Jump to content

Talk:Eleanor Holmes Norton

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

Voting status

[edit]

Ms. Norton appears to have gotten a floor vote, as of today. --Wgbc2032 18:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you have a misunderstanding of the facts. Ms. Norton has had a vote in the Committee of the Whole House for several weeks, like the other territorial delegates, but does not have a vote as a member of the House. The bill that would give the District a full voting Representative has not yet passed the House, and even if it does, it would not become law unless and until it passes the Senate and is signed by the President (or passed over his veto...). And then an election would have to be held to fill the new seat. --Russ (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said Ms. Norton had a vote on the house floor because she was counted on this floor vote and this one and this one. She wasn't counted on two other votes approved later that day so I suppose it's plausible her being counted was a clerical error, though I'd need to hear it to believe it. There are no other house Democrats named Norton (a fact easily verified by viewing votes tallied before Mar. 29) so this can only be her. The bill to give Ms. Norton a vote on the house floor was agreed to by the way, and the final tally can be seen here. --Wgbc2032 05:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: The vote I cited on the house floor merely sent the bill back to committee, as I've learned vis-a-vis Ms. Norton's congressional website, so my bad for misinterpreting it and bringing it up in this context. She doesn't mention any floor votes on the site, so perhaps her being counted on those other votes was an error. --Wgbc2032 05:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Clemens Hearing

[edit]

What about her comment that Clemens is going to heaven? What a joke that was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.223.36 (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She allegedly left a phone message allegedly illegally asking lobbyist for campaign contribution.

[edit]

The alleged audio recording, a transcript of the alleged recording, and an explanation why her request is allegedly illegal can all be found here. I use the word "alleged" because this is a BLP. I won't add anything to the article without getting an OK from someone else here who is more experienced on these kinds of things. 71.182.184.20 (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a controversy on this issue that has been covered by multiple, independent secondary sources that meet the reliability test, then, certainly, this should be covered. However, an allegation made by a fringe blogger like Andrew Breitbart does not merit inclusion. Someone has added this "Controversy," but one blogger's posting does not a controversy make. I'll wait for further discussion here, additional sourcing, and/or added text that will present a balanced viewpoint on the issue. Failing that, however, the content should be removed. Wikipedia is not journalism and does not cover all potential controversies or questionable behaviors of topics just because they are or may be true. Feeeshboy (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now the section dominates the article, and still fails to present a responsibly balanced point of view based on secondary source analysis. I'm removing this as undue weight, POV content, and fact-picking. Please discuss here before reinserting material on this "controversy." Feeeshboy (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your description of Andrew Breitbart as a "fringe blogger" is baseless and reprehensible. He's certainly less fringe than Eleanor Holmes Norton. All he did was play an audiotape of her. You are abusing the Wikipedia rules by deleting completely neutral edits for which reliable authority has been provided. 76.168.205.230 (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are NOT entitled to disparage the subject on the talk page. The reliability of the source is far from the only problem with the content I have removed. That the recording is real (and really Norton) is not even in dispute here. Presenting facts is not inherently neutral. Please read Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons because it is explained better there, but basically, covering a controversy such as this requires context and a presentation of secondary source analysis. Facts by themselves can appear slanted, and can even be slanted; the section as it was gave the text of a phone call whose impropriety was debatable under the section heading "Controversy." This implies that the phone call was controversial without giving any description of why; the reader can only conclude that the article is intended to disparage the subject, which is clearly not NPOV. Even if you changed the name of the section, however, it would not fix this, because one would still be asking why this information was even written up in an encyclopedia article if there was not some implication of impropriety. This is why it is crucial to cite analysis from secondary sources, so it is clear that nothing is implicit but what is said. Usually, this takes the form of "Some people criticized the subject for X, but she/others defended herself/her as follows...". This is explained well on the biographies of living persons page.
If you are dissatisfied with the progress of this discussion, or if you think I have violated Wikipedia policy, then you can request mediation by an admin. However, you are incorrect in your accusations; I have explained my edits clearly and cited wikipolicies which your contributions have violated. I have also given you suggestions of ways to include information on this issue that would not be objectionable. Despite your accusations to the contrary, I have been very clear from the start that it is not the content itself but the way it is presented (which is unduly disparaging and slanted against the subject) that is unacceptable. If you are interested in making edits that introduce this controversy in a way that is in line with Wikipolicy, then I will be happy to assist you. The only reason I completely removed the content for the time being is that it had been moved up front to dominate the article, as if the subject ought to be mainly known for this one phone call, which is clear soapboxing. Feeeshboy (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More reliable sourcing from ABC News and Politico 72.95.234.95 (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are excellent secondary sources which can be used to put together a balanced summary of the controversy. Feeeshboy (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current edit is still too reliant upon primary source information (direct quotes), but I appreciate the good faith efforts to move toward NPOV. I'll put some edits into this later today, but for now, I support the inclusion. Feeeshboy (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Latest reporting from the Washington Post: [1] Expert legal opinion is that the calls are standard and not against House rules. -epicAdam(talk) 01:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an part of the last "This American Life" program on PRI that goes over the phone call, it seems like it should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totoalex (talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C. parking incident

[edit]

I don't believe this event meets the Wikipedia notability requirement for events. Bad parking is barely a story, and a single, as-yet-unverified source is insufficient to justify its inclusion. The language of the section violates NPOV guidelines as well. My inclination is to delete the section entirely, but for now, I've just renamed it and added a template warning. -Juansmith (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad parking is barely a story, but criminal activity is. As for verification, the video is right bleeping there and the congresswoman herself confirmed it. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 15:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Verification is fine at this point, but I'd say it's premature to call it criminal activity. The person on the video states that she hit the red car, but the video doesn't show her doing so, and no photos have emerged (that I'm aware of, or that are cited in the article) that show any damage to either of the surrounding vehicles. So far, this is just a lousy parking job. Juansmith (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the section to make the language more neutral, and added a few inline citation requests. I still don't think the claim that she hit the adjacent cars is relevant unless it's verified from a source other than the person recording the video - and if the cars were undamaged (and no police investigation of any kind ensued), I would argue that this entire section should be deleted per the notability requirement for events above. -Juansmith (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the Washington Post story on 2015-03-27 [1], I'm calling this a non-event. Neither adjacent vehicle reported damage - reported by Norton's staff, and confirmed by the Capitol Police. This is a story of a bad parking job, which doesn't meet the Wikipedia Notability requirements for events (see WP:N(E) as well as WP:SENSATION). Juansmith (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-del-eleanor-holmes-norton-explains-bad-parking-job/2015/03/27/1399b112-d470-11e4-ab77-9646eea6a4c7_story.html
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eleanor Holmes Norton. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eleanor Holmes Norton. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chair succession

[edit]

I started a discussion at Talk:Clarence Thomas relating to the infoxbox on Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chair succession that is also relevant to this article. At the moment the infobox in this article lists Clarence Thomas as Eleanor Holmes Norton's successor in this office and Lowell Perry as her predecessor. While it is true they were the succeeding and proceeding permanent holders of the office, in both cases there were temporary chairs for over a year between them and Holmes Norton holding office. As I have noted in the other discussion, the infobox for Gilbert F. Casellas, who became chair in 1994 after another long period of of an acting chair, notes both his permanent predecessor as chair, Evan Kemp, and Tony Gallegos who held the acting role in 1993 and 1994, so I wonder if this would be a better approach for this infobox and the one in the Clarence Thomas article? Dunarc (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eleanor_Holmes_Norton&oldid=1257914935"