Talk:Michael Steele credit report incident
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 10 April 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Neutrality[edit]
Please feel free to make edits or comments.--Tbeatty 02:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
DSCC[edit]
What is DSCC? It still don't know, and have to go Google for it. It should have been spelled out and maybe wikilinked. Other than that, I dont' see why the neutrality of this article is being disputed. -- Mareklug talk 22:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee - Run be Sen. Charles Schumer. I added explanation and wikilink. --Tbeatty 00:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
œ==Merge== There was no consensus to delete this article, but only two people out of the entire vote called for an outright keep, as opposed to a merge. I'm going to put this on RfC and see if we can get a consensus one way or the other. Gamaliel 19:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- If anything, it should be merged into Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee but because it affects two notable pages, it should be kept separate with Main article links to here. --Tbeatty 19:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting. Are you planning to change your AFD votes on 9-11: The Road to Tyranny and Bush Crimes Commission under the same criterion that multiple pages link to them? Derex 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. There's no there there. This doesn't merit more than a sentence: "Two DSCC staffers lost their jobs and one pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge for illegally obtaining a credit card report for Steele." with a link to the WaPo article. -- FRCP11 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- More importantly, since this is not a vote, there were no sound arguments for a keep rather than a merge. The closing admin is supposed to assess quality of reasoning when evaluating consensus. Derex 19:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. There are very sound arguments for a keep. The DSCC broke the law, spent campaign contributions and used fraud to obtain private information about a political opponent. The outcome so far is one guilty plea, two firings and the potential for more legal action. The fact that they admitted it isn't a reason to delete or downplay the article or it's significance. This event affects two noteworthy articles (DSCC and Michael Steele) and should be kept. --Tbeatty 20:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- This minor incident is already sufficiently covered in both those articles and this article adds nothing of importance that can't be merged. Gamaliel 20:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Minor" is POV. Certainly Steele, Schumer and the Justice department didn't think it was minor. The two people who lost their jobs probably didn't think it was minor. We can always merge "minor" articles into larger ones but what's the point? Saving paper? There are details that would be left out or it would swamp the major article. Steele's biography is too small and this would swamp it unfairly. Likewise for DSCC. Let it have it's 2 or 3 sentences in the other page, and this one can have details like the plea agreement and other commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbeatty (talk • contribs)
- The POV rule does not apply to talk page discussion, so I have no idea why the heck you are invoking it. The existing para. fits in the Steele article quite nicely and the few tiny bits of info that aren't already there will hardly "swamp" it. Gamaliel 01:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't invoking it for the talk page but rather your use of it to justify merging. --Tbeatty 21:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I also don't think there is an issue of swamping the article; rather I think the split makes it less readable. But, if that's truly the concern, then Tbeatty also ought to push for a Michael Steele stem cell controvery and Michael Steele campaign finance controversy for the same reason. I wouldn't personally agree with that, but I don't see why the logic on that should really be any different. Derex 01:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Both of those example your example are largely contained by Michael Steele. The DSCC part of this scandal is very large and significant, in fact it is the dominant part. Steele is the victim which makes it noteworthy on his page but the DSCC also should have a detailed entry. For the reason that it is prominent in two prominent topics means it should have it's own article.--Tbeatty 21:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Then please see your two delete votes I alluded to at the top of this section. You'll surely want to go change those.
- Also, Michael Steele's campaign finance issues don't concern him alone. Obviously, since the issue is the appearance of kickbacks, the donors' articles will need a discussion as well. Then, we can use the new Steele campaign fincance article to serve as a more detailed discussion servicing all the articles. I'll go check whether we presently have articles on those donor non-profits. Certainly we should, especially considering their prominence from association with this controversy. Derex 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- What two delete votes are you talking about? I don't recall voting on the Bush Crimes Commission or whatever it was. The 9/11 moview was simply not notable. But you think that a crime involving the DSCC is the same as a vanity movie post? Or a mock court trial is the same as a real court trial with a guilty plea? Please. If you can find sources that link donors to illegal activity I am sure that it will show up on their pages a la Jack Abramoff. Or maybe visit the Tom Delay page. It's filled with appearances. But those aren't what's being discussed here. This is a single incident where an oppo staffer, with the consent of her boss, used a DSCC credit card to illegally and unethically obtain personal information about an African-American candidate for office. How many pages link here is not the issue. The issue is whether it can be fairly covered in other articles. The answer, in my opinion, is no. Either detail will be lost or the detail will unfairly swamp both the DSCC or the Michael Steele article. --Tbeatty 02:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. You've convinced me on the standard; I agree that any notable controversy referenced by multiple articles ought to receive it's own article. That will avoid swamping any of the individual ones. Since the issue of kickbacks to a public official for handing out grants is quite serious, and the story is notable enough to have received coverage in the Baltimore Sun, it needs its own article. It's just too big an issue to handle fairly in multiple places. All the more so because it's a controversy not a conviction, which requires more care to keep neutral. I'll work one up tomorrow, probably under the title I suggested above. I'd welcome your help and advice on it. (Just curious, why do you mention that he's black just above?) Derex 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't mention that he's black. I said that the DSCC went after a conservative African-American in an unethical and illegal way. His race isn't important to me. But it seems to be very important to his opponents. --Tbeatty 03:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- "an African-American candidate for office" .... How did that not constitute mentioning his race? Or is your native tongue not English? Derex 03:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently subtle distinctions are not your forte. As for your other comment, I didn't set this standard for inclusion. Please have a visit to Lori Klausutis. I (and apparently her widower husband) would prefer that it be deleted and just have the small sentence (or actually no sentence since it had nothing to do with him) in Joe Scarborough. --Tbeatty 04:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- The Klausutis article (and I have no idea why you are bringing it up here) is a direct consequence of your edit warring on the Joe Scarborough article. I'd prefer the information be in the JS article myself, but I don't feel like arguing about it for another year. Gamaliel 05:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently subtle distinctions are not your forte. As for your other comment, I didn't set this standard for inclusion. Please have a visit to Lori Klausutis. I (and apparently her widower husband) would prefer that it be deleted and just have the small sentence (or actually no sentence since it had nothing to do with him) in Joe Scarborough. --Tbeatty 04:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- "an African-American candidate for office" .... How did that not constitute mentioning his race? Or is your native tongue not English? Derex 03:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't mention that he's black. I said that the DSCC went after a conservative African-American in an unethical and illegal way. His race isn't important to me. But it seems to be very important to his opponents. --Tbeatty 03:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. You've convinced me on the standard; I agree that any notable controversy referenced by multiple articles ought to receive it's own article. That will avoid swamping any of the individual ones. Since the issue of kickbacks to a public official for handing out grants is quite serious, and the story is notable enough to have received coverage in the Baltimore Sun, it needs its own article. It's just too big an issue to handle fairly in multiple places. All the more so because it's a controversy not a conviction, which requires more care to keep neutral. I'll work one up tomorrow, probably under the title I suggested above. I'd welcome your help and advice on it. (Just curious, why do you mention that he's black just above?) Derex 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- What two delete votes are you talking about? I don't recall voting on the Bush Crimes Commission or whatever it was. The 9/11 moview was simply not notable. But you think that a crime involving the DSCC is the same as a vanity movie post? Or a mock court trial is the same as a real court trial with a guilty plea? Please. If you can find sources that link donors to illegal activity I am sure that it will show up on their pages a la Jack Abramoff. Or maybe visit the Tom Delay page. It's filled with appearances. But those aren't what's being discussed here. This is a single incident where an oppo staffer, with the consent of her boss, used a DSCC credit card to illegally and unethically obtain personal information about an African-American candidate for office. How many pages link here is not the issue. The issue is whether it can be fairly covered in other articles. The answer, in my opinion, is no. Either detail will be lost or the detail will unfairly swamp both the DSCC or the Michael Steele article. --Tbeatty 02:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Both of those example your example are largely contained by Michael Steele. The DSCC part of this scandal is very large and significant, in fact it is the dominant part. Steele is the victim which makes it noteworthy on his page but the DSCC also should have a detailed entry. For the reason that it is prominent in two prominent topics means it should have it's own article.--Tbeatty 21:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- The POV rule does not apply to talk page discussion, so I have no idea why the heck you are invoking it. The existing para. fits in the Steele article quite nicely and the few tiny bits of info that aren't already there will hardly "swamp" it. Gamaliel 01:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Minor" is POV. Certainly Steele, Schumer and the Justice department didn't think it was minor. The two people who lost their jobs probably didn't think it was minor. We can always merge "minor" articles into larger ones but what's the point? Saving paper? There are details that would be left out or it would swamp the major article. Steele's biography is too small and this would swamp it unfairly. Likewise for DSCC. Let it have it's 2 or 3 sentences in the other page, and this one can have details like the plea agreement and other commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbeatty (talk • contribs)
- This minor incident is already sufficiently covered in both those articles and this article adds nothing of importance that can't be merged. Gamaliel 20:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. There are very sound arguments for a keep. The DSCC broke the law, spent campaign contributions and used fraud to obtain private information about a political opponent. The outcome so far is one guilty plea, two firings and the potential for more legal action. The fact that they admitted it isn't a reason to delete or downplay the article or it's significance. This event affects two noteworthy articles (DSCC and Michael Steele) and should be kept. --Tbeatty 20:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there you have it. I guess I'm satisfied to have gotten you to openly admit you're just another POV warrior starting this article and Laura B. Weiner and Katie Barge out of some warped sense of political revenge. I'm tired of this, and will go about my business now. Obviously, I'm not actually going to start a Steele campaign finance article, even though that would be considerably less ridiculous than this. Neither merits an article. Derex 17:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It's been two weeks since the listing on RFC and no one has objected to the merge except Tbeatty. So I'm going ahead with the merge. Gamaliel 05:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)