Talk:Geoff Davis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Geoff Davis is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
??? This article has not yet been assigned a subject.
The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."
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 political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
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.
Louisville Portal
Geoff Davis is within the scope of WikiProject Louisville, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of metropolitan Louisville, Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Anabaptist work group. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments

[edit] Controversy

If you can not directly cite Davis' using the term in a racist manner, then do not rely on your own intuition and editorializing to put the point across.

How do you think he meant it? Come on, he issued an evasive apology because he knew he'd been bagged. Using "boy" as a derisive epithet for a black man is such established racist lingo that it's almost a cliche. Davis should be deeply ashamed of himself.

It's best just to leave it with what "boy" has historically meant to explain why some people were offended, copied directly from the article for Boy. Universaladdress (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not the policy, purpose, or mission of Wikipedia to add needless bias to an article and ongoing debate. The comments added remain to be without citation. If it the purpose of those who have edited to turn this into a bash-fest, then by all means, include those pervasive racial comments and undermine the integrity of Wikipedia. Otherwise delete it.

[edit] Donations

Perhaps Propel would like to explain why three donations are worthy for inclusion in someone's wikipedia entry, considering the millions being spent on this congressional race. Davis gets countless donations and support from legitimate organizations, legitimate PACs, legitimate donors. Would you like to include 2-paragraph notes for each of these donors as well? (Of course he doesn't). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.249.195.232 (talk • contribs) .

A partial listing of donations accepted is appropriate. Some are more notable while others are not. Do we list every political position Davis holds? No. Do we mention Davis' vote on every House bill? No. The donations listed are notable, many other politicians have returned funds from these same PAC's. Also the source, the Federal Elections Commisson, is highly credible. Thanks. Propol 03:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Really, Propel? You think three donations are worth 1/4th of his biography? Do you really think that? :p 69.249.195.232 01:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I am concerned that at least one of the sources for the donations, dccc.org, is a source of obvious left-oriented bias (even if they are reporting facts). And I say this as a liberal. Since we have a higher standard for biographies of living people, we need to have more mainstream or nonpartisan sources. As far as reporting donations, I don't see an issue with it, as long as it's a brief summary. Nobody is precluded from adding the same info to Ken Lucas. Hope this helps. Thanks. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I see that I am not the first to be taken aback by the "Contributors" section. Nevertheless, the text was still here. It seems to me that there are several compelling reasons why it should go.
First of all, I could see where an untrained observer, or, even worse, an IRS examiner, might come away with the misperception that Wikipedia is campaigning against the Congressman.
Secondly, it seems to me that we are dealing with political trivia rather than encyclopedic content. Every candidate receives numerous contributions. All of that data is available from the FEC. Should we try to republish all of that data in Wikipedia? I don't see why. The data is already readily available, the FEC offers it on its web site, and there are secondary sites which also traffic in that information. Republishing it in Wikipedia would be a massive job with no real benefit that I can imagine.
Thirdly, should we then, as Propol suggested, pick and choose specific contributions for specific candidates that are encyclopedic? I am sceptical that any is encyclopedic unless, maybe, some respected, non-partisan source, with the benefit of hindsight, opines that it resulted in electoral victory or defeat. Personal picking and choosing seems to me to stretch beyond our guiding principles. Is it encyclopedic if it throws the political blogosphere into a frenzy? Or, if it is most likely to imply guilt by association? How could that fit within our guiding policies? And do you think that the IRS examiner would be amused?
There is no shortage of political blogs. That, it seems clear to me, is the most propitious home for this content, not in Wikipedia.


I also made some lesser edits. The article indicated that Davis "faced harsh criticism . . . from both sides of the spectrum". I added two citations, neither of which substantiates criticism "from both sides of the spectrum". (And certainly the WaPo, while itself partisan, is not pro-Davis partisan.) I rephrased that sentence. I also removed "cakewalk", which seemed somehow POV. Kardreader 04:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I like most of your changes, but removing Contributions entirely is probably going too far. I see it as encyclopedic to summarize his principal contributors. Perhaps what was there wasn't optimal, but we need a middle ground here. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the talk-back Stevie. By "principal contributors" I would assume you mean largest contributors (which would of course always be PACs)? Still seems to me like a very big job to try to input the data in the first place, and then to try to keep it up to date, in an even-handed manner for the candidates. And, I'd have to say I remain sceptical that it would enhance WP. Perhaps you should pick a pair of opposing candidates and try it out. Kardreader 04:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Kardreader I think you're off the mark. Noting specific contributors, whether PAC or individual, can be of encyclopedic quality. You correctly note the information is already available at the Federal Election Commission web site, which provides a reliable and unbiased source and only supports the argument for inclusion. You also note, almost all federally elected politicians accepted donations from PAC's. However, not many have accepted funds from Tom DeLay/ARMPAC, Bob Ney, and Duke Cunningham. All three donors are notable enough to justify their own Wikipedia articles. We're not talking about some obscure no-name group giving $100. In fact, many politicians have returned donations from these individuals / PAC's, while Davis has not, which further adds to the noteworthiness. If you want third-party reporting, how about an article form The Cincinnati Enquirer; this article mentions DeLay, Ney, and Cunningham's contributions to Davis. It's a major campaign issue. If we were to exclude it from the article, a reader would not have a proper undertsanding of the race. I will revert the deletion of the contributors sections. Propol 04:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but I will note that this information is well-covered at the Congresspedia, which is linked from this article. It's certainly notable information, but does the Wikipedia have to hold all possible notable info--isn't that what "External links" is for? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Stevie, just because something can be found elsewhere is not a reason for exclusion. When you stop and think about it, everything found in Wikipedia should be available elsewhere because we have a policy on no original research. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Propol 04:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
True enough. But we don't have to include everything, either. Editorial control is not a bad thing. I think we should briefly summarize the most notable donations, and rely on full external sources for the rest. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Stevie, I agree with you. I think Kardreader may have been upset because the three contributions specifically mentioned do not reflect on well on Davis. For balance, maybe we should also list three contributions that reflect in a more positive manner on Davis. For example, I'm sure Davis is proud to have the support of the American Medical Association. Thoughts? Propol 04:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that listing the foremost several notable contributors is workable, whether or not they reflect positively. I think balance has to be considered in the context of notabiliity. Also, we need to think in terms of timeframe, perhaps only covering recent elections. If the foremost contributors happen to reflect negatively, that's just the brakes; and the vice-versa as well. My two cents. Perhaps this topic deserves a Wikipedia-wide discussion. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Stevie, I'm in general agreement with you. How do we go about building a wider consensus on the issue? Thanks. Propol 04:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You could seek comments in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography or the Village Pump, or if you want propose a new guideline, you could set up a page in the Wikipedia namespace for that and get others to participate. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The section as currently phrased seems to me to be POV.
I notice that there was a very extended discussion of this topic (DeLay money, in this case) on the talk page for Congressman Chris Chocola. I have not read the page carefully enough to see exactly where it wound up, but it is currently not in the article, so I guess their consensus was to drop it? They went through numerous drafts of the text to try to get something that everybody could agree was NPOV.
My own opinion was and is that the whole issue is political trivia, that it is not substantive, that it is blogosphere material and not WP material. As I said above, I am sceptical that any contributors data is encyclopedic unless, maybe, some respected, non-partisan source, with the benefit of hindsight, opines that it resulted in electoral victory or defeat.
A wiki-wide consensus would be great; do you think that's possible? Kardreader 06:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a revised version of the Tom DeLay political trivia with more facts and citations. Kardreader 05:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As a reader, I would prefer a more complete section on the donations he's received, preferably with some aggregate figures (what percentage are from corporations, interest groups, individuals, etc.), rather than the kind of haphazard partial list that's there now. --Delirium 20:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)