Talk:Maxine Waters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Maxine Waters is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
??? This article has not yet been assigned a subject.
The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."

Contents

[edit] Rolling Stone 10 Top Worst Congressfolk =

Not sure who got this idea and from where they got it, but she isn't on that particular list: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12054520/the_10_worst_congressmen --Revaaron

Aside from William Jefferson (La.), all of the members of the list were Republicans. 76.21.8.213 (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


What does political party have to do with anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.223.221.106 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Superdelegate

Clinton supporters and/or Waters supporters keep deleting the fact that Waters is placing her superdelegate vote for Clinton even though her district went to Obama. One user said that this fact is "irrelevant to the process", which is blatantly false. It is in fact the most newsworthy and controversial aspect of the superdelegate process. I've edited the pages of other congressmen who are contradicting the will of the voters by siding with Obama when their districts went for Clinton. Frankly, every superdelegate's page should mention who they've endorsed, and whether or not their endorsement matches that of their constituents. It's an incredibly important, incredibly relevant issue. Also somebody should track the IP of the most recent deleter, and see if they came from Waters' office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.78.77 (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


The discussion of Waters intended vote as a Superdelegate in contrast with how her district voted is being deleted because, per the official rules of the Democratic Party, there is no correlation between a Superdelegates' vote and that of the Presidential Primary conducted in that persons district. Some Superdelegates aren't even elected officials and thus don't represent districts where primary elections are held. If you'd like to dispute the Superdelegate process as instituted by the Democratic Party then I suggest you take that up with that institution. Your discussion of "Superdelegates contradicting the will of the voters" implies that the Superdelegate process is somehow beholden to the "will of the voters." It's not. And, no amount of editing Wikipedia (or threatening to expose someone for correcting a factual error) is going to change the rules of the Democratic Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.143.161 (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
See "Superdelegate" Wikipedia article for the following,
"Superdelegate" is an informal term commonly used for some of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the presidential nominating convention of the United States Democratic Party. Unlike most convention delegates, the superdelegates are not selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination. Instead, most of the superdelegates are seated automatically, based solely on their status as current or former party leaders and elected officials ("PLEOs"). Others are chosen during the primary season. All the superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination." —Preceding

--Smart Ways (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this: (cur) (last) 16:13, 4 April 2008 Sarcasticidealist (Talk | contribs) (8,633 bytes) (I don't doubt that it can be sourced, but I'm not really convinced that it's relevant. If the aim is to imply controversy, find a source for the controversy. Otherwise, I don't see why it's there.) (undo) (cur) (last) 15:59, 4 April 2008 Jossi (Talk | contribs) (8,683 bytes) (→2008 Election: I am sure a source can be found for this) (undo)

I don't believe it to be relevant. I've raised the issue on here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard --Smart Ways (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Quoting from the web site of the San Diego Union-Tribune:
"Superdelegates can vote for whomever they choose at the party's convention this August in Denver, regardless of the results in primaries and caucuses. In all, there will be nearly 800 superdelegates, including the 76 extras."
Though the quoted sentence does not say "Democratic", the article is about Democratic party superdelegates. Here is the URL: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20080404-0929-super-sizeddelegates.html
Based on this, it seems an endorsement by a superdelegate is very "relevant". Wanderer57 (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No doubt an endorsement is "relevant" to one campaign or another but there's already a Wikipedia list of endorsers for each candidate. The issue seems to be that folks would like to try to make it relevant when a Superdelegate announces an intention to cast their vote at the Convention for someone other than the person who won the primary vote in their state or congressional district. As these two processes are not related (Superdelegates are "unpledged), implying a link between them serves no purpose. Smart Ways (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm indifferent as to whether we mention she's a superdelegate. I'm not convinced that it's necessary, because all congresspeople are superdelegates (a fact which is in the linked article, I presume). We could add that fact to all individual congressfolk's pages, but I don't think it's necessary. Along the same vein, it's relevant that the Democratic nominee will be selected at a delegated convention, but I don't think we should include that here, either; it's a question of how much info should be in this article and how much people should have to click through to get. As I say, though, I really could go either way on this question (although I'm opposed to mentioning that her district went to Obama, because I really don't see the relevance of that to an article about Waters). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm also indifferent. But based on the discussion I have seen, some people have VERY strong opinions on this matter. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the strong opinions are politically motivated and I include both "sides" in this. Sens. Kennedy and Kerry represent a state that was won by Sen. Clinton but have both said they will cast their Superdelegate votes for Sen. Obama which, according to Democratic Party rules, they are completely entitled to do so just as Rep. Waters, et. al. are allowed under the rules to vote for Sen. Clinton regardless of any primary vote. Smart Ways (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not a superdelegate's vote is procedurally relevant to the vote of their district, the national media has been paying attention to contradictions when they occur, because it's an easy argument to make that true democracy is being subverted. It is ABSOLUTELY relevant to include this information in an NPOV way in all superdelegates' wikipedia articles. Kerry should be identified as contradicting his constituents as much as Waters should. Superdelegates who vote with their constituents should also have that fact noted. If Bill Richardson had to face this fact in a question on Meet the Press last week, HOW ON EARTH can anyone say that the controversy is irrelevant?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.78.77 (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert asking Bill Richardson a question on Meet the Press does not somehow change the rules of the Democratic Party thereby creating a correlation between how a Super Delegate votes and how his/her district/state/precinct/block/city/people with last names that start with "L" vote or any other mechanism by which those who wish to blur the lines chose to define things. If you're going to start citing Russert's questions as some kind of evidence then watch out Wikipedia because Russert asks some off the wall questions. Smart Ways (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide any evidence of coverage of this controversy as it pertains to Waters? If this is a controversy about superdelegates, it should go in that article. If it's a controversy about Waters it should go here. If it's a controversy about Waters, it needs to be sourced as being a controversy about Waters. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Please consider helping me develop the article I just created (my first so bear with me) here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Democratic_Primaray_Superdelegate_Controversies_2008 I am open to suggestions, name changes for the article, etc.


[edit] Controversy Section

After watching this edit/reversal of edit thing going on (thanks be to those who edit/reverse edit under their User IDs and not just the "drive byIP" edits) I reread this article and I feel like this list of controversies ascribed to Rep. Waters is a bit excessive. If she was named by this group as being "one of the most corrupt" and that article is linked to, do we really need to list out what the group charged her with? I think doing so (in the absence of an equally significant section of her positive accomplishments) makes the article seem a bit POV. I don't know what Rep. Waters did to legitimately deserve so much animosity directed toward her but I'm sure that, if someone had the time and energy, they could find criticisms of every person with a BLP and post it all on their pages and that just seems unnecessary. I think that WP:BLPSTYLE provides some guidence we should consider with regard to the Controversy section of this article. Smart Ways (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no issue with this. If sourcing is negative then so be it. If you can find other positive material to add then you are of course welcome to add that also. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The above comment doesn't reflect WP:NPOV policy, particularly WP:WEIGHT. I've reverted some persistent editors' attempts to portray her as a socialist after a heated exchange involving an oil industry executive. Most congresspeople get into heated exchanges with some people in congressional testimony at some point. Repeating these without context, and repeating their detractors comments (e.g. Fox News), is a weight concern and does not establish that there is any legitimate controversy over the statements. It's just part of the game-playing that goes on in politics where peoples' statements are stretched to use as evidence of improbable things. There's no credible claim that she is proposing to nationalize the oil industry, or that anyone seriously thinks she would, just partisan sniping.Wikidemo (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I initially heard her comments from several sources and went to hear the comments on youtube. I then came to her wikipedia page to see what had been said here. I found it wasn't in the controversies section, so I added it. As I was going to get the reference for the quotes, my addition was deleted. So I re-added it with the citation, then it was deleted, suggesting it was not NPOV. Now I have read the above statements - which, granted, I should have read first, but her comments are controversial and my addition was facutal and NPOV quoting. If it's the "Socializing" the oil industry title that seems non-NPOV, we can change that. Rcronk (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"Controversial" and "controversy" are two different things. Calling something controversial is a matter of analysis. Saying a controversy has arisen is a matter of fact that, if significant in view of a person's overall career and notability, may be worth including. Do you have any demonstration that there is a controversy here and that, if so, it is significant to Waters' overall notability? It seems to be simply a brief exchange on video, from hours of testimony at a hearing, used in a pundits' roundtable to stir discussion. The pundits themselves didn't seem take the comments seriously or believe there was a controversy involving the Congresswoman because their (very brief) discussion was about the oil industry, not about her. Under the circumstances using this quote as a source to describe the Congresswoman's policies, or to ascribe a controversy to them, is unbalanced and of very marginal relevance. If she's truly a socialist or has stirred the ire of the oil industry, surely there is a more substantive series of events and a stronger source. Wikidemo (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been hearing her quotes from many sources (google it) who are upset at her wanting to nationalize or socialize the entire oil industry. This seems at least as controversial as the 1992 L.A. riots comments she made that are included in the controversy section. The source for the 1992 quotes she made doesn't seem significantly different in nature than the comments in question. Yes I think taking over the oil industry is not only not marginal, but is in fact controversial (A controversy or dispute is a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate). I think this issue matches that definition at least as well, if not better than, the 1992 comments she made. I think it's notable that she wants to take over the oil industry in the U.S. Rcronk (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you find a reliable source that says her comments caused a controversy? If not, interpreting her comments as controversial or reporting people's criticism of them as a "controversy" (or that criticism as notable) is a matter of original research, opinion, etc. That's addressed in WP:BLP#Criticism and praise, which cites the essay Wikipedia:Coatrack on the subject. Wikipedia:Criticism is a useful essay about a similar issue, the role of "criticism" sections. As an example, consider the issue with Obama's statement that some people "cling to guns or religion..." If he said it and nobody cared, it would not be relevant to him or the campaign, and would not belong in Wikipedia. Lots of people say that sort of thing everyday. If he said it and nobody but Rush Limbaugh jumped on it, it wouldn't belong either. Limbaugh doesn't have a free pass for everything he says to get put into Wikipedia as a "controversy." Or the Huffington Post, where the comments first appeared. Things don't get in the encyclopedia any faster because a liberal reports them. What gets that into Wikipedia is that a lot of people took issue with it and it started a debate. How do we know? Not by reading the debate - that's original research. We have to source the claim, like all claims, with a reliable source. In the guns-and-religion case there are lots of reliable sources to say this was a real debacle for Obama and an issue notable to the campaign. For example, the Washington post says in this article that a "controversy erupted just as Obama has appeared to gain ground on Clinton in Pennsylvania", and devotes an entire article not to the comments themselves but the controversy. Is there any coverage that says what came of Waters' remarks? Wikidemo (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent points - and a civil tone too - thanks! So according to what you've said, it seems the rule is that some form of the word "controversy" needs to be in the reliable source's article for it to go into a controversy section? (ETA:Where is this rule documented?) The 1992 and "most corrupt" sources don't have that word in them. Can you comment on why the 1992 and "most corrupt" sections are controversies and then once we've settled the difference between the 1992, the "most corrupt", and the socializing controversies, we can decide what to do. Thanks again. Rcronk (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought her statements on nationalizing oil was a notable enough position to be on this page. An attempt to nationalize any industry in the USA would be highly controversial so I figured it belonged in the controversy section.SolarWind (talk)

I agree. ETA:And let's not make edits to this section until we get this resolved. Rcronk (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thinking that it is controversial, and showing that there is truly a controversy, are two different things though - the first being original research / opinion. On the other hand some things are so obvious they really don't need a source. Where I would draw the line is that if she repeats her comments and she really does have a platform of nationalizing an industry, that's a notable / relevant fact about her politics and belongs in the article. Notable as in, anyone who wants to know who she is and what she stands for would consider it an important piece of information (that's just my own reasoning, not an attempt to state any policy). Maybe under a "platforms" or policies section, not even as a controversy. On the other hand if she just flew off at the handle or misspoke because she was upset with the witness, it's just not that important...it would only *become* important if some reliable sources start the incident as a controversy. I won't edit the main page either way though, better to discuss. Interesting stuff. Wikidemo (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There was a subsequent post in this section talking about how afterward, she confirmed and restated the same position, which would qualify as a non-flew-off-the-handle comment. That addition was edited back out as we've been discussing this. I propose we re-add the subsequent comment where Waters reiterates and reconfirms her same position (with a source, of course) to make sure it is known that this is her true position and not just a "fly-off-the-handle" comment. I would also reiterate and agree that to me, as a citizen of the U.S., nationalizing (or socializing) any industry (especially one as big as oil) in the U.S. would be a controversial comment with much debate and argument on both sides of such a comment. Again, the "1992" and "most corrupt" subsections don't have any form of the word "controversy" in their sources either, so I'm not sure that having a form of the word "controversy" in the source is a real requirement. The proposal is now out there, what say ye? Rcronk (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what the heck is going on here? We have agreed to discuss and come to a conclusion before getting into another revert war. Not only did a rewrite of the "socializing" section occur, but the reference was deleted as well. Let's have some respect. I will wait for discussion here for one or two days and if nothing else is said, I'm going to revert it back to what it said when I proposed the change above and we can continue from there. Rcronk (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See the edit history[1] and the discussion below. The editor who started changing things not a party to the discussion and can't reasonably be bound to it. However, the changes were improper as I described below. The Fox News reference is okay but the youtube one is a copyvio. Per guidelines the incident and/or Waters' position on the oil industry should be summarized, not put on the page in the form of a transcript. That's all. Wikidemo (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikidemo - I just figured since you were part of this discussion that you'd put forth your proposal here before making more changes. The Foxnews reference was deleted by you. I have re-added it. The point of quoting her statements had to do with the use of the word "socializing" and so I think that word should be used in the summary paragraph. Rcronk (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, sorry. I was responding to what looked like an improper addition (the copyvio and the pauses noted in the transcript) and thought I'd improve things in the meanwhile. You've convinced me that it's appropriate to mention. I don't mind if there's some quote of a phrase or sentence, just not a long one. My main thing is that I don't like long quotations, reprints, transcripts, etc., and I think our style guidelines suggest we avoid them. A link to a video would be fine, just not a copyrighted video from a news source. We still ought to have some link, source, or material that suggests that wanting to nationalize industries is a real position or at least repeated issue with her, beyond just a random outburst. Wikidemo (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll come up with a very short quote from her key sentence that will express what she said without it being a full transcript. I will also dig around again for reliable sources that establish this stance more fully. Thanks again for working through this in a civil manner. Rcronk (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] socializing oil

Not long ago I condensed this raw transcript of congressional testimony, with edit summary "per weight, PSTS, copyvio, etc., summarize isue and remove link rather than include transcript)."[2] A brand new, WP:SPA (so far) editor who had earlier modified the section[3] reverted my changes without comment[4] and I restored, inviting the user to the talk page. The weight problem is that a in a bio of a famous congresswoman, a single brief exchange occurring in subcommittee testimony does not deserve an extended treatment that amounts to about 1/8 to 1/6 of the entire article, particularly when there's no reliable sourcing to suggest that this is a significant controversy or event, or has come to define her career. It's simply an example of her being outspoken and liberal. The "controvery" section already takes up the majority of article content. The PSTS issue is that quoting the transcript, without context or summary, is merely repeating a primary source. An encyclopedia reports the state of knowledge in the world; it is not not a repository of raw content. So quoting transcripts at any length is unencyclopedic. The copyvio is the link to a youtube video of a Fox News broadcast. There's no indication that Fox News licensed the content to Youtube, and they probably did not. I'm not sure whether a transcript itself is copyrightable but adding the "pause" notations may be, and in any event is somewhere between a BLP issue and simply unencyclopedic. People pause and make random errors when they speak. Very few people note that in a transcript, and it is often done to make people look bad or slant things. There may or may not be a style guideline on this point, but it is far more encyclopedic when quoting people to quote the unadorned, completed version of what they say than to try to convey their manner of speech. Wikidemo (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


Whether the controversy section outweighs the remainder of the biographical information or not is not relevant to the merit of including comments made during a televised subcommittee hearing undertaken in the United States House of Representatives. An "outburst" from any member of the House of Representatives is, by definition, controversial. Furthermore, the fact that the member openly stated a future intent to "socialize" one of the largest industries in the United States is, in and of itself, controversial. The fact that few mainstream press outlets or news organizations have elected to reproduce the controversial statements sufficiently to generate what, in your view, would be adequate editorializing to constitute full blown political blow-back speaks not to the degree to which her comments raise the hackles of mainstream Americans but, rather, to the extent to which this particular member's track record has already established that nothing the member says, regardless of how outrageous, is capable at this point of generating editorial scrutiny of any kind. In short, she isn't taken seriously by any "reliable sources" at all. To tie this all up neatly, that is precisely why the controversy section outweighs the rest of her biographical outline: she is noteworthy precisely and merely because of what little controversy she has managed, and manages, to stir up; and she is a US Congresswoman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtraywi (talk • contribs) 03:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, weight is a signifigant issue in articles - see WP:WEIGHT. I disagree that every televised argument is inherently controversial or notable - if that were the case we might as well just import the congressional record. But anyway, we cover controversies (if notable/relevant and reliably sourced). We do not simply cover the controversial. If her notability is for a track record of outrageous statements and nobody listens to her anyway, then (1) each statement by itself is not notable, and (2) certainly there is a reliable source to establish that she is outspoken and controversial, and we can cite that for the proposition. Wikidemo (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words Template

I added this, because there are several issues with the content of this article.

"considered by some" who?
"makes her a favorite" what exactly is it that makes her a "favorite"?
"long been considered" who?

--24.255.142.152 05:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


  • "Prior to the election of Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois), Waters was considered the United States' most prominent African-American legislator." - Similarly, who said Waters was the most prominent AA legislator? What about Rangel, among others? I agree, this article needs some cleaning.--RexRex84 18:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, who said that Barack Obama was the most prominent African-American legislator? --Revaaron

Clearly you didn't get the memo. Smart Ways (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious Source

"In keeping with her denunciations of McCaffrey and King, Waters slandered another Irish-American politician, calling former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan "a plantation owner."[8]

Not only does this statement employ weasel words, the source is a very brief letter to the editor in the North Carolina Times. I suggest removal. And since this discussion pages is rather desolate, I'll probably delete the entire thing. If a source is found, feel free to re-post. 128.103.14.47 01:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assata Shakur

Funny there's no mention of Rep. Waters' support for convicted cop killer Assata Shakur? Rep. Waters has time and time again fought extradition of Shakur (who has been labeled a terrorist by the F.B.I.) from Cuba. No mention of this on her Wikipedia article? Odd. 70.146.66.123 (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2008

WP:BOLD Be bold and add it yourself, as long as you have reliable references. I noticed that quotes she made during the L.A. riots were missing and added them the other day. So feel free to do it yourself. I also find it 'odd' that more criticism isn't found in this article, considering how controversial she has been.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Fogerty

She is linked as a backup singer on John Fogerty's CD "Revival"...is this the same person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.50.216 (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)