Talk:Jerry Weller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jerry Weller is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
B This article has been rated as B-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
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.
WikiProject Illinois This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Zury Name

The section about the Zury name confusion which someone deleted in haste should be readded. It seems legit because Weller's own House bio refers to her as Rios Sosa. Pointing out the confusion is fair game in Wikipedia, expressing opinion why it exists is not.

If KV could make a case for why the list of Zury's ex-husbands, or the General's political career is relevent to Weller's article, it'd be worth discussing. "Because it is" doesn't make that case though. If that's the reasoning, then there should be discussion of Weller's ex-wife on Zury's page. And by extension of the same principle, there should be a big section on the Bay of Pigs on Carolyn Bessette's page. -Frankflynn42 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the listing of Zury Ríos Montt's ex-husbands; however, I did note that she was previously married three times. In my opinion this is fair because the ex-husbands themselves may not be relevant, but her pattern of behavior is an issue. Also, as far as details pertaining to her father, I think she opened the door by campaigning for him and voicing public support. Had she distanced herself, I wouldn't think she ought to be held accountable for the sins of the father. Given the circumstances, I think it is fair game. I removed the NPOV tag. Propol 15:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned the names of Rios-Montt de Weller's last three husbands because in Central American newspapers (in spanish, which I don't understand much, and have used google to translate(!) there seemed to inferences that at least one and maybe all of her husbands were commonly known in Guatemala to be involved in "contraband" and other illegal activities. Also I listed there names just as proof that she was in fact married at least 3 times.

I think the name confusion is a valid issue worthy of discussion. As far as I have been able to tell, all of her adult life, certainly since she decided to joing her father's political party, the FRG, she has also used her father's last name, Rios Montt. It wasn't until her engagement to Weller that - during his last re-election campaign in 2004 - that she began being introduced, only here in the United States, as Zury Rios Sosa instead of Rios Montt.

There's more about Congressman Weller's personal life than his political time in office because frankly he hasn't done all that much that is remarkable or noteworthy in his political career, until he became engaged to another politician of another country while they were both writing legislation for CAFTA. And while he is still sitting on the House International Relations Committee, which overseas the Americas, which includes, of course, Guatemala. Several local and national newspapers made mention of this at the time of their engagement and have continued to do so since then. Weller continues to refuse to even speak about his marriage (except to keep repeating how much he's "in love") and the apparent conflict of interest. He did promise voters here in the Illinois 11th district that he would not vote on any legislation involving Guatemala. He broke that promise when he voted on CAFTA.

Finally the General's political career is relevant to the article because Weller is a Congressman of United States and that IS his father-in-law. Also Weller, even though asked to by his constituents in the 11th district of Illinois and many reporters for newspapers in the district, has never made any kind of statement saying that he does not condone General Rios Montt's history and political tactics. By marrying in the Generals home with him presiding at the ceremony, one can make the case that Weller actually condones Rios Montt's past, and his wife's also. Love is one thing, politics is another, when Weller and Rios Montt combined the two without any explanations or apologies, they have asked for all the trouble they get. Especially when Weller loves to give speeches about "freedom" and "democracy" and yet his marriage ceremony was a who's who of graduates from the School of the America's.

To say they have an unusual relationship is an understatement. While he claims they live in the district on his government website, everyone knows he doesn't, let alone his "wife" who seems to spend most of her time in Guatemala. She comes in for the political photo as election time nears, and then is gone again. Rumors through out the years have been that Weller is gay. No problem for me, except the hypocrisy of it. He's voted against legislation for civil rights for gays.

If you take the time to read my blogs, (and I understand time is something none of us have a lot of) everthing I say about Weller or his wife is linked as to source. (Except for the gay rumors. I did have one link to someone else's blog, but that link is no longer good.) I've spent hours going over spanish translations and to make sure I have the facts straight on exactly who Zury Rios Montt is. I had no idea until AFTER the 2004 election, when I started to find out while reading about their wedding ceremony. It engraged me and offended my sense of social justice. He's my congressman, this flagrant denial of the human rights and ethics aspects of this marriage I take personally. Excuse any "bad wiki manners" I may exhibit, I'm learning as I go here. Never have enough time. Kankakee Voice

[edit] Bolivian Unicyclist

First of all, nice work Bolivian Unicyclist. This article is much much closer to being an actual encyclopedia article because of your efforts. Propol: I am still not sure why Zury's marriage history is relevent to Weller's article. It is however a fact, and no dispute there. I do find it rather unusual that the section on Weller's personal life is longer than that of his long record of public service and that the personal section hardly mentions him, the actual subject of the article! Again, the question is relevence. I have added citation needed tags in places that I believe are critical. I have removed a couple links to the KV's blog which were certainly not research references. Frankly, I don't think the blog should be linked to at all, per Wikipedia's general recommendation. But since there is usually an editing war going on here, I think a link to the blog can be sustained if information on its bias is included. Finally, Weller's campaign website link was removed because that's a non functioning link. Frankflynn42 03:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Frankflynn42


First of all, thanks for the kind words, Frankflynn42. I've added a couple of the requested references; unfortunately, as all I could find was either in Spanish or from Kankakee Voice's page, I went with the Spanish. Re her surnames: irrespective of my personal feelings about these people, I can't get worked up about the Ríos Sosa / Ríos Montt issue. The Guatemalan press seems to use the two pretty indistinctly, and a Google search restricted to "gt" domains actually returns more Sosas than Montts. Reading between the lines, I'd guess that Ríos Sosa is what's on her passport and academic certificates, while Ríos Montt is a style she prefers as a vindication of her father and an expression of her support for him. KV's claim that she affected the style Ríos Sosa to pull the wool over Uncle Sam's eyes is not supported by the facts or by the way names work in Spanish-speaking countries. Sorry. Bolivian Unicyclist 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Thursday

As far as the editing goes, I have removed the citation on the issue of Zury "masterminding" Black Thursday. The opinion column used in the citation was rather slanderous, but above all it was one man's opinion. There must be a way to independently verify Zury's role in this important moment in Guatemala's history, or else the statement shouldn't appear in the article. I've linked the birth announcement to the La Prensa article. I think the article needs reliable evidence that the FRG organized the riots. Organizing riots seems a bit of an oxymoron; but it is one thing to say that the rioters were members of the FRG and another to say the FRG planned the violence. I think the first statement is a given, but the second requires some evidence. It seems charges against the general on the matter were dropped. Any additional prosecutions could constitute evidence. This section also gave the impression that the general was doing something illegal by seeking to appear on the ballot. I have added information that presents it as a legal dispute in which the general's argument was ultimately accepted. Only the members of the constitutional court know the reason they made their decision as they did. I still feel it's rather irrelevent to Weller's article. But if we're going to present it, let's be factual about it.

KV you make a lot of insinuations, and I think a blog is a good forum for that. But I think the mission here is verifiable fact. For instance, I have pretty much put the page here on John Pavich together solo. I think it stands up pretty well under factual analysis. But one could certainly insinuate much about Pavich. He touts his CIA service record in Europe, but what was his role, if any, in the renditions and secret flights that the CIA conducted during his service? Does his service with the agency indicate tacit personal approval of these actions? What was his reaction to Dick Marty's report? So far, the media has been more enamored with the simple fact that he was a spy. It's a fact that Pavich helped defend a Bosnian-Serb war criminal. Certainly, we recognize the right to a fair trial even in international settings, and don't hold counsel responsible in any way for the actions of their clients, but as you criticize Weller's silence on his father in law (who isn't an indicted war criminal), Pavich is interestingly silent about past Bosnian-Serb and Serb regimes. But what I just laid down is a whole lot of bluster and insinuation, but not much fact. So it isn't anything that should appear in a factual article about him. -Frankflynn42 04:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Frank, I'm not making insinuations, all the following points bolivian unicylist made, I have linked to on my blog. If people would take the time to read through and click on the links they would find that everything I state is backed up by a valid source. I'm still not up on how to make links internal, vs, external here on wiki. I don't make any insinuations (other than the Weller is gay one, which I make only because everyone I know insinuates that, and I have read other blogs that insinuated that also, blogs written by people I don't know or have any connection with. Just like here in the U.S. where most people now understand and take for granted that our reasons for going into Iraq were false and perhaps even started by outright lies by our president, so it is in Guatemala, from my reading of newspapers there, that everyone understands she was involved in, if not the mastermind of the events that lead to the riots they call black thursday in 2003, right before her and Weller met. Calling a riot "orchestrated" is hardly oxymoronic. Frank you are obviously an intelligent man. You must have the imagination, or even know of other historical examples where a riot most cerainly was "orchestrated" to achieve a certain effect. It isn't hard to start - orchestrate - a riot when you have a large group of very emotional people.

The difference between your insinuation on John Pavich and what I report on what I've read in newspapers about Zury Rios Montt, is that here in America we have a better working justice system. While the American justice system is hardly perfect and can be corrupted - has been corrupted. The Guatemalan justice system is much worse. Human rights conditions in Guatemala are much worse than here in the U.S. I could easily be killed for saying what I say about Zury Rios Montt or her father in Guatemala. That is why right now, with the Spanish judge and legislators there looking into Rigoberto Menchu charges of genocide against Rios Montt and others, those testify with Menchu, and Menchu herself require nationals from other countries to accompany them to try and help keep them safe. Some times, in places like Guatemala, and other countries where there is not a justice system that works fairly and freely, "the facts" are not enough. One needs to add to the facts that the fact is, all the facts in a situation are not allowed to be brought out by fear of death or beatings or other intimidation by those in power.

And of course, Pavich acting as a lawyer, just as any lawyer acts as a defense lawyer for an accused person in the U.S., is part of what makes a fair trail. It's part of what makes the U.S. judicial system less corrupt than most globally. Just like you can't say the lawer defending John Wayne Gacy approved of what Gacy did, the same goes for Pavich when acting as a lawyer. Very different situations from, 1. Zury as a grown woman taking actions and supporting her father and the corrupt FRG party or 2. Weller choosing to marry in Guatemala, in the General's home, with the General presiding - along with another family friend who co-presided at he wedding.

B.U. No, I have tried to hard to track down the picture or more quotes about Zury with her ski mask lifted and face showing during the riots. (I have skepticism about that claim. Why would the Princess Thugger even need to be on the ground if she is masterming the event? That' what they pay their people to do, their dirty work for them. I find the arrest of Zury's secretary quite incriminating and significant though.) Can't track it down. Many papers based IN Guatemala are very careful of what they say and how they say it when it comes to Rios Montt family members. Since I've started researching and linking, I've even had links "disappear" on me, both from Guatemalan newspapers and from here in the 11th Il congressional district from certain republican leaning newspapers.

If someone could give me a short, easy explanation of how to make external links internal I would greatly appreciate it. Also if you would tell me how to make my signature time and date stamped like all of you do, I would greatly appreciate that also. I know I should take the time to read all this for myself and as soon as I have the time I will. My intention really isn't to become a full time wike editor, though - as interesting and important as doing this is.

Kankake Voice Kankakee Voice

Valid comments. I knew I was on shaky ground with that opinion column but (I thought) it did at least serve to indicate that "some people believed" (weasel alert) her to be behind the incident. Seven members of the FRG did face charges for orchestrating the riot, including the journalist's death -- the general, Juan Pablo Ríos (his grandson), Ingrid Argueta (his niece), Waleska Sánchez (Zury's secretary) and 3 others [1] [2] -- but I don't know what the outcome of the proceedings was, other than the charges against the general himself were dropped. Bolivian Unicyclist 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Bolivian Unicyclist: Good catch on the others charged in connection with the riots. I had not seen that before. Perhaps a statement to the effect "members of the FRG were accused of inciting riots" or manslaughter etc (I have not yet translated the charges) would be in order. But, as we try to keep this remotely related to Weller, Zury's role if any, is perhaps a better focus. My reading of the facts is that the general encouraged members of his party to demonstrate; whether he or the others accused armed them or exhorted them on to violence that led to a man's death would be shown (or not) at trial. But as we've discussed, the general was cleared in the matter, and the status of the other accused would certainly be relevent to assigning culpability. In one of the other articles here, it's stated that Zury was photographed organizing demonstrators on the morning of the riots. If a source for the photo exists, or at least a print source stating the same, that would be an excellent addition as a reference for the discussion here. Frankflynn42 17:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Frankflynn42

'Manslaughter' is right for homicidio preterintencional; the other charges -- (?) abuse of authority, failing to make a report, failing to perform duty -- sound a lot less serious. But I'm guessing. The quote about Zury being photographed on another article is, I think, someone's fingers getting into a fumble. I've reworded the claim on jueves negro, and should probably do the same elsewhere (it appears on the general's article, I think). I certainly haven't turned up anything as juicily incriminating as a photo of Zury on the day (they were all wearing ski-masks, of course). Maybe KV knows of one? Bolivian Unicyclist 19:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finances

Well, here we go again. If there's published reporting on Weller links to campaign finance corruption, link to the reporting! It's generous enough that we keep KV's blog in the external links in light of Wikipedia's linking policies. Removed the statement on oil and gas company contributions, because the link did not support the assertion. If one can provide a cumulative summary of Weller's contributions received from oil and gas companies over several election cycles, then the statement is probably factual, but link provided does not show "hundreds of thousands of dollars". Added an external link which shows fundraising for current 11th district race. This provides a good starting point for any details of candidate funding that the reader would seek. Frankflynn42 15:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Here YOU go again, Frank. I took your suggestion and changed a few links, although I didn't feel I really needed to, but just to make you happy this ONE time. I prefer the wedding photo, I think it catches the essence of the marriage much better than that phony, cheap looking walmart shot. And by the way, Frank, you never answered my questions. And what do you have against that blood red and white lovely picture of the Happy Couple with both sets of parents?

Kankake Voice Kankakee Voice

All right KV, a lot of points. First of all, I didn't see your previous post because it didn't fall at the bottom of the page. So, I've now read your full comments. I didn't edit your photo out, that was Tdl1060. If you take the time to read the history page, you will see that his/her edit is labelled as such. However, I will warn you that if the photo you edited into the page doesn't meet Wikipedia's fair use standard, it will soon be deleted. In fact, if you refer to the file page for your photo, the copyright status of the photo has already been disputed by other users (and not those of us who edit the article here). The photo at the top of the article meets fair use standards because it's a U.S. government photo. So, you might want to familiarize yourself with that policy, and provide a fair use explanation if you want the photo to remain.

I will have a look, and I encourage others to have a look at your sources on Weller links to DeLay, Cunningham et al to evaluate their credibility. But I don't think linking to a DCCC article provides a neutral source of information!

On the oil and gas companies: I don't know how to say it any more plainly: the source you link to does not show accepted donations of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the oil and gas industry, it shows $45,000 in this election cycle. So you make a statement and then cite a source which does not support the statement. All I ask is that the statement be edited to reflect the source, or a source be found to support the statement. It doesn't seem that unreasonable to me, but maybe others could offer their thoughts as well. Beyond all of that, singling out oil and gas is really a "cherry pick" of the data, since building trade unions have given Weller exactly $500 less than oil and gas in this cycle, according to the data you cite.

Finally, how is a voting record interpreted by a think-tank neutral? I'm very eager to hear anyone's point of view on how that could be. I think the full voting record that was put in place recently was a nice touch, and readers can look at the record and decide for themselves who benefits from Weller's votes.

There is certainly a history of questions surrounding the general. But let's get what is actually verifiable out there! KV, maybe you should cite Guatemala's truth and reconciliation commission. It doesn't go as far as holding the general personally responsible for atrocities (in my reading) but certainly holds the government under his leadership responsible. Frankflynn42 16:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Frank. I don't know how to tag a photo, when I downloaded it, I didn't know exactly what I was doing, I thought I did everything required. I found the photo via a google image search, it seemed to be on several Guatemalan or Spanish newspapers. I never found anything that indicted who took the photo. I have it downloaded on my laptop. And I uploaded it up to my flicker picture site. Why is it a problem to link to his oil and gas contributions but not all the other contributions that are linked to. What's so different about oil and gas? If you look at all of Weller's Oil and Gas contributions over his 12 years in office they easily add up to over hundreds of thousands of dollars since he took office in 1994. I will word it as such. As for General Rios Montt's background and history, if you know so much about him, why don't you do the linking to tell the truth about this man? Or are you trying to smooth over Rios Montt, his daughter the thug and Weller's image for them? Kankakee VoiceKankakee Voice 22:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blog link

KV: I see the link to your blog was edited out by another user. That is actually consistent with Wikipedia policy. It's worth giving that policy a read so you understand why. Frankly, I don't mind having your blog linked, as long as its lack of neutrality is labelled as it was.

If the photo you edited in doesn't meet fair use, you might still be able to get permission from the copyright holder.

I have left all your edits in place and put in a neutrality tag because I want to try to build consensus here. Here are the points with which I have a problem:

  • "Congressman Jerry Weller's name has currently been connected to three different scandals currently under investigation, Jack Abramoff, Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Tom DeLay."

This might actually fit better in the fundraising section, since it concerns fundraising. The link to DCCC is hardly neutral; the link attached to "under investigation" is partisan; for instance, no mention of Congressman Jefferson there. I do find that the citations on Abramoff and Cunningham at least demonstrate financial links. The link under DeLay just gives a chart of PAC money received by members including DeLay, so I don't see any relevence to Weller.

  • "as Ríos Montt's father is a former dictator, charged with genocide General Efraín Ríos Montt,"

The link provided as support of "charged with genocide" does not state that Efraín Ríos Montt has been charged with genocide, and one will be hard pressed to find such a link because such a charge has not occurred. The link discusses an investigation by Spanish prosecutors that could lead to charges. Ríos Montt was charged in relation to the death of a journalist in the Black Thursday riots and those charges were later dropped. I suggested a link to the Guatemalan truth and reconciliation commission because it does conclude that atrocities occurred during Ríos Montt's leadership, although it does not conclude that he was personally responsible, nor does it conclude that atrocities occurred by his decree. As the Spanish investigation shows, these last points are ongoing and open questions.

  • Weller has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars, over his 12 years in office as Congressman, in donations from big oil and gas companies.

The link provided as support for this still shows $45,000 raised from oil and gas concerns in the current election cycle. The assertion of hundreds of thousands, (which I am not doubting if $45,000 has been raised already in this cycle), requires a citation that shows that. One can't just guess at the numbers. There is a broader question of whether selective inclusion of fundraising sources constitutes a POV. The numbers of any candidate are illuminated by the context. For instance, isn't it POV to discuss certain corporate contributions, but leave out trade union contributions or vice versa? Especially when the numbers included and excluded are essentially equal? I'm of a mind that for any candidate of any party, we should simply link to a fundraising summary or FEC data. But, would like to see other opinions on this Frankflynn42 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Frank. I only added the link to the oil money because I saw all the other links concerning campaign donations linked to. Why leave this one out if others are allowed? (I say either all donations links are fair game. Or just an FEC summary if an accurate one can be found that represents his whole 12 years in office. Or none.) To see that he has recieved 100's of thousands of dollars all one has to do, as you surmised, is take a look over the donations of the past 12 years. I did that. I will add that to my working to the link. They come up to the amount I mention.

The Spanish Court, Judge, prosecutor for Rigoberta Menchu who has brought charges of genocide against Rios Montt among others, is in Guatemala right now trying to get the justice ball rolling. You can't google Rios Montt's name without the "g" word coming up with it. I will change the link and use the word accused.

I don't mind the label on my blog as no neutral, and I will keep linking it back unless something definite is decided one way or another. There is as much information on blog on Jerry Weller, Zury Rios Montt and her father General Rios Montt as can be found anywhere, but one must take the time to read through it and follow all the links.

As for the photo, it's been up much longer than the 7 days. I did go back and try to fix what ever the problem was. I assume it was fixed and is considered fair use because it was not deleted. Most photos that are copyrighted have the AP signature or something else shown by it. And often one isn't able to copy them from the internet. This one I found on google search images, in several places and with no one claiming possesion or rights to the picture, and I was able to download it to my laptop. How do I know if it meets "fair use" or not? Thank you for being helpful Frank. I'm sorry I snapped at you. I have had unpleasant things happen to me since I began criticizing Congressman Weller and it has left me a bit on the defensive side. Kankakee VoiceKankakee Voice 19:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kankakee Voice and Frankflynn42. I have tried to clean up the article a little bit. KV, I think I kept nearly all of your content, but I did reword it in some cases to sound more neutral. I understand your opinion of Weller, but let the facts do the talking for you. I also substituted more authoritative links whenever I could. I was able to find most of the info in the FEC records. KV, I also had to replace the wedding photo, I used the one with the background that you don't seem to like. Just so you know, I think it would be nice to use a wedding photo. However, as far as I can tell, we don't have the right to use the photo you selected. We can use the photo I replaced it with because it is a promotional photo provided by the subject. I'm going to drop the NPOV tag as long as nobody objects. Lastly, KV I understand it can be frustrating when others constantly revise your edits, but Frank doesn't seem like a troll to me. In fact, in the long-run he may help you. If your tone comes off too negative, or if your sources aren't rock-solid, then many people will dismiss the entire article, and then all of your effort (and everyone else's) will be for naught. 70.230.67.13 05:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rumor

Gonna 'splode? Anyone? Anyone? 66.73.160.10 02:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Preemptive add to watchlist - Meersan 04:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Add to watchlist balance of comment deleted 9/20/2006 Billbrock 05:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Rumor Is False!

A certain rumor has been alluded to on Daily Kos, archpundit.com, The Daily Background, and Wonkette. This was not a garden-variety rumor. If false, it's news for another reason; its existence was most verifiable:

So, the rumors that Weller is holed up somewhere and is “about to resign any minute” don’t
appear to be true. The rumors that he is being pressed to resign by House GOP leadership also
don’t appear to be true. The [...] rumor itself seems unsubstantiated at best and malicious at
worst. There was even a rumor posted on some blogs that Weller had pulled his
campaign website offline this week. Not true.
Now, I can’t guarantee you one way or another if The Rumor is true or not, of course, but I do
have more than just serious doubts about it. What I am sure of is that some high-up Democrats
have been pushing the heck out of this story and they ought to stop it or produce some real
evidence. It may have begun as a well-meaning leak, but it certainly isn’t that now.
Weller’s spokesman, Steve Shearer, described the rumor as a “political nuclear bomb” that
opponents could throw and then “retreat into anonymity” without providing any real evidence.
The Democrats, Shearer said, may be hoping to use The Rumor to “put a race into play for no
money at all.” He could very well be right.
No reader comments on this one. If something else happens, I’ll open up a thread. And if
Weller is lying, we’ll all go nuclear on him together. I just don’t think that’s the case.
Source:thecapitolfaxblog.com

Better to be right than to be first.... Billbrock 03:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC) edited Billbrock 19:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly related tidbit on David Corn's website. Billbrock 03:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly related to Dana Milbank's recent comments? Billbrock 03:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

For not wanting to spread a rumor, you sure are doing a good job spreading a rumor. WP:BLP probably supports removing this post, even from a talk page.
"In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages."
--Dual Freq 04:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from, but this is a most unusual rumor, and it's extremely well-sourced for this type of rumor (setting the gossipy Wonkette and the blatantly partisan dKos aside, the other blogs have excellent reputations for fair reporting). It's news whether true or false. If false (and kindly note that I prominently featured a blog that suggests the rumor may be a Democratic dirty trick), it's explosive in a different way. One way or another, it's going to be significant.... Billbrock 04:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Your sources verify that there is a rumor, not that it is true or false. According to Jimbo, "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" --Dual Freq 04:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
No claim is made beyond the existence of an unusually well-sourced rumor (multiple reliable bloggers w/ journalism background speaking of multiple reliable credible sources). Agree that this is merely verifiability of the rumor's existence. Hundreds of thousands of people already have heard the rumor: I think it's fair to the subject that WP reflect that it has not been verified. And I regret my flippancy prior to this section: a person's reputation is indeed at stake. Billbrock 05:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
And Dual Freq was correct! Billbrock 19:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update from Archpundit

"What Do Blagojevich, Davlin, and Weller Have In Common They were all screwed by rumors that were amazingly widespread and false."

"First, I'm sorry--my judgment held up in the first two, but this time it didn't. Read below in another post for how it unfolded and feel free to remind me from time to time."

From Sweet:

"Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.), hit with rumors that he was somehow involved in the page scandal, issued a statement Thursday saying he was not a factor -- but a former page or intern he sponsored was subject to some questionable behavior by another lawmaker".

More at the link. Billbrock 19:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You said: "If false, it's news for another reason". OK, its false, what's the other reason? Are you implying that there was a deliberate attempt to falsely smear a politician only days prior to the election? If so, who is now going to be held to account for this slander? Is any of this notable to add to the article? Since it's not going to be added to the article, can we delete this entire section on the talk page yet? Dual Freq 19:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Either incredibly sloppy reporting (OK, it wasn't published, but reporters were talking to many many blogs) or a deliberate attempt to smear (some sources did not have partisan axe to grind; others did). Agree that it certainly doesn't belong here now, but it may make sense to leave it up for a day or so for purposes of refutation...Wonkette, e.g., has not retracted. If deliberate, this deserves its own story. Billbrock 20:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this could be described as a smear by any stretch of the imagination. Weller's name came into the frame of the scandal in relation to rumours of a third congressman facing accusations of inappropriate behaviour. It's not hard to see why people initially leapt to the conclusion that he himself was the third congressman. As it turns out, he merely sponsored the page who has allegedly been targeted by a third congressman (and that, incidentally, should be added to the article - as should his refusal to name that congressman). That's sloppy journalism maybe, but not a smear. When people heard there was a third Congressman and then heard that Weller was involved with the scandal, they put two and two together. As it turns out, they came up with 5. 172.202.245.34 00:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
So, no one is to blame. Just weeks before an election and no one is to blame. Just sloppy journalism, and not a deliberate attempt to sink a candidate. "If false, it's news for another reason", yet there is suddenly no news, just an honest mistake and / or sloppy journalism. This proves this information should never have been linked here. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, but hell even a tabloid wouldn't have published this. --Dual Freq 17:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This Wonkette post has not yet been walked back: someone is to blame for that. Looks like a smear to me, and a legally actionable one at that. IMO, this is still very much a story, but based on present knowledge, it's of zero relevance to the Weller campaign. Also, the logical reading of the Daily Journal article is that Weller will share what he knows with the Page Board and the Ethics Committee when asked; that shouldn't be read as Weller's "refusal to name" the other Congressman. Billbrock 06:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The Capitol Fax Blog updated. Billbrock 20:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions

This section seems a bit POV, cherry picking a long list for potentially controversial contributors. Weller has received donations from various labor groups, including:

  • AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION-COPE
  • INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 150 POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
  • INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES POLITICAL ACTION TOGETHER POLITICAL COMM
  • LABORERS' POLITICAL LEAGUE-LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF N.A.
  • RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS POLITICAL LEAGUE A PROJECT OF THE TRANS. COMM. INT'L. UNION/IAM
  • SEAFARERS POLITICAL ACTIVITY DONATION-SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF N.A.-AGLIWD/NMU
  • SHEET METAL AND AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS' POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
  • TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS COMMITTEE
  • TRANSPORTATION TRADES DEPARTMENT AFL-CIO POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (TTD/PAC)
  • UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (UTU PAC)
  • NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION PAC
  • COMMITTEE ON LETTER CARRIERS POLITICAL EDUCATION (LETTER CARRIERS POLITICAL ACTION FUND)
  • DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA INC DEPAC (DAIRY EDUCATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE)
  • AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC

I only list these labor and worker related groups to demonstrate how the list can be cherry picked to show whatever POV someone wants to show. Is a list of cherry picked contributers appropriate? Would a similarly cherry picked list be appropriate list for John Pavich? I recommend removal of the list in its current POV form, replace it with a link to the contribution page and let people figure it out themselves. --Dual Freq 15:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed contributor section, no other member of the Illinois delegation, or IL Governor has a similar section. It's also hopelessly POV as stated above and non-biographical. --Dual Freq 11:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I reverted your deletion of the entire section. There are several members of the Illinois delegation that have contributor sections. For example Dennis Hastert has a contributor section and nobody has objected. I would have to think that his is a frequently reviewed article. Also, comparing a House seat (a federal election) to Governor (a state election) doesn't seem consistent. Besides, there are highly credible and unbiased sources (Federal Election Commission) for the contributors section. I was supportive of your prior edits that added additional information for the purpose of a balanced NPOV article. I think it's better to go that route, rather than delete everything. By the way, I think the John Pavich article should also have a contributor section. However, Weller has raised $1.09 million from PAC's this election, while Pavich has only raised $68 thousand from PAC's. [3] There isn't much to say about Pavich. Lastly, I don't agree with your sentiment, replace it with a link to the contribution page and let people figure it out themselves. Under that logic, why not delete the entire Jerry Weller article and let people figure it out. They could go Google him. I'm sorry, I don't mean to come off sounding harshly. I am very willing to work with you on this topic. Thanks. Propol 12:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment following your revert. Thanks for pointing out the Hastert link, I guess I didn't notice it since it was such a small part of his article.

Hastert's article is 30k in size and he has just under 200 words about contributions. He is the current speaker of the House and is a national figure. On the other hand, Jerry Weller's article is 12k and has a bit over 450 words dedicated to contributors. He is a relatively minor figure in the house, compared to Hastert, or at least he appears to be minor since there is no mention of laws he has sponsored, and the only committee membership that is mentioned the mention of the West Hem. committee, simply serves as a prelude to the largest part of the article, the Jerry Weller's married to the daughter of a dictator section. That section is around 330 words long and is basically a mini-biography of his wife and her evil dictator father.

As for the required inclusion of referenced material, according to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." I stand by my above assertion that if people want to read his list of contributors, they should go to the FEC website. That's what it is for. On the other hand, this is an encyclopedia.

Since it doesn't seem to be standard practice to list contributors in other congressional delegate articles, I don't believe this article should list them either. Certainly Hastert, a national figure, is a different story, but the rest don't include any contributions section. Dick Durbin lists nonthing and Barack Obama, a 50k featured article, doesn't have any words with "contrib" in it. This article reads more like an anti-Weller blog than a biography of Weller. One thing we should note is that this article is the number 3 hit for Jerry Weller on Google. I'm not trying to turn this into a campaign website, but it does need to be converted from a blog to a biography. --Dual Freq 23:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've noticed there is no mention of his Parents or siblings names. His father in law is mentioned, but not his own parents. --Dual Freq 00:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, I found it. --Dual Freq 01:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Contributors" section (take 2)

The Dennis Hastert article, cited as an example of another article that has a contributors section, is a model for how SHORT such a section should be - and it's worth noting that Hastert certainly has gotten a lot more money from a lot more sources than has Weller. A similar discussion was just held concerning the Mark Kirk article, and the section there was then shortened to a much more appropriate length.

The problem in this article is threefold: first, a sort of guilt by association; second, a selective (by necessity) list which can't help but introduce POV (someone decides which contributors are listed and which are not, and this is inherently POV), and third, more importantly, a violation of WP:NPOV because of undue weight. Not counting references, the section on contributors is almost HALF of the article, but it certainly is not close to half of what is newsworthy about Weller.

Please note that this is not an argument about WP:RS or WP:V. Nothing above changes even if it is conceded (for the sake of argument) that all of the statements in the section are factual, and adequately sourced. Wikipedia articles are not lists, however, per WP:NOT.

If someone doesn't have the time to edit down the section (again, the Hastert and Kirk articles can serve as models), then the only solution may be to remove the entire section. John Broughton | Talk 18:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could expand the biographical portion of the article. — goethean ॐ 18:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think that would work - to get the same proportion of the article being about contributions (versus other stuff) as is the case for Hastert and Kirk, for example, the article would need to be five to ten times longer, which is probably longer than the article for any other Representative. It's more reasonable to reduce the section so that it is no longer than any similar section found in any other article on a Representative. John Broughton | Talk 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I attempted to remove the section once before using the same logic. I think it received one reply and a swift revert. Look at Barack Obama's article, it's now a 55k featured article and the term "contrib" can not be found in it. I guarantee someone could cherry pick his contributers similar to this article and add 5k worth of contributers to "smear" him with as this article does. I support total removal of the section since a shortened version would have no context and would most likely be POV. --Dual Freq 23:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy Contributions

Considering that according to the source the total share of contributions from energy companies comes out to 2.16% of total contributions, why is this an entire subsection of the article? NPOV is not to give undue weight to disproportional small things, especially when no one has made an issue of this. Therefore, I am going to delete the section, and incorporate into the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Nuclear questions seep into campaigns" — goethean ॐ 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Good example - of something that should be a paragraph about Weller's views on nuclear energy and plant safety, in the sec. Much more of the article is about that than about the $20K in donations. I've reorganized the article so that it follows the outline of other articles on Representatives, which makes it pretty easy to add such a paragraph, under "Political actions and positions". Why bury this under "contributors", in a big section, which provides little context, when it can have a paragraph of its own, and a lot more context? John Broughton | Talk 20:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)