Talk:Pete Sessions/Archive 1

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

Party affiliation / bias

Is there any reason why his party affiliation is not mentioned in this article? --AllyKatt 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I hope you like the revisions I just did. John Broughton 14:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
wow. yeah, that's extremely biased and relatively innacurate now. that's a lot of POV for a biography, isn't it? AllyKatt 00:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
If you're referring to the last two paragraphs of "Political positions" section, those aren't my words - I was putting back what User:Texas2000 had deleted without explanation. I certainly welcome changes or even removal of the text IF there is a satisfactory explanation.
For the rest, I believe that the wording either (a) was already there or (b) comes directly from the Associate Press article, which I cited.
The nice thing about wikipedia is that if you don't like an article, you're free to change it, not just complain about it. Constructive edits are always welcome. John Broughton 14:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
i'd say the reason those were removed was probably the fact that POV is usually not allowed in biography entries, and those paragraphs are quite tainted by POV, especially the last one.
i'm not trying to step on toes, just trying to learn the laws of the land. i was under the impression that as i'm a newbie, i can't edit bios at all. i didn't try on this one, though. i'd hate to just keep going back and forth with anyone without dialogue, yanking out something they've put in.
AllyKatt 02:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to wikipedia. There are no restrictions on bios - newbies can edit them just like any other article. (However, negative info on living people MUST be sourced or it is supposed to be removed immmediately.) POV isn't supposed to be in ANY article; bios are no different in that respect.
The reason I put the deleted text back was (a) the deletion wasn't explained/justified (that's what edit summaries are for), and, for political bios, it's quite common for hit-and-run vandals to simply try to take out what makes the candidate look back; (b) I don't agree with removing unsourced POV; the correct approach, I believe, is to research it, edit it to make it NPOV, and provide a verifiable source. (Of course, if researching shows that the info seems bogus, out it goes, but now there is a reason.) Plus, when text has a quotation, it's pretty easy to do a google search and see where it came from, and add a link. (I haven't; this article isn't a priority for me). John Broughton 02:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the welcome. i can understand your standing on the issue. i just fail to see how anything written by freepress.net could be NPOV. the purpose of that site is to offer a particular POV on current events. while the basic facts of those two sections are accurate, the extreme bias against sessions is blatant. i guess i just fail to see what that bias adds to the bio. it misrepresents the bill, and silver's opinion of sessions is obviously colored by his extreme political standing, and not by session's record. if it's all kosher, i guess i can let it stand. sessions is a friend of my husband's family (so i guess you could claim i have bias of my own), but not a personal project of mine.
AllyKatt 02:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defending either the text or the source; I just think the topic(s) might be relevant to a good wikipedia article. Nor is your indirect connection to Sessions a problem as long as you think you can be objective in your editing. John Broughton 15:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

All that one must do to figure out what is going on here is to view the edit history. Numerous users with different IP's have deleted the biased material (and for good reason) and John Broughton just keeps putting it back and making it more negative. He's done plenty of research to dig up any piece of dirt he could find, but nothing positive. He's obviously on some kind of wikicrusade. POV material does not somehow become NPOV when it's cited with a POV political blog or biased political action groups. I could find a citation for the moon landings being a hoax or that Dick Cheney was the mastermind of 9/11, that doesnt mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. I suggest that nobody use wikipedia as a credible source for politics, it's worthless. Thanks, JB, for helping make it that way.: 17:56, 31 October 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.195.181 (talk • contribs)
Wow: I looked at the article history, and saw that I did my initial postings on July 15 and August 23, added some stuff on 14 and 22 September, and have done reverts exactly twice:
  • On 21 October, to Skipjones [whose has done five edits to date, all on the 21st]
  • On 24 October, to 72.181.2.83 (total posting history: 4 edits)
As far posting postive information, (a) there is a link in the article to the Associated Press profile (a link I added); I certainly would never object to any information from there being added, if it's missing (or from any other acceptable source, of course); and (b) there seems to be a misunderstanding that editors are responsible for searching and adding postitive information to balance negative info (though, perhaps oddly, I've never seen an argument going the other way). That view isn't supported by any wikipedia policy I know of; contrary citation is certainly welcome.
As for moon landings and Cheney as mastermind of 9/11, the criteria for wikipedia postings is very straightforward: WP:V and WP:RS. If you think anything in this article violates one of those policies, please do point it out. John Broughton | Talk 19:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Douchebag

Seems unnecessary to describe Sessions as a "douchebag" because you disagree with his vote. I changed it back. Texaswiki2509 (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversy citations

Not to be particularly nitpickish, but where are those citations for the majority of the uncited controversy text? Are they forthcoming or are these going to perpetually float in the article forever, unbased? 151.160.202.5 (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Insurgency" comments

I'm wondering if Sessions' recent comments about a "GOP insurgency", where he unwisely implied that the GOP had learned tactics from the Taliban, should be added, and if so, where? They're not in an of themselves a controversy, yet. But they don't exactly fit with the policy positions or career info.

Link: http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/02/sessions_gop_in.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpine75 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a "controversy" to me. Certainly it's "controversial". Especially given his position in the Republican leadership. I'd add it in that section. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The comment got Sessions more attention than almost anything else he's done -- now rivaled, however, by his connection with Allen Stanford. [1] JamesMLane t c 23:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dede Scozzafava Support

The following text was in a separate subsection, under "Controversies". I removed it:

Under his leadership, the NRCC supported Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava in the 2009 Special Election for the 23rd Congressional District of New York. She ultimately withdrew her candidacy in the general election days before the election was to occur, and endorsed the Democratic candidate rather than the third-party Conservative Party candidate as most national Republicans did. Sessions had initially personally endorsed Scozzafava's campaign. After her endorsement of the Democratic candidate over the Conservative Party nominee, there have been calls for his resignation of the chairmanship of the NRCC since it had provided significant monetary support to Scozzafava's campaign.

I removed this because (a) it was completely unsourced; if in fact this is controversial, then the lack of sources is a violation of WP:BLP; and (b) it's unclear why some people calling for Session's removal are notable - I doubt there was very much press about this (separate articles, opinion pieces, etc.

Anyone inclined to put this back absolutely needs to add reliable sources to support the text and to demonstrate that this is notable, since WP:NPOV requires space and weight appropriate to importance. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pete vs. Jeff

Is Pete Sessions any relation to Senator Jeff Sessions? Stonemason89 (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No.[1] -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gillman, Todd J. (May 10, 2017). "Rep. Pete Sessions, son of the only other fired FBI chief, says Comey deserved nicer treatment". Dallas News. Retrieved September 13, 2018. Sessions is not related to Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Alleged comment to Pres. Obama

"In October 2013, it was widely reported that Sessions was the member of the House Republican leadership, who, while in the White House to discuss ending the 2013 federal government shutdown, allegedly remarked to President Barack Obama, "I can not stand to even look at you." The White House denied the exchange occurred, but senators and aides making the charge, stood by their account. Sessions' office also denied the comment was made.[1]"

References

  1. ^ "Harry Reid Told Caucus That Pete Sessions Was Behind Obama Insult, Senators Say". Huffington Post. October 24, 2013.
I removed this from the page because an alleged comment denied by both sides isn't worthy to be on his page, no matter who it's to or about. --Jsourber (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pete Sessions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pete Sessions. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pete Sessions. 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) 16:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

The sentence "Peter Anderson Sessions (born March 22, 1955) is an American politician who represented Texas's 32nd congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives for 8 terms." is true, but uninformative. I'll be updating it to reflect his 22 years of service in the House. Airbornemihir (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pete_Sessions/Archive_1&oldid=1094728938"