Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:20, 10 September 2009

Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

United States: South Carolina Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject South Carolina.

U.S. Congress Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Joe Wilson (American politician) received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Official bio

Born and raised in Charleston, Addison (Joe) Graves Wilson considers it a great honor to represent the Second Congressional District of South Carolina. He is a graduate of the High School of Charleston, Washington & Lee University, and the University of South Carolina School of Law. After settling down in West Columbia, Wilson became a founding partner of the law firm Kirkland, Wilson, Moore, Taylor & Thomas.

Since being elected to Congress in December 2001, Wilson has worked hard to promoting peace through a strong national defense, ensuring that every child in America receives a high-quality education, and urging personal responsibility through limited government. He currently serves on the House Armed Services Committee, Education & Workforce Committee, Policy Committee and International Relations Committee. Addtionally, he is the co-chair of the Congressional Caucuses on Bulgaria and Mongolia. In the 108th Congress, he served as the co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, the largest country caucus on Capitol Hill.

From participating as a teenage republican to serving in the halls of the U.S. House of Representatives, Wilson has dedicated much of his life to public service. He began his career as a member on the staffs of South Carolina legends Senator Strom Thurmond and Congressman Floyd Spence. He also worked in the visionary Ronald Reagan administration as Deputy General Counsel for the United States Department of Energy Secretary and served under former South Carolina Governor, Jim Edwards. Wilson was proud to serve in the South Carolina State Senate with perfect attendance for 17 years.

Throughout his life, Wilson has strongly supported the U.S. military. From 1972 – 1975, he served in the United States Army Reserves. After serving as a Staff Judge Advocate in the South Carolina Army National Guard for over 31 years, he retired from military service in 2003.

Joe and his wife Roxanne are the proud parents of four sons, three of whom serve in the U.S. military. Alan, his oldest son, is a Captain in the Army National Guard; Add is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and is now an Ensign attending Uniform Services Medical School; Julian is a recent graduate of Clemson University and is a Second Lieutenant in the Army National Guard, and Hunter currently attends Airport High School. He also has two grandsons.

I can confirm that the above was contributed by someone from Congressman Wilson's office. I think they did a wonderful thing by asking me first how they might improve the bio we have. I suggested they post to the talk page, and they did. Let's return the goodwill and improve the article! :-)--Jimbo Wales 22:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Got all that, and now I found this. Need his official U.S. (public domain) photo first. I would rather use the cute photo with his wife and newborn grandson on his website, but no perms for that. --James S. 05:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm finished; maybe a constituent should give him another pass now. I hope someone can get permission to put this photo in the Family section. --James S. 06:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's what the page looked like when Emily posted here, for comparison. In excellent Misplaced Pages fashion, all the original statements have survived in the expanded version. --James S. 08:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversial statements

In the course of finding a source to verify the 2002 controversy, I came across a few others and added the most recent, along with its news source. I think they both give some insight into the person, and both very clearly illustrate the boundaries of political polarization in modern America. They were both considered newsworthy and widely reported, and I guess that together they are legitimately encyclopedic. I suspect that Wilson would prefer that the 2002 controversy be omitted, since he later apologized for those remarks, but I think that one says more about his personality as a staunch defender of the military. The 2005 controversy is really just acerbic partisan bickering from a veteran's advocate standpoint. I'm going to leave both of them in, since the rest of the article reads glowingly like an advertisement. Two controversial statements really highlight the real humanity of the person, as well as fully illustrating the partisan polarization of the times. I hope Emily doesn't mind much, and hope she and her boss appreciates all the other improvements. --James S. 09:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sons in the military

Watching the Pentagon Channel Rep. Wilson said he has "four sons in the military." I guess this means his youngest, Hunter Taylor Wilson, is no longer in high school and is in the military. Couldn't find confirmation. --ProdigySportsman 02:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Tags, copy edits

This article is a mess. I've added some tags, and made copy edits. More to come. I'm going to remove some obviously impossible information, as noted above Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rahm Emanuel's name is misspelled. Has an extra M. Datorarbet (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yelling "You Lie" at President Obama's health care speech

Please don't add this until it is reported on by reliable sources, and satisfies WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP requirements. — Mike :  tlk  01:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the AP not reliable? StealthCopyEditor (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

CNN said it, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/09/joe.wilson/index.html Skiendog (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

page should be protected99.241.95.241 (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been reported by the AP: 66.253.36.17 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Page is already getting vandalized, and I'm sure this page is going to have quite a few more views after this. Definitely needs to be protected. BrainDance (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been reported by the AP and sourced by other media. The page should definitely be protected. Vote (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is another one of those "man bites dog" type of news stories. Generally, I would say that Misplaced Pages is not news, and therefore not every single utterance by a member of congress is notable enough for inclusion. But, this is probably going to get significant RS coverage, so if it's included we definitely need to be mindful of how it is presented. This is no different than many of the audience heckler incidents during the August town hall meetings. Where do you draw the line? If the House of Representatives decides to take formal action on this matter, that would make it more notable. This was an official session of Congress, and behavior like this is prohibited by House rules.DCmacnut<> 01:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is prohibited by the house rules it should be mentioned in the article. Can you find a reference? Reliefappearance (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Basic Training: Decorum & Civility in the House

Until the 109th Congress, it was not in order to make certain references to the Senate or individual senators. However, at the beginning of that Congress, the House removed the prohibition on making references to the Senate, leaving only the requirement that debate be confined to the question under debate and avoid “personality.” The precedents of the House allow a wide latitude in criticism of the President, other executive officials, and the government itself. However, it is not permissible to use language that is personally offensive to the President, such as referring to him as a “hypocrite” or a “liar.” Similarly, it is not in order to refer to the President as “intellectually dishonest” or an action taken by the President as “cowardly.” References to the Vice President, in spite of his role as President of the Senate, are measured against the standard used for the President rather than prior standards used to govern the Senate.

75.87.130.48 (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

QUOTE: "This is another one of those "man bites dog" type of news stories." Right. We aren't talking about illiterate racist teabaggers shouting in a town hall, we're talking about a sitting U.S. Congressman screaming at a sitting U.S. President during a joint session of Congress on national television. When, in your entire life, has ANY Congressman from ANY party had the audicity to do such a thing to a sitting president in a joint session of Congress? Answer - NEVER.

There's no way to know whether this is WP:RECENT (and thus a WP:BLP violation) right now. When I said that it wasn't properly sourced, I was referring to when people were trying to cite it with the text of a health care bill, using the reference as a "this is why he's wrong" type of thing. Not appropriate for wikipedia. I'm fine leaving it how it is, and I am personally outraged by the remark but that has nothing to do with wikipedia policies. — Mike :  tlk  01:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The president said we should call these people out, that quote with reference to the healthcare bill should be restored so when ignorant people come to this site they know he was lying. Are you going to ignore a presidential order?? --174.116.88.173 (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Also reliable news sources confirmed that Joe Wilson called Obama a liar, as least the reference linked to the AP should be restored. If you do not restore it you are admitting wikipedia is biased. --174.116.88.173 (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson called the President of the United States a liar. He was heard saying "you lie" as the President was explaining his health care goals. I think Joe Wilson is a poor excuse for a politician that he cannot respectfully disagree or come up with a better idea for improving health care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.193.28 (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If people don't think that this is probably the most significant utterance of this moron's career, they are delusional.Slagathor (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is different than a heckler at a political rally. The man is a US Congressman! This shout is of historic importance. Literally calling the President of the US a liar during a joint session of Congress is behavior that is, to my knowledge, completely without precedent. Anybody who argues that this event is insignificant is either being disingenuous or has completely deluded himself.RickDesper (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Rick

Fox News has confirmed this was Joe Wilson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.158.53.2 (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The line about whether or not illegal aliens will be covered that is cited by factcheck should be removed. There is serious debate about whether illegals will benefit from the healthcare bill due to a lack of an enforcement mechanism placed in the text of the statute. Although there is no provision "providing" coverage for illegals, the comment the representative made could be in response to the non enforcement problem. Onefinalstep (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Care to provide sources that meet WP:RS?--kizzle (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A third party analysis about the claim of illegal immigrants being covered under H.R. 3200 is here: http://www.cis.org/IllegalsAndHealthCareHR3200 and the text of the proposed amendment (which was defeated by the Democrats) is here: http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Heller_Amdt_Text.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.162.175 (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So because you feel illegals will illegally cheat the system to benefit then that makes Obama a liar. No fact check reference needs to be used. It should be linked directly to the HC bill where it states no money will be spent on illegals. That reference should be restored as it helps stop the lies that keep going around and shows how Joe Wilson is a liar.--174.116.88.173 (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't "feel" anything. What I am arguing is that the line is unnecessary and political in nature. "Was Obama actually lying" is not a question that Misplaced Pages should try to answer. If you want create a main page about the controversy and hash it out there. Whether or not Illegals will get help from the bill is something which is debatable.

Wrong. Misplaced Pages is not the forum to debate the accuracy or otherwise of the proposal. Misplaced Pages is simply reporting the fact that Joe Wilson insulted the office of the president of the USA in prime time by unprecedentedly calling him a liar during an address to the joint session of congress.Merlin1935 (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Onefinalstep (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, care to provide sources that meet WP:RS about illegals getting help?--kizzle (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure how about Reuters "Health Care Bill Could Benefit 6.6 Million Illegals" Onefinalstep (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Read the actual source they are quoting more carefully. It specifically states that: "...HR 3200 states that illegal immigrants are not eligible for the proposed taxpayer-funded affordable premium credits"; its figures are speculative based on the supposition that illegal immigrants could get coverage anyway. In other words, the link you cited reinforces Obama's claims and discredits Wilson's objection. --Aquillion (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The results of the study are indeed speculative, but (this is argument here) considering the Democrats refused to amend the bill to enforce the provisions against illegal immigrants it is possible that the loophole is intentional and therefore the President knows that illegals will get a benefit at the same time he is telling the joint session that no benefit is going to come from the bill. All I'm saying is that there is a real debate about this and if one side of the debate is going to be allowed into this section on this representatives bio page the other should as well. But I would hope that this debate would take place somewhere else. Perhaps we could all agree to link off the page for considerations on the veracity of the statements made by both parties during this exchange. Onefinalstep (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson shouted out "you lie." He did not make any claims except that Obama was lying. About exactly what he thought Obama was lying about is not really clear. Onefinalstep (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is clear to the reliable source references that the congressman claimed the president was lying about no coverage for illegals. Edison (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think if the President makes a statement that is in accordance with the plain text of the bill in question, it is reasonable for Misplaced Pages to note that and not fall back to a "some say that the world is flat" position. Whether illegal aliens "benefit" by violating the law is hardly relevant. That is an absurdly low standard to justify the accusation that Obama was lying. RickDesper (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Rick

Obama was lying - here's the proof: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-26-2009/0005083496&EDATE The non-partisan Congressional Research has found that illegal immigrants can receive benefits under the House health care bill. "CRS also confirms FAIR's assessment that the House bill does not include a mechanism to prevent illegal aliens from receiving "affordability credits" that would subsidize the purchase of private health insurance. CRS specifically noted the absence "of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure." Because the language is ambiguous, all CRS could reasonably conclude is that any eligibility determination would be the responsibility of the Health Choices Commissioner."

Again, this is not the forum to discuss the accuracy or otherwise of the proposal.Merlin1935 (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no final bill.Reliefappearance (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some comments on this page by people who don't understand the facts. The Congressman was attempting to correct Obama's lie. Good thing he was there to speak truth to power EconExpert (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC) The problem is if anyonne read the bill they know Joe Wilson is lying. --174.116.88.173 (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The only argument more dubious than that of Joe Wilson is the suggestion that the joint session of Congress is the venue to "speak truth to power" by heckling insults at the president. You must realize that in our system the office must always be respected regardless of your opinion of the occupant of the office. Even Obama's predecessors who repeatedly lied from the same podium did not deserve such. If you want to preserve your democracy then you must hold certain things sacred regardless of your personal disagreements. If you cannot imagine the anarchy that would result if disagreements at presidential addresses are responded to in that fashion, then you do not deserve to live in a democracy. Try relocating to a dictatorship country.Merlin1935 (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson has apologized: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/09/wilson-apologizes-i-let-my-emotions-get-the-best-of-me/ 69.150.95.247 (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

He did not apologize. He still insists the president was lying. And no matter what your opinion is, if the bill says illegals cannot sign up, that makes it illegal for illegals to sign up. Saying a politician is a liar because he can't personally enforce the law on everyone at the same time all the time is a pretty big joke. The bill outlaws it, that is how law works. Enforcement is a completely different matter. The courts handle fraud. If you don't like it, then you would be against the entire US legal system. In the end, it just sounds like congress who has the ability to make bills is trying to blame the president for a lack of immigration enforcement and law enforcement. These are issues that are the responsibility of the congress to legislate. It's laughable for congress to criticize the president for their own failure on immigration enforcement. What is really sad is immigration reform is the next issue Obama wants to push into congresses lap. In august he said he wanted immigration reform by the end of the year. Why is it that republicans are blaming Obama for existing problems they had not cared to fix in the past 8 years? Obama hasn't been president for a year and he is getting health care reformed and next wants immigration reform. Congress is attacking Obama on issues congress failed on and on issues Obama is intending to fix. The health care bill goes into effect in 4 years and Obama wants immigration reform before the end of this year. Wow, just make the immigration bill go into effect before the health care bill. In conclusion, leaving out the cite of the factual info Wilson claimed was a lie wouldn't make any sense. The issue Obama was talking about that Wilson shouted about needs to be cited. You can cite the info without state who is right. And it is very important to include a link to the house rules against calling the president a liar and the apology Wilson gave. All the info should be cited in order for people to understand it. Leaving any one piece out makes the story incomplete. 75.87.130.48 (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This statement needs to be removed "But according to recent media reports, there have been studies showing that up to 6.6 million illegal immigrants could benefit from the new federal healthcare proposals." it is biased hearsay and does not belong in a wiki. --174.116.88.173 (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The key problem with those, like Wilson, saying that Obama is lying is that the text of his proposal has not been released yet. All we know about it is what the president himself said during the speech. Regardless of whether or not other Democratic proposals would cover illegal immigrants (a point that seems pretty well debunked), there's not yet any substantive reason to think that Obama's proposal would do so. -- H·G (/_works) 02:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just state the basic facts about what happened: Wilson yelled out "you lie" after the President said "x." There is no need to debate whether or not either person is correct. Statements made my McCain and Wilson after the event seem reasonable to be included as well.

Absolutely. The debate on accuracy or justification of the insult does not belong here. Simply report the insult as it occurred.Merlin1935 (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not quite right. Perhaps wikipedia can be quiet if no further public discussion ensued, but if, say the NYTimes, Fox News, CNN and the BBC all state that one side of the disagreement was correct (doesn't matter which one), we'd have to note that. It's not our job to do original research, but we need to reflect debate/opinion among credible sources about which statements were true. JustinBlank (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Merlin. The article is about Joe Wilson, not about the bill. Of course, it is appropriate to mention what Rep Wilson was referring to when he had his outburst, but the merits of that bill, or what group may or may not be covered by that bill, do not belong here. Look, I don't like the President's policies, either, and believe this health mess is a terrible execution of a decent idea, but that is not the content of THIS article.68.36.51.89 (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Onefinalstep (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, "Fellow Congressmen shouted their disapprovals at Wilson's outburst" is ungrammatical, and should be corrected to "Fellow Congressmen shouted their disapproval at Wilson's outburst."BillyDinPVD (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Which one of you assholes keeps deleting the reference that Joe Wilson called Obama a liar during Obmaa's speech??? It is funny how republican moderators on here love to hid facts. --174.116.88.173 (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about. There is an entire section devoted to the topic. You need to assume good faith and read the article. — Mike :  tlk  03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Requesting removal of the sentence "However, on August 26, 2009, the Washington Examiner cited a Congressional Research Service report which found that illegal immigrants would be allowed to participate in the health care exchange outlined in HR 3200, and thus would be eligible for coverage under the "public plan." " The linked Washington Examiner page is clearly marked "opinion" and does not meet WP:RS. — Scottforbes (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This edit section should be about, strictly, whether or not to include the incident (it is well documented that it occurred and was him who vocalized) and to what capacity. Since many, many people will be coming to this wiki page to learn about him and the incident, it is responsible to avoid pejoratives and if anything, link to a section in health care reform in the u.s. (a non-existent section, so far) that discusses the issue of illegal immigrants and health care. This talk page is not a comment section for discussing the validity of his questioning of Obama's validity. It's simple: 'The Congressman yelled "you lie" during Obama's joint session speech, attracting much media attention. he was responding to Obama's remark that illegal immigrants will not be covered under his proposed plan. Congressman apologized soon after.' Isn't that enough for now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.44.120 (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone has inserted this sentence into the piece: "Within hours of the speech, several online news outlets, including the conservative Redstate blog, reported a surge in financial contributions for the Congressman's 2010 Democratic political challenger, Rob Miller." Three footnotes follow. Only one (about two short paragraphs from a blog) supports the statement there was 'a surge in financial contributions' for the incumbent's challenger -- and even then the 'surge' consisted of $11,000. This statement regarding fundraising needs to be better-sourced or removed. MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten this, and added a single better source. The total now stands at over $50,000 raised in the hours since the speech, according to The Nation. Obviously this will need to be updated, but it's a lot more than $11,000. MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, as of my writing, the contributions have totaled over $100,000, which more than doubles his current take. I think that's signifigant enough to warrant mention. --Bfigura 14:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggest to Protect this page

After what just happened. --VertigoOne (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A Concern for Recentism

Should we be waiting at least a day or so rather than within the hour to post this info or should we be putting it up immediately? --kizzle (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's correctly cited from a reliable source, then what's the difference?VatoFirme (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, really. If Misplaced Pages had existed on November 22, 1963, would people really want to wait a couple of weeks to report that the president had been assassinated?Slagathor (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Reporting on an event and including it in an encyclopedia are two vastly different things. --kizzle (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You're joking, right? I defy you to find any human being who agrees with you on that... MAN LANDS ON MOON... oh wait... wikipedia calls that news.Slagathor (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, no I'm not joking. They're two entirely different things. I don't need to find a human being, I just need Misplaced Pages policy -- Misplaced Pages:NOT#NEWS. I'm actually of the opinion that this should be included given the subsequent press coverage, but I think my initial concern for recentism considering the cited policy was a valid one. Like I said, though, for a majority of reasons, WP policy is of a different opinion than your claim. --kizzle (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that if one week from now nobody cares (and none of us can see into the future), it is just the controversy of the evening and not encyclopedia worthy — Mike :  tlk  02:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

nice try, but this is probably the first time in the last 100 years at least that any member of congress has called the President a liar on the floor of the house. It will be remembered forever.Slagathor (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

IF down the line the coverage is excessive, it will be reduced. However, I see this controversy as continuing, and at least the mention of the incident will almost certainly always be notable enough to keep. JEN9841 (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, I just hope it doesn't balloon into a giant section. --kizzle (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is perhaps the most noted thing this congressman has done, in terms of national and international coverage. Thus it should have appropriate coverage in the bio article about him. It should be an important part of the article, but should not dominate the article. It only needs so many words, and it only needs so many references. Edison (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a controversial statement, and controversies get lots of coverage. But, this is a more appropriate gauge.— Mike :  tlk  03:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The first, and many other entries in your preferred "gauge" is about former Ambassador Joe Wilson, the husband of Valerie Plame. Try again. At this early point in coverage of the shout-out, there are 329 Google News entries for ' "Joe Wilson" "you lie" congressman "south carolina" '. The Google News archive does not yet include the shout-out news stories. In Google News Archive, ' "joe wilson" congressman "south carolina" ' gets 1620 news articles, covering his entire career. So early on, his outburst gets 20% as much coverage as his career got up to that point. Edison (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. My point is not that this event is unimportant, but that it's a terrible idea to want to add an event to Misplaced Pages 12 minutes after it occurred. This virtually ensures that the story will be only partially developed. — Mike :  tlk  03:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, volunteer editors at Misplaced Pages are able to edit the article and keep it up to date as more sources become available, and we do not have to wait some long period of time until all sources have published all they are going to publish about the subject and the final version is enshrined in the history books, before we cover it in Misplaced Pages. Edison (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. See you in six weeks. We'll see if two words define this guy's life in the long term. — Mike :  tlk  07:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

as he is up for re-election, yes, it will be interesting. It will be the entire focus of the campaign.Slagathor (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This question tends to come up with major recent event. To my knowledge, there's no decision. Articles on recent school shootings are sometimes AfD'd and then speedily kept with great furor. A basic argument against immediate updates seems to be that encyclopedias don't do that, but this is clearly unsatisfactory: encyclopedias have generally been on paper, the first thing to go by such a metric would be the "edit this page" button, and if you ask me, discarding content for the sake of gaining prestige is a sure way to lose both. Unfortunately little discussion seems to have taken place just for the sake of wikiphilosophy: it usually happens on article talk pages when the inclusion of something is contested, so it tends to be partisan and loud. I'm up for probing the issue on our user talk pages if you are, but you must know that I'm increasingly erratic in answering. --Kizor 11:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Kizor I agree with you. I think the speed at which Misplaced Pages aggregates information is one of it's strengths. I just think recentism is a helpful reminder to consider what deserves a page or not, and in this case I do think it deserves a page. --kizzle (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

It is currently against wikipedia policy to have a controversy section in any article. In the past few weeks there has been a concerted effort to eliminate them in high traffic articles. Controversy sections quickly become a coatracks section for highly biased information and NPOV material. Information needs to be weaved into the rest of the body of the article. EricLeFevre (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would you want wikipedia to be like a paper encyclopedia that only contains old information? The beauty of wikipedia is that new things can be added quickly. It's a joke to suggest current things shouldn't be put onto wikipedia pages. 75.87.130.48 (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not what we're saying here. Ten seconds after some story like this breaks, it seems to be the most important thing in the person's life. People jumped on this article immediately after the AP reporter filed with the name of the person who shouted, and it's a fair bet that the majority of them knew nothing about the topic, other than the recent event. There is absolutely no way anyone has a sense for what the proper WP:WEIGHT should be for this subtopic in the long term, especially if the only thing they know about Joe Wilson is this one thing. You may say that we can trim it down over time, but it is against wikipedia policy to give too much weight to a particular view, especially if it is a critical one. Even in the short term, we must adhere to WP:BLP, and that means erring on the side of caution when considering whether it's relevant to add how quickly he left the house chamber, or how long it took for his webpage to crash. — Mike :  tlk  07:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is getting really lame. That's from the Misplaced Pages to try to become more lame policy that apparently has been recently enacted.Slagathor (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Eric, the section belongs under the section on his term as a member of the US House.Reliefappearance (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you name the policy? I see these sections all the time. Anyway, an easy solution is to title the section "Heckled the President" or some such thing. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed the section title to "Shouting "You lie!" during Obama address" but someone promptly reverted the it to the noninformative "Controversy." Is there a consensus for the more specific title "Shouting 'You lie!' during Obama address?" Edison (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Since "Controversy" is out, why not: "Outburst During Joint Session of Congress." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefinalstep (talk • contribs) 03:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, wait - what policy? There are whole articles dedicated to "controversies," banning the word seems counterproductive. Could you give a link so that we could see what's been banned and when? --Kizor 06:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, the Controversy section is not out. We have someone editing the article who is not reading the talk page.Reliefappearance (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The old section heading, (old as in 20 minutes ago) was good. Words like 'outburst', 'conniption' are all POV. The section heading is staying '2009 Presidential Address' though I would prefer just weaving it into the existing section about his current term in Congress.EricLeFevre (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I felt conniption was an amusing term but ultimately has no place in this context.Reliefappearance (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, no one is removing information, it is just a learned experience that controversy sections are a magnet for NPOV material and such. It is not lame, it is just good editing. Go browse various high traffic articles about political figures and you will not find controversy sections anywhere in them.EricLeFevre (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of this policy change. I apologize for my disruptive edits. (And yes I was not keeping up with the talk page.) JEN9841 (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

They were good faith edits, not disruptive. Just a misunderstanding. Reliefappearance (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In the worldwide news sources covering Obama's address and the Wilson input, they have called it "shouting," "an outburst" or "heckling." We might choose one of these as a descriptor in the section, rather than the noninformative and unencyclopedic "controversy." Edison (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You could add that he has been historically called a "wussy" by colleagues next to the apology, which adds to the character of his remarks and quick backtrack.SCGamecock3k (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It should most certainly be "Heckling during Presidential address", now it sounds like he made a Presidential address in the role of President of some institution. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference on House rules

From http://www.rules.house.gov/POP/house_comm_dec.htm, "Decorum in the House and in Committees":

Decorum in the House and in Committees

Under clause 1(a)(1) of Rule XI .... Members should comport themselves with the rules of decorum and debate in the House and in Committees specifically with regard to references to the President of the United States as stated in Section 370 of the House Rules and Manual.
As stated in Cannon’s Precedents, on January 27, 1909, the House adopted a report in response to improper references in debate to the President. That report read in part as follows:
"It is... the duty of the House to require its Members in speech or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will permit the House to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without unnecessarily and unduly exciting animosity among its Members or antagonism from those other branches of the Government with which the House is correlated."
...
Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:

• refer to the government as "something hated, something oppressive."
• refer to the President as "using legislative or judicial pork."
• refer to a Presidential message as a "disgrace to the country."
• refer to unnamed officials as "our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs."

Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:

• call the President a "liar."
• call the President a "hypocrite."

...

Section 370 of Jefferson’s Manual states that the rule in Parliament prohibiting Members from "speak{ing} irreverently or seditiously against the King" has been interpreted to prohibit personal references against the President. In addition, Speakers of the House have consistently reiterated, and the House has voted, to support the proposition that it is not in order in debate to engage in personalities toward the President.

Of course, it would be WP:OR to state that Wilson broke the rule, until and unless the House decides that he did. But it would not be OR to simply say what the rule states. » Swpb 04:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It might still be undue weight to mention the decorum rules angle, but it's no longer original research. Washington Post quotes an unnamed congressman speculating that the House rules had been broken by Wilson.

--Alecmconroy (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Numerous pundits online and elsewhere have pointed out that heckling is common in the British House of Commons. It is therefore useful to note for general reference that while loud heckling does indeed occur in that body, an accusation of lying in the way done by Joe Wilson causes a stop in proceedings by the Speaker; the member who made the accusation is immediately asked to withdraw the remark, and if they do not, they are immediately suspended from the Parliament until they agree to apologize.

--Datorarbet (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Can noone read? t says during debate. This was a speech by the president, not debate, and this is why there is some talk about changing the rules.--Die4Dixie (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of vandalism

Just wanted to issue a heads-up that I am reverting several pieces of blatant vandalism ("adickmove," "first class jerk," etc.) and want to declare my belief that these actions fall under exemptions from the three-revert rule. If anyone takes issue, please discuss here. shultzc (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the page is protected from IP and new editors, you should take the time to report vandals to WP:AN/I. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Third sentence under "Presidential address" is sourced to a link of an article by the Washington Examiner describing that Obama's healthcare plan also covers illegal immigrants. There are two problems with this. The first problem is that what is annotated in the Misplaced Pages page incorrectly quoted Rep. Henry Waxman as stating that illegal immigrants would have coverage under a public plan. This is incorrect--the 'Health Insurance Exchange' was brainstormed to allow those who wanted a private insurance plan to get it by participating in the Exchange in which the government contracts with various private companies to provide services with competitive prices and quality. Under the Exchange, illegal immigrants will have to find and pay for private insurance--just as they have to right now and had to in the past--but they are not given access to a public plan. The second problem is that the Washington Examiner article itself incorrectly analyzed the Exchange plan, as well as the representative who they were quoting. Wilson has already apologized, but still believed Obama is a liar. lol 69.235.161.177 (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Presidential address

Even though I strongly disagree with what this man did. I do not believe this event should be include is his article. It's completely redundant. Anyone can view this story on any news station in the US and UK. I vote for this to be removed from this article. Dumaka (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are joking right? This is incredibly significant as nothing like this has happened during a presidential speech in over 100 years. As far as "Anyone can view this story on any news station in the US and UK," since when is that the deciding factor for information to be included in Misplaced Pages? Tgpaul58 (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Rep. Wilson's outburst is now historical fact. It is significant in that he is the first to do what he did. If this wikipedia is to be of any significance in its existence, then it should not delete facts just because the are politically incorrect for some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.74.70 (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Being the first to do something is not an indicator of significance, or for that matter an indicator that content is appropriate for inclusion in a biography of a living person. This is not the Guiness Book of World Records. Please read the specific policy: WP:BLP if you have any question regarding what is appropriate to include in an article of this type, and how much weight is appropirate for criticisms. — Mike :  tlk  14:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that reporting on the incident is a criticism. It's now on the NYTimes front page, so sourcing shouldn't be a concern. And given the NYTimes article (along with a number of others) mention that behavior of this sort is literally without precedent, it would appear to be notable. Regarding BLP or BLP1E, they don't say that negative events can't be included, merely that they shouldn't be given undue weight, and that we shouldn't create an overwhelmingly negative article based on someone who's only known for one thing. Given that presidential address part is merely a subsection of an article on a sitting congressman, I don't see a problem. --Bfigura 14:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

While his comment was accurate, it was made at such a poor choice of locations and times that it will be a, if not the, defining moment of his career. Honestly, outside of people in/from SC, how many people knew of this Congressman before last night, compared to how many know him today?68.36.51.89 (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What he did is not new to U.S. history. So please, Dems, tone down the hyperbole. Did you even hear of the treatment given the great Republican Charles Sumner, getting almost beat to death on the floor by a slimy Dem? Or slimy Dems booing Bush during his speeches??? It is a small incident that will fade into history. Also, there are arguments to be made that illegal immigrants might be covered by the House bill. Obama does not have a bill. Also, this may or may not be the defining moment of Wilson's career. Try to provide some kind of balance, please.--InaMaka (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Bloat

I think most of us were of the consensus to include what Wilson said, at what point in the speech he said it, his apology, and maybe a John McCain mention in there. Can we all agree that the debate over whether or not the bill allows illegal immigrants to be covered should be covered on the bill's page, not Wilson's? --kizzle (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed South Carolina articles
• Unknown-importance South Carolina articles
• WikiProject South Carolina articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Start-Class U.S. Congress articles
• Mid-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• Old requests for peer review