Talk:Lamar Smith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit request on 02 September 2014: Controversial accusations made on water policy[edit]

In September 2014, during work on the House Science Committee, Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, backed by industry lobbyists, controversially alleged that the US EPA engaged in the development of "secret maps" for the purpose of asserting control over land ownership[1]. The allegations were wholly baseless, given the fact that the maps were merely representations of existing stream data from the USGS National Hydrography Dataset and US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory, both of which have been public datasets which have existed since the 1980s. Additionally, Congressman Cramer made false accusations that the maps were for the purpose of regulation and for reclassifying streams, however nothing in the maps supports those claims[2] - all of these false allegations were then further promoted by conservative media outlets, notably the conservative media mouthpiece Watchdog.org[3].


References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]

Editing the “Personal Life” section of Congressman Lamar Smith’s Wikipedia page[edit]

To any editors or watchers of the Wikipedia page of Congressman Lamar Smith: I serve as the Political Director for Congressman Lamar Smith. I wish to respectfully raise concerns about the section “Personal Life.” I would also like to suggest a replacement edit to the line in question. I would like to ask an unbiased Wikipedia editor to review the problem. The problem is as follows: In the “Personal Life” section of Congressman Lamar Smith’s page, it states, “He divides his time between homes in San Antonio and Hyannisport, Massachusetts.” The Congressman returns home from Washington, D.C. to his district nearly every weekend. Congressman Smith has spent a total of two hours in Hyannisport, Massachusetts, in the last three years, solely as a tourist, and is willing to give an affidavit to that effect. Per the Biographies of Living Persons policy, if there is no source for a piece of information about a living person (whether it is positive info or negative) then it should be removed. This is why I’m asking for another editor to consider making the following change:

I would suggest removing the line “he divides his time between homes in San Antonio and Hyannisport, Massachusetts.” As previously mentioned, Congressman Smith keeps a busy schedule traveling from Washington, D.C. to his home in San Antonio and rarely spends any time in Hyannisport, Massachusetts. --JohnRussellHorton (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that no source was cited for the statement, I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Unclear jargon used in "U.S. House of representatives" - 23rd Jan 2015[edit]

This sentence is unclear:

The 23rd is the largest district in the nation (not counting the at-large districts), stretching across 800 road miles from El Paso to San Antonio. Due to its size, nearly every district in the El Paso-San Antonio corridor had to be redrawn. Smith regained most of the Hill Country, but kept a large portion of his share of Austin, including the area around the University of Texas.

  1. I don't know what an "at-large district" is.
  2. The 23rd is the largest district in terms of - Geography? Voters? What?
  3. Citation needed.

Edrandall (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lamar S. Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed citation entirely. It makes no sense to cite the org's home page other than "look it exists" which is unnecessary and possibly promotional. -- GreenC 20:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lamar S. Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting update to election totals[edit]

Section 3.1 (Elections) has some inaccuracies I'd like to see updated; don't have permissions to edit myself.

Then 2006 entry ends with the sentence "This was Smith's lowest winning percentage of his career."

That is no longer accurate. The 2016 general election is now Smith's lowest winning percentage; see official results at the Texas Secretary of State website: http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist319_state.htm

In addition, the 2016 election section of the page is outdated.

I'd like to see both the 2006 and 2016 entries updated. Ryanjacob (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2017[edit]

The section "Tenure" should be labeled here and everywhere "Political positions" or "Tenure - Political positions" 50.252.107.21 (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Sam Sailor 00:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lamar S. Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 August 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus  — Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Lamar S. Smith → Lamar Smith (politician) – This member of the U.S. Congress is more commonly known without his middle initial as evidenced by google search results for "Lamar Smith" + Congressman vs. "Lamar S. Smith" + Congressman, all the way up to his own congressional website. I would've made this move myself if this article hadn't been protected move=sysop since August 2012. Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 11:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation" per WP:NCDAB. Station1 (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet if you go to the Lamar Smith dab page, you'll see the other Lamar Smiths are dab'd with parenthetical titles. The politician Lamar Smith is far more commonly known without his middle initial - "Lamar Smith" + Congressman has over 400k google results, 5x more than "Lamar S. Smith". Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get only 87k hits for "Lamar Smith" + Congressman [4] vs 130k for "Lamar S. Smith" [5], but in any case, the proposal is not to move to "Lamar Smith" (which I could support, since he's the primary topic), it's to move from his real natural name to an artificial WP construct that gets only 1k google hits.[6] - Station1 (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • What? My Google search for "Lamar S. Smith" (quotes included) returns only around 25k results. Arbor to SJ (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I also get 130k for "Lamar S. Smith" (quotes included) Google search. The other factor is most common usage, is he commonly known by "Lamar S. Smith"? If so that's a suitable dab vs. using a parenthetical. The other two Lamar Smith's on the dab page, one has no middle name so no choice but use parenthesis; the other does have a middle name but likely he is most commonly known by first+last name only. -- GreenC 18:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • How come I am getting only ~25k for googling with quotes "Lamar S. Smith" yet two others are getting 130k for the same query? I have SafeSearch off. Arbor to SJ (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Generic Google count is never a good metric anyway for a few reasons. The best way IMO is search in the page title only, but only in Google News, since page titles best reflect how someone is known since that is how the news agency think the public will recognize the person. It limits the search to reliable sources, and limits to titles which is how they intend the person to be best recognized. "Lamar Smith" vs "Lamar S. Smith". However this search method is admittedly more complex then many are willing to accept, but I think it's a better metric than a generic Google search. -- GreenC 02:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • So let's do google results within specific news sites. For the Houston Chronicle - googling "Lamar S. Smith" site:chron.com - there are only three results, compared to 500+ by omitting the middle initial.
                  Then for The Washington Post, "Lamar S. Smith" site:www.washingtonpost.com has ~120 results, vs. ~400 without the "S." Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That's still an argument for titling the article "Lamar Smith". If the article is not to be titled "Lamar Smith" for whatever reason, then "Lamar S. Smith" is still more common, natural and neutral than "Lamar Smith (politician)", which gets zero results on both of those sites. Station1 (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course "Lamar Smith (politician)" is going to get zero or few google search results, just like searching for "Drake (musician)" or "John Bush (musician)".
My point from the beginning is that the politician Lamar Smith is seldom known as "Lamar S. Smith". To deal with that and the multiple articles about people named Lamar Smith, that is what the parenthetical disambiguation is for. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

That's a ridiculous question. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 25 September 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Swarm ♠ 21:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lamar S. Smith → Lamar Smith – After rethinking the previous move request, I propose that this article be just Lamar Smith, because the politician meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

Unlike the football player and civil rights activist, the congressman Lamar Smith has had the most influence in the world, because he has served in the US Congress for 30 years including as a committee chair, most recently now with the United States House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, a committee that influences major US policy and government orgs including NASA. Furthermore, his US House website and campaign website list him as simply Lamar Smith, without the middle initial. Similarly, most media coverage of him omits the middle initial, such as this April 2017 Associated Press article. Arbor to SJ (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - sounds reasonable. Page view stats outweigh the other 2 combined. When someone types n "Lamar Smith" more likely than not they are trying to reach the politician. -- GreenC 17:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - primary topic ECarlisle (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lamar Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lamar Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2018[edit]

From Rep. Lamar Smith:

I am re-formatting this request from the initial March 8, 2018 edit request. Please see a line from the Wikipedia page below, followed by the requested edit.

Wikipedia: On June 23, 2011, H.R. 2306 was introduced to Congress by Barney Frank and co-signer Ron Paul.[33]

Edit: This sentence should say that the bill was introduced “in” Congress rather than “to” Congress and the correct term is “co-sponsor” not “co-signer,” a term never used. RepSmith (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018[edit]

From Rep. Lamar Smith:

I am re-formatting this request from the initial March 8, 2018 edit request. Please see a line from the Wikipedia page below, followed by the requested edit.

Wikipedia: Smith attended the private high school at TMI — The Episcopal School of Texas and graduated in 1965.[10]

When the congressman attended the high school, it was known as Texas Military Institute. See the “Becoming Texas Military Institute” section of the schools webpage: https://www.tmi-sa.org/page/about/overview.

Edit: The sentence should read, “Smith attended a private high school, then called Texas Military Institute, now known as TMI — The Episcopal School of Texas, and graduated in 1965.” RepSmith (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Diff of change in wording. OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2018[edit]

From Rep. Lamar Smith:

I am re-formatting this request from the initial March 8, 2018 edit request. Please see a line from the Wikipedia page below, followed by the requested edit.

Wikipedia: In 1992, he married Elizabeth Lynn Schaefer,[68] a Christian Science practitioner and teacher, as was his first wife, Jane Shoultz, before her death in 1991.[69]


My first wife's maiden name is misspelled. Her maiden name was Shoults.

Edit: Correct the spelling of Jane Shoults’ maiden name. RepSmith (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Usually we don't like "I was there and I know it to be true" as that is original research and/or a primary source, but in this case the requested spelling is consistent with the spelling used in the newspaper source that was already on the article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you access the image of the page and read the word "Shoults" yourself, or did you rely on the OCR (which may have gotten it wrong)? https://newspaperarchive.com/kerrville-daily-times-jan-06-1991-p-2/ also has the name published in a newspaper, but alas both it and the current source require a subscription to see the actual page. http://thesocietydiaries.com/artful-matrimony/ also says it is "Shoults". --Guy Macon (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No answer to the above, but I cannot imagine any conceivable reason for Lamar Smith to post false information about his wife's maiden name. If anyone who owns one of the websites that incorrectly says it was "Shoultz" reads this, please correct your web page. The correct name is "Jane Shoults". --20:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2018[edit]

From Rep. Lamar Smith:

I am re-formatting this request from the initial March 8, 2018 edit request. Please see a line from the Wikipedia page below, followed by the requested edit.

Wikipedia: He was formerly a contributor to Breitbart News.[8]

This claim is inaccurate since the word “contributor” implies that I had some formal connections to the outlet, which is not true. I have written op-eds that were published by Breitbart, see: http://archive.is/UcA3T, as I have for many other outlets. The op-eds listed in the initial requested edit on March 8 (under requested edit #3) were published over the last two years. Breitbart published only two of the 36 op-eds.

Edit: The claim should be removed since it presents an inaccurate description of my relationship with Breitbart News. RepSmith (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I show at least six op-eds on Breitbart News written over a seven-year period under the byline "Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)":

Two of the above op-eds were reposted to lamarsmith.house.gov.[7][8]

Lamar Smith has also retweeted material from Breitbart on Twitter[9], an action that was heavily criticized by Scientific American.[10]

He has also praised Andrew Breitbart,[11] and has been interviewed on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight.[12]

If anything, this Wikipedia article underplays Lamar Smith's close association with Breitbart News. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2018[edit]

From Rep. Lamar Smith:

I am re-formatting this request from the initial March 8, 2018 edit request. Please see a line from the Wikipedia page below, followed by the requested edit

extended wibble
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia: As the Head of the House Science Committee, Smith has been criticized for promoting climate change denial, baselessly attacking scientific outlets and researchers...[2][3][4][5][6][7]

The sentence uses loaded and untrue phrases that create false impressions. Because this claim is located at the top of the Wikipedia page rather than in the climate change section or in a section about the congressman’s Science Committee chairmanship, it implies that the congressman’s role as Science Committee Chairman has been limited to the three inaccurately portrayed issues listed here. The congressman has worked on many issues in his capacity as Chairman, including STEM education (as noted lower on the Wikipedia page), cybersecurity, space exploration, energy, and research and development. A summary of his chairmanship should include many more subjects.

The Wikipedia sentence has been split into three parts below, with a separate response for each. Also, see the response in edit #10 in the March 8 request, which applies to this claim as well.


Part 1: Smith has been criticized for promoting climate change denial…


This claim wrongly implies that the congressman denies climate change is occurring. This claim is not an accurate description of even the media’s reporting on the congressman’s climate views. He does not deny that the climate is changing or that humans have contributed to that change; he is skeptical of exaggerated and unproven pronouncements.

Climate change is a complex issue; there are numerous variables that affect climate change. The congressman is skeptical of alarmists’ claims for three reasons. First, the congressman believes that humans contribute to climate change but he is skeptical that anyone can be certain about the precise impact of human activity on the climate. Second, he is skeptical of alarmists’ long-range predictions about what the weather will be like 100 years from now. Third, he is skeptical of alarmists’ proposed solutions of more regulations and higher taxes; he believes that increasing research and development will lead to more practical, innovative solutions. He does believe in the scientific method that follows these three principles: 1) welcomes critiques, 2) avoids unsubstantiated predictions, and 3) relies upon unbiased data.


There are several media sources that have presented an accurate description of the congressman’s views. Below are a few examples of this reporting as well as some of the Chairman’s own writings. I have added the emphasis in the articles’ excerpts below.


The Washington Times, 11/8/2017, Meeting energy and environmental challenges (Smith Op-ed)

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/8/government-should-meet-energy-and-environmental-ch/


· Today’s world is driven by technological advancements in every industry, which can increase efficiency, lower costs and benefit the environment. Technology also can provide solutions to today’s challenges. Instead of government mandates, more regulations and higher energy taxes, the federal government should invest in research that supports the development of advanced nuclear power, better energy storage and the conversion of emissions or waste into commercial products. Unfortunately, nuclear power, which is the only reliable, emissions-free source of electricity, is still criticized by environmental activists. But those who are interested in solving some of America’s environmental challenges should endorse sustainable energy policies that promote critical new technologies like advanced nuclear reactors and grid-scale energy storage.


· If successful, this technology will have more impact on carbon emissions than any current mandate, federal regulation or tax incentive.


· It is groundbreaking technology — not government regulations — that will protect the environment, lower energy costs for consumers and ensure that America remains a world energy and technology leader.



The Daily Caller, 1/29/2018, Technology Advances Civilization. Bureaucrats Do Not (Smith Op-ed)

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/29/technology-advances-civilization-bureaucrats-do-not/


· As the climate continues to change, as it always has, we should look to technology to solve possible problems. These technologies could help us both mitigate challenges and adapt to our ever-evolving world.


· In November, the Science Committee held a hearing on the topic of geoengineering with government, academic, think tank, and industry witnesses. During the hearing, experts commented on the potential power of these innovative concepts and advocated further research. While we do not yet know if these concepts will work, we should explore them further and encourage the innovative minds that are using technology to find solutions.


· By focusing our resources on basic research, we can find solutions that meet our needs.


The Washington Times, 9/25/2017, Alarmism in climate reporting (Smith op-ed)

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/25/climate-change-overreported-by-media/


· Americans deserve better than to be misled about important issues such as climate change. Instead of painting a dire future, media outlets should accurately report all the varying climate scenarios, not just the worst-case, catastrophic ones.


The Hill, 6/7/17, Paris climate agreement was a bad economic deal (Smith Op-ed)

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/336633-paris-climate-agreement-bad-economic-deal?rnd=1496788226


· Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology calculated that if all 195 countries abided by the Paris agreement it would have reduced global warming only 0.16 degree Celsius by 2100!


· Climate is changing and humans have an impact.



Daily Caller (Smith opinion): Climate Variability: Why Can’t We Talk About It?, May 31, 2017


· It is clear there is still more to learn about Earth’s climate. Instead of only focusing on the effects of human actions, we would be better served by continuing to research the full scope of issues impacting Earth’s climate. Evaluating and analyzing natural cycles will better inform how we respond and what actions might be taken. Scientists should not limit their understanding by only considering causes of climate change that fit their slanted worldview. To begin to understand the scope of climate science, scientists must investigate all reasonable, science-based approaches. This is the only way policymakers will have the information they need to make good decisions on climate change.


Morning Consult, 5/26/17, Let’s Put an End to One-Sided Science (Smith Op-ed)

https://morningconsult.com/opinions/lets-put-end-one-sided-science/


· The Science Committee is committed to advancing science by upholding its core principles. Just last month, the committee held a hearing on climate science and the scientific method with notable and respected scientific scholars. Unfortunately, many chose not to focus on the remaining scientific uncertainties we face before meaningful action is considered. Scientific debate should continue to enhance our understanding of issues such as the world’s changing climate.


Boston Globe: It’s not anti-science to expect government agencies to pursue honest, legitimate agenda; (Smith letter to the editor), Feb. 28, 2017

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/letters/2017/02/28/not-anti-science-expect-government-agencies-pursue-honest-legitimate-agenda/FqHZV7001XwogkwVonux1J/story.html

· No matter how many times The Boston Globe says I am a climate denier, that statement will continue to be untrue. I have never denied that carbon emissions contribute to climate change — the question is to what extent.


Daily Signal: The Inconvenient Facts the Media Ignore About Climate Change (Smith Opinion), Feb. 26, 2016

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/26/the-inconvenient-facts-the-media-ignores-about-climate-change/

· Those who reject the liberal viewpoint that climate change is the greatest threat to our country are ridiculed and ignored. For example, the Associated Press recently amended its stylebook to recommend that those who question the science behind global warming be called climate change “doubters” instead of “skeptics.” But this is inaccurate, since many “skeptics” don’t doubt that climate change has occurred.


My San- Antonio: Smith remains skeptical, but he’s polite; Oct. 20, 2016

https://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/josh_brodesky/article/Smith-remains-skeptical-but-he-s-polite-9999830.php

· Smith agrees the climate is warming. “I think that is probably the case,” he says. He even thinks humans are having some impact. He just thinks the impact is greatly exaggerated and highly uncertain.

· But he bristles at the dire projections. The ones about melting ice and rising sea levels, the predicted flooding and drought, the famine in developing countries, Florida underwater.


New York Times: Rep. Lamar Smith Questions Agency’s Revised Climate Data (Smith letter to the editor), Dec. 9, 2015

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/opinion/rep-lamar-smith-questions-agencys-revised-climate-data.html?_r=0

· The climate is always changing, and human activity likely plays a small role. But what climate alarmists say is sometimes untrue and often exaggerated. We should rely on good science, not science fiction, when we evaluate climate change.


USA Today, 12/13/15, Don't rely on bad climate deal (Smith Op-ed)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/13/climate-deal-president-obama-lamar-smith-editorials-debates/77253390/


· Climate change is caused by a combination of factors, including natural cycles, solar variability and human activity. Scientists still disagree about how much each of these factors contributes to overall climate change.


Part 2: [Smith has been criticized for] baselessly attacking scientific outlets and researchers…

The sources that Wikipedia cites for this sentence reference the chairman’s subpoenas of NOAA scientists and state attorneys general. However, his lawfully issued subpoenas were not “attacks,” nor were they “baseless.” The chairman issued subpoenas for information regarding the NOAA “Karl Study” because he had reason to believe the study authors ignored NOAA standards and the scientific method in compiling their conclusions. The Chairman issued subpoenas for information from several state attorneys general to obtain documents related to the attorneys general’s coordinated efforts to deprive companies, nonprofit organizations, scientists and scholars of their First Amendment rights and their ability to fund and conduct scientific research free from intimidation and threats of prosecution. Again, the Wikipedia sentence gives a false impression.



Part 3: [Smith has been criticized for] receiving funding from oil and gas companies…

This sentence needs to be put in context. Publicly available information shows that total funding from energy companies only amounts to about five percent of his total contributions. Both here and in edit #2, anyone can be criticized by anyone about anything. To cite critics is only giving one biased and, here and in edit #2, inaccurate side of the story.

Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00001811&cycle=CAREER


Edit: The sentence should be omitted. The first two parts are demonstrably wrong, and the third part is out of context and gives a false impression. RepSmith (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This claim wrongly implies that the congressman denies climate change is occurring"
You have already been told that this is not the definition of the term "climate change denial". "Climate change denial" is a general term including several flavors, from denying that temperatures are on the rise, to denying that this will have bad consequences if not stopped. All of those are motivated by dislike of regulations, and all of them are spread by free-market think tanks. The logic is
"if man-made global warming exists, has bad consequences, and can be stopped, the market will have to be regulated.
The market should not be regulated, therefore either man-made global warming does not exist or does not have bad consequences or cannot be stopped. I don't care which. Let's say, the first one."
So, climate change deniers are not flexible in their basic opinion ("science is wrong somewhere") but very flexible in the reasons ("this part of science is wrong. Oh, no, I changed my mind. It's that part.") So, whatever part you exactly deny, you are a denier.
"Let’s Put an End to One-Sided Science"
To a scientist like me, this sentence tells it all. This is a thing Trofim Lysenko could have said, trying to dictate to scientists what their results should be. If science disagrees with you, "let's put an end to it". But in science, if the results are "one-sided", that's how it is. It is not up to non-scientists, with or without with a market-fundamentalist agenda, to tell scientists what they can or cannot do. This is what climate change denial is all about: it is the same as evolution denial and holocaust denial insofar as the deniers dislike the results of science, and therefore they attack, harass, bully, misrepresent, and defame the messengers: the scientists.
"his lawfully issued subpoenas were not “attacks,” nor were they “baseless.”"
This may be news to you, but non-lawyers do not use the legal-illegal dichotomy as their main criterion for categorizing actions. Calling this harassment an "attack" is fully justified. Forcing scientists to waste lots of their time on irrelevant legal nonsense instead of doing actual work may be legal, but it is an attack nonetheless. That's what the reliable sources say.
"he had reason to believe the study authors ignored NOAA standards and the scientific method in compiling their conclusions"
This is bullshit. The only "reason" was, as I said, that their results conflicted with your worldview. That is not a reason.
"has been criticized for receiving funding from oil and gas companies"
The point here is the old criminological tool of "follow the money".
Who profits from climate change denial? Oil and gas companies.
Who is the political arm of the denial industry? Smith, Inhofe, and so on.
Oh, would you look at that: money flows from the first group to second group.
This is an interesting fact, raising the smell of corruption, and that is why our reliable sources have pointed it out. Therefore it belongs in the article.
"only amounts to about five percent of his total contributions"
But those five percent are the five percent that have been pointed out and criticized by reliable sources. Or has there been criticism for receiving funding from other buyers too? Other suspicious similarities between the financial interests of the people you got money from and the policies you pursued? We could include that, but I don't know of any sources.
Summary: you have no leg to stand on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: A wall of text such as this is unacceptable in edit requests. The congressman should spend more time reading material that applies to his elected responsibilities and less time reading his Wikipedia page because this does not conform to the clearly-stated requirements of edit requests, specifically: ... consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial. Requests should also not bundle many different issues together as here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that Smith has been criticized for promoting climate change denial is factually true - we report what the sources say. This is not the fault of Wikipedia, it is appropriately weighted based on reliable sources. -- GreenC 14:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2018[edit]

From Rep. Lamar Smith:

I am re-formatting this request from the initial March 8, 2018 edit request. Please see a line from the Wikipedia page below, followed by the requested edit.

Wikipedia: In 1982, he was elected to the 3rd Precinct of the Bexar County Commission.

There is no Bexar County Commission; it is called the Bexar County Commissioners Court.

Edit: This sentence should read, “In 1982, he was elected Bexar County Commissioner in Precinct 3.”

For citation, see:

1) Smith’s National Journal biography, which states, “He was elected to the Texas House in 1980 and the Bexar County Commissioners Court in 1982.”

https://www.nationaljournal.com/almanac/person/472#narrative


2) Bexar County Commissioners Court website: https://www.bexar.org/146/Commissioners-Court RepSmith (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am I conversing with Lamar Smith, or are you a staffer? If the latter, does Smith know what you are doing? Why did you fail to respond to my comment at the Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2018? Are you under the mistaken impression that you are filling out some sort of a form as opposed to having a discussion with some Wikipedia editors? Please engage with us and have a real conversation like a normal person instead of acting like a robot. For example, if the official name was changed from Bexar County Commission to Bexar County Commissioners Court, please tell us when that happened and give us a source. If all of the following sources got the name wrong...
...talk about that and give us some sources (preferably not behind a paywall) that you think got the name right.
--Guy Macon (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Bexar County Commissioners Court is the name of the institution. Almost certainly those other sources are using a common short-hand, the Bexar County Commission. Same thing. To get it right we would call it the Court Bexar County Commissioners Court is what he was elected to, but when referring to it after the first mention, we could say "the Bexar County Commission did this or that", or "so and so was a Bexar County Commissioner" (member of the court), seems to be a standard. -- GreenC 14:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. I have no objection either way if someone decides to make the change or not make the change.
My comments to User:RepSmith regarding engaging in a dialog with us stand. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

x — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusAquila99 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing into bio[edit]

I wish to change the intro bio to this (fully sourced):

Lamar Seeligson Smith (born November 19, 1947) is an American politician in the Republican Party who has served in the United States House of Representatives for Texas's 21st congressional district since 1987. The district includes most of the wealthier sections of San Antonio and Austin, as well as some of the Texas Hill Country. He sponsored the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and the Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act (PCIP). He also co-sponsored the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.[1]

In 2009, Smith formed the Media Fairness Caucus to combat bias in media and fake news[2]. He has remained the Caucus's chairman since its inception[3]. As the Head of the House Science Committee, Smith has been a vocal climate change skeptic, arguing the links between carbon emissions and extreme global temperature shifts have been overstated.[4][5][6][7][8][9] He was formerly a contributor to Breitbart News.[10]

In November 2017, Smith announced that he would retire from Congress at the end of his current term, and not seek re-election in 2018.[11]


The Media Fairness Caucus is an important part of Smith's record, and should be mentioned in his opening bio. Similarly, I have changed the wording of the climate change part, as the current version contains both opinions and uses vague descriptors ("has been criticized") — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusAquila99 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section per WP:LEAD is a summary of the article. The Lead doesn't even need to be sourced because it is assumed the facts are taken from the article where the sources are contained (unless there is some very contentious statement then a source is helpful - see WP:LEAD). That Smith has received significant climate criticism is a summary, and an accurate one, as supported further down in the article / sources. Your version smooths over and buries what amounts to a highly unpopular and scientifically unsound policy position, which is a significant part of Smith's legacy as the many sources attest. -- GreenC 01:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in this Wikipedia Article[edit]

I see from this talk page that there have been a number of complaints about bias in this article's lead. Sentences like this are clearly opinionated and deliberately misleading as to what the House Science Committee does:

"As the Head of the House Science Committee, Smith has been criticized for promoting climate change denial, baselessly attacking scientific outlets and researchers, and receiving funding from oil and gas companies.[2][3][4][5][6][7]"

Bias on this issue is a recurring theme in the leads for a number of GOP congressmen and it really shouldn't be. I am changing the wording to be more in line with wikipedia guidelines (which expressly discourage vague claims like "has been criticized." We need a consensus on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusAquila99 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Smith has been criticized for promoting climate change denial" is factually accurate. If we agree with those critics or not, is beside the point. We report what other people say regardless if we agree with them. We don't intentionally smooth over areas of controversy for the purpose of making someone look good/bad. -- GreenC 15:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that I could easily find multiple sources[13][14][15][16][17] for the claim "Smith has been praised for promoting climate change skepticism", which is also factually accurate. We DON'T just report what other people say after cherry picking the critics and ignoring the supporters. I just changed the sentence to
"Smith has been criticized for his position on climate change and for receiving funding from oil and gas companies."
per WP:NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but we don't give equal weight to climate deniers on Wikipedia per WP:FRINGE. -- GreenC 22:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"It is becoming more difficult to label U.S. Congressman Lamar Smith as a climate change denier."[18] And no the Houston Press is not some fringe site, nor (because someone is sure to accuse me) am I in any way a climate change denier/skeptic/whatever. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Houston article is titled "Lamar Smith Says Climate Change Is a Good Thing", the very definition of denier (denial takes multiple forms). The article also says he is "an outspoken skeptic" (denier), "climate change apologist" (denier), "Smith’s attempts at undermining climate change science" (denier) etc.. the article couldn't be more clear in its criticism of his denialism. This goes beyond being a mere "position", which implies equal validity to another position. -- GreenC 00:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it this way. An article about Lamar Smith that doesn't have the phrase "climate denial" in the lead section has a POV problem. -- GreenC 00:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GreenC. That article doesn't substantiate that he isn't a climate change denier. It just says that he both accepts all the climate change denial nonsense wholesale while also holding the fringe view that even if climate change is real, it would be a good thing. The lede can mention both his climate change denial views and also his fringe view that climate change if true would be good. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Smith has "drawn attention" or "been prominent for" his climate change denial. I'd remove the "criticized" language from the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, saying "Has been critized" is agaisnt Wikipdia rules. There is no reason the lead needs to contain such loaded language. And this applies to other pages for GOP congressmen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusAquila99 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What rule is it against, specifically? It only seems loaded to you because you see another position. But on Wikipedia, there is no other position. Per WP:FRINGE, climate science is right and those who disagree with the science are wrong. The language takes up that position rather than smoothing it over. -- GreenC 12:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that there is no "a charge that Smith denies"[19] in the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of the denial game - deny they are a denier. Like everyone in prison is innocent. Almost goes without saying. Though I suppose a sentence to the effect Smith denies he is a denier. -- GreenC 12:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might I gently suggest that you stop editing a page about a person who you have appear to have such an animosity towards? Every WP:BLP should be written with a WP:NPOV and even if you think you are immune, to me it looks like your editing shows a bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this criterion for editing exclude pretty much every scientist in the world who has ever heard of Smith, except his fellow deniers?
Animosity is not a reason for avoiding edits. Animosity plus inability to step beside oneself is. Or inability to step beside oneself without the animosity... --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a lot of ability to step beside oneself by those with a stong animosity towards Lamar Smith. I am seeing biased edits. BTW, I fully accept the scientific consensus regarding climate change, and agree that Smith is wrong. We simply need to explain this in a NPOV fashion by citing legitimate scientists who say that, (Free clue: the editorial writers for The Huffington Post and Ars Technica are not legitimate scientists) and there are plenty of such sources available. No need for biased language like "baselessly attacking scientific outlets and researchers" and no need for WP:SYNTH like listing his donations from from the fossil fuel industry under "climate change" when we already have a "donations" section.
Just describe his career according toe NPOV. Let the facts stand for themselves without the demonizing. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See next paragraph. No demonizing here. The attacks are baseless. It's a fact, not an opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a lot of ability to step beside oneself by those with a stong animosity towards Lamar Smith. -- This is ad hominem and violates the assumption of good faith. Assertions that lack of animosity is required are nonsensical and false ... people with animosity to Hitler and mosquitoes are able to edit those pages. And what you do or don't see is your personal, irrelevant, opinion. -- Jibal (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In-text attribution[edit]

I've reverted this edit. With respect, the text here is not the kind that requires in-text attribution; it is not a statement of opinion, but a factual statement from a reliable, even authoritative source (FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. See also WP:EVALFRINGE ("Claims that are uncontroversial and uncontested within reliable sources should be presented as simple statements of fact"). Neutralitytalk 21:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to go to WP:ANI over trying to put an editorial opinion in Wikipedia's voice as if it was a fact, I can go that way, but I would prefer that you stop the POV pushing now before this escalates. And you might also want to look up the meanings of "uncontroversial" and "uncontested".
"Smith has made a number of false and misleading claims about climate change" is not a fact. It is an opinion. It happens to be an opinion that I strongly agree with, but I am not going to abandon NPOV because of my personal opinions. I strongly suggest that you do the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That numerous of Smith's claims about climate change are false and misleading is uncontroversial and uncontested. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a opinion, editorial or otherwise, Guy. Facts matter, and WP:EVALFRINGE is policy. And read it again -- the standard is what is "uncontroversial and uncontested within reliable sources." As the Annenberg Public Policy Center cite demonstrates, the fact that Smith's often-stated views on climate change are false/misleading is not controversial or contested within reliable sources.
I'll add that the personal remarks (i.e., that others are "POV pushing" and "abandoning NPOV") are unbecoming and uncalled for, especially when you're 4-1 here (GreenC, Snooganssnoogans, Hob Gadling, and me). Neutralitytalk 02:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Though you are not counting the newcomers/WP:SPAs, User:MarcusAquila99 and User:RepSmith, that is how it looks to me. This is just another application of WP:Lunatic charlatans. The only difference I can see is that in this instance, the pseudoscience promoter is more powerful than usual. Having a whole media circus performing for his opinion is not uncommon, see Andrew Wakefield or homeopathy. As usual, the media outlets in question are unreliable, especially when it comes to science. Nobody serious is saying that Smith's attacks on scientists were in any way justified. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... is not a fact. It is an opinion. -- It's an opinion that is true, just as your statement is an opinion that is false ... although I think your opinion is a misunderstanding of what the word "fact" means, and a mistaken belief that opinions cannot be factual. The statement "Smith has made a number of false and misleading claims about climate change" is an empirical assertion, and therefore has a truth value, unlike subjective views like "Lamar Smith is honorable". There is overwhelming evidence that the empirical statement is true.
But that isn't even relevant, because Wikipedia is not based on truth, it's based on reliable sources, and the statement is well-sourced.
As for And you might also want to look up the meanings of "uncontroversial" and "uncontested", you might want to avoid ad hominems and not take things out of context ... the policy is "within reliable sources", and you won't find reliable sources that assert that Smith's false statements are true. -- Jibal (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unwatching this page[edit]

I will be unwatching this page in a day or so with my opinion that this article violates WP:NPOV unchanged. Some here might want to ponder why it is that a twelve-year veteran editor with 40,000 edits to 15,000 pages and zero blocks who has consistently and strongly criticized Lamar Smith over climate change and SOPA came to such a conclusion. On reflection, I see that it was a mistake to edit anything related to politics and am returning to the science and technology pages. I will read (but most likely will not respond to) any responses to this, but please don't ping me or message me. I don't want to have anything to do with this from now on. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I belatedly notice and agree with your NPOV concern, but sympathize with your reluctance to pursue it now. No response is expected. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above comments have no relevance to the article and don't belong on this page ... they should be moved to your own talk page. If you want to contribute, do so. If you don't want to, don't ... but don't play petty personal politics here with silly GBCW declarations. -- Jibal (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an address to the summary box[edit]

Can this be done, if those who worked on the article know it? It seems like useful public knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:102:E4D0:D8F0:AF19:976E:7A66 (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Climate change denial[edit]

The article states:

"As of 2015, Smith has received more than $600,000 from the fossil fuel industry during his career in Congress.[56] In 2014, Smith got more money from fossil fuels than he did from any other industry.[57] Smith publicly denies global warming.[58][59][60] Under his leadership, the House Science committee has held hearings that feature the views of climate change deniers,[61] subpoenaed the records and communications of scientists who published papers that Smith disapproved of,[58] and attempted to cut NASA's earth sciences budget.[62] He has been criticized for conducting "witch hunts" against climate scientists.[57] In his capacity as chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Smith issued more subpoenas in his first three years than the committee had for its entire 54-year history.[57] In a June 2016 response letter to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Mr. Smith cited the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s as valid legal precedent for his investigation.[63][64]"

Climate change is not just his opinion. This man is the McCarthy of our times (he "cited the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee", so he obviously embraces that comparison), and he is paid well by the industry that gains from those activities. If the rules say he does not beloing in Category:Climate change denial, there is something badly wrong with the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration[edit]

I am surprised Lamar Smith's view on immigration does not seem to be mentioned on this page. For years, he was one of the main anti-immigrant voices in Congress; see for example [1]. Stian (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11515132/iirira-clinton-immigration
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lamar_Smith&oldid=1209047914"