Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:35, 19 September 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barney Frank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States 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 the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government 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 This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

And more sources

• Barney Frank: Frankly Speaking

• Barney Frank honored for 20 years as out congressman

For when this POV edit-warring ends. -- Banjeboi 12:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Partner status

How come his partner status isn't listed in his profile? You know, like if he were straight. From the masses to the masses, let's embody that in terms of equality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.53.121 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the infobox? I'm not sure if spouses/partners are listed. -- Banjeboi 08:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

I disagree with the last sentence of the first ¶ to the effect that Congressman Frank's House Financial Services Committee oversees the "housing and banking industries." I believe it would be more accurate to refer to the "mortgage and banking industries," since that committee deals with federal laws regarding both bank and non-bank mortgages, as well as stock and bond brokerage and a host of other Wall Street functions (not to exclude CBT and non-NYC mutual funds—big wave to Ned Johnson here). Dick Kimball (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I clarified to "oversees the entire financial services industry, including the securities, insurance, banking, and housing industries." from our article on the committee. -- Banjeboi 08:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible sources

• 10 Things You Didn't Know About Barney Frank By Debra Bell, US News and World Report, March 27, 2009 - Some good early life, early career bits.

• Washington at Work; Barney Frank's Public and Private Lives: Lonely Struggle for Coexistence MICHAEL ORESKES, New York Times, September 15, 1989. Ditto.

• A former aide has written a biography called Barney Frank: The Story of America's Only Left-Handed, Gay, Jewish Congressman. It will be published later this year.

• Frank was active in the Mississippi Freedom Summer of 1964 - in support of voter registration for blacks.

• Barney Frank’s 2009 Congressional Playbook by Luke Mullins, US News and World Report, December 19, 2008. regarding Finance committee issues, if needed.

• Masters of the Universe defend use of US bailout cash The Guardian; - "Barney Frank, who chairs the US House financial services committee, has a reputation as one of Washington's wittiest and brightest politicians."

• Rep. Barney Frank Has Designs On Renovating Fannie & Freddie For helping clean FnF content.

• FRONTLINE: inside the meltdown: interviews: barney frank Ditto.

• TESTING OF A PRESIDENT: PROFILE; Barney Frank NY Times, November 20, 1998. For wit and character content.

• Barney Frank Is Stricken: Representative Barney Frank suffered a mild heart attack while exercising at a health club Saturday night. The 50-year-old Massachusetts Democrat checked himself into Beth Israel Hospital here and was resting comfortably in the intensive care unit today, hospital officials said. AP November 19, 1990.

A few sources that may help. -- Banjeboi 13:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

POV issue

This sentence

"Once control was turned over to Democrats, Frank was able to push through the Federal Housing Reform Act (H.R. 1427) and the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 3915), both in 2007.

is not WP:NPOV.

• Control "being turned over" should be changed to something that better indicates that elections were won in order to shift the balance of power in the house to Democrats.
• "Push through" is like saying "shove down the throat". It's not WP:NPOV, and has negative connotations of force.
• The sentence seems to indicate that frank is single-handedly responsible for the two acts. Obviously this is not the case.

I am adding the POV banner to the article, and will remove once we can agree on some better language for this info. MichaelLNorth (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

POV banner should not be employed, you have valid concerns with one sentence, let's just fix it. His role may be exactly as we present it but until sources confirm that perhaps this will be more NPOV? -- Banjeboi 11:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a site called Wikinews

What the heck is wrong with editors who introduce every flash-in-the-pan story with a three day shelf-life?! The nonsense about a "viral video" of Frank making some colorful comments on a anti-healthcare-reform agitator was something I found amusing enough when some friends put it on their Facebook pages, but it hasn't the remotest relevance to this Misplaced Pages article. I haven't looked through the edit history to see who added it, but whoever it was: Grow up! We are writing an encyclopedia here. This isn't a personal blog to post the latest amusing clips, and this "story" has about as much relevance as some picture from LOLcats. LotLE×talk 19:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's totally irrelevant. But at least it's not factually innacurate like this nonsense from the opening paragraphs " "a key deal-maker, an unlikely bridge between his party’s left-wing base and free-market conservatives".

Please don't go there. This was discussed to death and was incredibly disruptive with the result? We removed Newsweek. My hunch is that once the biography comes out we'll have plenty to work with to overhaul the lede and everything else. -- Banjeboi 00:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We discussed it and one side suggested it's totally inaccurate, but was willing to allow it in with appropriate context (that it refers to a particular event) in the body of the article. Those pushing for it and to censor other more notable content about Frank and his positions made war to keep the misleading nonsense in. Until admins and others are willing to rein in the abusive behavior we will be stuck with innacurate and misleading information like this in our articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll stick with reliable sourcing, TYVM. -- Banjeboi 01:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well, let me know when you find a reliable source that says Frank is a bridge builder with free market conservatives. That's so moronic even the New York Times source that's cited didn't claim it. They said, doing their usual spin, that on that particular issue he was one. Leave it to Misplaced Pages to take a throw away line like that and stick it in an introductory paragraph out of context to change its meaning so it completely misleads readers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your view. -- Banjeboi 02:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I'm inclined to agree with CoM on the "unlikely bridge builder" clause of the lead. The "defender of civil rights" seems solid and relevant. But the "bridge builder" part feels fluffy to me, and not necessary for readers to understand Frank's political positions/history. LotLE×talk 09:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's an important piece of his success - that he gets things done. Perhaps a rewording to still express that? -- Banjeboi 17:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi wrote in an edit comment that restored the lead clause about "unlikely bridge builder": rv, this was a subject of an RfC that did not side with you; consensus was to keep it; please don't start the whole cycle over again because you apparently don't like the subject).

There was indeed prior discussion of that clause, and I did indeed support it at some point. But that was in the context of a somewhat different lead, and honestly I have reevaluated the relevance and tone of the clause. While the guideline is perhaps over-cited, consensus really can change, as in this case. For the record, while it seems clear that CoM really does dislike Frank, I myself am very positively impressed by Frank, and he is perhaps my favorite member of Congress. I was a bit sad when I lived in Massachusetts not to have lived in Frank's district, actually, but still felt pride for the state that elected him. Nonetheless, this encyclopedia should remain neutral, and the "one of most powerful members" clause really does already capture the same concept more neutrally. LotLE×talk 23:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I know we brought this up Benji, but I believe this was the one I disagreed with the most, simply b/c it's a bit singular and seems unnecessary. The others can stay, fine, but I really think that this part is a bit too singular in its scope and too out of context to be put in the lede. Soxwon (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be fixed not removed, frankly I think a quote attributed is better than twelve more rounds of quibbling over a handful of words. This is an integral point to his success and is indeed a surprising point given the level of invective thrown his way. -- Banjeboi 09:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to this dispute, so please excuse me if you've already covered this... but doesn't the NYT source's stipulation of "free market conservatives in the administration" make a big difference? The impression left by the article right now is that Frank is a bridge between free-market conservatives in general, instead of free market conservatives within the Bush administration circa 2008. johnpseudo 13:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I said previously, the scope is limited and I think this tidbit should go into the body of the article. Soxwon (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Instead of edit-warring against obvious consensus, perhaps editors can find a description that isn't taken quite so obviously out of context, or quite so contentious, for the lead. I really don't think we need anything more, since "one of most powerful" does the work we want. But I wouldn't be against some additional clause in principle, if it were better supported. LotLE×talk 19:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you and you seem to be edit-warring against consensus from just a few months ago. There is no consensus to remove but perhaps look how to present this information aligned with NPOV policies. The fact that Frank works to build-bridges seems apparent from a reputable source - the article "A Liberal Wit Builds Bridges to the G.O.P." seems pretty clear on this and nothing but right-wing and often religious social conservatives seem to dispute this. I've wedged in some qualifiers and a quote to help address these stated concerns. -- Banjeboi 23:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Craig WP:SOAPBOX

While I agree entirely that Larry Craig is hypocritical, a bad guy, attacked Frank because of internalized homophobia, and all the rest, those would all make perfectly good topics for the article Larry Craig. Trying to turn this article into a rant about this topic is radically off-topic, and is a silly soapbox to shoehorn in an external political agenda. The fact is that the house voted overwhelmingly for censure, and it is good that Benjiboi added that fact. But Frank's own career, personal life, etc. were not particular driven by whether Craig or someone else was the point-man for attacks. This just isn't a biographically significant matter for this article... the inclusion of the older sentence has long bothered me, and the addition of even more non-relevant digression bothers me than much more. LotLE×talk 00:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: If someone finds a source where Frank himself specifically claims motives for Craig, accuses Craig of hypocricy, etc., I would be more inclined to allow that material. But some 3rd party documentary that is about Craig, but not about Frank just isn't going to cut it for relevance to this article. LotLE×talk 00:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is "ranting" or soapboxing, at all. The Outrage documentary centers on Craig and Crist and with Frank as one of the main interviewees and it's all about ... the issues of closetedness effects in US politics. Frank directly talks about this, he is interviewed in the film. I suppose we could wedge in a quote or two but that would seem to take up more room and maybe become undue. -- Banjeboi 01:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The recent attribution of comments about Craig to Frank gets us a bit closer to relevance. It still feels quite tenuous though. Saying bad things about Craig is hardly a "significant life event" for Frank (or notable to his public perception, etc). If we could somehow reformulate this to focus on Frank, it would be a lot better. For example, if Frank himself has consistently spoken about closeted, self-hating, gays (which he has), Frank's comments on Craig could be examples of that notable position. But as it is, it still reads more like a random digression into Craig's article in the middle of Frank's article (ChildofMidnight's changes do make it better though; as rarely as I wind up agree with CoM on most editing matters). LotLE×talk 09:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm loathe to reward bad behaviour as a rule. Speaking just to content issues, however, we have similar content in the LGBT section which maybe could be moved and reworked a bit to show this as one of the prominent examples. -- Banjeboi 17:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not a very prominent example of his work or positions on gay rights. It's only relevance is to make a point about hypocrisy. It's an interesting point, but it reads like an editorial, and I don't think it's suitable for an encyclopedia article about Frank. But I don't really care that much about it. It's just frivolous. I'm sure some of Frank's defenders are hypocrites too. So what? I'm more concerned with trying to be accurate about Frank's positions and work, which is why the "bridge builder" thing irks me. He's well known for his partisan attacks on Republicans and is an outspoken liberal, so why are we describing him as bridge builder? It's misleading and ridiculous. There's also an entire section on his advocacy for legalizing marijuana (for example, also military spending, online gambling etc.), yet Frank partisans were adamant that it be censored from the opening paragraphs as some kind of outrageous attempt to bias the article against Frank. Well, what issues has Frank worked on most then? What is he most notable for? I don't see why it's outrageous to note he supports legalizing marijuana if that's something notable he's worked on. It's certainly more accurate and helpful than claiming he is a bridge builder to conservatives, which is utter nonsense. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it speaks exactly to his work about being ethical and transparent. Hypocrisy is not just about being openly gay, it extends into how people whose job it is to make laws and run a country often enacting life-and-death decisions should behave morally and honestly. Be honest about who you are and respect others for being who they are. It could be worked in better but I think all the issues should be worked in better. He's perhaps well-known by some to do "partisan attacks" but so is every politician depending on who you ask and how powerful they are. Frank is one of the most powerful democrats in the US, we can find all manner of nonsense going in every direction - a lot of it quite heated and baseless. On BLP I tend to look at what an obituary would write and a bridge-builder is exactly what I would expect to see. While someone's alive maybe not so much are you going to see their opponents being objective but once he's no longer seen as a part of the opposition I would expect Fox News to dial down the rhetoric. -- Banjeboi 08:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

1991 Controversy over easing of Freddie Mac loans for Triple Deckers

I'm trying to source this claim, which seems to be an attempt to link the easing of loan restrictions to Rep. Frank's former partner's influence in Freddie Mac.

However, the Boston Globe article has language to the effect that "After a nearly three-hour meeting with members of the Home Buyers' Union, a local advocacy group, and representatives of Mayor Flynn and Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy 2d (D-Mass.), Fannie Mae officials agreed to substantially alter rules to allow what one termed "hundreds if not thousands" of buyers a chance to own two-family homes and ... "

I don't have full access to the text, so I'm not quite sure of Barney Frank's role here. If he was not the lead to get the rules altered, why single him out when this was a priority among many Mass Democrats (since the housing stock in Boston area is largely multi-family homes). Most references to this that single Barney Frank seem to have very similar language, limited to the conservative blogosphere. I suspect that this is a political talking point that is only half true (since he was one of many who supported the rule change) and has no provable or reasonable link to his former partner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.232.93 (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Barney Frank's father

For some reason a couple of editors are going ballistic over Frank's well sourced statement that his father was involved with the mafia. What's the big deal? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank's dad in the Mafia

One or more editors wants to put this fact in. The source is Frank himself, as stated in his book. Can we please be careful so as not to suggest that Frank is corrupt by association with his father, or that Frank is somehow connected. Also, what are some thoughts as to what weight, if any, this should receive in the article, so as to maintain WP:NPOV? MichaelLNorth (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the placement and wording needs to be managed and not sensationalized, but such family associations—no matter how loose or old—are in fact matters that the public cares about —if not innuendo and rumor—are appropriate for biographies of politicians. _matic 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is Beck? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed MichaelLNorth (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Beck is an American musician, singer-songwriter, and multi-instrumentalist. You could have found that out on Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit. _matic 04:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Already in the Early life section is a more neutral statement of Frank's dad's refusal to testify against his brother and consequent prison term. Also the phrase that Frank uses about the Jersey City being "totally corrupt". This captures the whole fact in question without the incendiary insinuation that CoM tries, in bad faith, to create as a slander against Frank. LotLE×talk 06:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the same thing that bothered me. There are six sentences that right now (with disputed "mafia" phrase removed) comprise his "early life" section, which cover roughly ages 1-30. Adding the disputed content would make 2/7 = 29% of the section about his early life talking about how his dad was involved in crime. I feel that devoting nearly one third of the section to this is a WP:WEIGHT violation, and since the article is about a living person (even if the sentence isn't), a WP:BLP violation. To those who are confused about this concept, The biography is about Frank, and the biography is what is protected by the BLP policy, even if some sections talk about his cat and his dad and so on. MichaelLNorth (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That is an argument for expanding the early life section, not for making it less rather than more informative. UNDUE should be read in light of the appropriate weight for all factors, not only the one being considered for pruning. _matic 07:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The central part of WP:UNDUE is the first sentence:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each....Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors.

How many sources report on Frank's dad being in the mafia? How many report on his activity since being in congress? What's the argument for making the early life section long enough to warrant a significant amount of information about his dad's criminal activity? MichaelLNorth (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

By way of comparison, I note that Rudy Giuliani#Early life and education has precisely one sentence about Giuliani's father's criminal career. The comparable sentence in this article seems adequate. Who came to Frank's brother's bar mitzvah is completely tangential. In terms of Frank's own bio, however, we could reasonably add the information from this sentence in the New Yorker article: "Sam Frank died at the age of fifty-three, while Barney was an undergraduate at Harvard, and Barney took a year off to help resolve the family’s tangled financial affairs." JamesMLane t c 08:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This sentence in Giuliani's article "Harold Giuliani had trouble holding a job and had been convicted of felony assault and robbery and served time in Sing Sing; after his release he served as an enforcer for his brother-in-law Leo D'Avanzo, who ran an organized crime operation involved in loan sharking and gambling at a restaurant in Brooklyn."? I wonder why Lulu isn't freaking out about that sentence? Why can't Lulu and North be honest that they don't want this article to be truthful, they just want some sort of puff piece to make a politician they like look good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Why can't Lulu and North be honest that they don't want this article to be truthful, they just want some sort of puff piece to make a politician they like look good." I'll remind you that this is a place to discuss content, not editors. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not grounds for violating WP:UNDUE.MichaelLNorth (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As to CoM's specific comment, I think the two sentences (re Giuliani and Frank) are comparable. Both give the essential facts. Frank's has the detail of the length of the father's prison term, while Giuliani's says merely "served time", but both present the fact of the imprisonment and the crime. There is nothing in Giuliani's article, or, I'll wager, in any other Misplaced Pages article, about who attended the bio subject's brother's bar mitzvah. JamesMLane t c 18:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I have never edited, nor even read, the Giuliani article, as JamesMLane comments the coverage indeed seems comparable between the two biographies. At first brush, it looks like Harold Giuliani's involvement with organized crime was considerably more significant than was Sam Frank's. Assuming "served as enforcer" is true, that's certainly far more than what sounds like paying kickbacks that Sam Frank seems to have done. In either case, the matter warrants a sentence in the biographies of the politician sons, but not belaboring past that. LotLE×talk 20:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we remove all the fluffery sourced to press releases?

Or should we include the opinions of people other than Frank like this editorial from the Boston Globe that was removed by Lulu ? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, when did you stop beating your wife?

Seriously, just because you couldn't get your "Mafia" edit inserted doesn't mean you get to get to snip things you don't want in a tit-for-tat move. As for the OpEd, you know we don't use those for sources, and it serves even less of a point as an external link. Tarc (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please refactor your offensive question. I'm well aware of what a loaded question is. We're here to discuss content and to focus on improving articles, not to be pointy and nasty. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You begun this section with a ridiculous premise, which I highlighted with the classic analogy of such; it was not a literal question, as you well know. As for the article, what is there to discuss? You are comparing the removal of an OpEd link to the removal of perfectly sourced and appropriate material. Apples to oranges. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We are permitted to quote opinions from a WP:NPOV stance. For obvious reasons, there is a much higher requirement for neutrality, accuracy and notability when it comes to criticism. Speaking of loaded questions, I disagree with the assertion in your question, that properly-sourced opinions constitute "puffery". Tit-for-tat editing makes for poor articles. — Mike :  tlk  16:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the placement of the External Link to a controversial Op-Ed piece, I do not agree that it is allowed.

1. Per WP:RS#News organizations, "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text". The External Link was not so attributed, and I am uncertain that it is possible to appropriately attribute "in-text" an external link.
2. Per WP:RS#Biographies of living persons, "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. 'This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space '". For WP:BLP, the restriction on sources of materiel extends to any namespace - there is no exception for external links.
3. Per WP:BLP#External links, "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on WP:External links " - not only is there not anexception for the quality of External Links, but the standard is higher for WP:BLPs than for other articles.
4. Finally, per WP:External Links, the closest this external link comes to meeting the criteria for inclusion is "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons". However,

• Previously referenced items do not support the use of OpEd materiel as being "neutral", nor to being accurate as more than the opinion of the author, nor to be appropriate without attribution in-line, nor to being appropriate for a WP:BLP, and,
• The referenced materiel is not externally linked because it cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article, rather the materiel could be added to the article if appropriate sources were referenced and appropriate text written.

External Link sections are not a loophole to add otherwise inappropriate materiel, sorry. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• If it's not appropriate to include opinions that are critical of Frank's, I think we should clean up the plethora of spin and fluff sourced to press releases. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It most certainly is appropriate to add materiel to the article that is critical of the subject of the article, as long as the various guidelines (some referenced by me, earlier in this section) are followed. Similarly, materiel that doesn't meet the guidelines should be removed (I'll review the external links in this article, and come back and offer my opinion in that regard; you might consider doing the same). However, removing appropriate text or links (regardless of how appropriate or well-sourced) as a response to removal of a link you want added (regardless of how it fails important WP guidelines) is far from "focus{ing} on what needs to be done to improve the encyclopedia". Regarding the external link in question:

• As more than one editor has noted, either here or in edit summaries, the link was not removed because it was "critical of Frank's {sic}" - rather, it was removed because it failed to meet more than one WP guideline that applies to articles' external links and BLP's. This should be very clear now.
• Someone (yourself, perhaps?) could update the article to include new text based on the context of the link, but if the only reference is that link itself, then the information would fail WP:RS. Find other sources (both reliable and not OpEd pieces), and write text that in an appropriate place in the article that does not fail WP:UNDUE, either. If such references don't exist, then the information does not deserve to be added.
• I respectfully suggest that this discussion be closed soon. It is not clear there is more that can be accomplished on this topic. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comment seems to imply that I tried to remove something appropriate in a tit for tat. This is absolutely false. I don't edit that way. Trying to improve this article has been a frustrating process because of the POV pushing that has been allowed to go on and the abusive practices of policy violators like Tarc, who I see restored his abusive, hateful and misogynistic comment. He may think it's appropriate to make light of domestic abuse, rape and violence against women, but that kind of insinuation is not acceptable or helpful to encyclopedia building.

The last sentence of the opening paragraphs has been contested repeatedly by numerous editors. It misrepresents the source, is one partisan person's opinion, and violates the undue weight guideline.

I'm less worried about the external links then the text of the article, much of which is spin doctoring from Frank's office. I was under the impression that we base articles on reliable independent sources. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, your editing was indeed tit-for-tat, please don't try to lie about you actions now when your own edit summary if we can't have accurate encyclopedic statements then there's no room for this bullshit puffery in the opening paragraphs shows the truth of the matter. Like in many other political articles, your concerns about undue weight have been found by other editors to be without merit or substance. Edit warring to get your minority POV into an article is counter-productive and disruptive. And finally, please, enough wit the faux drama/outrage. A classic example of a logically fallacious question is not "abusive, hateful and misogynistic". Stop with the absurdities. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to be very flexible Tarc. So if opinion pieces in favor of Frank included (as they are) that's okay with me as long as there's balance. It's not tit for tat. It's basic common sense. We don't build an article around opinion pieces and press release puffery and then object to differing opinions being included. Comprende? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Balance is not achieved by equal parts positive and negative links. It would seem that you have not learned much about what WP:NPOV actually is since your ArbCom censure. Tarc (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks very much like an ad hominem attack. Surely you aren't resorting to desperate measures because your argument has been exposed as being absurd and ridiculous when the opinion of Bill Clinton's speechwriter is included in the opening paragraphs of the article? Do we need to request arbcom enforcement for your continuing pattern of incivility and the edit warring you were recently blocked for? Shape up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class U.S. Congress articles
• Mid-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• B-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles