This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
And more sources
For when this POV edit-warring ends. -- Banjeboi 12:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Possible sources
- 10 Things You Didn't Know About Barney Frank By Debra Bell, US News and World Report, March 27, 2009 - Some good early life, early career bits.
- Washington at Work; Barney Frank's Public and Private Lives: Lonely Struggle for Coexistence MICHAEL ORESKES, New York Times, September 15, 1989. Ditto.
- A former aide has written a biography called Barney Frank: The Story of America's Only Left-Handed, Gay, Jewish Congressman. It will be published later this year.
- Frank was active in the Mississippi Freedom Summer of 1964 - in support of voter registration for blacks.
- Barney Frank’s 2009 Congressional Playbook by Luke Mullins, US News and World Report, December 19, 2008. regarding Finance committee issues, if needed.
- Masters of the Universe defend use of US bailout cash The Guardian; - "Barney Frank, who chairs the US House financial services committee, has a reputation as one of Washington's wittiest and brightest politicians."
- Rep. Barney Frank Has Designs On Renovating Fannie & Freddie For helping clean FnF content.
- TESTING OF A PRESIDENT: PROFILE; Barney Frank NY Times, November 20, 1998. For wit and character content.
A few sources that may help. -- Banjeboi 13:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
1991 Controversy over easing of Freddie Mac loans for Triple Deckers
I'm trying to source this claim, which seems to be an attempt to link the easing of loan restrictions to Rep. Frank's former partner's influence in Freddie Mac.
However, the Boston Globe article has language to the effect that "After a nearly three-hour meeting with members of the Home Buyers' Union, a local advocacy group, and representatives of Mayor Flynn and Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy 2d (D-Mass.), Fannie Mae officials agreed to substantially alter rules to allow what one termed "hundreds if not thousands" of buyers a chance to own two-family homes and ... "
I don't have full access to the text, so I'm not quite sure of Barney Frank's role here. If he was not the lead to get the rules altered, why single him out when this was a priority among many Mass Democrats (since the housing stock in Boston area is largely multi-family homes). Most references to this that single Barney Frank seem to have very similar language, limited to the conservative blogosphere. I suspect that this is a political talking point that is only half true (since he was one of many who supported the rule change) and has no provable or reasonable link to his former partner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.232.93 (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- If it's "limited to the conservative blogosphere" that is likely the answer to every question about this content. If it becomes mainstream reported or even widely speculated then we can look to what should be added. Many books will delve into every aspect of the US and world financial meltdowns so whatever prominent role Frank played will be known soon enough. -- Banjeboi 01:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- If there is merit to any of this, perhaps it is in the form of direct quotes by individuals who have made such accusations against Frank. The way that the material is presented in edits such as this are a bit of a distortion, IMO. Tarc (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The content is properly sourced to this article [1]. If you have a reliable source disputing that accoutn pelase provide it. This looks like more censorship and POV pushing along the lines of putting laudatory quotes from partisans in the opening paragraphs and sourcing large sections to press releases form Frank's office. Please keep in mind this is an encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Given your rich and disruptive history in political articles, what it looks like to you re: "censorship" is irrelevant. As I said above, if some of this material is deemed important enough to the subject , then it should be written in a form that quotes the accusers directly, and to not present it in its current form which appears to sell the idea that this is a solid fact. While that is being determined, the material should be removed, per WP:BLP policy, which would be in your best interests to review. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- There's also the small matter of the fact that CoM is edit warring in violation of an active topic ban. Given the tenor of his recent edit comments and talk page comment, this sure looks like we're back into actual long block territory. We'll see. LotLE×talk 22:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please stop lying Lulu. You content removal claimed it was sourced to blogs. Now you are making further misrepresentations. I understand you may be going through personal difficulty, but please don't take it out on good faith editors who are trying to uphold our encyclopedic standards. What is the objection to noting that Frank was involved with an exectutive from Fannie Mae and that some critics called it a conflict of interest? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please redact your uncivil commentary, above. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Is anyone going to respond on why they object to noting that Frank had a long term relationship with a Fannie Mae executive while he was legislating on the company's activities? Please let's focus on the article content issues and avoid any more personal attacks, misrepresentations, and other disruptions that violate policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- First off a quick overview on this article shows your actions here have likely been the main source of disruption over many months. You are nearly the sole reason this article had to be fully protected at least twice. So unfortunately you have a legacy here, and apparently on other political subject articles that casts doubt on your efforts - sincere as they may be. Getting back to the subject we have wedged in In 1991, Frank pushed for reduced restrictions on two- and three-family home mortgages. This is coupled with the non-impressive figure of 42K over 8-9 years in donations from the two corporations which conservative critics allege must have influenced Frank. It seems as if we endorse that supposition. If we want to add content like this it should be NPOV and well-sourced. That CoM is pushing for it only makes me more suspicious but there may be some usable content. Likely the entire artile should be restructured to get us out of this issue-area morass. -- Banjeboi 02:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't engage in dishonest smears against me. Let's focus on the content and sourcing. What is the objection to noting Frank's long term relationship with a Fannie Mae executive? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- If it is supported by reliable sources, then there is no reason as to why this should not be included. If you have problems with the sources being quoted, take it up with the WP:RS department. This is Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac we are talking about, and they are big corporations and big things happened to them while he was there so this does not affect WP:UNDUE. Nicholas Tan (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- CoM, you are now personally attacking myself and the other editors who are pointing out your tenditious and edit-warring history. It is not a "dishonest smear" to point out facts; I did not bother to link to the many dramatic discussions your actions have engendered or that you seemed to treat them glibly and dismissively as if causing disruption was just some inconvenience the rest of us should suffer to allow you to push your POV. If you want to proposed some language and that source it would be cited to then please post it here. I imagine there can be a place for it if others agree it seems notable and NPOV. Negatively characterizing those who disagree with you is incredibly defeatist and only perpetuates a battleground mentality which aligns with your track record here. If you restricted your statements and edit summaries to only discussing content I think this whole turn of thread would have been avoided by all those who you feel are opposing you. And Franks involvement with his boyfriend is already in the article, it's bordering on Undue and the lack of reliably sourced content on this suggests it really isn't that big of concern. If the vast majority of news articles of the time speak to this then likely it should be included, if they don't then this might not be the most important issue to push. Is there any reliable sources besides the one? -- Banjeboi 01:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't engage in dishonest smears against me. Let's focus on the content and sourcing. What is the objection to noting Frank's long term relationship with a Fannie Mae executive? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- First off a quick overview on this article shows your actions here have likely been the main source of disruption over many months. You are nearly the sole reason this article had to be fully protected at least twice. So unfortunately you have a legacy here, and apparently on other political subject articles that casts doubt on your efforts - sincere as they may be. Getting back to the subject we have wedged in In 1991, Frank pushed for reduced restrictions on two- and three-family home mortgages. This is coupled with the non-impressive figure of 42K over 8-9 years in donations from the two corporations which conservative critics allege must have influenced Frank. It seems as if we endorse that supposition. If we want to add content like this it should be NPOV and well-sourced. That CoM is pushing for it only makes me more suspicious but there may be some usable content. Likely the entire artile should be restructured to get us out of this issue-area morass. -- Banjeboi 02:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Is anyone going to respond on why they object to noting that Frank had a long term relationship with a Fannie Mae executive while he was legislating on the company's activities? Please let's focus on the article content issues and avoid any more personal attacks, misrepresentations, and other disruptions that violate policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please redact your uncivil commentary, above. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please stop lying Lulu. You content removal claimed it was sourced to blogs. Now you are making further misrepresentations. I understand you may be going through personal difficulty, but please don't take it out on good faith editors who are trying to uphold our encyclopedic standards. What is the objection to noting that Frank was involved with an exectutive from Fannie Mae and that some critics called it a conflict of interest? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- There's also the small matter of the fact that CoM is edit warring in violation of an active topic ban. Given the tenor of his recent edit comments and talk page comment, this sure looks like we're back into actual long block territory. We'll see. LotLE×talk 22:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Benjiboi, for the last time, please cease disrupting the discussion of article content and sourcing with smears. Yes, there are other sources. What is undue weight is all the content sourced to press releases from Frank's office and putting an accolade from a partisan in the opening paragraphs. Noting a 10 year personal relationship with a Fannie Mae executive seems very reasonable to me. Is this now resolved? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, it is hardly resolved unless you no longer wish to propose content to be added. And you should take your own advice about disruption. You claim offense at the same time insinuating that I smeared you. Sorry, but that's called mythologizing history to twist events casting yourself as a victim of some cabal. Meanwhile you try to again dig up issues that have been resolved for a while. Then you again imply that for some reason the article doesn't already talk about Frank's former boyfriend. It always has yet you seem to want more. If you have something to propose and wish to provide reliable sources and NPOV language then please do so. Otherwise this likely is resolved? -- Banjeboi 07:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Removed
“ | After then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama stated that "people's families are off limits" for political debate, Frank criticized Obama's statement. Frank went on to say that American politicians' families and their family history are "fair game" and should receive negative scrutiny if necessary.[1][2] | ” |
I've removed this, it was wedged in the personal life section, where it clearly is misplaced. It also seems to be a dig at Obama when instead the sources are referring more to Frank's stance against hypocrisy - mainly from Republicans pro-family rhetoric while Palin has an un-wed pregnant teen and Cheney's being "upset" over his duaghters being lesbian raised during the 2000 election. This, worded more NPOV to sources, would be good on some article but likely not this one. -- Banjeboi 02:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Barney Frank's long-term relationship with a Fannie Mae executive
Why was this content that's long been in the article removed again despite agreement that it's properly sourced and notable? Here's one of the sources discussing it [2]. If there is an issue of phrasing please present suggestions for revised wording. As it is now there doesn't seem to be any mention of this relationship or criticisms it has received as being a conflict of interest. Please refrain from personal attacks and commenting on other editors, let's stay focused on article content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- That article notes the "long-term relationship with a Fannie Mae executive" was, in fact, his boyfriend. It alleges COI, notes that both the men deny it, yet critics still assert their must be. And it offers no proof that any existed. Before delving too far, is there any more mainstream sources that might be helpful here? -- Banjeboi 02:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- The relationship is noted in other sources including the Washington Post. If you're not happy with the Fox News source written by a managing editor, you're welcome to see what else you can find. There doesn't seem to be any dispute that it was a 10-year relationship, that is was with a Fannie Mae executive by the name of Herb Moses, and that critics have alleged a COI because the committees Frank worked on oversee that quasi government agency. This certainly seems worth noting, but I don't think it would require more than a sentence or two. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Where is the Washington Post article? -- Banjeboi 22:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Did you try Google News? Which part of the statement above and the content I'd like restored are you disputing that it needs additional sources? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- You stated that the Washington Post had noted this connection, I asked if you have a particular article. I'm not looking to go on a scavenger hunt to quibble each fact as presented but would like to more fully understand what it is you wish to add. So, in addition to the above source which i pointed out insinuates but does not prove any COI, do you have any more mainstream RS's that also support this? I'm trying to compare what reliable sources state to what we currently have to see what, if anything, should likely change. In this particular case I would expect news articles about an investigation into Frank's COI, his boyfriend's COI, or both. I'm letting the sources lead here and asking you if you have any to support the changes you wish to see. -- Banjeboi 15:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Did you try Google News? Which part of the statement above and the content I'd like restored are you disputing that it needs additional sources? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Where is the Washington Post article? -- Banjeboi 22:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- The relationship is noted in other sources including the Washington Post. If you're not happy with the Fox News source written by a managing editor, you're welcome to see what else you can find. There doesn't seem to be any dispute that it was a 10-year relationship, that is was with a Fannie Mae executive by the name of Herb Moses, and that critics have alleged a COI because the committees Frank worked on oversee that quasi government agency. This certainly seems worth noting, but I don't think it would require more than a sentence or two. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why I have to find more sources for something that was long in the article and is already well sourced. You haven't explained your objections to noting the relationship or that some have criticized it. What's the big deal? Here's another article discussing the relationship [3]. Here's another article (from a left-winger) that notes the accusation of a conflict of interest "Frank’s romantic relationship with Herb Moses, a former Fannie Mae executive, has been cited by some as evidence that Frank had conflicts interests as regards Fannie Mae." [4]. Can we please resolve this? Do you have a suggestion on wording? This is a collaborative process. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- None of the material being proposed by CoM (even if one strips away the surrounding belligerent tone) has any apparent merit for inclusion in this article. It doesn't seem anywhere close to satisfying WP:WEIGHT or relevance, and seems to be one big WP:SOAPBOX to squeeze in vague negative insinuations against the bio subject (without any particular facts... just "someone thought ill of Frank"). LotLE×talk 22:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Your opinion is contradicted by the reliable sources which note "After more than a decade as Washington's most prominent and influential gay couple, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and his partner, Herb Moses, have separated... Moses was the first partner of an openly gay member of Congress to receive spousal access privileges through the Capitol, although the decision was controversial." ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Although this is the first time you have proposed it, I agree that that sentence about spousal benefits for Moses would be fine in the article, if you can provide a citation for the fact. LotLE×talk 22:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Your opinion is contradicted by the reliable sources which note "After more than a decade as Washington's most prominent and influential gay couple, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and his partner, Herb Moses, have separated... Moses was the first partner of an openly gay member of Congress to receive spousal access privileges through the Capitol, although the decision was controversial." ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure who took this out, but it's relevant. As a member of the house banking committee and ardent supporter of Fannie and Freddie this relationship is important for ethical reasons (i.e., conflict of interest) Furthermore, there should have been discussion among the editors BEFORE it was removed cart blanche. Lordvolton (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I support it's inclusion and and Lulu and Banjeboi eventually acknowledged the relationship is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Of course Frank's longest romantic relationship is notable and it's included in a NPOV way with due weight. What has been opposed is the OR connecting dots that this constituted a COI. Something that was denied by both and only fringe sources seem to be alleging, without much besides their romantic relationship to hang on it. Out of the mountains of newspaper and magazine articles as well as books devoted to the subject it should be very well sourced or likely not that notable. Perhaps that will change but Wikipedia does not lead, we follow. -- Banjeboi 03:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I support it's inclusion and and Lulu and Banjeboi eventually acknowledged the relationship is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure who took this out, but it's relevant. As a member of the house banking committee and ardent supporter of Fannie and Freddie this relationship is important for ethical reasons (i.e., conflict of interest) Furthermore, there should have been discussion among the editors BEFORE it was removed cart blanche. Lordvolton (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Relationship with Herb Moses & Fannie Mae
The material added to the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac section is relevant and properly cited. He had a relationship with a top executive of Fannie Mae at the same time he was a member of the committee that regulates them. That is factual and not a soapbox. The ethical red flags are legitimate and a part of his political history as it relates to Fannie Mae. Lordvolton (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The addition is poorly and hastily written and ungrammatical; more importantly, it is given undue weight both by volume and by being the first data point in the section. Allow this to develop a consensus before reverting this material into the article again. Abrazame (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you don't like the grammar you can correct it with wording you find more pleasing to the eye. I've added some additional cites. I will give you credit for at least coming to the discussion page. Please allow the discussion to actually take place before removing the material without any discourse, that's just good manners. Lordvolton (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Respectfully, good manners might also include recognizing that your opinion does not preclude the preference of other editors to discuss the issue and develop a consensus for whatever data points, and whatever version of or context for these data points, are appropriate to and appropriately weighted in the breadth of the subject's involvement with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac as we cover it in this brief biography, if at all. Even in the hypothetical case that the speculation were true and a conflict of interest existed at one point, apparently the relationship, and thereby the alleged conflict, has been over for eleven years. Discussion should happen here before inserting problematic info into a BLP; please engage in such discussion with interested editors here instead of reverting this material into the article again. I presume you're aware of WP:3RR, and that you are one or two reverts beyond that with this one data point at this one article in less than 24 hours already. Abrazame (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Abrazame, part of good manners is offering your own version instead of just objecting to the work of others. Please help improve the article by appropriately working in the content instead of continuing the disruptive reversions without any effort to make the improvements you think are necessary. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Abrazame, in the interest of fairness, the flaw in your logic is assuming that actions taken eleven years ago have no effect today. In fact, if you read the articles, you will see that it's precisely because of lax standards that Fannie Mae ended up in trouble. When regulations are changed their effect is long term and not limited to the day they were modified. The subsection deals specifically with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and it's pertinent that a high ranking executive of Fannie Mae was his significant other which raises an ethical question regarding his objectivity. With respect to "interested editors", given your reverts and related commentary that went along along with them you are clearly an interested editor and that is why I would prefer that you keep the discussion here rather than your past of course of action of unilaterally reverting absent any discussion.
- Abrazame, part of good manners is offering your own version instead of just objecting to the work of others. Please help improve the article by appropriately working in the content instead of continuing the disruptive reversions without any effort to make the improvements you think are necessary. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Respectfully, good manners might also include recognizing that your opinion does not preclude the preference of other editors to discuss the issue and develop a consensus for whatever data points, and whatever version of or context for these data points, are appropriate to and appropriately weighted in the breadth of the subject's involvement with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac as we cover it in this brief biography, if at all. Even in the hypothetical case that the speculation were true and a conflict of interest existed at one point, apparently the relationship, and thereby the alleged conflict, has been over for eleven years. Discussion should happen here before inserting problematic info into a BLP; please engage in such discussion with interested editors here instead of reverting this material into the article again. I presume you're aware of WP:3RR, and that you are one or two reverts beyond that with this one data point at this one article in less than 24 hours already. Abrazame (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you don't like the grammar you can correct it with wording you find more pleasing to the eye. I've added some additional cites. I will give you credit for at least coming to the discussion page. Please allow the discussion to actually take place before removing the material without any discourse, that's just good manners. Lordvolton (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I am not precluding other editors from discussing the issue, rather, I am inviting them to have an open dialogue, but that cannot occur if other editors are disruptive of that process. For this reason, I would appreciate it if you kept the discussion here and refrained from reverting until we have reached consensus. Thank you. Lordvolton (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
As has been discussed in great detail previously (see talk page archives), insertion of WP:SOAPBOX material in violation of WP:BLP is not appropriate. However worded, there is no way this material can hope to fulfill WP:UNDUE, since vague insinuations of malfeasance through "guilt by association" will not be biographically significant to this biographical figure (not even if an editor really, really dislikes the bio subject). LotLE×talk 23:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Your concerns can be addressed through edits rather than wholesale reversion, since it's factually correct that he lived with Herb Moses and the two were lovers while Mr. Moses was an executive of Fannie Mae and Mr. Frank was a member of house financial services committee. And since this subheading deals specifically with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac it is relevant. They lived together for years -- and he claimed spousal privileges for Mr. Moses, so it's not a trivial matter with respect to his relationship with Fannie Mae. Removing pivotal events in his life with respect to Fannie Mae would be a disservice to those attempting to understand the history of Barney Frank as it relates to Fannie Mae and his time in Congress.
- Imagine if Ivana Trump were the head of a congressional committee regulating Casinos and in her bio under the Wikipedia heading of "Trump Taj Majal" there were an army of editors reverting any mention of her relationship with Donald Trump. That's basically what is happening here. =-) Lordvolton (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to be giving undue weight to what is simply speculative opinion (that his personal life affected his legislative decisions). The fact remains that there is not a single reliable source which states this as fact, not opinion. As for your Trump analogy, frankly it doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Is Moses Ivana? Then that would make Frank...uh, the hotel? Or Donald? I'm baffled. --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I would not object to a slight expansion of the mention of Moses in Personal life:
Months after coming out he met and fell in love with Herb Moses, an economist and LGBT activist, that lasted for eleven years until an amicable break-up in July 1998. Moses, who was an executive at Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998, was the first partner of an openly gay member of Congress to receive spousal benefits and the two were considered "Washington's most powerful and influential gay couple."
LotLE×talk 00:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Which source discusses it escapes me presently but the spousal benefit started as some sort of "wife's lapel pin" which ruffled other members, it was eventually changed to a spousal benefit card. Not terribly crucial but I think Frank discussed it in the context of them not trying to make a point but by circumstances having to. -- Banjeboi 03:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Encyclopedias and romance novels
I saw Benjiboi restored the terrible doggerel of "fell in love with". Blech! That unencyclopedic phrasing had really been in my craw for a long time, and I finally changed it when I added the clause about Moses' job. I had first put in "involved with", which is probably the most neutral. But after Benjiboi's revert, I tried "began dating" instead. I don't really care the exact phrase, but let's please avoid the tone of torrid romance novels (we don't do that for any other biographical figures... or at least I sure hope not). LotLE×talk 07:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Some reference points of other famous political couples:
- In the late spring of 1971, she began dating Bill Clinton, also a law student at Yale.
- While at Yale, he began dating law student Hillary Rodham, who was a year ahead of him.
- Notably, she served in this role while dating her future husband, James Carville, who was chief strategist for the Clinton campaign.
- Carville is married to Republican political pundit Mary Matalin, ...
- Amanpour has been married to James Rubin, former Assistant Secretary of State and spokesman for the US State Department, since 1998.
- In 1998 Rubin, who at the time was spokesman for the US State Department, married Christiane Amanpour, chief international correspondent for CNN.
- I could find more, but notice the encyclopedic tone of all of them (as aesthetically and ethically disturbing as are the middle ones). LotLE×talk 07:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- That you for expressing the pitfalls although done with less drama and personalizing would likely feel less adversarial. Romantically involved with? To me "involved with" seems equally poor so let's find some way that is explicit they weren't conspirators or business partners but actual lovers. This has been a point of dispute that non-heterosexual relationships are diminished and watering down seems to be a step in the wrong direction. -- Banjeboi 12:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The changes look good to me, thanks for making them, except that the additions omit the source and content related to the relationship being criticized in some quarters as a COI. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- That you for expressing the pitfalls although done with less drama and personalizing would likely feel less adversarial. Romantically involved with? To me "involved with" seems equally poor so let's find some way that is explicit they weren't conspirators or business partners but actual lovers. This has been a point of dispute that non-heterosexual relationships are diminished and watering down seems to be a step in the wrong direction. -- Banjeboi 12:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Marijuana bust of Frank's partner
For some reason this content is being removed:
- In August, 2007, Frank was present at the home of his partner, Jim Ready, when Ready was arrested on charges of marijuana possession, unlawful cultivation, and use of drug paraphernalia. In interviews with local media outlets, Frank expressed surprise that marijuana was being grown in the home while he was present. Although he did not deny seeing marijuana plants at the residence, Frank stated that he is not a "great outdoorsman" and therefore would not have know what the plants were. ref http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/barney-frank-present-during-marijuana-bust /ref
When a congressman's partner is involved in a drug bust, particularly when the politician himself is present, that seems worth noting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- For starters, we discourage "controversies" sections in BLPs. You of all people know this quite well CoM, as it is why you were topic-banned from Obama-related articles awhile back. Second, I fail to see the biographical significance of being somewhere when someone else is arrested; guilt-by-association seems to be a rather tenuous rationale for judging inclusion in an article. If Jim Ready is notable apart from his relationship with a sitting Congressman, then perhaps you can include his arrest there. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I thought I was topic banned for daring to take on a pack of the most vile and dishonest POV pushers intent on distorting the encyclopedia for propaganda purposes. What does that dispute about the incivility and disruption caused by you and others have to do with this content?
- Frank is a congressman, his partner was arrested for growing illegal drugs while Frank was present, and it's an issue Frank has been outspoken on politically. So it seems entirely relevant to a neutral and encyclopedic article about this biographical subject.
- Are you objecting to this for the same reason you don't want Frank's apparent conflict of interest as he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive as he was supposed to be regulating them? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- You weren't a victim of anyone; you were the perpetrator. What it has to do with this is that the same behavioral issues that were sanctioned last year are being repeated here; your belligerent and overly-aggressive crusade to "balance" BLPs, stemming from a misguided belief that this is achieved by adding negative information to counter the so-called "liberal bias". Frank's partner being arrested has no bearing on Frank himself. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)