Jarvis Island and Talk:Chris Chocola: Difference between pages

Keep partisan attacks OUT of the bios. You know who you are that keeps doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.224.67.23 (talk • contribs)

Stop removing sourcing information simply because it happens to reflect poorly on a person. older ≠ wiser 19:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You are engaging in partisan attacks, as you may have heard wiki will soon have a new policy on this. It would be wise for you to be responsible.

None of the allegations against Delay have been proven. Ronnie Earl has a long history of political endictments that went no where and we also know that Earl had to shop the charges to several grand juries because they kept refusing to indict. As we also know newt Gingrich had 92 ethics charges filed against him, all proved to go no where. This is why allegations need to stay out of the bios.

Here is an example of Earl's misconduct - Under Kay Baily Hutchinsons bio (which I am sure that you will go edit now so I guess I will have to watch that as well).

QUOTE: Shortly after the special election victory, Travis County authorities, led by district attorney Ronnie Earle, raided Hutchison's offices at the State Treasury looking for proof of allegations that Hutchison used state equipment and employees on state time to help with her campaign. She was indicted by a grand jury in September, 1993 for official misconduct and records tampering. Senator Hutchison was acquitted, as Earle did not have sufficient evidence to present. Time magazine reported, “Earle amassed thousands of documents as evidence and many thought the new Senator would lose her job. But at a pretrial hearing, the judge and Earle clashed over the admissibility of the documents; fearing he would lose, Earle declined to present a case. Hutchison was quickly acquitted and Earle was portrayed as a fool.” Time, July 14, 2003.

Again Bkonrad - this is another example of why unproven allegations need to stay out of the BIOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.224.67.23 (talk • contribs)

Calm down. You were removing a sourced statement of fact (which unfortunately also had an implication of guilt by association). The editorializing about ourfuture.org (or whatever that site is) that you added is inappropriate content for the article. There are a couple of ways to look at this. 1) Either it is or is not a fact that Chocola was the sixth largest recipient of funds. That source indicates he is and there's nothing to indicate that it is untrue. The statement about Delay's indictment as phrased is not very relevent to Chocola, however. That leads to 2) is the fact relevent? That's more debatable. To my knowledge, no one has accused the recipients of such funds of misconduct -- although I believe several have voluntarily returned money (either from ARMPAC or from Abramoff's contacts). Personally, I don't care all that strongly. I don't think the articles should whitewash such details, but there is a lot of leeway in how the details are presented. older ≠ wiser 20:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

However, your comment does still have an unproven allegation against someone else, namely Tom Delay. It is unfair to have an unproven allegation in a BIOS without a more complete picture, so the added on paragrapgh is appropriate.

Bkonrad - if you insist that the upproven allegation be added than the other side of the allegation in the following paragrapgh is appropriate to provide more information and balance. Also removing the information about Ronnie Earle and what he did to Kay Bailey Hitchison was whitewashing details, which you have accused others of doing. Also, pointing out that the web site you linked is a partisan outfit is not editorializing, in fact it is glaringly obvious just by looking at the web sites home page. Perhaps a better non-partisan link to the center for responsive politics would be more appropriate - User:Bachs

What is the "unproven allegation"? It is a fact that he was indicted. Whether that indictment will stand is another matter. As for the other information, I'll leave it be for now, though the relevance is rather dubious. The article is about Chocola, not Delay, not Earl, not Hutchinson. However, I did remove what you term "pointing out that the web site you linked is a partisan outfit is not editorializing" -- 1) I did not link to it, the link was there, you removed it, I restored it. 2) it is editorializing. Unless you are disputing the factuality of the list at the web site, it is irrelvant whether they are a partisan attack site or from Mars. If there is a better link to the same information, then I certainly have no objection to using that instead.

BTW, you can sign you comments on talk pages by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your comment. That automatically expands to your user name and a date/time stamp. older ≠ wiser 20:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

bkonrad - Everyone knows that any prosecutor can indict a ham salad sandwich - except Ronnie Earle who had to shop it to several grand juries before one would bite. So when you post an allegation about Tom Delay in Chris Chocola's bio, you automatically make it about Earle, because his conduct in this case cannot be ignored ethically. However, if you insist in using a partisan political link and are calling it fair; I have added some links to the national review articles about Ronnie Earle's movie just to provide balance. Bottom line, if DeLay's indictment is brought into this, bringing up the misconduct of Ronnie Earle, his prosecutor, is the only ethical option. Bachs 21:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Bkonrad - To answer your question - an indictment is an unproven allegation by definition. This is why it is unwise to have unproven allegations in anyones profile. Especially when the indictment or the unproven allegation is about Tom DeLay and not Chris Chocola. Bachs 21:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, are you always this cranky or did you just get up on the wrong side today? I NEVER said that ourfuture.org was "fair". The reason it is linked here is because of the list of contributions. I'd have no problem whatsoever with that information being sourced by a less partisan site. The link is there to substantiate the claim that Chocola was #6 -- nothing more. In fact it'd be better if it were sourced from a less partisan source. As for all the other tangential stuff, personally, I think it only goes to demonstrate how defensive Republicans have become about the whole Delay and Abramoff news. So if you want to blow everything out of proportion with exhaustive denials and attempts to shift blame and thereby make it look as though there really is something there, that is up to you. As for your last point, an indictment is an indictment. Whether meritorious or not is yet to be decided. However, it is a fact 1) that Delay was indicted and 2) that his indictment (along with Abramoff) is causing more than a little consternation among Republinans. older ≠ wiser 21:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Bkonrad - you are now engaging in personal attacks against me. It is most unfortunate that you refuse to discuss things in a dignified manner. If you are going to include an indictment against Tom DeLay in Chris's Bio, than it is only fair to present the other side of that indictment story. Bachs 21:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way - about Mr. Abromoff - he gave money to over 200 members of congress, 64% were republicans, which means many were not. Why dont you take a look right here where Ried got $50,000 from Abromoff's clients...

Feb. 03, 2006 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Tribes gave to Reid after hiring Abramoff

By TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Feb-03-Fri-2006/news/5696811.html.

Now why dont we keep Chris Chocola's bio about Chris Chocola and not about Tom Delay or Harry Ried or Jack Abramoff. Bachs 21:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Bkonrad - You are trying to whitewash and censor the facts surrounding DeLay's indictment. Since you insist that the DeLay indictment be a part of Chris's bio - the other side of that indictment story WILL be in the article. I will be monitoring this site 24/7 so if you want to censor, I hope you have alot of time on your hands. Bachs 21:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Get a grip (or a clue, or preferably both). I have not made ANY personal attack on you. If you think that my description of your posturing here as "cranky" is inaccuarate or constitutes a personal attack, then by all means, please take this to RFC -- I'd love to see what other Wikipedians have to say about your behavior here. I have not touched the article since the last time I commented. I am willing to leave your comments in the article. Another editor removed your comments. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 22:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

By all means lets - if this page is about Chris, than make it about Chris and not play guilt of association games with unproven allegations from Ronnie Earle, who is making a movie. If you include the Delay Indictment , than both sides of the Delay indictment must be presented. There is nothing untruthfull about what I have posted. In my view, since nothing in the Delay allegations is proven, there is no point in indicting everyone by association that his PAC game money to until it is proven, especially in light of Ronnie Earle's history. Bachs 22:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Under Debate

Per wiki template guidelines I have put the contested section under "Under Debate" that should make most people happy and is a reasonable compromise. Bachs 00:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this paragraph twice. As I mentioned on User Talk:Bachs, a lengthy excursus on Tom DeLay and Ronnie Earle is not relevant to Chocola's article. The article makes no assumption that DeLay is guilty, and expressly says that Chocola has not been accused of any wrongdoing. NatusRoma 02:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If this page is about Chris or the perspective member of Congress, than make it about Chris and not play guilt of association games with unproven allegations from Ronnie Earle, who is making a movie. If you include the Delay Indictment , than both sides of the Delay indictment must be presented. There is nothing untruthfull about what I have posted. In my view, since nothing in the Delay allegations is proven, there is no point in indicting everyone by association that his PAC game money to until it is proven.

You cannot include one side of an unproven allegation and not include the other side. If you insist on playing "guilt by association" to members of congress based un unproven allegations by Ronnie Earle who is making a movie and who has engaged in politically motivated indictments before than both sides of the indictment story must be explained in order to have balance. Also - if the members are going to be critiqued for not returning the money the reason for not returning the money should be listed. Again - you cannot whitewash one side of the indictment story and than use it to play the "guilt by association game" on the members bios, its unfair.

The only ethical choices are to have both sides of the Delay indictment story or no reference to it at all. Bachs 02:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

DeLay

None of the allegations against DeLay have been proven. Ronnie Earle, the Tom Delay prosecutor, has a history of indictments against Democrat and Republican political enemies that have failed (see Kay Bailey Hutchison) and it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to several grand juries because some refused to indict. [1] One of the charges filed by Earle was summarily dismissed by trial judge Pat Priest. Earle has partnered up with producers making a movie, called The Big Buy, about his pursuit of DeLay that has been filming since before DeLay was notified of the charges. [2] [3] [4]

This was added because the added statement about Tom Delay is an unproven allegation that is used to make the member of congress guilty by association. Especially when there is much evidence that Ronnie Earle's indictments are politically motivated. You cannot include one side of an unproven allegation and not include the other, to do so would be unfair and biased. The best course of action is to leave any reference to DeLay on Tom Delay's page and not Chris Chocola's until this matter is resolved in a court of law.

And have no mention of the relevant information that Chocola has been criticized for not returning the money or donating it to charity? We can do better than willful ignorance. A brief mention of the reason for the criticism, coupled with the implied presumption of innocence, is sufficient here. NatusRoma 03:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who is trying to whitewash information on the Delay Indictments so that only one side of the story is told so you can imply guily by association - The behavior and credibility of the prosecutor in teh DeLay case has everything to do with it - Not to mention that it is absolutely TRUE.... so let me ask yopu Roma, why are you so hellbent on making sure the whole truth doesnt get out there ??? Bachs 03:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am growing weary of the aspersions you are casting on my motives. Please stop doing that. My only goal in this matter is an encyclopedia that contains articles that are factual, neutral, and not unduly focused on any tangential issue. NatusRoma 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you are weary - however your actions in this case that are designed to keep the facts out cause me great concern that is justified.

I offer the following edit as a compromise since it is shorter and a bit more pithy.

Among all members of Congress, Chocola received the sixth largest amount of money from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's political action committee ARMPAC. In 2005, DeLay was indicted on felony money laundering charges by Ronnie Earle. While DeLay has not been convicted of any crime, and no one has accused the recipients of such campaign funds of misconduct, the indictments have led Democrats to call on Chocola to return the money or to donate it to charity. [5] Republicans say that the charges by Ronnie Earle are politically motivated because Earle has a history of indictments against Democrat and Republican political enemies that have failed (see Kay Bailey Hutchison) and it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to several grand juries because some refused to indict. [6] Republicans also criticized Earle for making a movie called The Big Buy, about his pursuit of DeLay that has been filming since before DeLay was notified of the charges. [7] [8] [9] Bachs 03:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Having several sentences criticizing Ronnie Earle gives undue weight to DeLay's defenders. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. The notion that DeLay is innocent is a viewpoint equal to the notion that he is guilty, and a statement of the presumption of innocence in DeLay's indictment is sufficient. A better formulation would be this diff. NatusRoma 03:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary - Ronnie Earle has everything to do with the indictments against Delay - he has made himself a part of the story with his conduct and his movie. Almost every press article that you see out there that references this also references part of the history of Ronnie Earle, so I am comfortable with the fact that I have a great deal of journalists the seem to agree with me. Bachs 03:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Again I tell you my strongest argument which you keep on ignoring, and that is if you are going to bring up the DeLay indictments in Chris's bio, than it is only fair that both sides of the incictment story be told.

You cant say with any fairness, that Chris's friend Delay is a crook , but hey by no means do we think that Chris is a crook (wink wink , nod nod) ...... thats like printing "Hey XXXXX Person did not beat his wife last night" Bachs 03:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)