Talk:Henry Hyde

Changes

Please Do Not Delete Changes to the talk page. The only changes that should be made are additions. EZZIE 07:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk

User:67.173.188.6 UTC: Tuesday, July, 12, 2005 - 01:23:58

This article does not exist for the purpose of advertising for any candidate for political office. The external link to the democratic candidate Christine Cegelis's website is inappropriate. I find it interesting that Goethean, who on his user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Goethean seems to be SO concerned about being neutral, found it necessary to include it. Where is the link to the republican candidate's web site? I have decided the only neutral thing to do is to delete it again.

Picture

I reverted the deletion of the picture of Hyde & Snodgrass. There was no reason given for its deletion on the talk page. Also it was not described in the edit summary. If there was a valid reason for its removal, please let me know. Otherwise, I think it should remain. 01:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a great picture--it's a classic, I remember seeing it in his office. EZZIE 08:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hyde

People under-rate this guy, he's one of the best "old school" reps left in the entire house. (repost of deleted comments) EZZIE 07:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

From here:

Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into a slanging match. See also: Wikiquette

— goethean ॐ 19:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you guys are coming from on this, but discussing the subject matter is just as necessary as discussing the article on the subject matter... but that's my belief. EZZIE 06:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a chat room or USENET. I could give my views on Hyde — which differ diametrically from yours — and then we could get into a shouting match. But I don't misuse Wikipedia by expressing my views on subjects here, only on articles. I request that you show a little bit of respect for this website by doing the same. — goethean ॐ

Agreed. Wikipedia isn't a place to chat it up or discuss anything not having to do with the article itself --OMG LAZERS 16:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Washington Times

This paragraph needs a citation. Also, did it the Times really endorse Hyde to succeed Hastert, when he'd already announced his retirement? That doesn't make a lot of sense. -Pete 10:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Remarried?

I removed the statement in the infobox that said Hyde remarried in December 2006. I scoured the Web and also ran a search on ProQuest and found no mentions of Hyde getting married. If he actually did, a reference confirming it should be added to the article. Dce7 06:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hydesnodgrass.jpg

Image:Hydesnodgrass.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Alec Baldwin Death Threat

This should be better noted with the citation of the Washington Times article dated, January 25, 2001 by Tom Knott, titled - "Member of Hyde family lives in fear of Alec Baldwin"

The news article noted this direct quote by Alec Baldwin on the Conan O'Brien Show:

"I'm thinking to myself if we were in other countries, we would, all right now, all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death," Mr. Baldwin said two years ago. "We would stone him to death. (Crowd cheers.) Wait. Shut up. Shut up. No, shut up. I'm not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we'd kill their wives, and their children. We would kill their families."

I am looking for others right now, but the point is Mr Baldwin was not "tongue-in-cheek" but his threat was serious, with long term consequences for Hyde and his family. This makes it notable and should be included.Willie Peter 00:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm undoing the most recent edit. It attributes seriousness to him in a way that article source (which I have read) doesn't. It is therefore unsourced and a BLP issue and must be removed. It is possible to use other material in that or another source, but such cites must be faithful to what is contained in the source.--Chaser - T 16:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC) modified -Chaser - T 18:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

JSF Technology Transfer

Hyde was largely responsible for blocking British access to some F-35 Lightning II technology which threatened to scupper British participation in the project. i think it is worth a mention in his political career but i don't know enough to write an authoratative edit. Anyone help? Epeeist smudge 15:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

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 15:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Henry Hyde (1924-2007)

Would you believe (not knowing he was ill) I checked this article yesterday, to see if Hyde was still alive. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

News articles expired

The news articles relating to Henry Hyde's death are now no longer available. Perhaps there is another source that can replace them? GreenReaper (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The title of the articles, the source and the date are listed, so the references are valid even if the weblinks don't work. — goethean ॐ 18:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hyde Act

Is there no mention of the major foreign policy legislation in the Hyde AcT? Lihaas (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

POV tag/Article bias

I added the POV tag to the top of this article. My complaint concerns the treatment of Hyde's role in the Congressional investigation into the Iran-Contra affair. The article makes Hyde a principal in a conspiracy to protect President Reagan and Vice-President Bush from the consequences of the drug crimes they knowingly set into motion. This claim is tendentious and extraordinary, and is supported only by one article, written by a fringe journalist. I propose that this section should either be expanded to take more conventional interpretations of Hyde's role into account -- and frankly, his name doesn't often come up in the literature as a significant player -- or removed entirely. Innocent76 (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are multiple reliable sources citing Hyde's role in the Congressional investigation into the Iran-Contra affair. For instance: "During the Iran-Contra controversy in 1987, Hyde was one of the administration's most vehement defenders, arguing tirelessly that though the secret and illegal means used by the administration in its determination to fund the Nicaraguan contras were "wrong and bad and blameworthy," they were justified by the end: "the Nicaraguan resistance survived." In fact, Hyde made his defense of government secrecy a matter of general principle, arguing in a June 1987 Washington Post Op-Ed that it was dangerous to trust "the Hill's loose lips" on matters of national security. "Within Congress at large," Hyde wrote, "there is a widespread and often naive suspicion of both secrecy and covert actions. In these circumstances, it is small wonder that the administration has become convinced that controversial programs will be leaked." Propol (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

One miserable cite from a obscure Washington news blog don't qualify as reliable source WP:BLPSTYLE for your contention that Hyde was a major figure in Iran-contra. Orangejumpsuit (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's hard to argue with an Op-Ed written by Hyde himself that appeared in the Washington Post. That certainly qualifies as a reliable source. I've never contended that Hyde was directly involved in Iran Contra (nor does the article), but it is pretty clear that he played a leading role in the related hearings. Propol (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think your contention is not correct. Where is this "Op-Ed" in the Washington post? Besides, Hyde's involvement is minor, and don't constitute a major and notable part of Hyde's bio., unless you believe loading up Republican office holder's bio's with any negative spin you can find is consistent with WP:BLP. My standards for content, for this bio is found on the Obama's bio and what was left out and put in. Whats good for the democrat is good for the republican, yes? Fair is fair.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the WP:POINTy deletion of the Iran Contra paragraph and added a New York Times citation. It's not well written, misses the point partly, and needs to be cleaned up, but Hyde's actively defending the Reagan Administration from blame in the Iran-Contra investigation is very well known, thoroughly sourced by many articles at the time and through today, and a fairly significant part of his contribution to American politics. We can discount orangejumpsuit's participation here - that is simple disruption. The POV tag should be removed too unless you have a specific complaint and a proposal to solve it. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the original due to the fact it was unbalanced and was inconsistent in comparing this bio to other political bios on wikipeida, most notable the Barak Obama bio.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

At this point it is simple disruption. I will file a WP:AN/I report on this editor, and restore the material once we have the behavioral issues under control. Again, anyone who can further improve the tone, sourcing, etc., of the section on Hyde's involvement in the Iran Contra investigation would be most welcome. It is an important part of his career and legacy, but somewhat off in focus and not terribly well written.Wikidemon (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

IT would seem that you are the one disruptive force here. There is a consensus here that this element of Iran-contral regarding Henry Hyde is spurious, at best with little reliable source to justify it to be on Henry Hyde's bio. Because i disagree with you (wikidemon) you then threaten to file a AN/I and get me banned??? Nice WP:AFG and WP:CIVIL Orangejumpsuit (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There are issues with the references given for re the "suppression of that contra-cocaine probe" that is implied of Hyde. The NY Times ref does not mention cocaine at all, the second is a blog from a self-published attack book and does not meet WP:RS. I would appreciate being notified of the ANI case if you decide to put it forward. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not endorsing the present version, only trying to deal with an editor who has threatened to commit politically-motivated disruption on articles throughout the encyclopedia. Adding the NY Times reference was my quick fix because the thing had no reliable sources at all. It would be legitimate, technically, to remove it for being unsourced, but not very helpful - so I added a source. A more thoughtful thing is to get it right. That would probably take a good editor an hour or two of googling, reading up, and editing, but it should be pretty straightforward. Hyde clearly suppressed the accusations against North, Reagan, etc., in the Senate hearings - he used every procedure he could to downplay, cut off, accuse the accusers, etc., and was called Reagan's staunchest defender in the hearings. I could not quickly find sources that say he acted to obstruct the underlying investigation but they may be out there. Even if true, I do share some NPOV concerns about focusing on that when the real deal in terms of his political legacy and coverage is his work on the committee. Wikidemon (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the AN/I report is at WP:AN/I#Orangejumpsuit. Wikidemon (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Reading the material, the claim that Reagan's policies fueled the Cocaine "pandemic" is editorializing on a subject not related directly to Hyde - something that should not be there even if it could be sourced, and the claim that Hyde "was in a position" to do something is just argumentative speculation. So I would definitely change the material to be in NPOV form. Reagan had many allies, and people in Congress extremely loyal to him. The sourceable truth is in my opinion very interesting, a staunch defender of the administration who uses his position to deflect attempts by Reagan's detractors to undermine his credibility. Something like that. It was such a well known thing it can easily be cited to neutral sources, and discussed in a way that neither approves nor condemns Hyde but just says what he did. BLP does not apply because Hyde died last year, but WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS are still important. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of that paragraph and think it best to delete it until it can be properly sourced and NPOV. True about HH being dead, RIP, but as you say NPOV, V, & RS are all important. BLP says: The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. (my bolds) I believe we should try to write accurately about everyone, dead or alive. BLP also adds that Wikipedia is a high-profile, widely-viewed website with an international scope, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies. Obviously there are still plenty of friends, family and colleagues around since he is recently dead. There seems to considerable "gossip" in this article, including a number of serious allegations sourced entirely to Salon.com, which some people consider the converse of Frontpage.com. Best, Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

We agree on the content and the editor in question has been blocked for a week so the question of how to respond to point-y edits is moot. I'll try to dig in a little more and only add sourced, high quality material. You were definitely right to delete the other stuff you did. I'll keep in mind what you say about Salon. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought Propol raised an important point above, although I think he put the cart before the horse. Hyde spent six years as the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committe; he was an energetic defender of broad Presidential discretion in intelligence matters. Perhaps it would contribute to article balance if we did a better job of placing Hyde's efforts to defend Secord, North, et al. in the context of his record? I think the evidence better supports the claim that he consistently defended covert operations notwishstanding the threat they pose to open government, than it does the allegation he was a partisan hack who "suppressed" the truth. Innocent76 (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, on the Savings and Loan Scandal, check out the link. [1] It is a book review by a Salon writer, of an attack book on Hyde. In fact the reviewer says of the book from which the article information has been gleaned: "This is not a full-fledged biography, but vigorous political pamphleteering from a leftist perspective. Rushed to print in three months (without enough care by the publisher to catch many annoying typos), it includes some new revelations, but it is valuable mainly for pulling together tawdry aspects of Hyde's record, many of which may be little known even if previously reported." political pamphleteering froma leftist perspective? rushed to print? new revelations? tawdry aspects? I would say that is not a ringing endorsement from Salon.com. I'm of a mind to delete that section too, except here is a legit link to it : [2] However, the NYTimes says Investigators said they found no evidence of fraud in the Clyde Federal case. Nor was there evidence that Mr. Hyde directly gained anything other than his director's fees of $300 a month during the two and one-half years he served on the board, starting in 1981. Mr. Hyde has said that as an outside director he relied on the advice of finance professionals in all of his votes. ps. I took the liberty to take the POV tag off of that section since we seem to be in agreement. ;)Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In process of cleaning up the article I see the entire thing is virtually unsourced. I'll do a little where I can, but the whole article needs to be rewritten more or less from scratch. I'll put the Iran Contra material back in but stick to the main points. The most important thing in cleaning up messy articles, I've found, is to start by organizing sections and trying to put things in some logical order - usually chronological but sometimes thematically. Wikidemon (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

References

HENRY HYDE.

10-25-09

Dear readers-

Yes, Henry was a good man. Question? What happened after? Did his family lay him to rest in the town of Gevena, Illinois where he moved after he retired or was he creamated? Many folks out there would like to have a closer to the story or even visit his grave to pay respects?

With respect,

Robert L. Jones Illinois —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.142.123.100 (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henry Hyde. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071202085208/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/07/hyde/index.html to http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/07/hyde/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517141350/http://judiciary.house.gov/Legacy/101370.htm to http://judiciary.house.gov/Legacy/101370.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)