Talk:Roy Blunt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roy Blunt is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
??? 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.
Missouri Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
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.

Contents

[edit] Ratings by interest groups deleted

Holford deleted some information regarding Blunt's ratings by various interest groups. I think the information belongs in the article since it is factual, verifiable, and gives the reader an insight into Blunt's issue positions. I'm inlcined to restore the information, but wanted to get other comments. TMS63112 16:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the information probably ought to be in the article. I think the best way to ensure NPOV balance in this case is to find ratings from conservative groups, and list them alongside the liberal/critical groups' ratings. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I have restored the information and added some other issues and rankings, including conservative groups like the Chamber of Commerce and NRA that rate Blunt highly. TMS63112 18:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that all of this is POV stuff. I noticed that no other article about a Congressman from Missouri has a list of issues with rating from special interest groups. I also notice that there is nothing like this about members of the Minority leadership. The information and link from the Beyond Delay website is so partisan (amazing that of the "13 Most Corrupt Members of Congress", 11 are Republicans. Strangely, the Republicans are all very conservative. I noticed that all but one of them, for example, have a 100% voting record with the National Right to Life Committee. Coincidence? And speaking of abortion, why is the benchmark NARAL and not NRLC? As Arsenio Hall used to say, "Things that make you say 'hmmmmm....'." Holford 23:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Holford, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I agree with you that the "Beyond Delay" website and reference to the "13 most corrupt Congressmen is very POV. It probably should be removed from the article, but maybe included as a link. Putting aside the interest group ratings for a minute, I really like the Issues 2000 website that they come from. It is NPOV and cites specific votes on important issues. If the consensus is that the interest group ratings should go, I hope we could still have an issue position summary with links to that site. It think the information is much stronger than a bland statement that "S/he is considered one of the most liberal/conservative members of Congress" which is about the extent of issue information in most other Congressional bio articles. I think that is a weakness in those articles. Finally, as to which interest groups are used as the benchmarks, those are the ones that can easily be sourced to the Issues 2000 site. If you would prefer to use National Right to Life and have a site we can source it to, I think that would be great. One could just as easily ask why the NRA instead of Handgun Control, Inc. was used as the gun control benchmark. TMS63112 23:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
My point about NARAL v. NRLC or as you raise NRA v. Handgun Control, Inc., someone's rating on any issue is going to be inextricably linked with a special interest group. Congressperson X is going to be 100% from one group or 0% from another (or even 83% or 14%, or whatever) and these numbers become meaningless. When Congressperson X is voting on legislation relative to these issues, they are not voting for or against the special interest group, but rather in acordance with their views on those issues. I think it would be fine to discuss a legislators views on particular issues, especially if they focus on those issues on their own website, such as Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, or Rep. John Hostettler of Indiana. Otherwise it is up to the individual wikipedian as to which issues are important and should be highlighted. That becomes ipso facto POV.
On the other hand, the response of a special interest group to a congressperson's voting record is a reasonable way to document their views on a subject. If we say, "Congressman X is a strong advocate of gun control", that might be open to interpretation. But if we say "Congressman X has a 100% rating from Handgun Control, Inc.", then that says that his voting record is in accordance with the well-publicized views of that group. Seems to me that accords pretty well with both WP:CITE and WP:NPOV.
I do recognize that there is a point at which this sort of rating becomes fuzzy and perhaps non-notable. But for a prominent congressperson such as Blunt, I think it merits inclusion, especially when he gets an extremely high or extremely low rating from interest groups on either side of various issues. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
It's true that the legislators do not vote for or against a particular interst group but on specific legislation based on their beliefs and/or the desires of their constituents (though I think it would be naive to think politicians are unaware of the interest groups positions, and the impact those groups could have in their next campaign).
The ratings are relevant because they provide a convenient "shorthand" for understanding a legislator's position on a particular issue or set of issues. If someone has, for example, a 100% rating from Right to Life, 0% from NARAL, and 95% from the Christian Coalition, it shows a conservative voting record on social issues. This helps the reader understand the politician's issue positions. Frankly, for someone like Blunt it is probably not that interesting since his voting record is uniformly conservative, which is fairly typical for a Republican. I think this stuff is more interesting when you have a politician who defies party expectations on a particular issue, like a pro-gun Democrat or a pro-choice Republican. TMS63112 21:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that politicians are aware of special interest groups and their impact on elections. I also agree that this information is useful if it distinguishes a particular politician from the expected norm. Otherwise any way that the editor tries to characterise the information smacks of POV IMHO. There is a lot of subtle POVing on politics and polticians here and the less there is the better off we are. Holford 16:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I removed a paragraph which served no other point than express the low ranking of Blunt by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The paragraph was neutral in wording, but we should let the facts speak for themselves. I read that as the consensus of this discussion (but see also below "Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism"). --Hansnesse 01:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I understood the consensus of this discussion to be that the ratings from notable interest groups (NRA, Right to Life, etc.) should be included because they provide support for statements about Blunt's voting record and issue positions. Those ratings had remained following this discussion, and your edits did not remove them. I don't have a strong opinion about whether the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics rating served any useful purpose. Therefore, I don't object to your edit. TMS63112 16:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV pushing

I agree there is a lot of POV pushing (both subtle and not subtle) on political related articles. I guess we just disagree about whether this is an example of it. I'm wondering what we can agree on to improve the article. We seem to have agreed that the "13 most corrupt Congressemen" is POV and needs to go. I'll take care of that. The reference to 97% voting with Delay is linked to a very POV site, and I could find no reference to Blunt on the page. So I will remove that as well. I think one mention of Delay in the article is probably sufficient. As far as the interest group rankings and issue voting goes, I'm not sure what you believe should be in and what you believe should be out, so I'm not sure what we can agree on. I think some issues like the environment where all we have is an interest group ranking should probably go. I'm not crazy about the current structure with lots of subheadings and one or two sentence paragraphs. Would it be better to cobine the information into one or two paragraphs under a single heading? TMS63112 21:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Like I said,I'd rather see the issues go altogether. It seems to me that it is sufficient to note that he is the Majority Whip and Interim Majority Leader. There really isn't any question of how he would vote on any of these issues. I can't see what they actually add. If the issues have to stay, then it would definitely be better to put them together as you say. Holford 00:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and combined the categories and shortened the issues section as ddiscussed above. Hopefully it is an improvement. I have also added a few other headers and included some additional information about his early political career based on his biography in the 1987-88 Missouri State Manual. TMS63112 04:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm happy enough with that. It seems balanced and the rest of your changes are an improvement to the article overall. Holford 13:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Months later, I'm seeing that link to Beyond DeLay has returned. I'm not sure if it was decided to keep it, but at least it should note that the site is not NPOV like the others. --WWB 17:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delay

I think we have to be careful about loading this article up with lots of references to Tom Delay. The recent edits about the subponea Ronnie Earle issued seems like it crosses the line. TMS63112 16:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Methinks there is an agenda here. What does a subpoena prove? (Sorry, I just realised I didn't sign this.) Holford 08:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More POV

I reverted edits by an unregistered user that were contrary to the consensus of discussions. Holford 01:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted more edits. If whoever is making these POV and biased edits is so interested in the state of this article, registration and discussion would be appreciated. Holford 21:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the edits are pretty neutral in their wording. On the grounds that it is information which I think people would want to know, I also suggest it is appropriate for the article. For ease of reading, however, I suggest that the information be collapsed into one section. --Hansnesse 21:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Running for Majority Leader

I just read on CNN that he and John Boehner are running to replace Tom DeLay, so I added that and made it a current event.–Clpalmore

[edit] Relation to Roy Blount, Jr.

I'm pretty sure I heard Roy Blount, Jr. claim to be a distant relation to Blunt. Someone who can confirm this may want to correct the claim of being no relation. Calbaer 22:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism

I realize people are legitimately wary of contributions to politics-related articles from unregistered users. The fact that there's now a Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy is proof of that. But the NPOV policy is violated by registered and unregistered alike, so it's important to judge all contributions on their own merit, and as Wikipedia:Revert/Help:Reverting#Wikipedia-specific content note, use reversion primarily for fighting vandalism.

With that said, let me look at the reversion at 20:58, 1 February 2006 done by Holford (talk · contribs) and summarize what he removed, roughly top to bottom:

  1. The preface noting the existence of Roy Blount, Jr., moved by an unregistered user to the top of the article, was reverted. Since the top of the article is the conventional location in such cases, this doesn't seem worthy of reversion (and in fact, it was already re-introduced).
  2. The website field in the infobox was filled in — doesn't seem worthy of reversion.
  3. The phrase 7th Congressional District was wikified — doesn't seem worthy of reversion.
  4. The phrase "("ROYB Fund")" was deleted ("ROYB Fund") — a minor edit which doesn't seem worthy of reversion.
  5. Details of Blunt's educational background were moved down to the section on his personal life. You could argument the merits of this choice, but it doesn't seem worthy of reversion.
  6. Various minor changes such as paragraph breaks to the section on his political career in Missouri. IMHO a slight improvement, but certainly not worthy of reversion.
  7. Then we see the first of several uses of the relatively new <<ref></rev> feature. This seems useful too, certainly not worthy of reversion.
  8. Section heading capitalization was standardized — doesn't seem worthy of reversion.
  9. [what I suspect is the real issue] Sections formerly labeled "Close ties to tobacco industry" and "Tom DeLay" are reorganized with new paragraphs added, resulting in four sections all beginning with "Ties to ...": Lobbyists, Tobacco industry, DeLay, and Abramoff. The re-org was accompanied by new material:
    1. direct quotes and paraphrases from a May 2005 Washington Post article about Blunt's innovative use of lobbyists, making them an "integral part of the Republican whip operation on par with the network of lawmakers who serve as assistant whips." This includes specific details on how Blunt got legislation (the American Jobs Creation Act) passed despite "daunting" rank-and-file opposition within Blunt's own party.
    2. a paragraph drawing parallels between Blunt and DeLay, comparing Blunt's effective relationship with K Street to DeLay and the K Street Project, then noting DeLay's role in Blunt's rise from freshman to a senior role in Republican leadership.
    3. an Abramoff section about Blunt's use of Alexander Strategy Group to start a PAC.
  10. The external links were reworded, with Blunt's official campaign website added and annotations provided for the parties responsible for the websites — changes that don't seem worthy of reversion.

I'm betting that Holford (talk · contribs) had an issue with the penultimate item in this list (the long one, with sub-bullets). So to salvage a few proverbial babies from the reverted bath water, I'd like to propose that the other changes listed above be re-introduced into the article. It wouldn't be too hard to do that while setting aside "[what I suspect is the real issue]" for now. What do people think? 66.167.137.199 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

I believe Holford's edits were in good faith, but I think he may have been a little overzealous about reverting in this case. I think the changes proposed above are pretty reasonable. Any problems with these changes can be discussed and edited individually, rather than reverted wholesale. TMS63112 04:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I will say reverts can be used for more than just vandalism in the narrow sense. I think Holford was reverting for POV, which is entriely appropriate if the edits were POV. Taking it to the talk page in a controversy is not usually a bad idea, and I for one appreciate Holford's work in doing so. When consensus emerges here, we'll have a better article. I do not, however, agree that they were POV and agree with the above that they are good edits which should be restored. --Hansnesse 18:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I got here as quick as I could. You are correct, TMS, that I did throw out the baby with the bath water. A little overzealous, perhaps. This probably happened in the course of reverting various POV hit-and-run operations. As for edit number 9, I have a problem with any biographical article of a living person (particularly of a politician) that says, "Opponents say..." I would have just as much trouble with "Supporters say..." Besides my view that does not seem very encyclopedic, either statement - especially on its own - is necessarily injecting POV. It just becomes a matter of which editor can stack up the largest inventory of postive or negative facts. (I'm tempted to suggest that any article using the WaPo as a source has already violated POV, but I won't go that far.) I think when you start making politicians guilty by association, suggesting that particular legislation favours bad people (especially bad rich people), that's POV. Holford 00:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we are all in agreement about most of the changes 66.167.137.199 has proposed. I do just want to point out that I think Holford and I have a different perspective on what constitutes NPOV. While "Supporters say. . ." and "Opponents say. . ." are weasel words that should be cleaned up, I DO think its important that articles about controversial subjects (including politicians) should convey that information. TMS63112 16:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controveries section

I reverted to restore a section about controvesies surrounding Blunt. I was unable to locate any claim Blunt has made that the tobbacco rider was based in attempting to control terrorism. Whatever his explanation for the rider is, however, it should certainly be included. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 17:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant unless Blunt gave that as the reason for the rider at the time-- it would have been easy for him to say and it would have justified it to some critics of the action, so if he never gave that as an excuse it probably was not the case.--Gloriamarie 18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)