Talk:Tom DeLay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tom DeLay article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Tom DeLay (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

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
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Tom DeLay has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Tom DeLay is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.

	This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

• Archive 1 (up to May 2005)
• Archive 2 (May 2005-February 2006)

Contents 1 Republican Primary 2 "Hot Tub Tom" 3 DeLay accomplishments 4 Diebold voting machines 5 Majority Whip Office Shooting 1998 6 Hurray!!! 7 Major Re-Write Needed 8 Why no numbers on mugshot? 9 "Former" politician - not correct terminology 10 Refs 11 Sweatshop legislation 12 Question/contradiction 13 Putting "The Hammer" in the first sentence. 14 Clinton impeachment 15 Cuban Cigar 16 Redistricting reasons POV? 17 better photo? 18 NPOV 19 Withdrawal from ballot 20 Domestic and foreign policy sections 21 Brent Wilkes 22 Texas money laundering scandal template? 23 the truth 24 Infobox Criminal 25 Recent Vandalism 26 Link to video of Delay speaking about his book 27 GA review

[edit] Republican Primary

Shouldn't something about his renomination by the GOP be here? Kashami 04:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Like what? NatusRoma 04:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's in there -- the last sentence before the table of contents --Sholom 04:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it wasn't before.

Kashami 02:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Hot Tub Tom"

The wording of the article implies that Mr. DeLay acquired this nickname in college, whereas the source clearly states that he got this nickname after graduating, during his career as a Texas State Legislator: "Later, as a Texas state legislator from 1978 to 1984, DeLay had a reputation in Austin less as a lawmaker than as a partyer and playboy known as "Hot Tub Tom." He roomed with other fun-loving male legislators at a condo they dubbed "Macho Manor.""

You're right. I'll change it. NatusRoma 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DeLay accomplishments

Scanning over this article, I seem to find most of it accurate and well sourced. I'm moderatly concerned however, that it doesn't seem to have a list of any of Delay's accomplishments. Bills he's headlined, inititives taken. etc etc. etc. I don't like the man much myself, but surley he's done something good in his life. Or did I just miss them/they never existed?--Tznkai 21:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the discussion in "Indictments" and elsewhere on this page, this article seems to have been recently (within the last few months) edited significantly to focus on accusations against Delay rather than show a more balanced view of his career. Obviously with all the recent news coverage, more interest has been generated and therefore, more people have come and added information relating to the coverage. I will try to find a list of his accomplishments and add them. Littleman TAMU 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit late, but it can go here: I searched THOMAS for bills sponsored by DeLay, and found nothing especially noteworthy. NatusRoma | Talk 05:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me..... Tom DeLay is one of the greatest whips and leaders in House history, he was able to keep party unity and move legislation through the House better than most others who have had his position. Anyone who is a serious study of political science and not some blind partisan can see this. Bachs

Bachs (and would you really mind time/date stamping your edits - four tildes - is that so hard?) - please be careful of POV language. The word "greatest" is clearly POV. As for "better than most", I'm not sure that is verifiable - what's the basis for comparison? You'd really need to find a bunch of cases where the same party controlled both branches of Congress and the White House at the same time (at least for 2000-2005). And, of course, the whip technically is second to the Speaker of the House - so how does one separate that, and how does one make comparisons to whips who had very strong Speakers above them? I don't really want to get into a debate here at DeLay - I'm just pointing out that this really is a very SUBJECTIVE matter (and that your last sentence is getting precariously close to violating wikipedia rules on civility, since you appear to be saying that anyone disagreeing with you is a "blind partisan").

And, for that matter, sponsoring (or even authoring) legislation isn't a good measure of the success of a member of Congress, either, in my opinion. John Broughton 13:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

He can put POV in discussion, just not the article. If he thinks DeLay was great he can say so here. You don't need to concern yourself with it unless he puts it in the article. Also, it is true that he was a very effective leader. There are differing views on whether his methods were admirable, but he was effective at uniting the Republicans in the House. Littleman TAMU 00:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

First - If I had said that anyone who disagreed with me is a blind partisan than I would apologize, but I didnt so I wont.

Second - Time to go to school. A whip or majority leader is judged in political science by the amount of legislation passed that the leadership wants passed and by how much party unity that leader or whip can get on a percentage of votes. These statistics are measurable. There is a reason that DeLay was called "The Hammer" and it is because he was exceptionally good at this task. So your statements require correction. It is not subjective and it is not POV, however in spite of the facts, you are entitled to your opinion. Bachs

It is questionable whether his methods are admirable. It would be point of view to say or imply in the article, flat out and unattributed, that they are or are not. Kevin Baas^talk 15:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And some people, apparently, measure the greatness of a congressperson based on the ends - or rather, not the ends, but how many ends were accomplished, regardless of what those ends were - quantity, lets say. While others just greatness on the means, or shall we say, the quality thereof. Kevin Baas^talk 15:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diebold voting machines

I fail to see the relevance of mentioning Diebold voting machines in a primary where the winner got 62% of the vote. Should we mention every single district that used such machines (and I'm sure there are many hundreds of them)? If there are reasonable allegations of funny business, then put it out there. But a mere mention of the company that supplied the machines, with nothing more, in a vote where the nearest challenger got less than half than that of the winner, strikes me, at best, as irrelevant. -- Sholom 15:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

But a mere mention of the company that supplied the machines, with nothing more...

I could wikilink to the article on the associated scandal if that would make you happier. — goethean ॐ 16:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

After reading the wikiarticle on the 2004 election, it still strikes me as irrelevant - there have been historical scandals and possible cheating in punch card and written ballot elections - do we have to identify the method of voting in every election on Wikipedia? All the 2004 article says is that cheating is technologically conceivable and there are "serious concerns" about the 04 election.TheronJ 16:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Diebold voting machines are hackable, not auditable, and instituted by a partisan group. I consider mentioning their use relevent to this article. — goethean ॐ 16:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You have not answered the question of why we should not also mention every other election that has used Diebold. -- Sholom 16:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with mentioning the voting machines in each instance. — goethean ॐ 17:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that this election used Diebold voting machines is not relevant unless there is some reason to suspect fraud or conspiracy beyond the bare fact that Diebold machines were used. NatusRoma | Talk 19:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Third person perspective: this isn't a major issue for me. I'm rather ambivalent. It's a small addition, and how interesting and important it is compared to other content of it's size, is open for debate. (Unrelated note: the 2004 election irregularites pages, though perhaps not that one, do cite actually "irregularities" and not merely the potential for them.) As to the proportion of victory, maybe it was landslide fraud? Easy to do on inauditable electronic voting machines, and easy to do in Texas. In any case, the degree to which fraud is a problem (or more neutrally speaking, "interesting and important") is proportional to the evidence and extent of fraud, irrespective of the final outcome (whether it was a close vote or a landslide victory.) But as to how people are inclined to vote, firstly this was a primary, and therefore in any case they would vote Republican. Certainly not as conententious as the final election. Secondly, among republican voters in Texas, I don't find it surprising that the majority would vote for DeLay - he in many ways epitomizes the Republican attitude. All in all, the potential for fraud is low, notwithstanding the opportunities provided by the election technology. And although I personally found it interesting that DieBold machines were used, and wouldn't know where to find that information - or think to look for it even - were it not presented here, I'm inclined to agree w/NatusRoma. Kevin Baas^talk 00:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The Diebold machine reference is completely irrelevant. THere is a) no reputably sourced instance were a Diebold machine has in any way compromised an election and b) its mention is designed to push a POV about the voting machines. Diebold makes almost every ATM and a large majority of voting machines. They will most likely be very prevalent in every state. Every candidate that appears on the ballot will most likely have received votes tabulated on a Diebold voting machine. Either cite a reputable source that the results are not valid or don't mention it. Whether it was butterfly ballots, diebold or hand counts, the issue is whether the results are questioned, not the method used to count. THink of it this way: if the race was hand0counted would you find it newsworthy to mention the race, religion or gender of the counters? Can you imagine "DeLay narrowly lost an election during a recount that consisted of a majority of female counters." It's completely irrelevant absent the facts of fraud and plays to stereotypes and prejudices. --Tbeatty 05:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Majority Whip Office Shooting 1998

Does anyone have any info on the Majority Whip Office shooting of 1998? Should be included in the article. Thanks.

MSTCrow 04:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! See [1], [2], and [3] for starters. -- Sholom 13:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurray!!!

I am *very* glad Tom DeLay is out!

I remember protesting his illegal fundraising caper on Gov'ment property (a $500 plate dinner at U of Houston - Clear Lake). While ~500 protested outside in a 'free speech zone', 5 of my friends (members of the LaRouche Youth Mv'ment) went inside, bypassed the guards, went up to the second floor balcony, and as soon as DeLay tried to talk we sang at a very loud cadence this poem made by my friend Chris: (note, this was *years* before virtually any of you heard of the Abramoff casino scandals...

Tom DeLay you are a stinker
Tom DeLay you are a stinker,
Gonna throw you in the klinker.
You're a crook, you dirty schnook,
Lyndon LaRouche will throw the book

At you for corporate donations
Casino cash from reservations,
Big money from Bacardi rum.
So now just go to jail and suck your thumb.

O Tom, you know you know that no one ever could
Be born again in Colson's brotherhood.
Bad guy, you lie
Now tell the truth: You're NO DAMN GOOD!

So Tom, go pack your bags today;
Leave Washington, be on your way
Improve Texas, Congress, without DeLay!

I just can't believe he isn't in Texas any more either :-) Now that's what I call casting out your representatives who so thoroughly abuse your trust. Sorry; I've waited and pined for this day for almost 1/2 a decade, ever since I first started voting. After participating in some 23 protests and actions against DeLay I am very glad it's all worked out :-)

— HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 03:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not bold recent news events. Such a style is unbefitting a reputable encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style for more information. NatusRoma | Talk 03:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hopeseekr, do try not to be so exuberant. Even on a talk page, this sort of partisan gloating gives a very bad impression. Anyway, assuming DeLay is genuinely retired from politics, the first line should be changed to

Thomas Dale DeLay (born April 8, 1947) is a former politician from Sugar Land, Texas and a prominent Republican...

It is largely confirmed, so I see no sense in continuing to identify him as a politician. Bhumiya/Talk 04:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the latter is better than the former: "was a politician" implies that he's dead. However, he's still a member of Congress until he resigns, so he still is a politician. NatusRoma | Talk 04:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I was mistaken. Bhumiya/Talk 05:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It'll be a heck of a race to be the first person to change that once it becomes official, won't it? -Tmorrisey

If so, I'll be in the race to revert it. I think he'd still accurately be described as a politician. In 1962, Richard Nixon said, "I'm getting out of politics." Even assuming that DeLay never attempts a comeback to electoral office, he's likely to remain active in Republican Party affairs. He'll still be entitled (or condemned) to be considered a politician. We still describe Tip O'Neill as a politician although he hasn't done much campaigning since his death twelve years ago. JamesMLane t c 20:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Re-Write Needed

Major Re-Write Needed -- imho. First off, the lede is kinda long, and 3/4 of it is on stuff that's happened since 2005. And it doesn't include DeLay's major role in securing Clinton's impeachment, the K Street Project, his multiple censures from the ethics committee. This article has, embedded in it, a nice capsule summary of his highlights. I could take a whack at it, but I wanted to announce here first, hear some others' thoughts, etc. -- Sholom 13:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The K Street Project, the ethics committee rebukes, and the impeachment are all mentioned in the body, and I'm not sure what can best be said about them in the lead. The indictment is a current story, so it's inevitable that it will be given undue prominence. Ultimately, the material on the indictment should be reduced to a single paragraph, but that's not realistic until after the trial is over. Go ahead and take a whack, though. NatusRoma | Talk 18:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the highlights (or lowlights) of his life ought to be at least mentioned in the lead. I will give this a whack. I want to stress that the lead is just one example, I think major re-writing is needed all over, and I suspect it will be a bit easier to do, now that the major chapter of his life thus far seems to be closing. But I'll start with the lead. And feel free to whack away at my efforts, too! -- Sholom 18:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This re-write is largely an improvement, but it goes a little too far in the other direction. I have restored DeLay's denial of the charges to the lead, as well as some details that provide context for his denial. Some of the things mentioned (like the rebuke for the intellectual property bill) are somewhat obscure. The mention of the impeachment is good, but it needs a reference. The mention of his support for Bush's agenda also needs a reference, and can probably be folded in elsewhere in the lead. Finally, the mention of the indictments of Scanlon's and Rudy's guilty pleas immediately before the statement that he resigned on April 6, 2006 imply that he resigned because of their pleas, while DeLay has stated that he didn't want to risk a loss to Lampson. NatusRoma | Talk 03:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why no numbers on mugshot?

Dont mugshots usually have a booking number and date on them? Delay's mugshots dont ever show a number though? Have they been sanitized?

Not any more. They put the numbers into the JPEG file as metadata. Also they no longer do profile shots. A great pity, we will just have to wait for DeLay to do his perp walk. --Gorgonzilla 16:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Former" politician - not correct terminology

There have been a few edits today (April 4, 2006 — date on which DeLay formally announced that he will resign his Congressional term before it ends) that change the intro from "politician" to "Former" politician. DeLay is still a politician, he is still an elected official; he is no longer a candidate in the 2006 Congressional election. Therefore "former" is not appropriate — as has also been discussed above. I am removing this edit with a reference in the edit to the Talk page. —ERcheck @ 20:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• StuffOfInterest beat me to it - removed "former". —ERcheck @ 20:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• I edited the first sentence to a more precise description of his position - Congressman rather than politician. —ERcheck @ 20:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refs

Can someone more knowledgeable than I convert the rest of the inline html citations and book references into references? I'm especially not sure what to do with the links to the government documents and with the various citations of The Hammer. Thanks. NatusRoma | Talk 07:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweatshop legislation

I removed the following text from the article:

(it should be noted that this is in opposition with his support for sweatshop labor in the Marianas Islands, where pregnant workers are forced to undergo abortions) ^[1]

First, voting in line with the positions of then National Right-to-Life Committee and against those of NARAL means voting on specific legislation. Because this legislation did not come up in 2005, it did not factor into either group's rating of DeLay's voting record. Second, making the contrast between DeLay's vote on this bill and his pro-life beliefs is original research. Third, assuming that DeLay's support for sweatshop labor equates with support for abortion is POV. NatusRoma | Talk 03:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question/contradiction

From Biography and early political career:

...and spent two years as a pre-med student at Baylor University before he was expelled for drinking and vandalism—DeLay was caught painting a building at Texas A&M green and gold, Baylor's colors.

From Defense of Dan Quayle :

DeLay was able to keep his student deferment after he was asked by the dean to sit out a semester at Baylor, which he attended from 1965 to 1967. Instead of taking the time off, DeLay got married and enrolled at the University of Houston.

So which is the authoritative truth? Did he get suspended from Baylor for a semester and voluntarily go to Houston, or was he expelled from Baylor? (Which implies that he was banned?) Anyone know for sure? KWH 10:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, there's some uncertainty, which has been previously discussed (see /Archive1#Expelled?). The conclusion there is that he was expelled, or at least kicked out permanently. There may have been a suspension involved prior to the expulsion. However, come to think of it, the Slate.com article, which is the source for the second sentence that you quoted is the only one that I've seen that mentions DeLay having been asked to sit out a semester, so the best solution to the contradiction may be to alter the second statement. In fact, given that the second statement has been copied straight out of the Slate.com column, it should be rewritten in any case. NatusRoma | Talk 06:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the second paragraph, removing both the contradiction and the plagiarism. NatusRoma | Talk 04:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Putting "The Hammer" in the first sentence.

"The Hammer" should not be contained within DeLay's full name. A nickname should only be included in the bolded name of an article's subject if that nickname is both what the subject is commonly known as, and is not clearly derived from the subject's full name. For example, if DeLay were always referred to as "Larry" in the media, it would be appropriate to write Thomas Dale "Larry" DeLay. However, DeLay is not called "Larry", or "The Hammer", but "Tom", which is an obvious abbreviation of Thomas. Therefore, there is no need for "The Hammer" to be part of the bolded name. NatusRoma | Talk 17:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I feel that "The Hammer" is an integral part of Tom DeLay's hard hitting, conservative politics. There have been no name Republicians in the House of Represenatatives that have been known to call him "The Hammer" under threat that he would destroy their lives if they forgot his "real" name.

Do you have a source for that statement? We're talking about House members, not fraternity pledges. By the way, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. NatusRoma | Talk 22:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton impeachment

The introduction states He was also a driving force behind President Bill Clinton's impeachment in 1998. Shouldn't it read the attempt to impeach Bill Clinton ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unmitigated Succes (talk • contribs).

No. "Impeachment" is akin to "Indicting". He was impeached by the House. He was found "not guilty" (for lack of a better term) by the Senate. -- Sholom 19:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

most people are ignorant of this apparently. --75.3.114.32 06:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuban Cigar

The article says that the consumption of Cuban cigars is illegal. However, it's legal to consume any Cuban cigars that were purchased before the embargo. Am I missing something here? --Demonkey36 06:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

(A) "legal" is an absolute; "perfectly legal", while dramatic, is redundant.
(B) You're correct (mostly) - Cuban cigars purchased and brought into the US before Feb 7, 1962, are legal. (By "kind of" - I mean that consumption is not the actual issue - importation and possession are the key issues. (C) It is now illegal to for a US citizen to consume (that is, smoke) a Cuban cigar anywhere in the world. It was not illegal when DeLay was photographed in Jerusalem smoking a $25 Cuban cigar.

The interesting point is that DeLay has LONG railed against Cuba, and been a strong supporter of the embargo against Cuban products. I'm not going to spend the time supporting that here - just Google it, it's there.

Compare to Carrie Nation, had she been photographed guzzling whiskey. Or Donald Rumsfeld, smiling and shaking Saddam Hussein's hand. (Oh - wait - that happened. Never mind.) Or Jim Bakker, evangelical Christian leader, confessing to an adulterous.... oh, hell. >;-)

So - for an obviously polarizing figure such as DeLay, to smoke a Cuban cigar - legally or not - IS a relevant, newsworthy, and NPOV detail. It's going back in. It's not POV. It IS relevant.

Deal.

This event is not sufficiently relevant for Wikipedia. The Nation and Rumsfeld analogies are unjustified: DeLay is not a principal supporter of the policy whose spirit he has been accused of violating. Please provide better arguments for why an already lengthy article should discuss this information. In this article's FA candidacy from a few months ago, multiple reviewers objected to the length. Why should we spend precious kilobytes covering this picture when we could instead use them to describe things like DeLay's congressional career in more detail? By the way, please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). NatusRoma | Talk 04:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"Precious kilobytes" is not a good reason to remove a well referenced section. --RTCCP 22:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

References are not at issue here. Relevance is. There is a difference between someone being a chief supporter of a policy and someone being a prominent figure who also supports that policy. In the former case, apparent hypocrisy might well be worth mentioning in a biographical article. In the latter case, which applies to DeLay, there is no reason to include the apparently hypocritical actions. The key difference is that a policy of which a person is a chief supporter is relevant enough to that person's life to make that person's actions regarding the issue that the policy addresses potentially encyclopedic, while a policy that happens to be supported by person who is prominent for other reasons is not relevant enough to that person's life for the person's actions toward the issue to which the policy relates to be encyclopedic. NatusRoma | Talk 03:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

DeLay has long been a supporter and a leading proponent of the embargo. Therefore, if a reputable source has published a photo showing him in a hypocritical situation, it is certainly noteworthy. Please do not delete well referenced information. --Baba gump 18:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redistricting reasons POV?

The article mentions his redistricting campaign 'to elect more Republicans'. This interpretation needs to be sourced IMO or else removed as editorialising. It may be true, but if it isn't citable it's opinion.--Anchoress 08:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That claim is sourced in the body, but for some reason, it is invisible. If you edit the Investigation of alleged misconduct in Texas fundraising and indictments section, you will see that the third paragraph visible in that window, which starts, "Republican victories in 2002...", is not visible when one reads the article. That paragraph includes [4], which quotes DeLay as saying of the redistricting, "I'm the majority leader and we want more seats." If you can figure out how to make that paragraph visible to readers, I'd much appreciate it. NatusRoma | Talk 19:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK cool, thanks for the info, will look into it.--Anchoress 19:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There are probably a gazillion sources out there, I seem to remember seeing supporting statements in the news at least a dozen times. Here are two:

* New Yorker article

* Wash. Post

and here's a quote from the man himself: "When you're drawing the lines, you have to set the example," DeLay explained late last week as he traveled his district during the Presidents' Day recess. "If you're going to maximize the number of Republicans that are elected, everybody can't have an 80 percent district. If you're the guy that's sort of leading the effort, you can't tell your members, 'Well, I'm going to dilute yours, but I'm going to pack mine.' " - Wash. Post, article above --studerby 20:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] better photo?

Is there a better photograph that can be used at the top of the article? The one shown there is really terrible. I think his mug shot is a much better likeness, but I recognize that it would be controversial to use that as the first image on the page. Even still, the man was in Congress for over 20 years. There must be some public domain or otherwise fair use image other than that lips-to-eyebrows shot (which is unsourced and subject to deletion, I might add). -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 21:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

For a long time, until July 21, it had a different photo, see this older version. I'm not a particular fan of the new photo either (seems almost POVish), but it didn't rise to the level of comment for me... --studerby 22:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put forth some effort to find a better image. Image:Tomdelay.jpg is in the public domain, but it is very small. Do you think that it would be acceptable? NatusRoma | Talk 03:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree; Image:Tomdelay.jpg is too small to really be useful IMO. The diff that Studerby posted uses Image:TomDeLay.jpg (note caps in filename), which is not perfect, but much better than what's currently in use. Any objections to changing it? Alternatively, maybe someone has some old campaign materials that could be scanned? Although his name is still on the ballot, he is not actively campaigning as I understand it, so there may not be any such materials for the upcoming election. I believe that such an image would fall under fair use if it could be found. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 06:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Users have complained in the past about the low resolution of Image:TomDeLay.jpg (it was a big reason why the recent featured article nomination failed), so putting it in the article shouldn't mean the end of a search for a new image. Campaign pictures might work if they fall under the copyright category of publicity photographs. NatusRoma | Talk 06:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The current photo is a part of a meme. 62.197.171.66 16:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean. NatusRoma | Talk 03:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know how I can explain that any better. It's part of a meme. Probably "that fucking cat" 4chan meme, but that's just a guess. 62.197.169.220 23:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the photo back to Image:TomDeLay.jpg. I went back through the history to when that picture was used previously. It was there with the {{Infobox_politician}} template, which forces the image to 225x250px. Since the image is only 180x220, it's getting stretched to fit, and that's where the graininess was coming from. I concede that this isn't a perfect picture, but it's better than what was there before. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 15:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I thing the Congressional Pictorial Directory looks like a good source of images in the public domain. I haven't found an explicit disavowal of copyright, but the 2nd page of the .pdf edition says "Compiled Under the Direction of the Joint Committee on Printing Trent Lott, Chairman". Looks like work of the Federal government to me, therefore public domain, IMHO. The PDF version is available online. The PDFs could be mined in various ways. However, the images from Congressional Pictorial Directory are also already available as small JPEGs, scattered in each member's entry in the online version the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. DeLay's article. DeLay's photo. It's pretty small (174x214), but not teeny tiny, and it's otherwise high quality, perhaps it (or a capture from the PDF) could be scaled up (or, come to think of it, we fix {{Infobox_politician}} to take an image size parameter if it doesn't already - we've got hundreds of ready-made PD images and hundreds of articles what need 'em...). But whatever y'all think is fine with me... studerby 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think modifying the template to take an image size would be a great idea. I'm not the template mastar by any stretch, but I'll copy it over to a sandbox and give it a go. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've got it. Not nearly as tough as I was expecting. See my comments on that talk page for details. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 17:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, looks as good as that photo's going to look. It would still be good to get a better one somewhere. The newer Congressional Pictorial Directory photo is a crisper and cleaner shot, they did a very good job on the series, but arguably its less flattering to DeLay in particular, kind of an odd expression IMHO. We might want it elsewhere in the 'pedia, but I think the current one is better for the lead photo on the article. I'll keep my eye out for other resources. studerby 20:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been going through the pages that use that template, and there are quite a few with small but nice images being made grainy from the resolution change. I've discovered though, that the template is a generalized form of previously existing templates specific to political office, e.g. {{[[template:Infobox Congressman|Infobox Congressman}}, {{[[template:Infobox Senator|Infobox Senator}}, etc. Those ones thumbnail the images too, but only specify one dimension. I don't know enough about templates and images to fool around with it tonight, but maybe over the weekend. This page should probably use the congressman infobox instead of the politician one. I'll give that a go tomorrow if someone else doesn't beat me to it. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 07:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"congressman infobox"? Drat! I just started using the politician box, but only on 2 or 3 congresscritters so far. Live and learns, I guess. I gotta spend more time skimming the project pages. studerby 08:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't discover it myself until I was going through what links here for Infobox Politician, and found a TfD discussion that its creator put up for Infobox President and others. He had a strange argument, but I guess the infobox does have some value for generic politicians. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 15:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article reads like an attack on the politician. Undue weight and content is provided on negative aspects of this biography, far in excess of any sense of balance. - Amgine 02:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please specify. NatusRoma | Talk 02:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A conservative, DeLay was elected to the House in 1984. He became known as "The Hammer" for his enforcement of party discipline in close votes and his reputation for exacting political retribution on opponents. He was appointed Deputy Minority Whip in 1988 and was elected House Majority Whip in 1995 after helping Newt Gingrich to lead the Republican Revolution. In the 1990s, he helped to start the K Street Project, an effort to pressure lobbying firms to hire Republicans to top positions. He was also a driving force behind President Bill Clinton's impeachment in 1998. DeLay was elected House Majority Leader after the 2002 midterm elections, and was credited in recent years with compelling House Republicans to march in lock step, especially in support of President George W. Bush's agenda.

All elements underlined in this second paragraph are written in a non-neutral manner, and/or are included to provide negative coverage of the gentlman's career in the introduction - giving them undue weight. The balance of the article, likewise, is skewed. - Amgine 03:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight and content is provided on negative aspects of this biography, far in excess of any sense of balance.

Which sections or major parts of sections do you think should be reduced in size, and what sections do you think should be enlarged or added? (You don't need to respond with every instance; four or five examples, if there are that many, would certainly suffice.) Thanks. John Broughton 03:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

All sections should be trimmed; most should be removed completely and/or collapsed. Sections which appear to be completely missing: committees and positions at the State House, committees and positions at the Federal House, current employment/lobby firm?, bills authored at the state level, bills authored at the federal level. You might also look at this wikien-l msg for a very short version of this article. - Amgine 03:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The article does include descriptions of some of DeLay's congressional committee appointments. Please see #DeLay accomplishments for a discussion of the relative absence of meaningful federal legislation authored. I have seen no information on what DeLay has done since leaving Congress. Why should so many of the existing sections be removed? NatusRoma | Talk 03:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that terms such as "enforcement of party discipline", "political retribution", "pressure", "driving force", and "compelling...to march in lock step" are strong words, but I believe that they are born out by the body of the article and by the sources on which it rests. Could you please explain what you feel is unbalanced about the body of the article? NatusRoma | Talk 03:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

They are not neutral; they are in fact interpretive. While you and I may be in agreement as to what the facts mean, it is not our job (nor that of Wikipedia) to interpret those facts, but rather to report them fairly, neutrally, and completely. - Amgine 03:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

All words are in fact interpretive. The facts state that DeLay did all of the things that the article says that he did, for good or for ill. NatusRoma | Talk 03:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I don't recall seeing Republicans "marching in lock step." Although I do know what kinds of images the authors of those words would like the audience to imagine. These terms are not only POV terms, they are partisan talking points. I would prefer interpretive terms like "Delay's job as Majorty Whip was to unify the party's response" rather than DLC talking points like "forcing the caucus to march in lock step." Amgine is correct and the terms in her list are not Neutral. Authors can use interpretive words but they should be neutral in tone. Even if the source is not neutral. Otherwise it is opinion.--Tbeatty 04:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Leadership Council talking points? That's outlandish. I suppose you're right that some readers might take that phrase the wrong way (I didn't write it in the first place), and FAC reviewers have complained about that very sentence on stylistic grounds, so I've changed it to something that neutrally conveys the unprecedented nature of Republican unity during the period in question. NatusRoma | Talk 06:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is no question that language can be improved to make it more NPOV - that's probably true of most articles on active politicians, and there seems to be a constructive discussion going on here about that. More examples, or constructive editing, are certainly helpful.

As for All sections should be trimmed; most should be removed completely and/or collapsed - you seem to be saying that controversies have little or no place in wikipedia articles on politicians. That seems to me a completely different view of what wikipedia articles should be from what is currently the case. As such, I suggest taking it to the talk/discussion page of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, because this article is NOT the best place to discuss general wikipedia policy. And if you think this does not represent a radical change from current wikipedia policy, it would be great if you could point to an article or two where what you want has in fact been done.

As for what is missing, I certainly encourage you to research these and, if interesting, to add them to wikipedia. My experience has been that just requesting others to add the material tends to lead to nothing happening. John Broughton 16:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying "all sections" should be trimmed needs to qualified with what and why. Please post your recommendations here, and examples that sections are POV. It is not simply correct to claim they are POV people offer sources/evidence that they are biased. Arbusto 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Trimming and consoloadating on bios has been around for a while. I have even seen it referenced on an ArbCom decision and they aren't supposed to get involved in content. Namely, sections should not go into "blow by blow" accounts of every controversy. If the controversy is notable enough, it should have it's own article. If it already does have it's own article, just reference it and move on. Otherwise briefly mention it. Article quality suffers greatly when sections get bogged down in excruciating detail that is out of balance with the rest of the article and the subject. --Tbeatty 05:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. All sections I have examined of the article are, uniformly, over-long or not a large enough topic for an encyclopedia to cover at that level of detail. Furthermore, inclusion of, quite literally, more than a dozen POV scandals while not equally covering POV accomplishments/BAU... well, it merely underscores the imbalance of this article.

Controversies should have little or no place in wikipedia articles on politicians. The net result of those controversies has a place on Wikipedia. - Amgine 06:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If the controversy is notable enough, it should have it's own article. If it already does have it's own article, just reference it and move on. Otherwise briefly mention it. Sounds like a wikipedia policy to me - except that I don't know of any policy that states this. Is this your interpretation of what wikipedia should be? Or is this taken from an existing, agreed-upon policy? If the latter, a link would really be appreciated.

Controversies should have little or no place in wikipedia articles on politicians. The net result of those controversies has a place on Wikipedia. Another policy? Again, if so, please cite. And if this is in fact not yet a policy, perhaps this discussion should be taking place at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? John Broughton 13:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course the article should include relevant, sourced facts about Tom DeLay. The tone is suboptimal, but the idea to stub the article down to a bare skeleton, as Amgine suggests in his e-mail, is completely outlandish. NPOV should not be confused with "no POV"; it merely means that opinions and controversial claims need to be attributed and sourced, and must never be linked to Wikipedia itself. As for balance, please see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance.

Biographies about living persons are only special insofar as we must pay close attention to their content; there is no special policy about the inclusion of facts. The core policies that are applicable to all articles apply here as well. And of course that makes perfect sense. After all, an article about a company's products that includes libelous information is just as bad as one about their CEO that does so, and potentially much more harmful to them. The reason we don't have a special policy about companies' products is that most complaints and threats come, understandably, from living persons. It's therefore a matter of prioritization to treat them differently. But we don't sanitize articles to avoid getting into trouble or offending people.--Eloquence* 11:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not true, Eloquence. Living persons have different protections and rights from products, for starters. In some states, for example, it is theoretically possible for a person to require Wikipedia to remove any article about them unless they qualify as a public person under their judicial tests. Such a comparison is particular simplistic, and troubling from you especially.

Stubbish articles are not preferred on Wikipedia, but they have two primary benefits: They do not foreclose future actions by the subject, and they avoid disputes - within and without the community. Wikipedia will be around far longer than the subjects of the articles; let future wikipedians decide the fate of these articles when they can be viewed dispassionately as distant history. - Amgine 04:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So far, the only policy I've seen cited here is by Eloquence, regarding space and balance, which does NOT support statements such as let future wikipedians decide the fate of these articles when they can be viewed dispassionately as distant history. I will say again, since there has been no response to date - why don't you either cite wikipedia POLICY that supports your beliefs about removing sourced information about controversial matters, or take the discussion to the policy page on biographies of living persons, where you can attempt to convince the entire wikipedian community of the validity of your arguments? John Broughton 12:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Kevin Baas^talk 16:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think, instead, I will stop dealing with en.wp-related legal inquiries. I'm sure en.wp will be happy to provide volunteers to cover those queues and inquiries (who will then come try to talk to people who will tell them they won't removed obvious bias in content, and they'll quit too...) - Amgine 18:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP quotes:

• Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
• The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
• The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material.

- Amgine 18:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And one more:

Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted in a commonsense way to achieve the purpose of the policy or help dispute resolution. - WP:LAWYER - Amgine 19:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think "so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material." is putting the cart before the horse. What would the article on science be if the material was not written in a manner that overwhelms the article with the idea that it's based on empirical evidence or didn't appear to side with the presumption that unfalsifiable claims have no logical validity? Kevin Baas^talk 17:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawal from ballot

A document from the office of the Texas Secretary of State date September 6, 2006 doesn't list DeLay's name as a candidate for the general election for District 22, which means that he withdrew from the ballot.[5] NatusRoma | Talk 05:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the article. The legal battle was over whether the Republicans could select someone to replace DeLay on the ballot; they lost that. But DeLay was able to get his name OFF the ballot, which will help the Republicans, who are now doing a write-in. John Broughton 18:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm making a distinction between the strict decision of the court in the court case, and the results of the more metaphorical "court battle", which is the language that the article uses. NatusRoma | Talk 04:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There should be some mention that Shelley Sekula-Gibbs did win a special election to fill DeLay's unexpired term. As of this moment (12/18/2006), she is technically a member of the House of Representatives, serving Delay's Texas district. Her term expires when Lampson is sworn in next month. 66.158.35.253 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Domestic and foreign policy sections

I have thought for some time now that the "Domestic policy" and "Foreign policy" sections (particularly the former) depend on a patchwork of votes and ratings instead of a synthesized narrative. I would appreciate anyone adding content or sources that provide a more complete picture of DeLay's views. NatusRoma | Talk 04:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brent Wilkes

I think someone should add a paragraph about DeLay's connections to Brent Wilkes, if I remember correctly, was one of the biggest beneficiaries of campaign contributions from Wilkes and figures prominently in the investigation of Wilkes.

I've looked into it a bit ([6], [7], [8]), and it looks like Brent's real connections were with ASG (in addition, of course, to his connections with Duke Cunningham). It doesn't seem like there's enough information about a specific relationship between Wilkes and DeLay for this article to mention anything. Yes, Wilkes let DeLay use his jet (paying Wilkes the required costs), and yes, Earle subpoenaed Wilkes, but the sum of the information is simply too circumstantial. NatusRoma | Talk 06:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texas money laundering scandal template?

How about creating a template (like the one in the Abramoff and Cunningham scandals) containing those charged in connection with TRMPAC? DeLay, Colyandro, Eliis, Robold and possibly others I might have forgotten? I mean even if the trials are still pending, it is gonna be a lot of attention when they do commence and a template like that could improve the quality of information, as it has done in the aforementioned cases.

What is with the cyberdemon picture?

[edit] the truth

This article makes Tom DeLay, a Senator who would win the Most Corrupt Man in Politics award, look like just a regular old Senetor, even one who made improvemennts to our Constitution. HE IS NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE. There is a major difference beetween hurting someone's feelings and withholding the truth. It makes the horrible crime he commited seem like a tiny flaw in a holy man. It also makes it seem like impeaching Clinton was a high and noble deed, even though no one died when he lied, whereas thousands have died because of Bush's lies. This man was a criminal, not an angel. 24.14.33.61 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Erik Baker 1/3/07

Well, that's your opinion. In the meanwhile, get your facts straight. DeLay was in the House of Representatives, not in the Senate. I agree with your viewpoint, he seems to withhold the truth, BUT it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Save the political rants for your own personal blog or user page, please.crazyviolinist 03:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem a bit unhinged. To what crime are you referring? DeLay is not being implicated in the Abramhoff scandal, it looks like it really was just his aides, and the money laundering charges really do seem politically motivated. As far as I know no one indicted has actually been convicted of anything related to TRMPAC.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Criminal

Does anyone else think that Infobox Criminal is a bit of a NPOV violation? They fact that it says "Still at large" is ridiculous. Plus, any article with two similar infoboxes seems over the top (as Infobox Criminal and Infobox Congressperson [or whatever its title is] appear similar). Other thoughts on this? --Daysleeper47 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any idea on this, but "Still at large" sounds ridiculous, and I'm a liberal. He was arrested, and is free on bail. It should be more like "awaiting trial" or "free pending trial" or some variant of those statements. crazyviolinist 19:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the box into "free on bail, pending trial." Thanks! Wooyi 19:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Vandalism

Has anyone looked at the article's history recently? There's been a lot of vandalism to this site ever since the protection template was removed. Just this morning, I removed a doctored photo of DeLay from the site. I suggest reenabling protection. Any thoughts on this idea? crazyviolinist 14:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary should have read on vandalism, not of. Sorry. crazyviolinist 14:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I also think this article should be protected. Since Crazyviolinist posted this, only 3 edits out of 10-15 have not been vandalism (ignoring the reverts) and the vast majority of edits since unprotection have been vandalism or reverting vandalism.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 01:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to video of Delay speaking about his book

I believe that this video adds to the value of the article and should be published in the external links section

Tom Delay Discusses his book No Retreat, No Surrender: One American's Fight 3/20/2007

--Uschris 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

An excellent, well-written article. I do have a few suggestions though: The article should be a bit shorter (perhaps split-off long sections), simultaneously reducing the table of contents. The article has a few minor edit wars (due to his notability), but good enough for GA. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)