Talk:Justin Amash/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

H Con Res 13

In the "Political Positions" section, the article previously stated: "He was the only Republican Congressman to vote against a November 2011 resolution (HR CON RES 13) to reaffirm "In God We Trust" as the official motto of the United States."

First, this is an incomplete, and therefore inaccurate, description of H Con Res 13. H Con Res 13 was a nonbinding resolution to reaffirm "In God We Trust" as the national motto and to encourage the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions. Amash has publicly explained that he would have voted "yes" on H Con Res 13 if it had only called for reaffirming the motto (https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/189125417837995). His reason for voting "no" on H Con Res 13 was based entirely upon the portion of H Con Res 13--encouraging public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions--that the now deleted description of H Con Res 13 left out. Amash further explained his opposition to the "encourage" portion of the nonbinding resolution here: https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/215110955225042.

Second, how any Representative voted on a single nonbinding resolution, which can not result in any change in law, out of thousands of votes on actual bills is not indicative of that Representative's "political position" on anything. The rest of the "political positions" section properly describes Amash's general views on major topics such as health care, war, economic policy, and the Second Amendment. The inclusion of the vote results of a nonbinding resolution, particularly when the description of the resolution is incomplete and inaccurate, can only serve to mislead and does not help a reader of this section looking to learn about Amash's actual political positions. Sonofshamwowjr (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Endorsement of Ron Paul

The statement of the subject's endorsement of Ron Paul is only obliquely related to the subject, and it is improperly sourced. See WP:SELFSOURCE. The statement should be removed if deficiencies remain uncorrected.

Sisong (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Sisong

Political interpretations

Interpretation of the anticipated effect of proposed legislation and other politically charged material should not be included without citation to sources. Otherwise the article becomes a statement of the editor's subjective opinion or a forum for political campaigning.

Sisong (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Sisong

All reporting of a bill that only focuses on one aspect of the bill content or just its title is a subjective interpretation. Your repeated efforts to reference only bills on this page that, on their face, appear controversial is a subjective interpretation that could be confused for political campaigning. Wikipedia pages for politicians are better suited for statements about the general positions of those politicians than subjectively picking and choosing specific bills without context.

Sonofshamwowjr (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from drawing value-laden conclusions about my contributions. The bill interpretations I added were from a cited and linked press interview of the candidate, not from my personal opinion. I recommend you read the press article, if you have not already done so. Regarding a politician's "general positions": they are also subjective interpretations unless citation to WP-conformant source material is included. Please cite your sources if you add general positions.

Sisong (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Sisong

That the media can regurgitate the "interpretation" of a bill directly from the bill's sponsors--whose motivations are to get their bills passed--does not make those citations an objective source of information. Amash has made a name for himself by noticing details in legislation that would result in unintended consequences that the bills' sponsors did not catch. Moreover, Amash has voted on thousands of bills. Calling out a few specific bills--with interpretations that are taken from bill sponsors or third parties (like the news media) who didn't read the bills themselves-- will always be subjective. This will inevitably lead to a Wikipedia page that is filled with thousands of vote listings and citations. That won't help anybody.

Sonofshamwowjr (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If including the content of bills is out of place, then including the content of votes is also out of place. I propose we resolve the dilemma by removing discussion of both bills and votes from the article.

Sisong (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. What's the difference between the content of a bill and the content of a vote? I may agree with you, but I'd like to clear that up.

Also, FWIW, the citation to HB 5575 (the human trafficking-related bill) is the proper citation for the proposition that the bill treated breaking off a marriage engagement as a form of human trafficking. That conclusion can only be found in the text of the bill itself. See section 6(E) of the bill ("FRAUD" INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, A FALSE OR DECEPTIVE OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT OR MARRIAGE.").

Sonofshamwowjr (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The content of a vote means what it was (such as "yes" or "no"), as opposed to the fact that a vote was cast (without regard to what it was). Consider the difference between the statements "he voted 'yes' on the proposal" and "he voted on the proposal".

On HB 5575: The text of the bill would not prohibit the mere breaking of an engagement. The actual text of the bill prohibits a false or deceptive offer of marriage. The breaking of an engagement could be used as one factor to indicate the offer of marriage was false when made, but the breaking alone would not be a violation of the law. Falseness and deception depend on the state of mind of the offeror at the time the offer is made. The breaking of an engagement (which comes later in time) doesn't automatically mean that it was false or deceptive when it began. People end engagements in good faith all the time for valid reasons such as changes in circumstances, revelations about their fiance, reconsidering their life plans, etc.

An interpretation of a bill that is not contained in the text itself should be cited to a source -- preferably one that provides logical analysis for the interpretation.

Sisong (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying.

Re: Votes. I agree that it's not helpful to include either the content of the bill or the vote IF the part following the phrase "on the proposal to" is simply followed by only one interpretation of the proposal, which usually ends up being the media or bill sponsor's interpretation. I believe this should be true of any politician's wiki page. For example, "Mr. Smith voted NO on HR 123, a proposal to fund day care providers through 2012," is biased and not helpful without Mr. Smith's viewpoint being included. The casual reader would think that Mr. Smith does not support day care providers. A neutral report would be, "Mr. Smith voted NO on HR 123. The bill's sponsor's stated that the bill would fund day care providers through 2012. Mr. Smith stated that he opposed it because, while he supports funding day care providers, he was not willing to do so at the expense of funding K-12 education, from which this money would come."

Re: HB 5575: One section provides that "a person shall not knowingly provide or obtain the labor or services of another person by force, fraud, or coercion." "Labor" and "services" are not defined, and therefore could include such things as doing laundry or having sex. "'Fraud' includes, but is not limited to, a false or deceptive offer of employment or marriage." While I'm sure it wasn't intended, it is possible to prosecute a person under this law who obtains sex through a false offer of marriage. Once the engagement is broken off, its falsity will be revealed and its role in obtaining the sex (i.e. services) would constitute, under this law, engaging in human trafficking.

This discussion about HB 5575 only serves to underscore my point that there are multiple sides to every politician's vote. A wiki page that only details one side, the one reported by the bill sponsor to the mainstream media, will almost never give a neutral report. As I stated before, I happen to think it's especially relevant in the case of a fiercely independent and policy-detail-oriented representative like Cong. Amash because (if you follow his Facebook page) these are precisely the kinds of subtle nuances that often guide his votes.

Hope that helps.

Sonofshamwowjr (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Political positions section may be out of place

This section may need to be removed for a couple of reasons. Political positions are not encyclopedic content and they tend to change with the social issues of the day. Also, the reference to most of the information violates WP:SELFPROMOTE.

--Sisong (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Amash and a US Senate run? Background on his "moderate" positions

  • Is Justin Amash the new face of Republicanism? — an April 2013 article on his background, how he somewhat counter-intuitively does not fit in with the Republican party on a broad swath of issues, or the Democratic party on another swath of issues, which might just make him the sort of moderate who could win a Michigan vote for the US Senate as a moderate. He is apparently now being encouraged to run for the Senate. And there seems to be nothing on this future Senate run in the current Wikipedia article. N2e (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

Need review of his role this week in House Roll Call 412 this week Chaler 03:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Chaler

stripped of committee assignment

Getting stripped of a committee assignment is one of the punishments leadership lays on a backbencher who isnt' playing the game nicely.

It seems worthwhile to list the members who had this happen to them.

--Patbahn (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source

I'd like to discuss this edit, which removes citations to Amash's web site. Primary sources can be reliable. In this case, it's being used to support statements regarding Amash's beliefs. His web site would be reliable in that regard.CFredkin (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You have a point about reliability. But what about WP:PROMOTION? Sisong (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think a case might be made for that. Could you suggest statements that you think should be removed? CFredkin (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Endorsement of Igor Berman

If Amash's endorsement of Berman is significant and notable, you should be able to find a secondary source for it.CFredkin (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to. The youtube video is a reliable source. Notability only applies to whether or not an article should exist on a subject, not on whether an item is relevant to include in an article which is already relevant. 108.28.104.22 (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Congressmen make many statements. Not all of them can (or should be) published in Wikipedia. If this one is worth noting, it will have appeared in a secondary source.CFredkin (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
In addition, Amash's endorsement of a presidential candidate tells the reader something about Amash. However, Amash's endorsement of Berman only really tells the reader something about Berman. That's why I don't believe the statement is relevant to this article.CFredkin (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits from "congress"

This diff has an edit summary "Go Away Congress", presumably because the original edits came from the US Congress's block of IPs. This does not seem like a valid reason for reverting those edits (which fixed a dead link, mind you). It's probably a good idea to focus on the content, not the author. Also, he's a congressman, of course DC people are going to be interested in updating his Wiki page. That's like reverting all edits to articles related to scientific projects that come from IP blocks at NIST, CERN or NASA. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 18:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Asshole Factor

The following statement seems inappropriate. It serves no purpose other than being sensational. Westmoreland later amended his statement to be "obstinate factor". Saying this would get the point across without being offensive.

Politico quoted Georgia Congressman Lynn Westmoreland as saying that Amash, along with colleagues Tim Huelskamp and David Schweikert, who were also stripped of committee assignments, were removed not because of their voting record but because of "the asshole factor".CFredkin (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
If "asshole" is what he said, then that's what should be included. But the whole incident doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion to me. Arbor8 (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion continuing at Talk:Tim Huelskamp. Tiller54 (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Coming from Mother Jones, a source whose Wikipedia Article says "caters to the left side of politics", and considering that this is an article about a conservative Member of Congress, this content neither seems to be encyclopedic or appropriate. It reads as libel, especially considering that it is mentioned at the top of the article. I second the claim that this reads as sensationalist and should be removed, until provided with overwhelming evidence that this is worthy of being included in this article. Then, if it is, it should be included in the "U.S. House of Representatives" section, not the top of the article. Doing otherwise reads as a clearly politically motivated bias. A plethora of negative comments about American legislators are said by pundits in partisan news sources--and seldom are they considered worthy of being included in Wikipedia. As an alternative hypothetical, I would submit to this discussion that everyone here would agree that something coming from Fox News or Breitbart containing a negative and profane comment about a Democratic politician would not be accepted as encyclopedic content worthy of being included at the top of the article. →Hubbardc→Talk to me!→ 04:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Hubbardc


  • It's appropriate. Mother Jones is fine as an RS for this. Various views of him are given -- this is balanced. And the lede is an appropriate place to reflect views of the subject of the article. This is just one of the views of the subject.

It is also troubling that Hubbard deleted it leaving the edit summary "vandalism". It is obviously not vandalism, and leaving an inaccurate edit summary is, to put it gently, something to be avoided.

Hubbard's assertion that the language is not "encyclopedic" is unfounded. We have hundreds of articles with the phrase, including many in the title of the article. If that offends an editor's POV, the editor will certainly not be happy about all the images on wikipedia of that part of the anatomy. If it appears in an RS, as here, it is appropriate. One can't impose one's own POV over what the RSs say, to delete either laudatory language or the opposite. We follow the RSs. Not individual editor POV. (Oh yes -- Hubbard clearly does not understand what libel is; as with vandalism, he seems to be using negative words, without substance behind his accusation).Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Without personally trying to include derogatory attacks against you as you did to me, I may want to remind you that the previous version was accepted for an extended period of time, and that there is a lack of convincing evidence why this contributes to the educational and encyclopedic nature of the article. It reads as inflammatory and controversial. As mentioned earlier, the source on the Mother Jones (magazine) article that says it "caters to the left side of politics" lists it as an equivalent on the political left as Breitbart (website) is to the political right, and I certainly hope that you would not think some of its comments deserve to be included in political articles. Perhaps excluding both the laudatory comment calling him a the most important civil libertarian in Congress and the subsequent comment that calls him an asshole would be the most mature way to approach this article. Otherwise, it does indeed read as libel, with an intent to harm his reputation using an allegedly neutral and NPOV-abiding source such as Wikipedia. Not necessarily legal libel, but language that contains a libelous nature in the artice. Lastly, please AGF. My intention was to contribute to the scholarly quality of the article, not degrade it. I certainly hope your intentions are the same and I respectfully ask for you to keep this in mind.→Hubbardc→Talk to me!→ 04:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Hubbardc
Not only is MJ fine for a quote like this, a quick google search reveals a number of other RSs reflecting this assessment. I've now reflected some of them -- and the articles "The GOP Committee Purge and the "Asshole Factor"". Slate Magazine, "'The a—hole factor'", POLITICO, and "The Eight Types Of A**holes In Washington", The Huffington Post. But there are more that can be added as well. There's simply no RS issue here. Best to reflect what the RSs say, rather than delete it because you don't like part of what they say.
Because you did not actually include citations to these articles, so we could look them up, and see if they name Amash, and are therefore relevant to the matter, we cannot agree (or disagree) with you. I will say that if all these articles are actually relevant to Amash (the title subject), why do all of these not appear in a longer section within the article, focused on a tidal wave of arse-focused commentary solely engendered by the title subject's existence on this orb? In that case, we could argue that the disputed sentence (i) actually summarized a section of the article, and (ii) actually captured the preponderance of published opinion on one aspect of the man. As it stands, we can argue neither. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
And no, this is not libel. If it were, those four papers would not have printed it. Epeefleche (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Rather than the current quotation that contains little context surrounding the story, perhaps an alternative source should be used from the ones you listed and background information should be mentioned concerning the committee assignments. Also, the Huffpost article clearly reads as a satirical and comedic piece, and the slate/politico pieces certainly read as more reliable than Mother Jones. If you think this absolutely needs to be in the article, why must it be on the top, and why is it coming from one of the least reliable sources you listed? Lastly, wouldn't it be more appropriate to include it in the committee assignments section, rather than at the top of the article without any context?→Hubbardc→Talk to me!→ 05:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Hubbardc
The current bit is summary in form -- both as to the two positive comments, as well as the lone negative comment. As to the comment you are concerned with, the text within the article provides greater context than the summary lede. But a lede is supposed to be summary in nature. This accomplishes that goal. You have to read the comments as a whole, and understand that the lede is supposed to be summary. Plus - the comment relates to the view of him in general; it simply surfaced in regard to his committee assignments that the view of him in general was a problem (not his votes on certain matters, etc.). The MJ article is clearly reliable here, for this fact, as it is supported by other RSs confirming it. A general view of him -- all three views, as reflected in the MJ quote -- is appropriate in a lede, as it summarizes the view of him. No doubt we could build out further the text that discusses this -- there is also a parallel view expressed by another Congressman alluded to by the RSs. Finally, as to this point, the HuffPost article is factual. Epeefleche (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

First and foremost, This is not libel. Calling someone an asshole and mentioning that someone is called an asshole is not libel. Also Hubbardc, your revert did not remove any vandalism. This is not vandalism. This talk page post was started more than a year ago. You should have probably read what has been said prior. Moving forward, placing this in the lead is simply giving this undue weight. Placing this in the body may also be giving this undue weight. Reviewing the discussion that has taken place this topic was moved to Talk:Tim Huelskamp. Note that this conversation is still on that talk page as a formally closed RFC. The closer notes that this RFC resulted in no consensus. The closer cites the BLP mentioning a tie results in the decision going for those in favor of the removed material. Since this discussion was moved there, the results there have an effect here. The result of course being the removal of the term asshole. As the closer suggests, if you would like it to use asshole in the article it would be necessary for you to get a consensus to do so. As it stands you do not have a consensus. I'd recommend taking it to BLPN. I'm removing this from the lead. I'm going to allow this to stand in the body to give us time to discuss how to appropriately rephrase it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest either removing the Mother Jones news source or trimming it to only include Karl Rove's position. Not sure who these unnamed democrats are and one of the named GOP establishment comments below that. Also I'd just change asshole to obstinate. Here's a source used at the Tim Huelskamp article [1] that has Westmoreland back stepping on those comments to explain what he meant. What he meant by his comments would be a little more encyclopedic anyway than just simply mentioning that he called someone an asshole.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Concur with this closing comment, and have acted accordingly, see lede as it stands of this date. Please continue discussion on this, in the new section below, where I have tried to reframe the debate in terms of WP policies and guidelines regarding ledes. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Temporarily moving lede paragraph here for further discussion.

The foregoing discussion on this Mother Jones quote focused on use of language. I am re-raising the issue to focus on whether the lede, with these quotes, violates the spirit and letter of WP policies and guidelines about ledes. In choosing quotes for a lede, one must demonstrate that they satisfy the aim of the lead in synthesizing the content of the article, and reflecting the preponderance of scholarly sources on the matter. I argue that including these quotes fails both of these tests (no significant time spent on quotes in body of text, and no clear evidence that the quotes, however pithy, reflect the preponderance of published opinion on the matter).

Hence, I think the choice of the quotes in general, and the Mother Jones quote in particular, for the lede are inappropriate. These are single publication statements. The lede is intended to be a synthesis of the whole article. The use of quotes is, and should be discouraged as summary, but can be appropriate if represents a consensus and serves as summary (e.g., "Presidential historian... is quoted as saying President Reagan is among the most... an opinion shared by most scholars." would be fine).

Here is the text removed. I think it should be returned only if it is clearly the consensus of published authors (not WP editor opinion, or liked for its pithiness or earthiness).

Conor Friedersdorf, writing for The Atlantic, called Amash "one of the most important civil libertarians in the House of Representatives".[1] Tim Murphy wrote in Mother Jones: "Karl Rove calls him a 'liberal Republican'; Democrats insist his fiscal policy makes Paul Ryan look like a New Dealer; some in the GOP establishment just straight up say he's an asshole."[2]

  1. ^ Friedersdorf, Conor (2014-08-06). "Why Justin Amash's Primary Victory Matters" (online staff comment). The Atlantic. Retrieved 15 March 2016.
  2. ^ "Will GOP Rebel Justin Amash Bring Down the NSA—and His Own Party?". Mother Jones.

Please discuss, and paraphrase or justify this particular content as being appropriate for the lede. Please argue on the basis not of personal opinion, liking the content or not, but based on WP policy and guidelines (WP:BLPSTYLE, MOS:INTRO, etc.). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Return summarized content to lede, but not as quotes, and with greater caution and dispassion. I vote the gist of the content be returned to the lede, but not as quotes, and sans the very earthy and unnecessary language of the one source, which can appear in the main body, but should not be offered as a lede summary statement, for its failure to be "cautious" and "dispassionate" as required by WP:BLPSTYLE, for its failure to contribute as a summary point to the article per MOS:INTRO, and its failure to reflect a consensus or widely stated perspective by scholarly sources, as required by WP:VERIFY. It is interesting only in its provocative use of language, and belongs in the main body, and not in the lede. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I have distilled from the two quote-bearing sentences the gist of what they were communicating (see closing paragraph—placeholder text—in the current lede), and I think this form of it makes clear, that even in this watered down form, the generalizations (which I tried hard to make reflect the quote contents) are inappropriately justified as anything other than the opinions of the two writers, and not a consensus that belongs so prominently in the lede. Please address this as well. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"He is increasingly viewed as a leading critic opposed to Donald Trump."

Just because WSJ wrote something does not make it true... I guess this is just wiki bias showing (any chance to bash Trump). For example there is not a single mention of Libertarian in the introductory section, and Amash has been famous among Libertarians( https://reason.com/tags/justin-amash ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.148.227 (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Justin Amash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 21:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Justin Amash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 11:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Descent and Ancestry

Amash has numerous category tags, but no mention in the text of being of Arab, Syrian or Palestinian descent which would seem relevant to his politics: American people of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent American people of Palestinian descent American people of Syrian descent American politicians of Palestinian descent American politicians of Syrian descent Bachcell (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure it's relevant to his politics but from the article: "Amash is the son of a Palestinian Christian father and a Syrian Christian mother."Pelirojopajaro (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I concur. Likewise I'd like to see more information and citations (none at present) about his business dealings--esp. with China. His ancestry and business interests may define his attitude towards the president and his policies and deserve mention. (Warships steaming towards the Middle East, and tariffs piling up against China ATM) 64.47.214.68 (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Tea Party

Why is "Tea Party movement activists" one of the categories, yet the Tea Party is not mentioned at all in this article? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"Lie" vs "False claim"

I AM HERE REPLACED VANDALIZED ENTRY WITH MY ORIGINAL ENTRY. Trump was incorrect when he wrote on twitter in his criticism of Amash that the Mueller report ultimately found "no obstruction." This can easily be shown by the most cursory examination of the report. The report pointedly says that Trump is not exonerated and says that it will not make a traditional prosecution decision on the basis that it is the president. It is impossible for any fair minded person to believe that the president did not understand this basic conclusion given the gravity of the report and his army of lawyers at hand. Therefore, he lied. He simply lied. So we need to say he lied about this, not "falsely claimed." I realize we are living in the post truth age, it is impossible to believe the president is not aware of the basic conclusion of this report. Jazzbox (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC) Jazzbox (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

NO, we say What RS say, and that edit was not vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Somebody vandalized my comment above to state the contrary. Anyway it should say Trump "lied" about the report showing "no obstruction." He is a well documented liar and the whole world can read he "is not exonerated". Jazzbox (talk)`
If RS do not say it neither can we, even if he lies about everything he may tell the truth once (anything else is wp:synthesis).Slatersteven (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Lede: "one of the most conservative members of Congress"

This description from Politico belongs in the lede. It effectively summarizes the 'political positions' section which delineates just how conservative he is. Furthermore, this is even more valuable given the disinformation campaign to portray this man as some kind of RINO just because he stood up to Trump. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a very misleading claim and results from media spin. Although some conservative groups may have endorsed him on certain issues, an actual analysis of his votes shows that there are only 4 Republican members of congress that are more liberal than him. [2]--Rusf10 (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah of course, I see. So the fake news media is at it again, which means we should throw the RS policy out of the window? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
"Media spin"? We follow the reliable sources here; multiple reliable sources classify Amash as very conservative, and scales like DW-NOMINATE show the same. Neutralitytalk

Karl Rove vs. multiple RS

The editor Rusf10 is adding Karl Rove's, a partisan operative in the Bush White House, views on whether Amash is a true conservative to the article, and is using this one opinion to rebut the assessment by multiple RS that Amash is conservative (and in fact, very conservative by all measures), and changing text so that the article presents the issue of Amash's conservatism as if it were an active debate when it's just Rove's opinion versus a description from multiple RS. This is all feeding into the false narrative that Amash is some kind of RINO, and is a borderline BLP violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, outrageous personal attacks and false claims. Please do explain to me how a properly sourced quote from Karl Rove constitutes a BLP violation. Maybe the media is just trying to portray Amash as more conservative than he actually is just to smear Trump? By all accounts he is a strong libertarian, which means it is not even possible for him to also be the most conservative member since libertarian and conservative views often conflict (particularity on social issues). As the source I provided above shows, his voting record is not even close to being the most conservative. As for Karl Rove, what does him being partisan have to do with using a properly attributed quote. You yourself, regularly use quotes from partisan Democrats, so what's the issue?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The Rove comment is undue weight. This was an offhand comment at an Aspen festival several years ago, and there's no reason to single out Rove's views here to repeat in the article. Notably, he would be the only person other than Amash directly quoted in the political positions section, which seems undue. I do agree that we should have some material about Amash's gadflyish reputation and his clashes with party leadership, and I have added that material. I don't think Rove's individual point of view is necessary in light of that broader context. Neutralitytalk 01:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed some material about his being an independent

When his resignation from the Republican Party was added to the lead, the following was included:

He is the only independent serving in the House of Representatives. He is the first independent to serve in the House of Representatives since Bernie Sanders of Vermont who left the House in 2007 to become a United States Senator. Amash is one of three independents in the United States Congress, along with with Sanders and Maine Senator Angus King.

When I added his resignation to the body of the article, I intended to move this information there, as it is more suitable for the body than the lead. However, I was unable to find any reference source pointing this out. Without such a source this is synthesis or original research so I left it out. If anyone can find where a Reliable Source makes these points, please add it to the article text with the reference. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Today's news everywhere says he has left the Republican Party. What should the lede say now? Probably Independent, or maybe Libertarian. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Independent. That is what he himself says he is, and that is how he intends to run for re-election. --MelanieN alt (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Not the only independent in the House of Representatives

The article makes a point that he is the only independent and the first since Bernie Sanders. However Delegate Gregorio Sablan is also an independent. While not a representative, Sablan is part of the House so I think perhaps the language should be modified to reflect this. 172.78.39.20 (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe American politics is too confusing for words, but If he is not a representative then how is he a member of the House of Representatives?Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: The District of Columbia and the territories, including the Northern Mariana Islands where Sablan is from, elect non-voting delegates to the House, who are treated as members for some purposes but not others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, I see. Well then " only independent member the House of Representatives" solves the issue.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of Hillary Clinton

This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "A single comment does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. WP:UNDUE." I think it is relevant and should be included.

On October 18, 2019, Hillary Clinton suggested "Russians" are "grooming" Tulsi Gabbard to be a third-party candidate who would help President Trump win reelection through the spoiler effect.[1] Amash criticized Clinton, stating that "The thing we know for sure is that Hillary Clinton is a Donald Trump asset." Amash suggested that similar accusations only "plays right into Trump’s hands; that it diminishes the legitimate inquiry into Russia; that it bolsters Trump’s ‘hoax’ nonsense."[2]

References

  1. ^ Morgan, Scott (October 19, 2019). "Hillary Clinton suggests Russia is grooming Tulsi Gabbard for third-party run". NBC News.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ "Beto O'Rourke Dismisses Hillary Clinton's Accusations, Says Tulsi Gabbard 'Is Not Being Groomed By Anyone'". The Inquisitr. October 19, 2019.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. It may belong on the Clinton or Gabbard page but not here. Its a single comment/opinion that he is not a major part of. ContentEditman (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Rather in 2 minds, not sure a one off comment is relevant, but if a lot of RS have covered it there is an argument we should.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The Clinton/Gabbard thing doesn't involve Amash. His comment isn't particularly relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't say Amash's comment/opinion is not** noteworthy, and this is already covered on Tulsi's page and Clintons page where it should be, not here. MaximusEditor (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

source - congressional affiliation Libertarian, no longer independent

In this interview he discusses and affirms that his partisan affiliation is now solely Libertarian, not independent.

https://oembed.libsyn.com/embed?item_id=14139281&fbclid=IwAR3CBBJy_6GLMy4mBiLaS1ZxMckEfZRjTC3O0cmgk0NpWyTU7oXpDGIaWNI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.105.63 (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Is he officially registered as Libertarian? Affiliation is not the same as being a member, and thus isn't recognized in articles. This is why Bernie is listed as independent despite running in two Democratic primaries. Until a source can be provided citing an official switch he should still be considered independent. Metamorph985 (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


The US House of Representatives and Libertarian Party wikipedia pages have already updated to reflect that he has becom-- MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)e a sustaining member of the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Party has announced that he has officially switched parties. LP Facebook Post: https://www.facebook.com/libertarians/posts/10158150833797726

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives#Latest_election_results_and_current_party_standings

"It is currently the third largest political party in the United States by voter registration,[1] and has one member in Congress, Representative Justin Amash of Michigan." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

https://reason.com/2020/04/28/justin-amash-is-running-for-president-as-a-libertarian/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rep-justin-amash-to-seek-libertarian-party-nomination-for-president/2020/04/28/482b7de6-89b2-11ea-8ac1-bfb250876b7a_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.60.204 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As I understand the US political system you do not actually have to be a ember of a party to get their endorsement or ticket.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
That's quite true. It's up to the party if they want to insist the person be a "member" of the party. The party can endorse them simply because they think they will be an asset to the party, or agree with the party on issues. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Wording Question

Under the heading of "Republican Party Departure", it says that "Amash thus became the only independent in the House of Representatives". However, Gregorio Sablan from the Northern Mariana Islands' At-Large District is listed as being an Independent since 2014. While Sablan is given the title of Delegate instead of Representative, he still sits and serves as an elected member in the House of Representatives. As such, the wording that Amash was the only independent in the House of Representatives seems a bit misleading. 172.78.9.238 (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, as its all a bit confusing. Perhaps "Amash thus became the only independent member of the House of Representatives".Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Amash's comments on climate change

@Smiiikes: Your rewording of the "climate change" quote has now been reverted by two people, Neutrality and Jon698. In spite of that, you just added it a third time. You should not have done that. You need to come here to the talk page and discuss your issue, and reach a consensus about what to say and what source to use. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Hi Melanie, I completely understand why you would say that, but please kindly give me a chance to review what has happened so far. Of course, please let me know if you believe any of this is inaccurate, since it's quite possible I've made a mistake somewhere :)
As I understand, I've made two completely distinct edits:
1.) I removed the quote by the E&E writer because I believed it to be an inappropriate summary of Amash's statements.
2.) After my edit was undone, I sought common ground with Neutrality by retaining Amash's comments from the town hall as requested, but I also made a few simple improvements:
A.) I changed the source to one that is local, impartial, and first-hand. If the other editors have any objection to using this source, then, by all means, I am certainly willing to reconsider!
B.) I replaced the summary by the E&E writer with the actual statement by Amash. I agree with the writer's general sentiment; in my very biased opinion, Amash's statement was completely ridiculous and hardly makes any sense. While removing the E&E writer's summary may make the article seem a bit more plain and "just the facts," I believe this is a more neutral approach for the article, and if we don't challenge ourselves to *seem* as impartial as possible, then I believe many of Wikipedia's readers will pick-up on tiny details like this (I certainly do!).
A separate question that seems to be in dispute is whether the E&E article is a trustworthy news source. Per WP:NEWSORG, the reliability of specific news sources should be examined on a case-by-case basis. In addition, E&E has not been added to Wikipedia's list of perennial sources, nor is it being examined on the reliable sources noticeboard. I don't know anything about E&E, so I can't say whether as an organization they're fair and accurate. I only have an opinion on whether this particular article is fair and accurate. I don't believe it is. For context, the town hall meeting (which was not a debate, as far as I can tell) contained a public Q&A, which very briefly turned to the subject of Amash's views on climate change. Amash provided a succinct explanation, but the E&E writer - who certainly was not flown out to Michigan to attend a small town hall that originally had nothing to do with the environment - has summarized Amash's statements (either from footage or written summaries in other articles) as follows:
1.) The writer says Amash described the science is "inconclusive." However, Amash plainly did not say that.
2.) The writer says Amash "exaggerated" scientific uncertainty about climate change. Again, I think we need to be careful about accurately summarizing exactly what Amash actually said. Did he say anything about scientific uncertainty? No, he actually said the "data set" was "small" and that "we have to take that into consideration." We can often draw strong conclusions from small data sets, so even if what Amash said were true (I don't think it is), it does not follow that he even implied anything about scientific uncertainty. In my opinion, it sounds like Amash was speaking very carefully so as to avoid saying what the E&E writer is accusing him of having said. The writer is jumping to conclusions, and his summary gives the false impression that Amash stated that scientists are uncertain about whether climate change is happening.
The writer proceeds to describe, in detail, a scene that paints Amash as having been humiliated. Again, the writer almost certainly was not present, and many of the details seem irrelevant to the higher-level analysis in the article. This is not a fair and accurate source.
I completely understand that other wiki editors may like the E&E article, but I don't see why we can't use the MLive article instead. It still contains Amash's ridiculous statements, and we can confidently cite it without the dubious statements by the E&E writer. Would anyone like to propose a different compromise than the one I've outlined?
My previous compromise was undone without explanation, so I un-did the undoing. In the future, I will simply explain my rationale on here first.
Thank you for your patience with me, and I hope we can agree on a fair compromise. --Smiiikes (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@Neutrality: Hi Neutrality, I'm trying very hard here to meet you halfway, so I'd really like to hear from you :) I see you reverted my compromise on the grounds that "it less accurately reflects the content and tenor of the cited source." However, you reverted it to a different source than the one I cited, so of course - by circular reasoning - it reflects the source less accurately :) As you can see, that doesn't tell me why you think this particular source that I'm proposing as an alternative is not a good source. You also cite a consensus of "multiple editors" who agree with your reasoning. I would happily reply to their concerns as well! Before you, who else cited my reflection of the "content and tenor" (perhaps not in those words) of the source as a reason for disagreeing with my edit? You also cite WP:FRINGE, but I think the sentence could have been easily reworded to avoid that, if you'd tried to meet me halfway. As I explained above, the edit was intended to meet you halfway! Please let me know your thoughts, and I will happily work with you on a better version. --Smiiikes (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Did he really ever join the Libertarian Party?

The current text of this Wikipedia page says that Amash became a Libertarian. The listed source is Reason.com, which is a libertarian-leaning source. While it is clear that Amash considered a presidential bid on the Libertarian line, it is not at all clear from any source I can find that he (a) enrolled as a Libertarian; and/or (b) enrolled as a Libertarian while serving in Congress. So I'm not sure the article is fully accurate on this point. Does anyone have any helpful information? Amandil21 (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Amash formally joined the LP while serving in Congress, as verified by multiple sources:
Sal2100 (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch for finding that information and posting it here, Sal2100. Amandil21 (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I have added those sources to the text. Amandil21 (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thanks for your helpful edits to this article.Sal2100 (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Justin_Amash/Archive_1&oldid=1136861029"