Talk:Joe Barton

Climate Change

Please provide factual and neutral point of view in entries, per Wikipedia guidelines. The facts on Rep. Barton's record speak loudly and clearly enough about his positions that commentary is not needed. References to criticisms should be included where appropriate. Jason Coleman 23:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does the Environmental Record section take up more than half the article? Surely that is not the only thing that is important about this congressman. And if so, then there is clear bias in this article. Gregweitzner (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to enlarge the article on any topics you think are important. richrak````

2006

page need to be updated for 2006 election 64.132.172.213 19:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote section

Quote sections should be avoided in Wikipedia articles. Please try to work the quotes into the existing text or remove them altogether.--Gloriamarie 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The quotes section seems to mostly consist of inflammatory remarks made by the senator; and many are given without much context. This section should certainly be removed. 209.242.154.132 (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Long quote sections are often a problem. I've moved this one to Wikiquote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does it ramble on about oil?

The Criticism section rambles on about oil prices and oil companies as if someone is trying to paint a picture of the oil industry and it is very opinionated in stating that prices were 'too low for the likes of oil companies'. Also, nothing in that section has references. It's more like a kid's blog than an encyclopedia entry.

House Resolutions

Is the list of resolutions Rep. Barton has introduced worth having? It's basically just http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@BANDNOT(@FIELD(FLD003+@1(00062))+@FIELD(FLD008+(m))). Reb42 (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Followup

I'm going to remove this listing, and add a link to thomas.loc.gov. Reb42 (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

College Football Playoffs

Someone should add someting about his call for BCS playoffs to determine #1. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

I am deleting the criticism section and the subsections for it:

• Oil: The section does not have a sufficient amount of reliable sources. The first paragraph is not sourced, and the only source in the second paragraph is a liberal blog. The third paragraph is predominately not sourced. The only source in the fourth paragraph is a dead link.
• Hurricane Katrina: The only source here leads to nothing. Besides the section is written like a BLP violation. Point seems to be to try and prove that he lied about it. Material purely used to denigrate an individual is a violation of WP:BLP.
• Autism: So just because Don Imus doesn't like it, means it is a controversy? Besides the act eventually passed anyways. The Red Peacock (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Barton's comments about Alaskan oil with regard to Dr. Chu's testimony are noteworthy and indicative of both his scientific and political views. Removing them claiming NPOV:UNDUE is specious at best, since these can be sourced from a variety of places besides Think Progress. Regardless, you do not claim that this specific source or the others are incorrect nor explain why they are not a "sufficient" number of sources. What do you mean by this? Insufficient to prove that he made these comments? Additionally, I would challenge you to show the cited sources do not meet the burden for verifiability. I'm curious as to why you later remove a second time but then claim NPOV:RECENT instead, changing your removal rationale; to quote NPOV:RECENT "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion". The fact that you change your justification for deletion seems, at least to me, to be evidence that you are removing material simply because it is critical and attempting to justify such removal after the fact. I would ask that other editors please comment on what I have written here before I restore these edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.249.178.66 (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC) He is a true tool of big oil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.117.142 (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Random votes

We have entire sections devoted to short paragraphs on the subject's votes on:

• Congressional Vote on Financial Bailout
• Healthcare Reform

There's no indication that these are especially important votes for him - he isn't listing as the author or sponsor of either one, nor even a notable supporter. Like all of his colleagues he's voted on numerous bills while in Congress. Though the material is verifiable, it seems like undue weight to pick these two bills for special treatment. Any objection to removing them? Or what about just condensing it to a sentence like "he opposed X, and voted for Y and Z"?   Will Beback  talk  07:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest you use OnTheIssues and similar sources to make the whole Political Views section more comprehensive and balanced. Flatterworld (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

JOE BARTON ARTICLE BLATANTLY BIASED

This entire article which was writeen immediately following Barton's comment regarding a "shakedown" and BP has a clear and obvious bias throughout. It assumes that the reader should agree with the author about healthcare legislation, "global warming," and a variety of favorite lefty causes, despite a growing discontent with the hard left agenda currently being forced on the public by the current administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.225.112.57 (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This "entire article" has been written over the last 6 years, starting 01:13, 29 August 2004 (UTC). I would not call the agenda of the Bush administration then in charge "hard left", although it certainly was unpalatable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Barton's comments and history make it appropriate. The comment citing "the hard left agenda currently being forced on the public by the current administration" reveals a bias that should dicount any contribution form that user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhfjbaker (talk • contribs) 16:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What is missing is the "shakedown" back story which would reveal that the so called "shakedown" was a suggestion of BP's, in order to use the good offices of the United States government to get them out of a sticky situation. Hcobb (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Environmental Record

Clearly this section was written with a strong bias regarding Congressman Joe Barton's views on the environment. It appears to have been written with an agenda to demean the Congressman. It is very poorly cited and the references given at times do not correlate with the text written. For example, the second paragraph says "Barton has consistently acted over the years to prevent congressional action on global warming." This sentence is backed up with a reference regarding a Washington Post article that only mentions Barton once, saying, "the panel's top Republican, Joe Barton (Tex.), does not believe human activities contribute to global warming." Obviously, this says nothing about his record of preventing "congressional action on global warming." Because Congressman Barton is a living person, this article is subject to Wikipedia's standards on biographies of living persons and all information on this page must be verified or deleted immediately. Eaglecap Backpack (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the user has created the paragraph headline "Environmental Record", this does validate what has become a clearly biased sounding board of deliberations on the congressman's record. "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." This lengthy section plainly has not been written in the spirit of Wikipedia's fundamental policies and should be deleted or heavily revised. Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia created to be a reference of factual and non-biased information. This is not the Huffington Post. Kristoffer Lance (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There are certainly issue with the Environmental Record section, but the section does not strike me as "clearly written with a strong bias" as Eaglecap states and Kristoffer Lance implies. Indeed, some of the tags and complaints seem poorly considered, such as the citation needed notes at the top. The points raised there that are marked as "citation needed" are extensively discussed below. The contention that all content must be verified or deleted immediately strikes me as bizarre given the extensive citations, though citations could certainly be improved. The contention that Barton has a record of preventing action on global warming is well documented in the congressman's own words, though more effective citation would certainly help. Barton has repeatedly and consistently disparaged attempts to address global warming because he does not believe it is happening and/or is caused by humans. His trip to Copenhagen is strong testimony to his opinions on the matter. Statements that he holds such opinions are not POV. Even his supporters agree that he is seeking to block action on global warming, and they think that such prevention of action is a good thing. The assumption (on the part of the reader) that it is "bad" may be POV, but the reporting of the position is not. If some believe that "demeans" the congressman, that is an interpretation created by the reader.

That said, I agree that the section needs significant cleanup. This includes citations - I noticed that several links have multiple dead link tags and assume one or the other should be removed. On the dead link front, while dead links are problematic they are not necessarily "wrong" - most of them appear to point to government publications, so finding appropriate offline citations for them may be possible and would be sufficient (if they support the text, of course). However, as the content seems to be largely correct and the tone does not come across as terribly biased, I am curious what the POV contention is with the section. It seems that editors are reading value assessments into the facts presented. While cleanup is called for, perhaps reducing or removing some of the more editorializing commentary (even if well cited), deletion is unwarranted given the significant focus of Barton's tenure in Congress on energy issues and his high profile opposition to global warming action. --Moretz (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the story with the "original research" tag. I see no justification for that one, and none is provided here in talk. It may be an honest mistake, but it makes it look like like someone is trying to disrcedit this section by throwing trouble tags around. I am removing that tag, but if there is solid grounding for it, please add it back and provide some more detail.

a small correction

Please change: Vice President Joe Biden called Biden's remarks "outrageous" and "incredibly out of touch to Vice President Joe Biden called Barton's remarks "outrageous" and "incredibly out of touch Thanks Danreo1952 (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Misleading/unrelated reference regarding BP "shakedown" under Life and Career:

The reference [4] does not seem to pertain to the sentence that it supposedly cites.

Here is the section in the article:

"The Congressman is the Ranking Minority Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee and during the June 17, 2010 hearings on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, apologized to BP for what he termed the $20 billion "shakedown" of BP by the White House.[4]"

If you click on the hyperlink for [4], you will be directed to a pbs.org page that was created back in 2007, long before the whole BP shakedown ordeal occurred. Furthermore, the whole page is the text for a fatwa (declaration of war) by Osama bin Laden and is not germane to the actual quote that Barton gave regarding the BP shakedown. Here is the link for [4]:

4. ^ a b ("Citizens for Ethics full and final report". Citizens for Ethics. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html. Retrieved 2007-06-20. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedee9000 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

its beenremoved as well as many other uncited and deadlinked sections. We must remember to write in a nuetral POV when it comes to BLP.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

organization of sections

I 'regrouped' the information the way most US Senator and Rep articles are organized (see John Cornyn for example). Each section still needs work (re: weight, bias, other political views, etc.) but it's a start. Flatterworld (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} They left out a refrence on Campaign Finance which I used many times with Joe Barton.

 Not done No specifics, please add what specifically needs to be added or changed, then request an edit again. CTJF83 pride 16:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

BULB legislation paragraph.

I removed the following from the article for discuission:

Barton also brought the bill of stopping efficiency standards and the selling of incandescent bulbs in the BULB Act (H.R. 2417), brought before the House in July 2011. Senator bartons largest campaign contributors are utility companies<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005656</ref>

While he certainly did do this, this is a problematic passage--the fact that Barton is not a Senator being the least of the issues present in this paragraph. Can we have some input from the community? 99.113.204.35 (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested citation for 'Position on Wind Energy' section

I wonder if a better citation for this section would be the transcript from the Committee Hearing where Barton made the "Wind is God’s way of balancing heat..." statement (page 102): KLOLvonJoulupukki (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the existing Newsweek article is a better secondary source, so we stick with the one we have.--Otus scops (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response @Otus scops. I'm a new contributor and I didn't yet know that secondary sources are preferred, so thanks for the heads up. KLOLvonJoulupukki (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

References

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joe Barton. 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/20070725184700/http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140109062336/http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe to http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Barton. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38700.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Lede section should summarize Barton's positions

According to the manual of style, the lede section should summarize key points in the article, which is what was done -- removing this summary -- which is well referenced in neutral and reliable sources, strikes me as highly POV-ish. If one can offer a better summary of the key positions -- again with references -- please do so.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I regret that Tomswulcer has re-inserted his edit. Barton didn't make the specific statement about wind that Tomswulcer attributes to him, see snopes.com for analysis. Barton cannot support "Trump's ban on immigration from Muslim-majority nations" since it doesn't exist. The death-penalty-for-spies stuff is not so notable it belongs in the lead, since it is cited in only one RS and refers to some otherwise-not-noted remarks, perhaps off the cuff, when Barton was a junior congressman. The body of the article doesn't have Barton stating global warming is not a danger. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I went over things a bit. I agree the wind meme is a bit overcooked, shall we say, and I rewrote one of the positions for clarity, but basically what we have here is Barton, a climate-change skeptic, fossil fuels supporter, hard-liner when it comes to how to handle spies, and such, and there are verifiable neutral references for all of these points.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Without at this point opining on which of these belong in the lede, I will say I agree with Tom that material that is sourced to verifiable neutral references does belong in the article. TIME, for example, is one such RS. I don't think it is good for editors to delete text supported by high-level RSs, whether or not the deletion is spurred by POV, as Tom suggests could perhaps be the case. 2604:2000:E016:A700:8DFA:BCA2:F3E3:AE54 (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Now (November 2017) User:2604:2000:e016:a700:bd83:36e6:b8a8:563a, in one of many many edits, has put the "wind" claim back in, so the article says: "At the same time, Barton implied in 2009 that wind is a "finite resource," and that harnessing it would "slow the winds down," which would "cause the temperature to go up." I reverted with an edit summary ending "... Please get consensus for this and any other extremely contentious edits on the talk page." Instead of doing that, User:2604:2000:e016:a700:8dfa:bca2:f3e3:ae54 reverted the revert with an edit summary ending "... Sourced to Time (and now NPR and the Guardian), a high-level RS source. It is not contentious. Please do not delete it, unless you have a high-level RS source saying Time was incorrect." We have previously discussed (see the reference to snopes.com above) why a nearly-the-same statement about Joe Barton is false, and the previous discussion ended with the statement removed. I believe the IP should be mindful of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and WP:ASPERSIONS, and the material should be removed yet again. Anyone else agree or disagree? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. --Daffy123 (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I have removed it. And once again, I remind User:2604:2000:e016:a700:bd83:36e6:b8a8:563a and Tomwsulcer that wp:blprequestrestore is about re-insertion of contentious material in a BLP, when it has been removed on a good-faith ground (because it's been shown to be incorrect), and when they lack consensus (because other editors have clearly opposed). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The NPR reference clearly points out Barton's position on wind energy. He said it; it's referenced; the idea "shown to be incorrect" is POV; and there's no consensus that Barton's comment should be removed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer: I see that you went for re-insertion without consensus, again. I pointed to the policy saying that you need consensus; you're claiming that I'm the one that needs consensus, but that's not BLP policy about re-insertions. Still, I'll try three suggestions. One: compromise, change to "Some sources claim that Barton said wind turbines would slow the earth's rotation [add 2 of your preferred cites here] other sources say that claim is false [add 2 of my preferred cites here]". Two: make an RfC asking whether to keep the claim out (as in my last edit) or keep the claim in (as in your last edit) -- but since you ignore Wikipedia policy I'd need you to assure us that you'd not ignore the RfC result, otherwise it's a waste of time. I'd accept it, and I believe so would Daffy123, who suggested for another re-insertion event that other opinions can be welcome. Three: I don't believe American politics post-1932 discretionary sanctions apply unless an administrator adds [the template], but I can ask an administrator about that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Nude photo scandal

See [1] and [2].

Should discussion of this be included in the article? power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

https://mobile.twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/933452214886191104?p=v

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/11/22/us-rep-joe-barton-deciding-how-respond-after-graphic-photo-circulates-/

http://www.thelibertyconservative.com/alex-jones-and-laura-loomer-release-revenge-porn-video-of-conservative-lawmaker-could-face-jail-time/

There's a controversy thats at play here Laura Loomer and Alex Jones were named in some political blogs for releasing the nude pictures of Congressman Joe Barton on November 22nd, 2017 note this controversy is still being verified by multiple sources and allegations that Alex Jones and Laura Loomer committing revenge porn against Barton is being speculated here at the time of post.

Also put a lock on Barton given how the updates are going to be here.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F950Gr3oNL4

Apparently Infowars has the video of Joe Barton in questionable positions they have the video edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:0:0:0:451D (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

https://lawandcrime.com/uncategorized/infowars-likely-just-violated-law-by-posting-rep-barton-masturbation-video/

Update more blogs are accusing Alex Jones for releasing the Joe Barton video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.130.165 (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joe Barton. 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/20100621055328/http://joebarton.house.gov/Back.aspx?Page=Biography to http://joebarton.house.gov/biography1/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050424041210/http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/21/energy.bill.mtbe.ap/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/21/energy.bill.mtbe.ap/

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) 09:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Quote about Joe Barton

On the section, "Sex Scandal" there has been repeated attempts to add the part in which the Democratic Michigan Attorney General candidate (not even the nominee) said in a campaign ad, in apparent reference to the Barton scandal, that in her election voters should ask themselves: "Who can you trust most not to show you their penis." I deleted this part assuming that this quote isn't really relevant for two reasons. First, the speaker in question isn't important enough in that she isn't even yet a nominee for the attorney general in Michigan (not even in Texas) and isn't even famous enough to have her own article here in Wikipedia. If the remark was given by the Texas Governor or the Democratic Attorney General nominee in Texas, I would concur, but the opinions of an obscure candidate outside Texas deserving a part here in this page just because she said "penis" doesn't sound like a reason to put this here. Second, most of the news was cited by either tabloids or local newspapers outside Texas such as the Miami Herald, the News Tribune in Tacoma, Washington and others. I welcome other opinions on this issue.

N.B. My previous edit removing this part was reverted by User:2604:2000:e016:a700:5c70:55f9:38ef:f6d1 so I invite him or her to the discussion as well. --Daffy123 (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe that the IP addresses beginning with 2604:2000:e016:a700 represent a single person who has done over 100 edits to this page since November 22. I too am having problems with one of this IP's edits as you can see in a thread above this. Your objection is correct. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I reminded this IP about WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE which says "If [material that has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". But the IP re-inserted twice, here and here. Since both Daffy123 and I made clear that we opposed the IP's edit, the consensus seems to be: remove. First I'm asking other editors who may be watching: (1) do you believe the material that this IP re-inserted is okay? (2) do you believe any of this IP's edits are okay? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for re-addressing this issue. Somehow the IP hasn't responded to my previous comment and I was hoping somebody would bring this back again. As the person who initially raised this issue, I am all in favor of reverting the IP's edit and removing that quote. --Daffy123 (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It has already been a week since I first raised this issue and I haven't heard back from the IP. Assuming that nobody else is interested in taking this debate further, I believe we've done our due diligence and I suggest to Peter Gulutzan that we revert the IP's edit. --Daffy123 (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. For the record, I put a warning on the talk page of 2604:2000:E016:A700:E1F7:7C24:7E50:9FAA and am here warning the same editor who is responsible for IPv6 addresses beginning with 2604:2000:E016:A700: You have no consensus (0 editors support your edits and 2 oppose), you have already been informed about WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE which says re-insertion without consensus is against policy, hereby you are informed again. Reversion is done. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

tomwsulcer: Regarding the comments you made in the next thread: (1) Perhaps you missed it that there's a ridiculously long section about sex in the article, we should be asking how to reduce it. (2) No photos are mentioned in the deleted sentences. (3) Joe Barton is a prominent lawmaker etc. but Dana Nessel isn't. (4) We know perfectly well that the claims exist, about a trivial and far-away matter. (5) False and demeaning implications about what Mr Barton does in public don't belong here, please remember that WP:BLP applies to talk pages too. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, what leads you to think that the section about sex in the article is "ridiculously long", that the matter is "trivial and far away"? What makes you think the claims are "false and demeaning"? Numerous reliable sources disagree with your point of view here. Sexual harassment is an important topic in politics; Barton is a sexual harasser and a lawmaker (who can make rules about sexual harassment). That Barton's sexual habits are the subject of ongoing political ad campaigns is well-referenced, notable, and when it's covered in-depth repeatedly in the media, making an argument that he needs protection for BLP reasons, that somehow Wikipedia should try to cover up what major news organizations have been saying, is borderline absurd.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Barton is an important public figure. The sexual harassment allegations are of serious nature. Barton's sexual controversy should be and has been covered in Wikipedia. I agree to all of these statements. But covering the news of Barton's allegations and covering the fact that some obscure politician made fun of that issue in her campaign ad are two different matter. Sure, this story about this Attorney General candidate (I have emphasized numerous times that she is not even the nominee) is referenced in several RSs, but does that mean this is newsworthy? Let me give an example, many prominent news organizations often report light-hearted news stories, like how a Golden Retriever was rescued from a river etc. Does that mean that those kind of stories have to be referenced in Wikipedia articles about dogs, Golden Retrievers, or even Good Samaritans? And lastly, your assertion that somehow Wikipedia is trying to cover up Barton's escapades is not true. If you bothered to skim through the article, you can see that most of the information about Barton are mostly negative, critical news about him and that the section about his sexual harassment is perhaps longer than any other section. To suggest that somehow Wikipedia is trying to cover up Barton's act is, to borrow your phrase, "borderline absurd." For a South Korean national who can't even vote in America, I can't think of a single reason why I should have any emotional attachment to a Wikipedia article of a American politician who is about to retire in disgrace. And yes, I wholeheartedly agree with talk in that the section about sexual harassment is a bit unnecessarily long, but I haven't called out the other parts irrelevant, partly because I do believe the other parts focus on the sexual harassment itself and not about some obscure candidate talking about it.--Daffy123 (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes thank you for explaining your viewpoint. What we're talking about is a single sentence in Wikipedia, followed by several reliable references, saying that a political advertising campaign was referring to Barton specifically. The media attention was national -- not just a local event. That the advertising campaign by an admittedly minor official got such media play suggests the huge dynamics underlying it -- specifically, the widespread and deep anger and resentment among women about sexual harassment, a sting that runs deep because many politicians in Congress have found ways to hide or delay the allegations. Gender issues will be important in the upcoming political battling in the US. And here we have an American politician, who should be upholding the law, isn't. The sentence belongs in this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with the argument that gender issues are and will be important considering how much the "me too" movement making significant changes to a sexist political culture, but the references for the news report were generally from local newspapers ranging from Washington State, AdAge (which is not even a newspaper company but an advertising company), Miami, New Zealand (!) and Wichita. Of course, they may be RSs but my understanding is that if this was truly important news, it should have been covered in national publications such as NYT, WP, LA Times, or even regional publications in Texas. But of course, as is the case with any other discussions, your point is taken and I'd like opinions from others as well. It seems like the IP who inserted this phrase somehow chose to disappear for some reason.--Daffy123 (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not such a mystery. The IP was (in my view) unfairly warned about contributing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Daffy123, I guess that anyone who wants opinions from others can start an RfC. I am striking the word "ridiculously" from my earlier post. Apparently you aren't enthusiastic about removing all the IP's edits, but thanks for agreeing about "wind" ("Lede section should summarize Barton's positions"), I removed that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion

An editor has deleted text supported by five RS sources; the Miami Herald (founded in 1903, it is the second largest newspaper in South Florida), the Wichita Eagle (the largest newspaper in Wichita and the surrounding area), The News Tribune (which traces its origins back to 1880), AdAge (which traces its origins back to 1880), and Stuff.co.nz (New Zealand's top-visited news website).

The deleting editor wrote as his reason: "the sources added aren't Texan or of national newspaper and more or less tabloid." First of all -- he is completely confused if he thinks that the sources have to be Texan. Editors are not allowed to make up non-existent rules. In fact, at Wikipedia, we view coverage from sources around (and here, even outside) the US as being stronger indicia of notability than using only local sources from one locale. Furthermore, the editor is simply wrong -- as demonstrated above, these are very strong RSs, many of them both large and tracing back over a century -- not at all "tabloids."

Further, the editor misunderstands Wikipedia standards for inclusion. Even though five separate RS sources have considered the material newsworthy -- in fact, newsworthy enough to devote entire articles to it -- the editor has substituted his subjective view as to what is newsworthy, to delete them. In fact, the editor further evidences his lack of familiarity with what is sufficiently notable to include in an article by arguing "the speaker in question is a mere candidate who doesn't even have her own page here." That is not criteria for inclusion. In fact, the fact that someone does not have an article may be due to many things. But what is being covered here is the candidate's video based on the Barton episode -- which is indeed noteworthy, as it is reflected in all of these RSs, and even has articles devoted to it, as it has become viral.

That is the test -- not the editor's subjective view, unsupported, of what is newsworthy or what is a "tabloid." We defer to the RSs view of what is noteworthy, not to any editor's view. Due to the editor's mischaracterization of the nature of the RSs, and misunderstanding that the RSs have to be from Texas, etc., I am reverting him. His basis for deleting RS supported text is clearly wrong. I would urge the editor, if he continues to disagree, after checking for example his assertions as to the "tabloid" nature of the sources, to either discuss it here or to bring it to a noticeboard, rather than edit-war. 2604:2000:E016:A700:E1F7:7C24:7E50:9FAA (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I have written what I have want to state in the above section. And plus, being "viral" doesn't mean any news is newsworthy. Refer to the above section for further debate. And also being cited from an RS doesn't also mean its newsworthy either. --Daffy123 (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

My sense is the deleted material belongs in the article for these reasons: (1) sexual harassment is a HUGE ongoing issue in politics and the media (2) Barton is part of this mess -- he's a politician who has sent sexually explicit photos of himself (3) Barton is a lawmaker, a public figure, a person supposedly responsible for making laws about things like sexual behavior in professional settings (4) the claims are well referenced in reliable sources (5) the issue of sexual harassment including public masturbation (unfortunately) will be important and notable in upcoming elections. It belongs in.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

As is appropriate (since Daffy123 requested and since I believe this should not have been started as a separate thread), I have answered above, where the matter has already been discussed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joe Barton. 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/20160306143740/https://enrpages.sos.state.tx.us/public/mar01_273_state.htm?x=0&y=1414&id=664 to https://enrpages.sos.state.tx.us/public/mar01_273_state.htm?x=0&y=1414&id=664
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160306144035/https://enrpages.sos.state.tx.us/public/mar01_233.htm to https://enrpages.sos.state.tx.us/public/mar01_233.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) 06:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"Smokey Joe"

I was under the impression that this nickname originated with his taking lots of campaign money from tobacco companies and then going to the House floor to deny that smoking had any health risks. 207.98.196.125 (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sex scandal discussion

This section seems like it gives WP:UNDUE weight to this scandal. Obviously, the photos had a lasting effect on his career, so they are worth covering in some respect, but extensively quoting the explicit messages, naming all of the women they were sent to, and even the exact length of the sexually explicit video is really laying it on way too thick. I'm inclined to trim this down to the bare essentials: readers should understand that he had affairs, and he sent sexually explicit text messages and videos to three women. Those exchanges were leaked to the press. He resisted pressure to resign, but he chose not to run for re-election. Nblund ^talk 17:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

"Prompted by a February 2005 Wall Street Journal article,[71]"

The only source for this is Barton's claim in his letters to Mann and others, but it makes little sense that a June 23, 2005 demand was promptecd by a February 2005 article. In any case, Barton's very close ally in climate denial, James Inhofe, had attacked the hockey stick in a February 10, 2005 talk for the George Marshall Institute (GMI), followed by the unusual February 14, 2005 front-page article in the Wall Street Journal. Did 2 obscure Canadian non-climate scientists arrange that, Washignton politicians? or The timing of the demand letters was much more likely set by the ongoing Phil Cooney scanda and upcoming energy bill plus the May 11, 2005 McIntyre&McKitricktalk for George Marshall Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) in Washington. The sequence of events is laid out in Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report, p.28 and pp.30, Activities 07-09. Of course, that is not RS, but it cites original documents as sources, including fact that CEI's Myron Ebell had copies of the letters to scientists before the scientists got them. Anyway, the "prompted" statement here asserts a claim for which there is zero independent evidence and which makes no sense, and for which there is much evidence that the letters to scientists were simply part of an ongoing strategy to attack climate science. It is simply not believable that Barton was not talking to Inhofe in February. Anyway, I'd suggest just deleting this phrase in favor of just saying "Barton launched..." JohnMashey (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)