Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:29, 10 September 2009

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. 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. United States: South Carolina 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. This article is supported by WikiProject South Carolina. 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).

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.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Robert Mackey (2009-09-10). "Misplaced Pages's Rapid Reaction to Outburst During Obama Speech". New York Times. Saeed Ahmed (2009-09-10). "Two words make Joe Wilson an Internet sensation". Cable News Network.

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 rethuglican 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)

Did someone put, that Wilson is most evil man in history after Hitler, Stalin and George Bush ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.53.72 (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2009 (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)

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)

Actually, during George Bush's state of the union he was booed by democrats. Your history is somewhat one-sided. People on both side of the isle disrespect the office of the president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.70 (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, how cute. You are protecting the purity of that esteemed institution! Why, with somebody interrupting the president, our country might just fall apart! It's not like this goes on in Britain all the time, or anything! The State should never be questioned! It's about tradition! You have to follow the rules, and never correct the president, even when it's already been revealed by impartial observers that he's telling lies!

The bottom line is that the government and the president aren't to be exalted/revered - they are to be mocked. And guess what - democracy sucks, I can only hope it breaks down and people can start living their lives without such violence and aggression. I don't like criminal gangs, and I don't like their leaders - even if they were chosen by a majority of the people they pillage. Enjoy your stockholm syndrome. 68.98.165.209 (talk) 16:33, 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)

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)

I restored this, as it is certainly notable, and included a primary source (ActBlue) which now is reporting a half million dollars raised. Here is another link from yesterday. --Replysixty (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This article states, "During President Obama's September 9, 2009 speech to a joint session of Congress, in which he discussed his plan for health care reform...." Could someone please outline what President Obama's health care plan is? Is it the house bill? Is it the Senate bill that's still in committee? As far as I know, Obama doesn't have a plan that is in Congress. Obviously, the plan that he speaks of is not yet written, because he's certainly not talking about HR 3200.--Asacan (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is going to be a reference to his opponents contributions, then there should be a reference to the fact that Wilson's website has been overwhelmed with traffic and been unable to gain access. I'm sure this will result in massive contributions to his campaign as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.213.224.54 (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggest to Protect this page

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

It is imperative to protect the Wiki brand and insure there is proof this man did in fact yell "that's a lie" to a President, while speaking to the congress. I feel it is deplorable... I've done stupid things like this, myself, and the self-regret is probably killing him... or he's loving it, and finally famous, sort of like Dr. Mudd. SO.... I'm suggesting immediate recognition of the yell and the Question of it having been him, but hold off adding it Definitely Was him, till there is reliable triangulation/film/admission-of-guilt-after-a-stint-on-a-waterboard. Even if it was NOT him, this ranks as his moment in history and it is worth noting in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HermanHusband (talk • contribs) 15:45, 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)

I think that you are incorrect. This incident clearly exceeds the standards called for in -- Misplaced Pages:NOT#NEWS.Slagathor (talk) 15:53, 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)

question

Just a reminder, WP:BLP applies to defamatory comments on the topic's talk page as well as the article. See: Misplaced Pages:BLP#Non-article_space. — Mike :  tlk  16:02, 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)

Could you please avoid the personal attacks? Dumaka (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Also, we're here to build an encyclopedia, not attempt validation of "they did it to!" by referring to other subjects. Tone down the hostility, please. --kizzle (talk) 15:36, 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)

I agree with Kizzle. We should remove the two paragraphs discussing the congressional research service, factcheck.org, the truth squad, etc. Pdcook (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is bloat. I only added the Congressional Research Service information because someone wanted to add all of the so-called "fact check" pieces that are really just opinion pieces wrapped up as authority. Also, what gives a flying flip how much money the unknown opponent raised last night. That guy is a complete nobody who is going to get beat next November. Also, the amount of money raised in one night is NO indication of that nobody's popularity or ability to win. Is that nobody even deserving of a Misplaced Pages article?? I don't think so.--InaMaka (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

From the tone of your post, I'd probably find it futile to debate the matter, but there is no "flying flip" guideline for Misplaced Pages, only notability. As it stands now, Miller has raised over $150,000 within 24 hours of Wilson's remark. This fact is documented by the Wall Street Journal , Huffington Post, CNN Political Ticker, and Politico to name a few others. I think it's safe to say that it has some notability. Whether or not "that guy is a complete nobody" is also not criteria for inclusion, nor is an assessment of the efficacy of fund-raising in winning an election. --kizzle (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I more or less agree with kizzle, but what I'd really like to find (if it hasn't been found) is an article comparing the amount donated versus his previous total. While the facts on the web say that its doubled the opponents take, it'd be a SYNTH violation for us to string them together ourselves. Has a RS tried to put the amount donated in context? Best, --Bfigura 15:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but the amount stated is taken straight from a reputable source so IMHO we're not stringing anything together, we're merely citing and attributing. --kizzle (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Stuff like this is bloat too. "According to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Wilson's Democratic opponent, Rob Miller, received roughly $100,000 in campaign contributions in the 8 hours following the presidential address." It should be removed as it does not pertain directly to this person's bio. It is a decent contribution for other articles/sections, just not where it is now. It should be in an article about the upcoming 2010 election in his district. 173.30.135.162 (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally disagree but it's a fair argument. What do others think? --kizzle (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's been reverted already. (I'm the one who initally added it), and I'm fine with the reversion, since it does probably belong in an election section. --Bfigura 16:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

We should just stick with the current version, there is no space here to place the reaction of every single politician to this event. I think a description of what happened, the reaction from John Mccain on Larry King Live, and maybe a reaction from a Democrat on a non partisan news show (not Rachel Maddoww Show). Plug into Wilson's apology and that should be good. EricLeFevre (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Contents of bills that prompted Wilson's "You lie" statement

I've added information from Time Magazine on the actual contents of the bills that prompted Wilson's "You lie" statement. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that getting anywhere near whether or not the bill actually helps illegal immigrants doesn't belong on Wilson's bio page... why not put the material on the HR3200 page itself, as I'm looking at it right now and it has no mention. Maybe someone needs to put it up? --kizzle (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It does belong here. I came to this Misplaced Pages page looking for the substance of Wilson's comments and found the article focused simply on the tone used to deliver his viewpoint. I then looked to see whether reliable sources were covering Wilson's comments by looking at the substance of them, and saw that reliable sources like Time magazine are, so I've added it to the article. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the contents of the bill and do not reside in the United States. However, from an outsider's perspective, the issue of whether or not Congressman Wilson's allegation is based in fact is rather notable in the context of the outburst and the allegation itself. If a portion of the relevant bill(s) can be found that either supports Wilson's assertion or undermines it, a reference to them seems very appropriate, and perhaps crucial, in order to provide essential context for readers to assess Wilson's allegation. DavidGC (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is going to open a can of worms as both sides are going to start putting in what they believe is true until it takes over this article. At most, I'd be for a sentence on each side and a link to the bill's entry in Misplaced Pages.--kizzle (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Provided that each of those positions would be supported by references to specific portions of the actual bill(s), I think that sort of an addition would be a good improvement on this portion of the article. DavidGC (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the Time article I used as a source by the way, it does reference the specific bills. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I added a single sentence sourced to a reliable source (Time Magazine). If there is a reliable source that contradicts Time, then we could add that and have two sentences. I am not worried that one or two sentences that are reliably sourced is going to "take over this article." If we did somehow end up with a larger, reliably-sourced section on this topic, we could always knock it back to one or two sentences and then move the rest to another article like Illegal Immigrant coverage in Obama health care plan. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Put it this way. I agree with you. I think it enhances the article. Let's just see what happens. :) --kizzle (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A few points:

1) This isn't FactCheck.org. It's setting a dangerous precedent to allow people to "debunk" controversial statements within biographies. Assume for a moment that this is a controversial and/or complicated issue, and that WP:NPOV would require us to present all major points of view with equal weight. For example, let's pretend for a second that this was about "death panels" and not immigration. We'd have people wanting to point out that "there is no death panel", and then others would say "there are doctor incentives for end-of-life care discussions", and then "too many people in hospitals will inevitably lead to care rationing", etc.. etc... Pretty soon the coverage of the various back-and-forth facts dwarfs the controverial event its self, and then the article doesn't even remotely resemble a biography about Joe Wilson.f

2) The controversy, and the reason this is worth including at all was the fact that he shouted "you lie", not his view on whether legislation provides free health care for illegal immigrants. If he had expressed his view via TV interview following the speech, it would have recieved little or no attention here. This is how you know that it's about the outburst its self, and not the reasoning behind it, and whether it's right or wrong. — Mike :  tlk  16:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

1) OK, let's look at "death panels." The Sarah Palin article deals with "death panels" in exactly the brief, reliably sourced way that I am describing. "Palin said that Obama’s plans for health care reform include a “death panel” and are “downright evil.” Although Palin's 'death panel' charge was widely discredited as inaccurate, The Atlantic recognized its political effectiveness." These two sentences are supported by six sources. 2) Your assessment that that the contents of the bills that prompted Wilson's "You lie" statement are unimportant is contradicted by reliable sources like Time magazine. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree. A wikilink to an article on the bill or the controversy regarding it should be sufficient. --Bfigura 16:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mike. I would be fine with one sentence on each side and a link to where the actual debate would be, just for utilitarian concerns to redirect the controversy where it truly belongs, but I do think Mike is right in this case. --kizzle (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sharksaredangerous, you're wrong.. about several things. First, the fact that Time, or any other publication chose to include a "fact check" of the bill does not justify its inclusion in the article. I would think that this is common sense, since we are aiming to devote rougly a paragraph to the event, and they are writing an entire article on it. Second, Sarah Palin pretty much coined the term "death panels", so the issue is relevant to her biography. Third I'm sure you can see that the article documenting her life is more than an order of magnitude longer than this one, meaning that the relative weight of one paragraph there is much smaller than one paragraph here. Fourth, there is virtually no coverage of Joe Wilson's view on health coverage of illegal immigrants from before last night. None of the people trying to add the information now, considered it important enough to add before the "outburst". Why are they now so adamant about its inclusion? Because of the way he expressed his view. THAT is the issue here.

Lastly, on the off chance that you are considering accusing me of political bias, I am a die hard liberal democrat. However, I make a concerted effort not to drag my own bias onto a neutral point of view encyclopedia. — Mike :  tlk  16:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion that I would make a personal accusation about you is an insulting failure on your part to assume good faith. You should comment on content, not contributors, and you should especially not comment on accusations that you imagine contributors might possibly make in the future. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he meant it in a friendly way by saying he wasn't trying to push his own personal POV into the article. --kizzle (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what motivates MichaelLNorth and believe this talk page is for discussing article content rather than speculating about contributor's motivations. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A few things. The HR3200 section already has a list of controversies, so if we were going to create a section, it would probably end up there. Second, at the end of the day, is the viewer serviced by including the information or not? I see both sides on this are equally viable in my mind. On one hand, this is a page about Joe Wilson, not about the debate over HR3200 and illegal immigrants. On the other, I can't see how adding two brief sentences, one for each side, along with a link to where the actual controversy would hurt the article. There would be a potential for bloat as I had mentioned before, but I'm sure this page is getting inundated with traffic and many of them are coming to find out more about why he said what he said. I just personally think that while we need to remember this is a page about Joe Wilson and not the debate, it will enhance the reader's experience if we leave a small indication of what the debate he was referring to that made him call the President a "liar" and then redirect them to the appropriate place to discuss the matter in detail. Just my two cents. --kizzle (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that what Wilson notable with regard to the health care issue is the outburst during a Presidential address. That's what's drawing media attention. One problem with trying to squeeze in a debate about what's "true" about proposed bills is I haven't seen an articulation Wilson about why he's calling it a lie (and even if did, it's not what he's gaining notoriety). For instance, the Time article notes that seeks to give subsidies to illegal immigrants if it specifically prohibits such subsidies but doesn't adopt the specific enforcement provision a given Republican favors. But we don't whether that's Wilson rationale. So I think it would be better to simply link to an immigrant section of a relevant article on the health care debate. And I think an article titled "Illegal Immigrant coverage in Obama health care plan" (mentioned above) would be highly POV and deceptive. Lots of people reading that title would read an implication that there is coverage for illegal immigrants. --JamesAM (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The argument is one that a completely reasonable person is capable of having (I don't share the view, but I know what it is). Wilson's position is that checking for citizenship is not properly enforced, meaning it would be easy for an illegal immigrant to wrongly receive health care intended for citizens only. — Mike :  tlk  17:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

JamesAM writes "we don't whether that's Wilson rationale", but MichaelLNorth writes "Wilson's position is that checking for citizenship is not properly enforced". Neither of you have cited any sources, where I am citing a reliable news magazine (Time). I strongly encourage us to base this article on what reliable sources like Time Magazine say rather than just the unattributed points of view of wikipedia contributors. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, it's not my point of view, it's a talking point for opponents of health care reform. My comment is not in the article, so I don't have to source a thing, and finally as I have described in detail above, it's irrelevant what his view is in the context of the "Shouted" subsection of the article. If he had shouted "you lie" at President Obama arguing that pickles are the most American of all hamburger condiments, it would have scrutinized similarly. — Mike :  tlk  18:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's relish, you commie bastard. ;) --kizzle (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that you "don't have to source a thing." This isn't a discussion forum where you just post your personal beliefs; this is the talk page of an encyclopedia article that requires reliable sources. Talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages. We need reliable sources to improve this article, things like the Time Magazine information on the bills that others agree ought to be in the article. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the number of people brought to this article due to the recent news, perhaps it would be useful to add the following to the article's "See Also" section:

• America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

--4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Subheading title

Currently the title "presidential address" is used. I'm suggesting maybe a change to "controversy" would make a better subheading title.  Burningview  ✉ 16:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Boldly done, since "Presidential address" doesn't really provide any insight into what the section might be talking about. --Bfigura 16:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Presidential address controversy" also works:)  Burningview  ✉ 16:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy" sections are very much discouraged in biographies of living persons. See: WP:COATRACK for reasoning. A specific and objective title like "Outburst at the presidential xyz" is what the policy reccomends. — Mike :  tlk  16:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I was initially thinking that, but outburst seemed a bit NPOV to me. But if anyone comes up with better wording, please change it. --Bfigura 16:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Changed to "Shouting during 2009 Presidential address" per Mike's comments. --Bfigura 16:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the title, and if anyone could sum it up in better words please do so.  Burningview  ✉ 16:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a proper section title. Thanks! — Mike :  tlk  17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I misread the consensus here and changed "Shouting" to "outburst" I will correct that asap. EricLeFevre (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouting vs Outburst

• Outburst - Shouting implies a longer occurrence than Outburst. Outburst also implies an emotional eruption of the moment (which concurs with the wording of the apology). I preemptively disagree there is anything POV about the word "outburst" given the givens. I could go on, but that's enough for now. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Outburst I agree, but I think some people will dispute "Outburst" to have a different meaning, and I think it can be disputed by some to to border on the NPOV.  Burningview  ✉ 22:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to reflect consensus for now  Burningview  ✉ 22:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

consideration

An incensed White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel went up to GOP Reps. Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Paul Ryan (Wis.) to complain about the outburst. "No president has ever had that happen," Emanuel said. "My advice is he apologize immediately. You know my number."

Washington Post

Wilson speaks

Just for consideration, not suggesting we include it. --kizzle (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Also:

On the Internet, where speculation runs rife, tweeters pointed to a comment Wilson posted on Labor Day as evidence that his outburst was planned:

"Happy Labor Day! Wonderful parade at Chapin, many people called out to oppose Obamacare which I assured them would be relayed tomorrow to DC," the tweet from Wilson's account said.

- CNN

--kizzle (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The "in a historic breach of decorum" seems a little WP:CRYSTALBALL to me, especially since none of the three sources mention the historical significance of the event, or even if there is any precedent. Also, WP:COATRACK is an essay, not Wiki policy or guideline. Copana2002 (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I too found that "historic" phrase odd and not appropriate for something less than 24 hours old. I've changed it to "unusual" as a more neutral term, or until someone can quote a reliable source with some weight, as to whether this is in any way historic. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I removed "Unprecedented" as it was the opinion of the House Majority Leader and not neccessarily a fact. I think simply stating that it was a breach of decorum is sufficient without adding an adjective to rate it. Arzel (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The way this article reads it implies that Representative Wilson apologized because Senator McCain asked him to. While this may have been the brokered deal, I think it is our duty to cite reliable sources that "show" all possible courses of event. ie: Emanuel pressured the Republicans, and Senator McCain offered to mediate. Reliefappearance (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that say definitively how things went down, or do we just have the phrasing and spin of various accounts to read into? Last I heard (and the story is obviously still developing), Rahm Emmanuel made a beeline for where Wilson had been sitting and said something like "He should apologize, you guys know my number". Later on, McCain does his thing on Larry King, and then the apology comes out. There's no clear case of any "brokered deal". — Mike :  tlk  21:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So should include both items? The Emanuel news item and the McCain statement? Or should we omit both until a cohesive story develops? Reliefappearance (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm...

"According to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Wilson's Democratic opponent, Rob Miller, received roughly $200,000 in campaign contributions from 5,000 different contributors within 24 hours of the presidential address."

It hasn't been 24 hours since the President's address.  ???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.76.247 (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If the total is more at the expireation of 24 hours, then that can be changed. Note that 12 hours is "within 24 hours." Edison (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Donations of Opponent

The amount of donations to his opponent in the next election is not relevant to Joe Wilson. Perhaps within the 2010 election section of his oppoenent, perhaps a mention in Wilson's 2010 section after due time. The section already reeks of recentism, there is no point in making it worse. Arzel (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My two cents - I think the sheer amount of money raised in such a short period of time that is directly related to the incident is noteworthy. Miller's ActBlue page is currently at $340,000 when it was in the 50's last night. That's pretty noteworthy IMHO and is directly related to the content on this page. --kizzle (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am going to echo Arzel here. Political donations to someone's opponent, regardless of the amount or duration is pretty irrelevant to a biography. Take Barack Obama's bio page. There is no mention of donations there, but there is on the page his election. We are not saying that it is useless, trivial information. On the contrary, what we are saying is that it does not belong on this page. You are more than welcome to add that information on the page describing the upcoming election in his district, or on the bio page of his opponent. However on this page, that information just constitutes bloat. EricLeFevre (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The last campaign saw Wilson's opponent, Rob Miller, collecting about $600,000 in donations during the entire 2008 campaign season. Miller just got one-third of that amount in a single night. It's incredibly relevant to the SC-2nd's 2010 election, which is suddenly a national spotlight issue, rather than just another small local congressional election. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying that it is not relevant information. We are saying that it does not belong on this page. You are correct, it is incredibly relevant to the 2010 election in his district. EricLeFevre (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Insofar as Wilson is the incumbent candidate for the 2010 SC-2nd, it's hard to make an argument that anything incredibly relevant to the election isn't also relevant to Joe Wilson or Rob Miller. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Second'd. There is a media frenzy over this, and much of it that goes beyond the initial significant event will likely be forgotten. Certain sub-topics of this controversy are a no-brainer to leave out (i.e., "elapsed time before his website crashed" or "how fast did he leave the house chamber at the end of the speech") This one is not quite as clear cut, but if we were to err on the side of bloat-prevention, perhaps it's best to leave out — Mike :  tlk  18:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I fervently disagree. The fact was included in the Christian Science Monitor, CNN, AP, and many many other mainstream sources. Campaign balance sheets are typically not worthy of inclusion in biography articles, but we're not documenting the history of his campaign contributions. If he had received $300,000 before yesterday and gotten $20,000 in donations since the remark bringing it to a total of $320,000, I would say it's not notable. But his remarks had a significant effect in that he just became his opponent's biggest fund-raiser. ActBlue is currently at over $350,000 and it hasn't even been 24 hours yet. The consequences of Wilson's actions are directly related to the incident on his bio page and help the reader understand the fallout of his remark, plain and simple. --kizzle (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Kizzle is correct. The freshet of donations demonstrates vividly the consequences of Wilson's outburst in real time. The media has gone into a feeding frenzy, but that shouldn't prevent this entry noting the fallout from the event: most clearly demonstrated in a single figure, the amount raised overnight by an opponent. This is *highly* unusual and should be noted in the bio, along with McCain's comments, and Obama's acceptance of the apology. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Concurred. This is currently the major locus of discussion for the incident Joe Wilson was a part of, and covering the surge in donations to his congressional opponent is one piece in that story.

Eventually, the incident may take on a life of its own and merit its own sub-article which is summarized on Joe Wilson's page and linked to, but I think that a whole article just on the incident might be undue weight at the this time. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is going to be a reference to his opponents contributions, then there should be a reference to the fact that Wilson's website has been overwhelmed with traffic and been unable to gain access. I'm sure this will result in massive contributions to his campaign as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.213.224.54 (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.213.224.36 (talk)

Agreed. Trust me, Joe Wilson is probably getting a lot of money as well, and would receive more if he didn't apologize at all.--King Bedford I 19:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If he got a huge spike in donations and it's part of a mainstream media story, then absolutely, that's relevant to. The website going down isn't, by itself, that clear-cut. How many visitors did it take to bring it down, how long was it down, was it a software problem, hacker attack, or just too much traffic. And most importantly, where people coming to his website to complain, support, or donate. All of the above, I'm sure, but I think if any news organization finds out Wilson had a similarly-sized spike in donations, that would definitely be notable also. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

HELLO? The article is about Joe Wilson, not the other guy. Whatever MIGHT have happened with the other guy is not relevant to this article. If it is relevant then take it to the other guy's article. However, the other guy has not accomplished anything to even warrant a Misplaced Pages article. I think it is time to question why the other guy even has an article. He is a total nobody. I'm not even sure anyone even knows his name. But at any rate, take the actblue and DNC comments over to that article and try to pitch that propaganda over there--where it MIGHT belong.--InaMaka (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please dial down the antagonism. Notability has been demonstrated already by the plethora of mainstream sources. --kizzle (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources disagree with your personal opinions on the relative importance of these facts. I will reiterate what others have written above suggesting that you tone down the hostility and personal attacks. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Look I just stated exactly what someone stated about Joe Wilson. Someone above stated that no one had heard of Joe Wilson until last night. I'm making the point that if Joe Wilson is not notable then his opponent is even less notable. Also, I have not personally attacked anyone. Please name who I have personally attacked. If you can't name who I personally attacked then you need to stop immediately making that claim, Shark. Also, kizzle, let me point out that notability has not been established yet because it has not been thoroughly questioned. But when I find the time I WILL question his notability. This issue is raised each and every election year on Misplaced Pages. Someone new comes along and if the guy is a Dem then the Rep question whether he/she meets notability and vice versa. Please see notability debates about current Congressman Pete Olson, for example. You can review the enlightening debate here: In hindsight, it is very, very clear that the Dems who attempted to have the article removed for notability reason were flat out wrong. The Dems tried to have his article removed before the election because they believed, incorrectly I might add, that he did not meet notability. The battle cry was, "He is a nobody until he wins." I am going to make the same argument against the other guy here. It is part of Misplaced Pages and no amount of your telling me I wrong changes that. So please tone down the know-it-all attitude, which is what you have when you tell me to tone it down. And please tone yourself down.--InaMaka (talk)

Not having been involved in any of the previous notability debates, the notability or lack thereof of Wilson's opponent is something to discuss on that person's bio page. What's at question here is whether the recent controversy is relevant to Wilson (it is, as shown by sources), and whether the huge donation spike to Wilson's 2010 opponent is relevant. (it is).

Is there anyone who really thinks that the spike in donations to Wilson's opponent isn't because of Wilson's actions in the last 24 hours???? It's a part of the story, and for better or for worse, the story does exist, and, as of this moment, this is the page on which to document it. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your personal POV about such things as "slimy Dems "and "Rhambo BS" are inappropriate for helping build an encyclopedia. Again, I will reiterate what others have written above suggesting that you tone it down. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Shark, let me help you out, you seem confused. I did make those comments about public figures. I did NOT personally attack any other Wikipedian. So you need to get your understanding of Wikipedian rules straight and I would suggest that you read NY Times vs. Sullivan. I have a First Amendment right to call Rhambo's comments what they are.--InaMaka (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Shark, once again, the sources you are referring to seem to provide media coverage of the issue its self, not a commentary on the relative importance of various nuances involved. It seems that you may be looking at a magazine or newspaper article, seeing the weight that they devote to various sub-topics of this controversy, and then coming here to say that their weight distribution dictates that we should cover those same things. Is this accurate? I don't know any other way to understand this statement of yours

Reliable sources disagree with your personal opinions on the relative importance of these facts.

Perhaps you could explain exactly how you feel these sources comment in any way on the relative importance of various nuances of this event, using excerpts to provide examples. — Mike :  tlk  19:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

When reliable sources like Time Magazine provide context on the contents of the bills that prompted Wilson's "You lie" statement, that means reliable sources believe it is important to provide context on the contents of the bills that prompted Wilson's "You lie" statement. I understand that you personally feel that the contents of the bills are unimportant in this context, but reliable sources disagree with you. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

kizzle, How about simply mentioning this in an enumeration of the repercussions of his remark. For example

"Wilson's remark incited swift criticism, including a demand for an immediate apology from John McCain, a strong and swift surge in campaign contributions for Rob Miller, his likely opponent in the 2010 South Carolina congressional elections, and xyz."

This treats the details as details and is resistant to bloat. — Mike :  tlk  20:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Comments"?

Mr. Wilson's written apology for his outburst on September 9, 2009, includes, "my comments were inappropriate and regrettable." Did he actually say anything beyond the single "comment", "You lie!" (if so, what?), or did the Congressman simply err in writing the plural in his apology? Firstorm (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A thought: the version I just read, included the line "Obama also accepted Wison's apology". I suggest that "also" be removed. Who else accepted it?

Gibbs stated that Emanuel accepted the apology on behalf the the President. So President Obama "also" accepting it I suppose makes sense? Not a big issue for me. 67.248.232.224 (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jhlister (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The fuss is cultural. In some countries, it is acceptable to yell and push other politicians in the parliamentary chamber. In the UK, it is acceptable to jeer in unison when the Prime Minister has his question session. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The "fuss" may be cultural, but we are speaking of US culture after all, not the UK. Also, in the UK, parliamentary procedure forbids someone from accusing anyone of lying, no matter how much they might jeer or shout. Krforce (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Congressman Wilson's house.gov website taken down

Congressman Wilson's house.gov website is now inaccessible:

http://www.joewilson.house.gov/

Repeated refresh/F5 will cause connection denial (a "Forbidden" message from house.gov)

Other congressmen's webside on house.gov are accessible and have no access restriction:

http://aderholt.house.gov/index.html

Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you want to include in some article on internet bandwidth??? Not sure what your point is here. Reliefappearance (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

John McCain's quote

I've reduced McCain's prominence in the condemnation as several members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and, of course, some politicians in South Carolina have weighed in on the matter. Overall, I still don't like the emphasis given to McCain's quote - I'd rather see it in a quote template somewhere than imbedded in a paragraph especially since, as provided, it isn't justified in its particular importance while in reality, its importance is mainly just that McCain was the first to the microphone. --Forgottenlord (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this places undue weight on John McCain's view. We could just write that "Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle condemned the outburst and said he should apologize." Or "Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle including senators A. B, C and D condemned the outburst and said he should apologize." Then McCain's quote can be in references. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Time Magazine's 2-minute bio on Rep. Joe Wilson

See the lead of 2-MIN. BIO Rep. Joe Wilson, Presidential Heckler for a good brief summary of last night's incident appropriate for a biographical article. It hits the main points: "Rep. Joe Wilson broke the chamber's strict etiquette by yelling out "You lie!" after the President (accurately) noted that his proposed health care benefits would not extend to illegal immigrants. ... At the GOP leadership's behest, Wilson called the White House that night to apologize. Heavy volume knocked out Wilson's web site and phone lines the next day and his Democratic opponent, Rob Miller, reported $400,000 in new contributions in less than 24 hours ... to the reform plan's most combative opponents, Wilson emerged as something of a hero." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-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
• C-Class U.S. Congress articles
• Mid-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press