the info! Evil saltine 20:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


There is no NPOV issue. There is no lack of respect shown. Lack of reverence is not lack of respect. And the Col Toon issue is in dispute. Lennyzelig (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist remark

Actually there is one fact that I believe is in error and presents the crooked congressperson unfairly. It states that he referred to a Democrat house member as a "socialist" while in fact he was speaking to Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who is a socialist.

While Rep. Sanders is a Socialist, I think it's referring to a different event. According to the San Diego Union Tribune he "called a Democratic Congresswoman a Socialist".

---

The Union newspaper is wrong (gasp!). I emailed the editors and they are correcting it. It's the same event. Cunningham (rudely) told Pat Schroeder he won't yield and told Bernie Sanders (who is a socialist) to sit down in the same breath. Here's the transcript from Congressional Record (104th Congress, 5/11/95, p. H4837) at Thomas:

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. . . . Is there any shocking doubt, the same people that would vote to cut defense $177 billion, the same ones that would put homos in the military, the same ones that would not fund BRAC, the same ones that would not clean up. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman---- Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, I will not. Sit down, you socialist. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman---- . . .

  • The Congressional Record is considered a Secondary authority, not a Primary authority, mainly because the members of Congress have the ability to change the record of what they said before it is printed there. However, I believe in this case, it just makes sense that he was referring to Mr. Sanders, being that Mr. Sanders, is indeed, a self-described democratic socialist. Therefore, I'm changing the article to reflect this. Fanra 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need better picture

for this page. The current picture is small and blurry. Maybe a headshot of Congressman Cunningham, or, if so inclined, a picture of him being carried away in handcuffs since he just admitted to accepting $2.1 million in bribes and has since resigned. --Blue387 21:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree the picture is small and blurry. I took the picture. The problem is Mr. Cunningham rarely makes public appearances, even before the Scandal. I had to take this picture from a distance behind a police barricade during a so-called "public" dedication Cunningham spoke at.

About the link to the www.dukecunningham.org webpage some anonymous person dislikes. Although a parody, it is factual, with ample references. It is the only independent webpage focused on Cunningham's wrongdoings. This is to balance links to Cunningham's official House webpage and his political campalign webpage. Dananderson 01:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I found and uploaded a better picture, public domain, from a Marine (MCAS Miramar) website. Dananderson 03:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs another Category

Is there a catch-all category for politicians who are convicted felons?

I think that would be a really big category. --Blue387 07:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


there should be, as i was reading this article, it mentions a number of reps who were corrupt, like the one he initially replaced. it got me wondering just how many congressmen and senators are convicted felons or were caught up in major scandles and would have loved it had then been a link to a nother page.-lenny zelig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lennyzelig (talk • contribs)

[edit] "Homo" comment

We really should find out who was the "political opponent" on the receiving end of the "homo" name-calling mentioned in the article. It would be even better if we could also attach a reference. --Asbl 20:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I know of no such exact comment. Cunningham, after prostate surgery, compared prostate cancer treatment to gay anal sex before a group of elderly cancer patients at Alvarado Hospital in San Diego. Cunningham said no man would enjoy prostate cancer treatment “unless he’s Barney Frank.” (an openly gay Representative from Massachusetts) Reference: [1] and [2]
Cunningham also said backers of a defeated amendment to make the military comply with water pollution rules are “the same people who would vote to cut defense $177 billion, the same ones that would put homos in the military (See Congressional Record, 104th Congress, May 11, 1995, pp. H4837-8. Dananderson 00:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is he married or divorced to Nancy?

Statements from the article:

  • In 1976, Nancy filed for divorce and a restraining order
  • The court dismissed the divorce January 1977 at Nancy's request

The two seem to be contradictory. --Asbl 02:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Not contradictory at all. He's still married. The court DISMISSED the divorce petition, so there was NO divorce (she changed her mind). As of 2005, they are "estranged" and not living together. This may be a ploy so Nancy could somehow claim that she wasn't a party to the graft (even though she signed the deeds and mortgages along with her husband, used a household full of antiques and was Treasurer of Duke's money-laundering business and registerd the domain name for Top Gun, Inc.). They "still share an occasional meal". Dananderson 03:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
A bizzare marriage (to say the least). --Asbl 22:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sentencing

{{copyvio|http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060304/D8G4EIKG2.html}}

Some of this is ripped verbatim from the AP, this should be fixed ASAP and we should verify that it isn't done elsewhere.

This was done by User:69.149.224.21, and it appears to be that IP's only edit. Evil saltine 06:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. --Asbl 19:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cunningham's inmate number

User:Sholom claimed that the "inmate number" was "irrelevant" and removed it.

16:14, 7 May 2006 Sholom (Talk | contribs) m (rv -- imho, inmate # is highly irrelvant)

I beg to differ. As a researcher, I find such mundane details to be EXTREMELY relevant. For example, you can look up Cunningham's status (e.g., projected release date) in the Bureau of Prison's Inmate Locator by using the unique identifying number. It also lists where he is being held. I assume that should location or projected release date change, the ability to look up that information would be useful. Also, future research regarding his conduct in the pokey might be helped by referencing this number. Think of it as an ISBN for felons. Referencing it doesn't make Cunningham look worse (he is in prison after all) and an identifying number is about as neutral a piece of information as there is. The Duke ain't going anywhere, so I'll let this percolate for some time before acting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quartermaster (talk • contribs) .

You can also go to the BOP Inmate Locator and find him (and his info) by typing in his name. (In fact, that would be the only way one could find his BOP number to begin with, right?). I'm not wedded to my position, but it just seems like it's clutter to me, combined with the fact that I've not seen the BOP number in any other WP article. I hear your ISBN analogy, but, for the heck of it, I just went to Profiles in Courage and didn't see any ISBN there. I do see ISBN's in footnotes, sometimes, in other articles. (BTW, good observation that there is no rush. You're right that he ain't going anywhere soon -- I see the BOP Locator says his projected release date is in 2013). My two cents. -- Sholom 13:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right: ". . . that would be the only way one could find his BOP number" - that is until it shows up in a wikipedia entry about him ;)
This isn't a critical issue but note that if you do search the BOP Inmate Finder by name you need to know the precise version of the name. Putting in "Randy" or "Duke" or "Randolph" followed by surname "Cunningham" doesn't find anyone. Putting in "Randall Cunningham" turns up three possibilities requiring an astute observer to infer by the age that the 64 year old "Randall Harold Cunningham" is our boy. Again, the unique number as found and entered in the relevant article by a wikipedian makes it easier for the casual user to zero in on the correct "John Doe." I agree about the ISBN's to the point that I regularly add them when I find them missing in articles (and for the same reason). As time passes, these unique identifiers (SSNs, ISBNs, ISSNs, etc.) can become crucial pieces for thorough research. Since another wikipedian has already put in the number, I'm likely to make the external link so that the BOP record itself will come up (much cleaner, IMHO).
One final anal retentive point (yes, I am a librarian) is that this specific number is only useful for Federal prisoners. I can't even spell the name of the Unabomber, so knowing Ted Kaczzchinzadfssszzski's BOP number is useful! Quartermaster 13:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
And how are you going to find his BOP number? -- Sholom 14:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
First, I look up "Unabomber" in wikipedia (which I did). Then, I copy and paste his name from the wikipedia article into the BOP Inmate Locater. Finally, I make an external link with his inmate number for the Kaczzchinasdfdfski wikipedia article so those that follow access the BOP database information. -- Quartermaster 15:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to belabor this too much, but my point is that the very same place you use to look up is information is also the place that you use to find his BOP number. I see no benefit -- unless you are saying that you can not make an external link with his name. -- Sholom 16:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
For me it boils down to whether you want to make it easier on the casual wikipedia user, as well as the experienced researcher, to get more information or not. It is the compilation of accurate information in one place, done in a NPOV that are pillars of wikipedia. I haven't seen the case FOR deleting the BOP number because it is "irrelevant" as originally claimed. The BOP number is a unique identifier for all records in the prison system, a name is NOT. You can have many people with the same name, but individual inmates have unique numbers. I'll cling to the "ISBN for felons" claim and reiterate that when people list book titles they should always add the ISBN (if available) for the same reason. Peace out. -- Quartermaster 17:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cunningham's Carpetbagging

Someone is rewriting history regarding Cunningham's carpetbagging. I'll give the background to justify possible future reverts. In 1988, Cunningham moved from Mira Mesa to Del Mar Heights[3]. He did not live in the district (either before or after the move), but ran in that Democratic majority district against Jim Bates, who was tainted with sexual harrassment of one of his staff. After Cunningham's election, he bought a condo in Mission Valley to establish his residence (San Diego Tribune, 12/31/1990, p. A1), while still holding on to his Del Mar Heights home.

In 1992, after redistricting, Cunningham ran in the newly created 51st district (after the 1990 census), which included Cunningham's Del Mar Heights home. That was Bill Lowery district, but Cunningham ran against Lowery and defeated him (due to Lowery's involvement in the Congressional Bank check kiting scandal). Cunningham then went on to win in the heavily-Republican 51st district (which was safer than the previous Demoratic-majority district).

Please don't merge the separate districts in the succession chart. This is important. Thanks. Dananderson 19:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Best and Worst of Congress"

"In the Washingtonian feature "Best & Worst of Congress" of 2004, Cunningham was rated (along with four other House members) as "No Rocket Scientist" by a bipartisan survey of Congressional staff."

I don't think that this is notable in the context of this article. It seems like we're trying to imply that Cunningham is not that smart, but the titles that the poll gives seem like a joke ("no rocket scientist," "funniest," etc.). Evil saltine 04:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit tongue in cheek. People pay attention to this sort of thing, talk and titter about it because that's the kind of town Washington is, but it's not exactly scholarly research. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 04:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a little tongue in cheek, but it's also the only place you get a glimpse to the honest opinion of the staffers -- i.e. that Barney Frank and Bill Thomas are frighteningly smart (but Frank is entertaining and Thomas mean), and that Duke Cunningham is not, etc. It's pretty obvious that Cunningham's not the brightest bulb in the batch -- most Congressmen are smart enough to wait until they retire to get given millions of dollars from their corporate masters, when the bribery becomes legal. Funny to see Patrick Kennedy, Katherine Harris on the list -- their newsmaking now fits their descriptions. --User At Work
I'm not necessarily against including it, but some extra context may be helpful. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 15:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act

I added mention on the page to the LEOSA. This is a large leglislative achivement that Cunningham spearheaded. I figured it could use some mention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.243.209 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] First Rate HereWork

I would like to commend and thank everyone who has contributed to this article.

It's balanced, factual, well written and has just the right level of detail.

First rate.

Youssef51 15:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Felony

Some anon removed the part about him being a convicted felon. I'm adding it back in. Gelston 11:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The infoboxes look terrible

Can we do something about the infoboxes? They repeat the same information over and over, and since they're all different widths they don't align properly. They just make the article look sub-par. Maury 14:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Gay and Lesbian Military Service

I removed, "( Cunningham was apparently unaware that gay and lesbian personnel had served in the U.S. armed forces since the Revolutionary War. [[source: Randy Shilts. Conduct Unbecoming.St Martin's Press, 1994]])"

Yes, homosexuals have served in the US military since there has been a US military. And the sky is blue too. This has nothing to do with the article. What Cunningham was aware of or not is speculation unless we have a source. The source quoted here is about that homosexuals have been in the military, not that Cunningham was unaware of this.
Actually the odds are pretty good that Cunningham was aware that there were, and still are, homosexuals in the US military, he is referring to the law, not actual facts. What he wanted was to throw out anyone discovered to be a homosexual and to make it against the rules. None of that stops the fact that people have been in the closet in the military (and in life) for thousands of years. Fanra 07:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A class article

A little more and perhaps it should be nominated for FA status. ludahai 魯大海 14:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but A-class cannot be given freely for the biography project. Please see the A-class review department. Errabee 13:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The article has been reviewed for A-Class consideration and found not to meet the criteria yet. Please see the link in the article milestones box at the top of the page. John Carter 20:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] After He's Dead

Can you reference this? http://www.washblade.com/2005/12-2/view/editorial/cunningham.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.100.234 (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)