Talk:Robert Aderholt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nolan Chart

Since when did we start adding Nolan Charts on Congressman? It's a notoriously innacurate measure of political beliefs. Preston 23:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but it is a measure none the less and popular one at that. Orchid Righteous 05:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The criticism section, and particularly

As of October 2006, it remains to be seen whether or not the Fourth District will continue to suffer economically, missing important opportunities for business development at the expense of powerful special interests with connections to the leadership of the Republican controlled Congress. Representative Aderholt must demonstrate a willingness to move out of lockstep with a Republican Leadership that has become increasingly alientated from the middle class. If he doesn't work with labor to moderate his policies, like many Republicans, he may be replaced with a Democrat who is more sensitive to the needs of working Americans.

seem to be thoroughly biased against Rep. Aderholt. skip (t / c) 07:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the npov tag that I added as the contents I mention above have been removed. Thanks! skip (t / c) 07:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Foreplay?

Criticism of Herr Reichsfuehrer Aderholt's sexual activity is totally inappropriate for this entry. Whatever he does to propagate facsism in his spare time, his sexual habits are WAY off base and this should be corrected immediately.

Deleted "foreplay" and "doggy-style" comments as per common sense. Eco-Mono 06:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Go back to tings

NPOV Dispute

Two comments in the "House Record" section appear to be violation of the NPOV policy: "He voted against the free trade agreements with Chile, Morocco, and Singapore, but supported the US-Australia FTA. One wonders what the difference really was among these agreements, though the answer is not hard to find."

"Aderholt caused controversery when he attempted to pass a law to give police a divine right style powers in 2004"

The former is drawing a biased conclusion using unprofessional and judgmental language. An article should not make conjectures about the author's thoughts on a particular subject as the wording of this sentence does.

The second also uses unprofessional language that is inappropriate (namely, the phrase "divine right style powers"). This attempts to paint the subject as autocratic and undemocratic without any justification or evidence. It should also be noted that this statement neither includes details of the negative powers mentioned, the subject's involvement in the legislation, or even the title of the bill. Furthermore, the fact that "controversy" is misspelled in this sentence and that it lacks a period would indicate that the author lacks any serious commitment to serious and accurate reporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montypyth6 (talk • contribs) 18:01, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed the "one wonders... though the answer is not hard to find" quote (see above for the full quote. First of all, it's self-defeating: If the answer isn't hard to find, why is anyone wondering? Also, the answer is most likely that it was in the best interests of his district and constituants to vote against the Chile, Morocco, and Singapore Acts. In a related note, if you refer to the page for Rep. Mike D. Rogers, from Alabama's 3rd District, you'll see that he also voted against the Morocco Act, stating that it would harm Alabama's textile industry. See anything sinister there? I sure don't. So anyways, I removed that line, as it really has no place in the article. SpudHawg948 07:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Required editing for AP Government

I edited this page as part of an AP Government assignment. If anything I added is inaccurate or sounds bias please let me know as that was not my intention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daywood81 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Rep. Robert Aderholt pays $13,000 fine for campaign finance errors

there is no mention of this noteworthly news item : the original source is here : http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqsdocsMUR/12044320602.pdf

it was deleted from the newspaper page : http://www.birminghamobserver.com/2012/09/07/rep-robert-aderholt-fined-by-federal-election-commission/ Also mention here: http://gadsdenmessenger.com/2012/09/14/aderholt-campaign-pays-fine-for-errors-in-reporting-funds/

but there is a mention here: http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2012/09/rep_robert_aderholt_pays_13000.html http://demochat.org/news/834-from-today-s-paper-u-s-rep-robert-aderholt-says-bookkeeper-s-errors-snowballed-led-to-13-000-fine-from-fec

What is your view? Can we add this to the article? James Michael DuPont (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Campaign Finance

This text was removed : The Monsanto Citizenship Fund from Monsanto donated $1000.0 on June 24th 2013 to the 2014 General via Robert Aderholt for Congress . Robert Aderholt is the chair on the ag subcommitte, and plays a big role in GMO food issues. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/06/house-advances-funding-bill-that-boosts-food-safety-resources-at-fda/. He voted no on the /FDA_Food_Safety_Modernization_Act http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/house/2/votes/661/. I could go on and one, and I guess I will have to bring in more context. James Michael DuPont (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. An attempt must made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

References

2020 election in lead

I would like to contest the inclusion of this segment in the article's lead: "Aderholt is one of 147 Republican lawmakers who voted to overturn results in the 2020 presidential election."

I would argue that this being in the lead section is both WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. My removal of it from the lead was reverted because the "text echoes similar on other lawmakers' pages." I understand this viewpoint, however, I reviewed the articles of lawmakers listed on the Sedition Caucus page, and the vast majority of them do not include similar text in the lead. Highlighting Aderholt's vote on overturning the 2020 election in the lead and little else constitutes undue weight, especially for a Congressman who has been serving since 1997. There is no established, sourced reason that his vote on the 2020 election rises to the level of importance that it should be included his lead section, especially when there is little else aside from it.

Thank you. Kafoxe (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Kafoxe, thanks for looking at other pages; that's valuable data. And I appreciate your arguments about UNDUE and RECENTISM. But Aderholt has done nothing much of significance in his job since 1997; for example, his page lists one solitary piece of legislation that has become law (and a procedural measure at that). By contrast, his participation in an unprecedented attempt to overturn an American election and thereby undermine democracy in the United States is significant because it is a) unusual, something only a tiny handful of people have done and b) weighty, in that the consequences of his action could have been titanic, and c) pathbreaking, in that more such attempts are expected in the future. Barring unforeseen developments, his vote is likely to be in the first line of his obituary. PRRfan (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. However, "his vote is likely to be in the first line of his obituary" and "could have been titanic" sounds very WP:CRYSTALBALL ish to me, and thus if the blurb's inclusion is based on such speculation, I don't see it holding up. Kafoxe (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

To be sure, attempting to predict his obit is crystalballing. But we can say right now that his vote to overturn a presidential election is certainly the most unusual/significant thing he has done in a quarter-century of holding office. Or am I missing some other achievement? PRRfan (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there a source that says this, that mentions Aderholt specifically? Kafoxe (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to guess no. But Wikipedia intros are built by editors using their judgement about the facts presented in an article, not by reliable sources saying "this belongs in the intro". PRRfan (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)