Talk:Michael S. Steele

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Michael S. Steele is part of WikiProject Maryland, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Maryland.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] 2006 Election

Nov 8 2007 FYI as of today Steele has not conceded and has not lost the election until he either concedes or 200,000 absentee ballots and all counties report. As of 9:41 A.M. Prince George's county has not yet reported results there is no winner unless there is a concession or all votesare counted and the Secretary of State announces a winner.

[edit] Middle name

Does Steele have a middle name, or just an initial? I've tried to find it, but it doesn't seem to be on the web. --tomf688(talk) 22:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Very annoying. john k 21:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that is a good question. I wonder if he's pulling a Harry Truman? Maybe we could just call his office... Jacob1207 14:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I sent an email, but never received a reply. --tomf688(talk) 21:28, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I go to school with his son, Michael Steele the 2nd, and they both share the middle name of Stephen. I don't know how to prove it other than scanning his driver's license, which I really don't think he'd let me do. Jig 18:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)jigwashere

[edit] Credit report

Is this even worthy of mention? There are some news articles about it, but it seems to be more bark than bite IMHO. --tomf688{talk} 22:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It clearly worthy since Steele has been the victim of an ongoing pattern and practice of illegal and racially motivated attacks from the left. If the US Constitution and Roe v Wade decision truly guarantee the right to privacy, as the left keeps telling us, they should not be hypocritically attaking individuals' private affairs in this manner. --RufusRoughcut 07:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
A right to privacy has been construed as constitutionally implied, yes, but a right to privacy from the intrusions of the government, not of individuals. I'm not sure these particular hackneyed allegations of hypocrisy really defend your argument--this isn't a Constitutional issue because the people who committed this act did so independently and were punished (see Weiner). It's a ridiculous and divisive fallacy to think that everything committed by a member of a faction is representative of the faction. People aren't bees, and parties aren't beehives. If the opposite were true, I'd have to hold every Republican accountable for silly comments uninformed people leave on internet wikis, and that wouldn't be right at all, would it? The same can be said for the "Oreo" nonsense. Fearwig 18:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the credit report incident is worthy of mention because it was almost certainly illegal and Steele was singled out for action. That doesn't prove that it was racially motivated, but it does sound awfully suspicious. --Maximusveritas 03:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Weiner plead guilty today. Added info. --Tbeatty 06:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Times article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20051101-104932-4054r.htm

This is not a credible source and it is certainly not a credible article. It tries to fool the careless reader into thinking certain incidents have happened recently in response to Steele entering the Senate race. Only a careful reading of the article reveals that these incidents, specifically the Oreo cookie incident that has been cited here, happened years ago, if they happened at all.

The article also presents quotations by black Democrats out of context, trying to fool the careless reader into believing that these quotes were directly referring to the specific attacks being alleged, rather than to the general idea of whether Steele's race is fair game.

Unfortunately a couple of those careless reader have attempted to insert their flawed version of events into this wiki article. I'm writing this in the hope that it won't happen again. --Maximusveritas 03:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is it not a credible source? Also, it may not be appropriate for the 2006 elections section, but since it happened, it's pretty appropriate for this article.
I'm a bit in the grey area as to whether or not to call the Times uncredible. We should probably avoid using sources from them, especially considering they were founded by a cult leader... --tomf688{talk} 19:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that every Washington Times article is as bad as this one, but it's pretty close. Generally, if you can find another more reliable source, like the CBS/AP article in this case, it's better to go with that one. The Oreo incident could be mentioned outside of the 2006 Election section, but only as described in the AP article: " During Steele's 2002 campaign for lieutenant governor, Oreos were distributed at a debate." The "Uncle Tom" incident was also a pretty big deal, so you could mention that if you want. --Maximusveritas 20:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Whoops. Unfortunate on my part. Sorry. I didn't realize the Washington Times had that sort of occultic underpinning.
The Washingtimes Times is a perfectly credible source. The same company that owns TWT owns UPI. I agree that unbylined AP is preferred for NPOV. But if the TWT states facts, it's the same standard as other news organizations. There are a lot worse sources throughout Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 06:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but for political articles (especially controversial ones) the standard needs to be higher. The Times is about as neutral as Hannity, or Franken.
I also think it's important in the Oreo discussion to make clear who was and was not involved, though this is not in reference to that specific article so much as general press that surrounded the event. Once the race issue is released, you have to be cognizant of all its features. These were black students criticising a black candidate for misrepresenting his race--while that may be a highly questionable opinion, and certainly the Oreo distribution/possible flinging was an inappropriate, offensive method of commentary, this was a "racially motivated act", but not a demonstration of classical racism. That is exactly what the more conservatively biased papers wanted to construe it to be, if only by implication, and that's a conscious falsehood, indicative of incredibility as a source. Fearwig 19:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no requirement that EVERY SOURCE be neutral. A balance of sources serves the reader. Dismissing the Washington Times as a "tabloid" hardly makes sense.
  • The phrase tabloid press is used to refer to newspapers focusing on less "serious" content, especially celebrities, sports, sensationalist crime stories and even hoaxes (copied from Tabloid article) --Uncle Ed 15:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you're right in everything you wrote. The problem in my opinion is that adding the Washington Times piece disrupts the balance of sources. With it in there, there are 3 links that have a "Pro-Steele" POV and only 1 that has an "Anti-Steele" POV (Media Matters). Of the 3 "Pro-Steele" links, the Washington Times one has by far the least content and should be the one to go. Maximusveritas 18:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed it for the reason stated above. Not only did it have the least content, but it contained factually inaccurate information (for example, that Steele was "pelted" by cookies). Maximusveritas 14:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no video

The Baltimore Sun reported November 13 that "[n]ewspaper articles and television news reports" from the night of the gubernatorial debate made no mention of the alleged Oreo cookie incident, and "representatives of the news departments at television stations WBAL, WJZ and WMAR and Maryland Public Television said they have no video of the incident." [1]

There isn't any mention of the Oreo incident in the body of the Michael Steele article itself, so what's the sense in putting a link to an article about it in the External Links section. That's not what the section is for. If you want, try to insert a sentence or two about it into the article itself, but just remember to keep it NPOV. The AP article I cited above would be a good source for this. - Maximusveritas 23:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
According to the New York Times about the Oreo allegation:
An Ehrlich aide claimed that the cookies were "thick in the air like locusts," almost certainly an exaggeration. News accounts told of the cookies being "hurled" and Steele being "pelted." . . . [Steele] said he did not see the Oreos in the air, but when he got up, noticed them at his feet when he stepped on one and heard a crunching sound. [2]
From the available information, this "incident" could well have consisted of just one or two audience members throwing a few Oreos. Those people were expressing their derogatory opinion in a nonverbal way, but there's no reason to think they were prominent spokespersons, so their negative POV about Steele isn't important enough to mention in the article. JamesMLane t c 16:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Affirmative action

I don't think Steele has come out with a clear position on affirmative action. This Washington Times article says he supports it, but I don't know if we can trust them since they don't provide a direct quote. Meanwhile this USA Today editorial asks Steele to clarify his position on it, so I don't think it's clear that he sides one way or another. - Maximusveritas 23:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to be very careful when determining where Steele stands, considering how unclear he has been about his views on many other issues: stem-cell research, the war on Iraq, etc. marbeh raglaim 09:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oreo Cookie

Alleged is weasel words. Independant is POV and is not the term used in the article.--Tbeatty 19:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And perusing MM article [3] shows that there is only one eyewitness who disputed the claim and several that couldn't corroborate it. I will change that if no other evidence surfaces. --Tbeatty 23:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It was Townsend Camaign. Paulson is spokesperson. --Tbeatty 00:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the paragraph on this incident might be better off as a subsection under the "Controversies" section. It's getting too big and out-of-proportion to the rest of the stuff in the "Lieutenant Governor of Maryland" section. Also, it seems more appropriate there now that we've gone into the whole controversy over whether the incident happened or not. - Maximusveritas 05:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Put aside the controversy for a moment and assume that the incident happened. Does it merit mention in the article? Was there a notable criticism of Steele for having allegedly abandoned the black community? We can't include every criticism that anyone makes of a public figure. This one seems to me to be pretty lacking in substance. Absent any information about who threw Oreos, we can't conclude that a significant number of people agreed, nor could we conclude that the incident is notable because of any role that his opponent might have played. Let's just delete it. JamesMLane t c 08:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The non-incident is notable because Republicans have frequently used it as a supposed example of the intolerance of liberals, and it is probably one of the most prominent such examples. It was the only thing I knew about Steele before coming to this article and that's probably true of many other people as well. Gamaliel 08:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
If the Republicans have been trotting this out as yet another distraction from the country's real problems, we ought to be able to cite some prominent Republican spokesperson making some fatuous remark about the intolerance of liberals. I agree with you that a non-incident could become worth reporting if someone notable tried to make it into an incident, but can we add a citation to such an attempt? If so, I'd reconsider my objection. JamesMLane t c 10:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The non-incident is notable because Liberals are often intolerant of conservative African-Americans (a la Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice and Michael Steele). Passing out Oreo cookies and throwing them at an African-American candidate for office is one of the most prominent examples. --Tbeatty 06:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Steele himself has said that he didn't see any cookies in the air, but rather noticed them only later, when he stepped on one. That suggests that there was no large number. So, some unknown person or persons of unknown political orientation threw some unknown but probably small number of cookies, and this is the best that the right wing can come up with as "one of the most prominent examples" of alleged liberal intolerance? For all we know, it could've been done by a couple of racist conservative teenagers, who'd read somewhere that you mock blacks by throwing Oreos at them, and didn't even know why it was supposed to be Oreos. If this is a notable example of anything, it's a notable example of a political campaign trying to smear its opposition with unsupported charges of racism.
Incidentally, although it's not relevant to this particular article, I'll comment in passing that the broader thesis of intolerance is pretty blatant Republican spin. Liberals in the Senate have objected to Supreme Court nominees they considered too far to the right, including Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Liberals have criticized the Bush Administration appointees who've been involved in major policy disasters, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, and Michael Brown. The liberal ideology doesn't call for granting right-wingers a free pass based on their skin color. JamesMLane t c 09:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you imagine a conservative trying to pass off handing out Oreo cookies at a political event the way you just dismissed this and essentially calling the victim of racial intolerance a liar? And if you think skin color has nothing to do with liberal politics, I think you need to reexamine liberal politics. While it's an admirable goal, Democrats are far from achieving it. --Tbeatty 16:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You're leaping to the conclusion that the Townsend campaign had something to do with this. AFAIK, the "evidence" that someone was handing out Oreo cookies consists of the totally unsupported accusation by a Republican campaign staffer. Do you honestly believe that the Townsend campaign would have done such a thing? Consider the political dynamics. The Democrats had an all-white ticket; the Baltimore Sun criticized the Republicans' for running Steele for Lieutenant Governor, saying that he "brings little to the team but the color of his skin." Even if you believe that liberal Democrats would shamelessly exploit racism when it suited them, it would have been politically foolish for the Townsend campaign to attack Steele on racial grounds. That would only increase the danger that he'd sway some black voters to back the Republican ticket. I'd agree with you that for the campaign to have done what you say would be notable, but the campaign didn't do it (in my opinion). We can't report every politically motivated criticism that's lodged against a politician. The main justification for leaving this one in would be that the making of the unsupported charge shows the irresponsibility of the campaign that Steele was a part of. (I'm not calling Steele a liar. I'm calling Schurick a liar.)
As for liberal politics in general, I didn't claim Democrats to be perfect. Most of them aren't even liberals. I agree that Democrats (like Republicans) don't always live up to their stated ideologies. The specific examples of Thomas, Rice, and Steele, however, are people whom liberals would oppose regardless of skin color. JamesMLane t c 17:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who handed out the cookies, but I believe they were handed out. Let's put it this way: If Barak Obama had claimed he heard a group of people shouting the N word at him at the presidential debate, even with no other witnesses, I don't think there would be so many groups saying he lied. I don't think there would be in-depth analsysis of whether it was shouted or whispered as if it were relevant. In fact, I would think that, regardless of the affiliation of the hecklers, the Republican campaign would apologize. That's the nature of today's atmosphere. --Tbeatty 18:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If the story was only backed up by Obama and his campaign manager, and they changed the details of their story from account to account, and their story was flatly contradicted by all other witnesses, then yeah, I'd think Obama was lying. Gamaliel 18:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
And if the details were it was "whispered" vs "shouted"? And if the story wasn't contradicted, but simply couldn't be corroborated? It seems to me the Steele controversy was whether the cookies were rolled or thrown. And the only contradiction was someone who wasn't present saying he didn't find any cookies (and he was the manager, not the cleanup crew). --Tbeatty 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please. Now they say there were so numerous in the air they were "like locusts" but at the time, not a peep about them being thrown. The moderator and the guy in charge of cleanup didn't see any evidence of a swarm of oreos. Does anyone besides Steele and his campaign operative back this account up? It's clearly all bullshit. Gamaliel 21:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Tom Stuckey was at the debate. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1278436&page=1. He claims oreo cookies were distributed. There are others who corroborate the presence of Oreo cookies. The debate seems to really be about whther they were thrown. Ehrlich said his father was hit by one. I think that's a silly distinction. Whether they were thrown, thrown at Steele, just present in the crowd or distributed by Democratic operatives is all abhorent. --Tbeatty 00:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
A few cookies independently brought by immature people vs. large numbers purposely distributed by party operatives. One or two tossed vs. the air thick with them "like locusts". These are not silly distinctions, it's the difference between a breeze and a hurricane. This is assuming that it happened at all. Gamaliel 01:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Steele's comment is one or two at his feet. He agreed when Hannity asked if oreo cookies were thrown at him (without even referencing this particular incident, who knows how many times it has happened outside the debate that is listed). You are willing to entertain that immature people could have brought cookies and at the same time claim Steele is lying? That's a pretty big stretch.--Tbeatty 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Why should I not be suspicious of their wildly inconsistent stories and the lack of cooberating evidence? Gamaliel 04:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think it happened according to any one persons statement. Certainly Steele wasn't 'pelted.' I suspect, given the moderators account, that there was a section in the audience that was throwing a lot of cookies but not at Steele. I suspect that some cookies were rolled or tossed Steele's way. I suspect that the account of the girl giving out 'Michael Steele' oreo cookies is true. But I wouldn't portray any of the stories 'wildly inconsistent.' I have seen consistency across a number of different perspectives. The spokesman had his version, the governor had his, Steele had his own. Reporters had their own. --Tbeatty 04:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see any consistency, other than they all claim they were Oreos and not some other brand. The people can't even keep their own stories consistent over the years, much less consistent with other people's stories. Gamaliel 05:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article for deletion

Lauren B. Weiner has been listed. Her only notability is with regard to this article. I think this is not how we ought to be conducting ourselves. Derex 04:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update and minor editing/NPOV

Well, this certainly couldn't have made him look any sweeter! I removed some of the gushing quotes, but there's still plenty for his mother to love here. Acham 21:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a major problem with the edits you're doing, but you seem to be doing multiple major edits at a single time and summarizing them with a simple "NPOV", when more explanation is usually required. For example, you removed the sentence about the "Uncle Tom" incident. The sentence wasn't that great, but I think the incident still deserves mention. "NPOV" doesn't seem to be an adequate explanation for its removal. I would humbly suggest that you break up your edits, concentrating on one section at a time and providing a clear explanation for each one. Maximusveritas 21:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy criticism

Cut section from article:

[edit] Ehrlich fundraiser

In July of 2005, Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich, a Republican, came under heavy criticism for hosting a $1,000-a-head golf outing at a white-only golf club. Many African-Americans were offended by their patronage. Lt. Governor Steele responded to the outcry by saying, "I don't know that much about the club, the membership, nor do I care, quite frankly, because I don't play golf." [4] [5] After two weeks, the controversy still persisted, leading Steele to say that his "initial reaction to this was a little more flippant than it should have been." [6]

[edit] Repair strategy

Criticism from whom? For what reason? Are readers supposed to read between the lines and go, "Of course it's wrong for a politician to say he doesn't care about his party raising money at a white-only event"?

An encylopedia article assumes nothing. We can never say that something is too obvious for words.

Please rewrite this section with the following format:

  • Spokesman A of Group B criticized the Republican Party in general, as well as Ehrlich specifically, for conducting the event because they feel the Republicans are being dishonest. "How can they say they care about blacks, when they raised money from whites who discriminate blacks?" argued Spokesman C of Group D.
  • When Steele said he didn't care, Group D responded by calling his remark (insert criticism here).
  • Two weeks later, Steeled apologized for his earlier remarks: "...more flippant ..."

The point is that if there is a controversy about something, we must say WHO the sides are and WHAT each side is saying about that thing. --Uncle Ed 16:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I added some additional quotes. I'm not sure we really need to go into detail about the original Ehrlich controversy since the focus of this article is on Steele, but I'll go along with it. Also, could you please respond to what I wrote above regarding the Washington Times column? Maximusveritas 05:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No prominent Republicans on Steele's campaign site

Why did you say the "information about pictures with national Republicans" was "erroneous"? I went through Steele's website and saw lots of pictures with smiling citizens but I recognized only McCain. What other prominent Republicans is he pictured with, and where is the link? Did I miss something? Please advise. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acham (talk • contribs) 20:52, 11 July 2006

[edit] I received your message. I stand corrected

You found a buried photo with Jack Kemp from 3 weeks ago.[7] Wow, Steele had at least as many Dem photos as Repubs on his site then, with Steny Hoyer and Kwesi Mfume. It looks like you had to dig around, too! Acham

[edit] No Need to Dig Around

The photo of Kemp is from an announcement made by Steele that Kemp is his national campaign director (or something of that sort). This announcement is mentioned in a few different areas on Steele's website, so it wasn't that difficult to find. MKilMKil

[edit] A Whole Section on Controversies??

Why does Steele have a whole section on controversies while his opponent in the senate race has NONE?!?! Lib bias alert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:03, 17 September 2006 24.130.6.237 (talk • contribs)

I attempted last week to attempt to bring some balance to this obviously biased article, but all of my changes were reverted by an editor, who did not even attempt to discuss the changes. He/she just simply reverted them. I will attempt to put them back in the article today, over the course of the day. The controversy section is way too long, as you pointed out there is just a small, small one on Cardin. Also, the so-called controversies are full of inaccurate information or unverifiable information. The controversy section should be at the end of the article, not the beginning. So those are the issues that I am working on today.--Getaway 13:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
You ripped out significant chunks of sourced material unflattering to Steele while using charming edit summaries like "What balance, what an encyclopedia entry!! BS". Your changes are more likely to stay if you don't post uncivil rhetoric and don't remove sourced information. Gamaliel 17:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
You still need to discuss your changes, which you did not do.--Getaway 19:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Where is the discussion of your changes? Gamaliel 20:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is the focus on me? You did not make any comments at all. Please do in the future. Have a good day.--Getaway 02:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
As a general rule, if an editor thinks there's bias resulting from the inclusion of more information on one side of a controversy than on the other, the solution is to add the missing information. If there are controversies about Cardin that are notable enough to merit inclusion, please include them, following the guidelines of NPOV and citing sources. The same applies if there's favorable information about Steele that's missing from this article. Don't use charges of "bias" as an excuse for removing material that's properly sourced. JamesMLane t c 02:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
In some cases, too much emphasis on minor controversies can run afoul of the undue weight provision of npov policy. However, the solution is not to excise sourced material from wikipedia. Rather, the detailed material could be moved to a subarticle, see for example Al Gore controversies. I'm not sure what whether this article crosses the line, but I now know more than I care to about cookie tossing (or lack thereof). An article on the 2006 Maryland Senate election might be an appropriate place for much of this detail about campaign controversies. Of course, even with a sub-article, the key points should be summarized in the main article. Derex 03:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The controversies that are campaign-related belong in Maryland United States Senate election, 2006, and I've moved several of them there. If someone wants to add some very brief references to them in the campaign section of this article, fine, but giving campaign-related controversies any significant space at all in a bio of a person is generally considered a violation of WP:NPOV, because of undue weight. In a campaign article, of course, the matter is entirely different - a relatively small incident can make a big difference. (For good ways to handle campaign-related controversies, I recommend reading Talk:Jim Webb and looking at the related bio article and the Virginia Senate campaign article.) John Broughton | Talk 16:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section on "misleading sample ballots"

I removed Chubbybunny78's section on "fake sample ballots," which was an unclear mix of two issues. One involved an "Ehrlich-Steele Democrats" flier mailed out by the Ehrlich-Steele campaign with the text "These Are Our Choices" next to the pictures of several Democratic politicians. The other was a controversy over a number of Pennsylvanians who handed out inaccurate sample ballots at a few polling sites in Maryland. ChubbyBunny78's section was apparently made up of bits and pieces copied from a Washington Post article, with a few minor changes made.

Perhaps the controversy over the "official voter guide" deserves a mention, or maybe even both of them, but this section was not only a muddy merging of the two controversies, but it was hopelessly POV. However, I will see if I can come up with a more accurate and balanced section on the controversy over the GOP mailer. --Tschel 03:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The controversy with the false sample ballots identifying Steel and Ehrlich as Democrats and reportedly handed out by busloads of Philadelphians, including homeless people, is also deserving of a mention, don't you agree? I don't think there were as many problems with ChubbyBunny78's edits as you say. The Washington Post also covered both issues, A) deceptive mailings just prior to the election and B) bused-in Philadelphians passing out false ballots on the day of the election, in a somewhat muddy way. I don't see that ChubbyBunny78 "copied" parts of the WP article, as you claim. DanielM 11:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
PS: Here's another reliable source if you need one for the section you said you're coming up with: http://www.gazette.net/stories/110706/princou134628_31968.shtml. DanielM 11:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
PPS: Here's a third source: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/showdown06/archives/individual/2006_11/010083.php. That's from a blog associated with a monthly magazine. The information appears genuine and I think it can be cautiously relied on, if it meshes with other sources, i.e. is not contradicted by and is generally in tune with other sources. DanielM 12:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
There are many, many problems with the section. First of all, Chubbybunny78 has only been a Wikipedian for one or two days and the ONLY articles that Chubbybunny78 seems to be interested in are Steele's and Erlich's. This FACT calls into question the motivation. We must assume "good faith" but a pattern is appearing and it cannot be ignored. Also, the whole section seems to be to tear down a strong, independent black man. That needs to be pointed out. The whole article is just one "criticism" of Steele after another. And don't you even tell me that this issue is not important. The election is over. It is NOW time to start enforcing the Living Person rules of Wikipedia. Is this topic something that belongs in a so-called encyclopedia???? I don't think so. I have never, until I stumbled upon Wikipedia, seen encyclopedias where the articles are written in such stark biased ways. Yes, I know that Wikipedia has a policy to be NEUTRAL, but that ain't happening. This article is a disgrace to a talented and motivated person who has served his state and his country. It is a just a laundry list of so-called "controversies" that are nothing more than spitballs thrown at him during an election campaign. The election is over. Call off the biased Wikipedia dogs and let's make the article neutral. And we can start by getting rid of this unimportant, non-notable incident where there is nothing behind it but allegation and heresay. And it was put in the article by a Wikipedia that has been here a couple of days and the ONLY edits that Chubbybunny78 has made is to tear down Steele and Erlich. Can't we just follow the Living Person rules and make honest decisions on what should be biographical article (date of birth, place of birth, schooling, work experience, etc.) instead of a series of election-inspiried charges by overzealous Democrats out to completely destroy a black man that dares to get off of the Democratic Plantation???--Getaway 14:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Getaway says: Also, the whole section seems to be to tear down a strong, independent black man. And then he has the gall to accuse somebody else of POV pushing? john k 15:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Getaway, you threw a lot of stuff in there. I think that's not accurate that the section had some racial component, why would it be like that if ChubbyBunny78 also put it in at the Ehrlich entry. Ehrlich is white. Kweisi Mfume is ticked off about it too because his picture was put on Ehrlich/Steele campaign flyers and false sample ballots, it's not about any racial component. IMO people OUGHT to be upset at deceitful campaign literature that tries to trick people into thinking a candidate is of another political party. And to bus some homeless people from Philadelphia to do the dirty work? That also means they won't be voting there and that's undemocratic and wrong. However, I thought about what you said about the laundry list stuff and the fact that the campaign is over and Steele lost and a lot of this stuff is just overkill now. You have a point there. A lot of the old stuff could stand to go, for example the cookie incident, campaign contributions and Ehrlich fundraiser sections could stand to go. DanielM 16:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Getaway and Tschel, given that (a) you Tschel seem confused about what ChubbyBunny78 actually added to the article (I don't see how he confused the busing/fake sample ballot and misleading flyer issues at all; if anybody is, you are), (b) the section is sourced in multiple reputable news sources, (c) the section ChubbyBunny78 added did not seem particularly POV to anyone (though perhaps it could be rewritten), (d) this is relevant information regarding Steele's political career whether the election is over or not and whether you like it or not, and (e) there is not a shred of racism about ChubbyBunny78's addition and so far the only person who has brought up race is you, Getaway (and you noticably didn't edit the entry on Erlich for the same content; is it because he's white, Getaway?) then I suggest that a modified version of ChubbyBunny78's comments be reinstated. As DanielM points out maybe this article is controversy heavy and some of the older material could be shorted or even removed, but I don't see how the deletion of ChubbyBunny78's edits were warranted at all except to serve your obviously biased point of view.Gadzodilo 03:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Gadzodilo: Please re-read what I wrote. I NEVER stated that ChubbyBunny78 stated or said anything that is racist. That word has ONLY been used by Gadzodilo. Gadzodilo, don't put words in my mouth. What I did say is the the ARTICLE is biased and one-sided and the underlining message of the ARTICLE is racist. It basically states that if a you are a black man then do NOT get off the reservation because we will crticize you with a thousand different cuts. Also, the ARTICLE, not ChubbyBunny78, is violating the rules of the treatment of a LIVING PERSON. Wikipedia claims that they are trying to do something about this known misuse of Wikipedia, but I don't see anyone trying to FIX the article. All I see is that there is defense after defense of every single negative section in the article. There are several people who have stated that manybe the sections, taken as a whole are a bit over the top, but the only real response that I have seen so far is the constant and unending foucus on me for calling the ARTICLE what it is. This BS about me personally attacking ChubbyBunny78 is just a red herring designed to move the focus of the discussion off of the biased ARTICLE that is a laundry list of petty and small-minded complaints that are written, by the sounds of them, by members of the DNC. The focus of the article is to tear down a strong, black man and I'm sorry if you don't want to hear that, but I'm going to repeat it because Wikipedia is on trial. Wikipedia claims that it is trying to do something about the enforcement of the LIVING PERSON rules, but I do not see it. The vast majority of this stuff should be moved to the 2006 Campaign article. Yeah, I'm going to say it again. The ARTICLE is biased and it gives undue weight to small, petty, unimportant aspects of a political campaign and I hear it all the time: just because something can be sourced does not mean that it should be in an ARTICLE. This laundry list makes the ARTICLE POV. And, once again, Gadzodilo, don't put words in people's mouths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Getaway (talk • contribs)
This entire discussion probably should be moved to Talk:Maryland United States Senate election, 2006. I've added the disputed paragraph by Chubbybunny78 to Maryland United States Senate election, 2006, as a starting point, and I'm going to put a comment on that talk page that points to this discussion. I'd move this entire discussion as well, but talk/discussion page comments of others generally should be left as is, so I'll leave that option to someone more involved in the discussion.
Also - everyone - please observe the wikipedia policies of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. Comments about the (possible) motivations of other editors is inappropriate. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 16:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree you should watch closely all of those policies.--Getaway 16:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
John Broughton does not appear to have violated any of these policies on this talk page. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Kuzaar, Getaway does not appear to have violated any policies either. Also, I pointed out that John Broughton needs to follow those policies and I now repeat that John Broughton needs to follow those policies and, I might add, you Kuzaar should follow those policies.--Getaway 20:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the reminder. I would like to remind you, as well, to follow policy and not use inflammatory or uncivil language, such as "the democratic plantation", on talk pages. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strothra's Comments on Getaway Talk Page

With regards to your comments on Talk:Michael S. Steele: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Strothra 03:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This hooey was left on my personal talk page by Strothra. It is BS. Period. I have expressed an opinion that I have a right to do. Now, Strothra does not agree with my opinion but that is his/her right. But that does not make his/her opinion corrent. I did not personally attack anyone. I merely stated that the ARTICLE has serious flaws and needs to be properly edited and I repeat that opinion here. What Strothra is doing here is attempting, unsucessfully, to indimidate me into keeping my mouth shut. He/Her think that since I am expressing an opinion that he/she does like then he/she can stop me from pointing out once again that the ARTICLE is written in a way that it only expresses the opinion of Democrats toward Steele. It minimizes his accomplishments and puts undue weight on small, petty political fights and most the ARTICLE is dedicated to these small petty BS poltical fights from the campaign. Steele is a strong, independent black man and the ARTICLE is written as if it is written by the members of the DNC to tear him down. It is a shameful ARTICLE.--Getaway 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not copy warnings and tangentially-related discussion from your talk page to article talk pages. The discussion above is already cluttered, and we don't need any more clutter here. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
No. No. No. If another Wikipedian, such as Strothra, is going to attempt to use Wikipedia warning templates to attempt to make me keep my opinion to myself then I am going to response right on the talk page of the article. You may not like it, but it is not up to you to decide. So, if you are really, truly worried about clutter then you need to remove your superficial, unnecessary warning that you have posted to this talk page above. No one has designated you to be in charge of the talk page and you cannot dictate how I respond to Strothra inappropriate misuse of Wikipedia templates. There was no personal attack involved and I will not apologize for one and I will not allow either you or Strothra to intimidate me into keeping my mouth shut about the article.--Getaway 13:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
My comment above was in response to your accusations against an editor who had done nothing wrong, which you for some reason inappropriately decided to air on an article talk page instead of contacting him on his talk page. While I am not in charge of article talk pages, the Wikipedia talk page guidelines certainly are, and using them as a place to air your private grievances is totally inappropriate. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. As I pointed out to you before and I will point out to you again. The editor in question was using a Wikipedia warning template to muscle the discussion concerning a POV issue. I did absolutely nothing wrong to receive such a warning and I brought the issue here to make the point. I have been successful. Now, you are attempting to shut me also. If you are so worried about this talk page being "cluttered" then why do you keep responding to me? Your actions are inconsistent with your words.--Getaway 16:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to personal talk pages. Thank you. Gamaliel 17:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Good advice, Gamaliel. I would have done so previously but was concerned that discussion on user talk pages would have been moot. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)