Talk:Darrell Issa/Archive 1

Seems like WP:UNDUE to me, as it does not appear any charges were brought. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. The information, which appeared to be properly sourced, suffered from excessive detail--but the final verdict (there was no final verdict) suggests that this is at most a footnote in his biography, and not necessarily in this article. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In light of the Ryan Lizza article in the New Yorker ^[1], which is presumably a proper source, which argues that he was investigated by the insurance company and the insurance company refused to pay out for the inventory of the factory, it does seem reasonable to at least mention, possibly if not probably in a controversy section, the fire and insurance company investigation. I agree with the undue weight concerns, however, this seems to be a legitimate developing controversy (actually the previous lack of controversy is becoming a controversy in and of itself^[2]) and failure to mention it would be improper. Additional citations that the Lizza article has invigorated the controversy ^[3][4] Michael Keith Jewitt (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Why not write up something here for proposed addition to the article? We can discuss the actual text as needed, and it can be implemented easily enough after language is reached that is appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Lizza article is an excellent source, putting all these things on the table in detail. I was shocked they weren't here already, and in fact the Christmastime edits are explicitly discussed in the article:

He noted that after Christmas his Wikipedia page was rewritten to highlight many of the old controversies. “Fixing Wikipedia is a full-time thing when you’ve got people hacking it, or editing it, in a rather slanted way.” He added that in most areas of knowledge Wikipedia works well. “If you’re looking at the history of Picasso’s ‘Scream,’ ” he said. “What’s that famous—'Ahhhh'?"

Well, no one ever said he was an art aficionado. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm on an unfamiliar computer and this edit saved before I could finish writing the edit summary. So, I changed "all" to "some" because Issa did not explain all of the suspicious behavior Adkins alleged before the fire to Lizza. He explained the increased insurance and removal of the computer, but not the removal of the software, manuals or business records, nor placing the silkscreens in the fireproof box. Nor did he deny them, at least not anywhere Lizza quoted them. Therefore, we cannot truthfully say that he explained all the allegedly suspicious behavior, just some of it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You must be on a very unfamiliar computer, considering that "this edit" is actually the history of The Reader. :D (Pre-caffeine, I spent a moment starting at that edit history in confusion, but I worked it out.) Seems like a sensible change. We want to be strictly accurate here.

I believe that there may be some weight issues with the article as it currently stands. I presume that the bulk of his notability lies in his political career, which (including the "political views" section and all headers) currently receives 1,042 words. The time from his dropping out of high school to deciding to enter politics has 2,021. It's also, of course, very heavily drawn from a single source, which introduces some concerns of bias. (Though I recognize that Lizza's interview is probably the most comprehensive coverage of these events.) The material is important, but I suspect that it is overly detailed at this point, unless it is going to be balanced out by additional material on the career choice that merits his inclusion. I would not feel it appropriate for me to add substantially to the article because of my involvement via WP:OTRS, but I may be able to find some additional sourcing for the earlier material or help condense content further, if need be, to maintain due weight. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's probably my journalistic background, but I feel that this level of detail is necessary to treat the allegations fairly, since Issa himself offered refutations of very specific aspects of those allegations. Saying something like "In 1982, Steal Stopper's factory burned down. Investigators from the insurance company and two former business associates believe Issa started the fire himself, which he denies" is not only going too far in the other direction but, IME, invites the reinsertion of more dubious treatments of the subject that may remain there for some time without being caught.

I would say as much of his notability comes from his business career, and there is more that could be added (like the detail about him owning 16 patents; I should put that in). I think your comment also points to a need to develop the political career section; it deserved more detail in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't propose truncating it that far. :) I agree that it needs to have an appropriate level of coverage. But there's an awful lot of detail--one example that jumps out of me, we even have the model and year of the car with which he was involved in an accident. Speaking of which, that's a perfect discussion point. How encyclopedic, I wonder, is that accident? There's no allegation of wrongdoing (except liability in a car accident) in the article, unless it was a crime in California to leave the scene of an accident. It is not, where I live and it does not seem to be in California at this time. () There's no allegation that he failed to properly identify himself, and it seems to have been resolved routinely. I would recommend we omit that altogether.

I concur. The accident actually occurred in Ohio, so I went and checked what the Ohio Revised Code has to say and found that, contrary to what I thought (and what may be the case in some states), it is not, at least under current law, necessary to wait for the police before you leave as long as you give the info to the other person (But if they're incapable of receiving it, you do have to wait). So it's just a routine traffic accident and lawsuit that could be on anyone's resumé. It goes. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional detail on his career would be a welcome balance to controversy. And information on his political career would be a welcome balance to the focus on his business career. Again, though, I don't feel like I should be substantially adding content (good or bad) to this article under the current circumstances. Do you have it in you to expand more? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Welll ... technically I should be on OTRS because that's how OS is handled now, but I have not yet set myself up for that. So, I could do this but it may take some time. At the very least the Union-Tribune and other Southern California newspapers probably have covered Issa in more depth since he's local, and whatever they might have in their archives, we could cull something from to give a more rounded account of his career (at the very least we should have something about more of his election campaigns than 2008, even if he represents a very solidly Republican district and probably didn't get any better challenger than that year). Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Just being on OTRS wouldn't in itself create issue. So even if you do transfer over, I don't there'd be a problem. :) I've removed the accident material, and I'll take a look through to see if I see any other areas that might be good for tightening at this point. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that it would be more accurate to list him as the richest member of the House of Representatives. I believe that Senator John Forbes Kerry (D-MA), whose net worth is roughly $800 million, is the richest member of "Congress."

According to The Washington Post Kerry was only worth $231 million in 2010, making him only the 4th richest member.

--Qwerty0 (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

--- Wondering about the phrase, "self-made millionaire." It doesn't seen very objective. According to the article, in the mid-1970s he borrowed $50k from a family member to invest. That's nearly $280,000 in 2013 dollars. Would someone today who invests over a quarter-million dollars of a family member's money be considered "self-made?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.196.82 (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I guess there's a sense of "self-made" that could apply here, but it's awfully weak. Removing that phrase would improve the article's accuracy and objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.181.33 (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think "self made" should stay. Basically there are four ways of getting rich/acquiring money: inherit it, marry it, earn it through salary, or earn it through entrepreneurship. A person who earns it through entrepreneurship, as Issa did, is called a self-made man. The fact that he got a startup loan is irrelevant; it was Issa who converted that $50,000 loan into hundreds of millions. MelanieN (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Issa decided to return to civilian life instead. A week before he was discharged, he and his brother were arrested again on theft charges. Near the end of 1979, William Issa, who by then had served federal and state prison time for theft, had sold his brother's 1976 Mercedes-Benz sedan to a San Jose dealership for $16,000, giving the dealer an Ohio license with Issa's name on it. Issa had soon reported the car stolen and told the police he had left the title certificate in the trunk.^[1] Issa made conflicting statements to police about whether or not he had obtained a second license and also about his brother, whom he had recently seen at Christmas in Cleveland Heights. With the investigator suspicious that the brothers might have conspired to commit insurance fraud, they were indicted. Issa said he had no knowledge of his brother's intentions; William said Issa had given him power of attorney a few weeks beforehand and had authorized him to sell the car. Issa bought the Mercedes back from the dealership for $17,000 in February; in August, the case was dropped..^[1]

This material, which has been discussed before on this page, was deleted with this edit summary: "Rm cruft per WP:BLP." "Cruft" is defined by Wikipedia as "jargon for computer software or hardware that is of poor quality." That is certainly not the case here. The issue is well-sourced, and neutrally presented. It is not a violation of BLP to report significant criminal issues from a subject's youth. the fact that Issa went on to make his fortune selling car alarms makes the issue particularly relevant to his biography. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  08:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Will. I see we're skipping from B to D in WP:BRD ...

I deleted that stuff because 150+ words ending in the "the case was dropped" struck my as a classic example of WP:UNDUE in violation of BLP. Also, the unsourced claim about conflicting statements set off alarm bells. But the thing that really smells is the single source, a source who/which (shall we say) is not known for writing positive things about Republican politicians.

There has been a concerted effort by Democrats and their allies to throw as much mud as Issa as they can. I'm 99% sure this Lizza story is part of that effort. I strongly suspect that many of the other sources used in that story are also part of that effort. That does not make them invalid as Wikipedia sources, but it does mandate exercising more care than this article seems to be getting.

IMO, any negative story about Issa that has only one source should be treated as a presumptive BLP violation. Cheers, CWC 11:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, was I supposed to revert? ;)

The New Yorker is at the very top of the reliability pyramid. If there is going to be one source, we couldn't do better. I'm sure we can find a second source to address the single source issue.   Will Beback  talk  11:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've looked and found numerous sources for this, including at least one article that's entirely about the incident.

• A powerful politician's San Jose past. Herhold, Scott. San Jose Mercury News [San Jose, Calif] 06 Feb 2011: B.1.
• Issa Likely to Run Even if Vote Delayed; In a shift, Republican says he will probably be a candidate for governor even if the recall election against Davis is held in the spring instead of fall.: Garvey, Megan. Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles, Calif] 04 July 2003: B.10.
• M&R: Presidio YMCA fights rent hike plan / Democrats come out swinging at Issa: Phillip Matier, Andrew. San Francisco Chronicle [San Francisco, Calif] 30 June 2003: B.1.
• Bull's-eye pinned on recall leader ; Inland congressman's brushes with law decades ago prove grist for critics. Vitucci, Claire. The Press - Enterprise [Riverside, Calif] 03 July 2003: A01.
• Past puts California recall proponent on spot ; Lawmaker blames brother for legal woes: [Fourth Edition]. Jim Puzzanghera and Dion Nissenbaum. Seattle Times [Seattle, Wash] 27 June 2003: A17.

These are all reliable sources and they indicate the notability of the matter. I'm going to restore it.   Will Beback  talk  07:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You've certainly taken care of the sourcing problem. I still think the amount of detail is excessive. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP, I would trim this down to something like "When Issa's older brother William stole and sold Issa's Mercedes-Benz in 1979, Issa tried to cover for William, as he admitted in 2011.[ref=Lizza]", drop the wall-of-car-theft-OMG UNDUE/SYNTH paragraph and the first sentence of the next paragraph. But I don't have time to work on this page now. Cheers, CWC 11:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Weight issues are debatable. This issue deserves a mention and some weight due tot he extensive coverage, including one article just about it. However I won't defend the current text. It seems like it could be half as long and still be appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue of whether to include information about Fluke's non-appearance at the hearing on contraception insurance coverage has been bouncing around in the article for the last couple of days. Casprings, the creator of the Fluke article, put it into the controversies section. I at first reverted it completely, but another editor restored it, so I decided to keep it but reorder the article so it had a place in Issa's history but not as a controversy. I also reworded it because it wasn't source-compliant (only one source, The Washington Post) and to improve some of the wording. Casprings reverted, not only putting it back in the controversies section but restoring the poor wording. Silly. I reverted one more time, and it stuck for a bit until Chris, another editor, came along and removed it completely, saying it was "incomplete" and was sourced to a "hostile opinion blogger". On an unrelated matter, Chris also added a "descriptor" ("a liberal advocacy organization") for American Family Voices. Chris implied it came from the organization itself, but I looked at their website and didn't see it on the homepage or in the About Us part.

My main concern is the Fluke stuff. I am going to restore the article to before Chris's removal of the material completely and also remove the descriptor. I invite Chris and Casprings to come here to discuss these issues rather than edit-war over them. I think the Fluke material is noteworthy and belongs in the article. I don't see a major problem with the Washington Post blog cite. A lot of major newspapers now have so-called blog sections - that doesn't necessarily make them unreliable. I don't know what Chris means by "incomplete", and I don't see the piece as particularly "hostile".

However, I don't think it belongs in the controversies section for two reasons. First, such sections are disfavored at Wikipedia - it's far better to integrate any "criticism" of the subject into the main part of the article rather than have it stand out in a criticism section. Second, one source is insufficient to say that what Issa did was "widely criticized".

As for the descriptor, I never like those things, but if it is going to be included, then it needs a source.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Darrell Issa received significant criticism for not allowing her to speak. He also went on the Rush Limbaugh show and stated:

I am struck by your clear failure to recognize your own contributions to the denigration of this discussion and attacks on people of religious faith” in the debate, Issa wrote. “I propose that you join me in a broader condemnation of the attacks on people of faith, the false and incendiary claims made about this committee’s efforts to examine the threat to religious freedom, and the regrettable personal attacks that have come from individuals on both sides of the issue.”

He went on to complain that Democratic committee members “have appeared outright giddy” in criticizing the hearing on the contraceptive coverage rule. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73557.html#ixzz1oAnIOPcg

How is he not part of this and how is not the right section? Casprings (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing that says that Issa went on the Limbaugh show. The quote from Issa was in a letter he sent to Democrats, not something he said on the Limbaugh show. I think you need to focus only on the role Issa played at the hearing and on the legislation, not on the whole Fluke/Limbaugh contretemps. Leave that for the Fluke article and the Fluke AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris (AKA CWC) here.

Re American Family Voices. I took the words "liberal advocacy organization" from the first sentence of the CBS news story we use as a source. In fact, I saw that paragraph, wondered who "American Family Voices" are, glanced at the cited article and added the descriptor, all within a couple of minutes. I should have spent more time and made my edit comment clearer. I still think the descriptor adds some useful context to that para, but it's not a big deal.

Re Issa and Fluke. (1) Ezra Klein is an opinion blogger with open enmity to the GOP. That does not mean his stuff is necessarily unreliable, just that it needs to be used with care. Using one of his opinion pieces as the sole source for a hostile claim in a BLP seems wrong to me. (2) I thought that paragraph was too disjointed and unbalanced. Later I read this (not a WP:RS), which shows that there is indeed another side to the story. The Politico Casprings linked to covers the same ground. If we cover this, we need to give both sides. (3) I see no reason this incident is that significant in this article, at least not yet. I think our current coverage violates WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and I recommend removing the coverage until we get better sources, specifically a news story instead of an opinion piece.

Also, I completely agree about "Controversy" sections, especially in BLPs. Merging their content into the rest of the article can take some work, but the result is a much better article. Cheers — CWC 18:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris, thanks much for clarifying your points. Now that I understand the source of the AFV phrase, I don't have an objection to it; at the same time, I don't feel strongly that it needs to be included - so count me as neutral on that one. As for the hearing story, my view is that if it goes anywhere, it goes in the regular part of the article, not in the so-called controversies section. I tend to agree with you that it is not of any great significance and therefore could be left out, but it doesn't bother me to include it - and there was another editor who also felt it should be included based on his edit summary, although he hasn't contributed to the article since or to this discussion.

As for Klein, I think based on the current wording, we are using it "with care". If it were going to remain in the article, would you reword it in some way? As for other sources, it would be great to find another source, but I don't think it's necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but whoever flagged my entry regarding Sandra Fluke and The Man Panel as it's become known -you are doing absolutely NOTHING to keep Wikipedia credible. What a joke! To not have even the slightest mention of Fluke in Darrell Issa's bio page and to not illustrate a pattern of behavior by the ultra-Conservative Issa is just censorship, pure and simple. Might as well be the old soviet-run state media. Unless this is addressed ASAP, I'll be on my own campaign to discredit Wikipedia as a censoring organization that's run by power-tripping idealogues with their own agendas and their own little "club" of wikinerds. My entries were clearly footnoted and full of quotes and facts from widely accepted reliable sources. My wording was balanced and explained the story from both perspectives. But NO, Wikipedia would prefer to "scrub" history than tell inconvenient-to-them truths. Shameful.

Anyone/everyone who agrees with me that omitting our entries (censoring them) on Issa's "man panel"/Sandra Fluke controversy is akin to criminal, join me in discrediting Wikipedia's censoring ways. I'll be sending Mr. Assange an email explaining all of this. Let's see what HE says. unsigned comment by XtiangRevision as of 17:18, 25 March 2012

FIRST; Issa has NOTHING to do with what Rush Limbaugh did or didn't say - the place for that is Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy, and you are welcome to edit. SECOND; There is no RIGHT to Testify to Congress. This is a fact-finding Hearing, and Congress selects who is on the witness list. THIRD; If you want to include anything about this, you have to make it NPOV, namely, stick to facts and not talking points. "Man Panel" is not NPOV, and isn't even in popular usage, and you can't say someone "refuted" something someone else says, that is practically a definition of your POV. FOURTH; If you want to describe the Hearing which did not include Fluke (and there are thousands every year that also do not include her on their witness lists), then you have to state objectively what it was (Agenda published on the Monday, before anyone had heard of her), when she was proposed, why she was not added to the list, and report statements equally. Hope that helps. 209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

He certainly had nothing to do with Limbaugh. However, his decision to not allow her to testify, is important in his bio. That said, given that this has already been discussed with no consensus, I will now try to move the process forward with an informal request for mediation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal Casprings (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no agreement on this, I have asked for mediation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/01_July_2012/Darrell_Issa Casprings (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that this section may constitute political advocacy, discouraged per Wikipedia policy. It seems that users at are attempting to use this page as part of a "3 pronged attack" to provoke a response from Issa. This does not belong in an encyclopedia. Agree/disagree? 129.2.201.239 (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I've removed it, and will reremove it if it reappears. If it's reported in a newspaper or something as a controversy then we can (possibly) include it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It is completely reasonable, albeit controversial. If politically he does one thing, after saying another and it blows up online it becomes a part of history. Just because it is controversial does not make it 'soapboxing'. So long as it is written fairly and without aggression or bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.219.182 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

our policies do not permit synthesis, and are especially strict about this with regard to living people. If it gets reported by a secondary source, we can (maybe) add a mention of it. Until then it does not belong in the article. Don't readd it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with Kevin's removal of the material. To the extent it is potentially noteworthy, it will need to be picked up and reported by secondary sources. And the thing about Facebook is quite obviously synthesis. The material is unencylopedic and should not be reinserted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There's quite a few things missing from this article.

I'd like to see more about the allegations contained in the new York times article by Lichtblau, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/us/politics/15issa.html?pagewanted=all I don't see anything in here about either the article, which Issa publically called to be retracted by the New York Times, or about the allegations raised in the article. These allegations include many conflicts of interest between his congressional office and his private business interests. The allegations were quite serious and raised the specter of public corruption and improper abuse of power for monetary gain.

It would also be nice to have something on his congressional investigations of attorney general Eric Holder, but I don't see that in here at all. I don't see anything about his actions as the House Oversight committee chairman (not necessarily just the recent Fast and Furious hearings).

In fact, there seems to be a rather sterile quality to this article that has been noticed by some prominent media outlets. There are allegations that this article gets routinely scrubbed by Issa's staff. Ryan Lizza at the New Yorker has this article about an interview with Issa, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/24/110124fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all. There's actually a quote from Issa about edits to this page.

165.214.14.24 (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the following from the CongLinks template washpo=Darrell_Issa| And add

• Collected news and commentary at The Washington Post

184.78.81.245 (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Done I don't understand why the washpo parameter didn't work, thanks for finding that out and suggesting the change. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that the page needs an expanded look at his time as Chairman. He has been involved in several major news events. From Health Care contraception coverage, Fast and Furious investigations, to Abound Solar. As the NY Times said, he was the "Obama’s Annoyer-in-Chief" This role is significant and I would suggest we develop a section detailing his time as Chairman. Casprings (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I know this is political "silly season" but it is not our task to expose or investigate anyone. Period. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What investigation? It will just be a subsection dealing with his tenure as Chairman. That tenure was highlighted by several high profile investigations. This doesn't involve an investigation. It involves notable and reliable facts. Casprings (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Collect but for a different set of reasons. Keeping WP:RECENTISM in mind, Issa's article should mirror Henry Waxman's in large part. Waxman doesn't have a separate oversight committee section, even though he was in the news a lot; so neither should Issa. On the other hand, Waxman's deeds on the oversight committee are in a subsection called "Tenure" rather than "Political Views." Based on standard WP practice I think we should separate out Issa's views (which should remain in "Political Views") from his deeds (which should go in a new section, "Tenure"). Also, I support adding materials from the NYT Annoyer-in-Chief article, which has a lot of very noteworthy material, as long as its done in a balanced manner. --Nstrauss (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There should be a section about the 2012 election, including

184.78.81.245 (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Added a section on it with your requested link . Monty₈₄₅ 00:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest a new section on his time as Chairman. He has had some rather high profile and politically charged events as chairman. I would suggest a new section. We could start with outlining the events that this should coverage. Casprings (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You are repeating what you wrote only a handful of lines above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In other words, consensus achieved that Sandra Fluke is not significant in a Biography of Issa, so now you want a section where you can put Sandra Fluke. Essentially you want a do-over of all the previous discussions. Please stop. If you have an argument please make it, and address the issues present, and in the proper space; don't just repeat what you want under different headings.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I forgot about that. However, I am not trying to add something on Sandra Fluke, per se. I am trying to look at his time as Chairman. Fast and Furious and other hearings are significant. Casprings (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Casprings that Darrell Issa has made his position influential and that it deserves the public spotlight shone upon his actions.

PeteBobb (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the statement "Issa poltical view is generally conservative" since the next statement indicates he voted almost 95% with the republican party. Please eliminate the word generally or replace it with mostly or aother like adjective.

65.34.250.247 (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: I don't see that the use of the word "generally" is ambiguous as it is clarified in the next sentence. Topher385 (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: as per Topher. Floating Boat (the editor formerly known as AndieM) 06:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Anonymous209.6 has been making edits to the article that I believe are problematic. I reverted the first ones. After a discussion on my talk page, Anonymous just made some minor adjustments to the way the refs were listed. They struck me as acceptable, and I made only one minor change, to move a comma outside a reference. However, Anonymous then went back in and removed the phrase "a claim Democrats challenged", saying it wasn't in the source. That change was disingenuous at best. The source says that Democrats "had submitted her name too late to be considered (Democrats contest this)." () So, I reverted.

Anonymous has said (and it's partly in their user name) that they used to edit as User:209.6.69.227, so if you see comments above on this talk page from the IP address, that is apparently Anonymous.

My overarching concern is that this section is touchy and has been discussed extensively in the past. Any substantive changes should be discussed here, particularly if reverted (WP:BRD) and a consensus achieved before editing the article. I wasn't the only editor to revert Anonymous's susbtantive changes (if you look at the recent history).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"her name was submitted too late, a claim Democrats challenged." The lack of submission was one of the reasons she was not ultimately considered as a witness, but only one of many. Democrats also never submitted any biographical information, nor explained her expertise, she was considered to have no relevant expertise by Google search (the only method available, due to late submission and lack of cooperation from Democrats) in First Amendment issues, since she was a law student with no record of publishing or being involved with First Amendment issues, she submitted a speech that did not address the issues before the first panel, she was demanding to speak to the first panel on the theological basis of the various First Amendment issues, but was not clergy nor a theologian, and she and the Democrats never asked to include her in the second panel (which was made up of lay persons, including two leading female academics) on the effects of the Conscience Clause, but instead chose to storm out. Also, Democrats did NOT dispute that she was submitted late, only that since Issa had already bent the rules (for the Democrat members) to allow the submission of the only witness they submitted, Barry W. Lynn, they could bend the rules more for Fluke.

B; you are misreading the source. There is no ambiguity that Fluke was "submitted"(that she was actually ever submitted is disputed) in time, in time meaning the previous Monday. Democrats never disputed that she was submitted late, just that Issa had the discretion to add her. They vehemently contested that she COULD not or SHOULD not be added, but entirely on the basis of her gender. Every source and the transcript and video confirm this. The source in question says "Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chaired the hearing, said the minority party had submitted her name too late to be considered (Democrats contest this).", the "contest this" referring to the "to be considered", which is accurate. The WP Article takes the quote and changes it to say something that the source did not; that the Democrats "contest" the "late", not the discretionary powers of the Chair to consider a late submission, which they do.

B has, I believe, asked for a resubmission of all the various problems with the present paragraph, but here. The previous discussion was primarily one of whether there should be any mention at all of the Democrat protest of the Hearing, and particularly if there should be a whole section on it. Consensus and reason indicated there should not. Reasons are all laid out in the above, 3 month old analyses; so, sincere question; rather than making a duplicate, would a ref to above suffice?--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly having trouble following you. I don't know what you want to do or what sources would support what you want to do. My belief is the status quo of the short section should remain unless you get a consensus for change. I don't think you need to "duplicate" what was said before, but only refer to any relevant portions that support whatever it is you want.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I added to 'Criticism and controversy' " Revealing Secret CIA Base

The location of a secret CIA base in Libya was disclosed during the Public Testimony portion of an October 10, 2012 Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). The public testimony portion of the hearing regarding the Benghazi attack that disclosed the classified information was broadcast live on C-SPAN. [55]"

The source quoted was the Washington Post. Deleted 02:55, 12 October 2012‎ Bbb23 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (38,094 bytes) (-638)‎ . . (Reverted edits by PeteBobb (talk) to last version by MMEKAYHAGAN - coatracky, misleading material from an opinion piece)

What source does Bbb23 approve of?

http://www.politicususa.com/investigating-security-leaks-darrell-issa-puts-libyans-lives-risk.html http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/11/991231/republicans-reveal-cia-base-libya/ http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/milbank-did-a-house-libya-hearing-reveal-classified-information--20121011 http://inagist.com/all/256361960076099584/ http://www.newser.com/story/155607/congress-just-blew-the-cias-cover-in-libya.html Or are none of these reputable enough to be mentioned in "Criticism and controversy"? PeteBobb (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Two editors have reverted your material, and I'm going to revert it again. You have to obtain a consensus for inclusion. Many of the sources you cite above are unreliable (blogs, advocacy journals, etc.), but even if, for example, you believe that the National Journal is a reliable source, it wouldn't matter. This material does not belong in the Issa article as it has more to do with the committee as a whole, a confluence of events, and, as one source put it, inadvertence. This is pure WP:COATRACK. Don't re-add the material unless you can obtain a consensus for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

So far, only Bbb23 and some anonymous web address poster who won't even show a screen name dislike this posting.

No consensus has opposed this posting on the talk page after more than a week on the talk page.

One person has cited numerous news sources and one person has deleted this and one anonymous web address which may be a sock puppet of Bbb23 has deleted this. There is NO CONSENSUS that this should be deleted.

IF Bbb23 unilaterally deletes this again without any consensus, I will appeal to the Administrators to have Bbb23 blocked from posting. PeteBobb (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This should clearly be part of the article. Deletion is clearly politically motivated. Casprings (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This should clearly not be part of the article. Inclusion is clearly politically motivated.--Malerooster (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Malerooster comment here is not in chronological order. it belongs further down in this discussion, after the notice to discuss this on the .

PeteBobb (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I am hoping that people actually read the source, because nowhere in the opinion source is it stated that it was infact a secret CIA base, this is an opinion piece and as such cannot be used for factual statements. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? Political talking heads are sqwaking. Got it. Nothing new there. If Issa is reprimanded, or such, then I would be more interested and would then maybe consider inclusion. Right now there isn't even a smoking gun so to speak so who really freaking cares(besides politically motivated editors, but that usually goes without saying). --Malerooster (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The "insiders" section also seems pretty weak and could use discussion here. Its linked to one non notable partisan group and a Huffington Post blog? Really? I guess we aren't calling the guy a car thief, so I should be happy :). Never mind :) --Malerooster (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The watchdog institute is two ex-reporters and many student interns from the Journo School at San Diego State. Not exactly a WP:RS, especially since not-always WP:RS is the only place that picked up the "big" story. Not impuning their facts, just that WP:RS is also marginal, particularly as regards notability in a BLP.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

.

No one questions that these are reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

The question appears to be whether these are "Blogs'.

Wiki only publishes the opinions of reliable authors, and these are written by reliable professional authors.

So, we are considering whether these statements are opinion or fact.

Will it please the posters here if a notation is added that attributes the opinion to the author in the text of the article as per the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteBobb (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyone that uses Think Progress as reliable source for a factual statement can be quickly dismissed. Arzel (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The inagist cite is TWEETS! Not even a blog! Politicususa is not a "reliable source" - it is a fairly blatant political opinion site at best. In other words, if you are to the left of Ayn Rand Tea Party Social Darwinism, if you think we have some responsibility for the poor, the elderly, the veterans, the disabled, and the vulnerable in society, welcome to PoliticusUSA. seems fairly clear. Newser.com just got me to a malware installation, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed some pretty obvious trolling. Its too bad that this article attracts that type of behavior. Oh well. --Malerooster (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You removed a bit of investigative reporting by Ryan Lizza in which Lizza interviewed various people to determine as much of the story as he could. Trolling? No. Indiscriminate information? No. What this stuff is is very unflattering but it is nationally reported material and part of Issa's public image. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Unflattering? Who the f$ck cares? I sure don't. Why not just include the entire article then? Look at the past discussions above. Which part of her investigative report really rises to the level worthy of inclusion? If multiple stories report something, then maybe it can be discussed here. --Malerooster (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sh&t, I was here a month ago, great, nice to be back. --Malerooster (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I brought this to the WP:BLPN board, that is how I guess I came here before. --Malerooster (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to feed the troll any more, good luck guys. --Malerooster (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if you have even read the piece—Lizza is a guy, not a gal. Regarding multiple stories on Jay Bergey's car being stolen allegedly by Issa, there's the San Francisco Chronicle and Counterpunch. How about if you let people who have read the available material edit the biography? Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I said I wasn't go to feed, but yes, I did read the article. OUT!--Malerooster (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing data that goes to the subject's motivations in working in the car alarm business is not removing trolling, it is vandalism of the article.

You could not remove the information months ago, and to now call it 'trolling' in your latest attempt to sanitize the article does not make the removal acceptable. PeteBobb (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under 4.2.4 - Oversight committee

In the first paragraph, "Towns then changed the locks" - Towns should be spelled Townes.

bluesixer (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually "Towns" was correct; it was the first mention in the paragraph that was wrong, and I have fixed it. I also fixed several typos and errors in the paragraph. Thanks for calling this to our attention. --MelanieN (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Darrell Issa has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The URL in reference No. 64 no longer exists. It is pointed to in the 3rd paragraph of the Oversight Committee section. url=http://www.watchdoginstitute.org/2011/02/28/industry-insiders-score-jobs-on-issas-team Maniaczak (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this link since the identical material was already supported by the Huffington Post link in the same paragraph. The article you referenced is actually still available, via Wayback Machine, but I don't think we need them both. Thanks for calling this to our attention. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

After reading this, people will go away thinking that this man is a thieving arsonist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.143.247 (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That's rather vague. Do you have any examples of topics or incidents that are given undue weight or insufficient weight? Do you believe that the article should mention those incidents at all? do you see a discrepency in weight vs. other sources? WP:UNDUE and the following sections (e.g. WP:BALANCE WP:VALID WP:BALASPS) are relevant here. --Jeremyb (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The dates about time are not right. Please correcte that. --82.192.229.198 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed the following:

According to Issa, the Examiner reporter misunderstood an anecdote he had related.[1] A fellow soldier from that time, Jay Bergey, claimed that Issa stole his Dodge Charger in 1971, stating: "I confronted Issa ... I got in his face and threatened to kill him, and magically my car reappeared the next day, abandoned on the turnpike." No charges were ever filed. Issa has denied any theft.

I removed it because this is a level of detail - about something barely above hearsay - that only obscures the more important information in the rest of the article - in other words, a WP:UNDUE problem. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Darrell Issa. 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/20110721042655/http://issa.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=196:qblue-cardq-system-&catid=40:issue-statements&Itemid=1 to http://issa.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=196%3Aqblue-cardq-system-&catid=40%3Aissue-statements&Itemid=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721042722/http://issa.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=207:global-climate-change&catid=40:issue-statements&Itemid=1 to http://issa.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=207%3Aglobal-climate-change&catid=40%3Aissue-statements&Itemid=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721042625/http://issa.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=203:education-no-child-left-behind&catid=40:issue-statements&Itemid=1 to http://issa.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=203%3Aeducation-no-child-left-behind&catid=40%3Aissue-statements&Itemid=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707020520/http://www.pogo.org/honorees/good-government-award/ to http://www.pogo.org/honorees/good-government-award/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150328004338/http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/27/saudi-arabia-gets-bipartisan-backing-for-yemen-airstrikes to http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/27/saudi-arabia-gets-bipartisan-backing-for-yemen-airstrikes

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Darrell Issa has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under Elections - 2008 the page reads "In 2010, Issa won re-election to a fifth term". It should say "In 2008, Issa won re-election to a fifth term". 2600:8802:306:B100:9CEC:592D:1B64:7E63 (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Darrell Issa. 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://archive.is/20140222024322/http://utsandiego.com/news/2013/aug/20/issa-wealthiest-member-congress to http://utsandiego.com/news/2013/aug/20/issa-wealthiest-member-congress
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021200011/http://www.ausa.org/legislation/congressionalinfo/Documents/OAS%20112th%20Congress.pdf to http://www.ausa.org/legislation/congressionalinfo/Documents/OAS%20112th%20Congress.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sdvote.com/voters/results/election.xml

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Darrell Issa. 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/20051201070351/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/federal/20040929-9999-1mi29cong49.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/federal/20040929-9999-1mi29cong49.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060320202624/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20011224-9999_1m24issa.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20011224-9999_1m24issa.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100606211833/http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/i000056 to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/i000056/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Darrell Issa. 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/20121204210039/http://talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/06/gen-wes-clark-praises-darrell-issas-military-service.php?page=1 to http://talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/06/gen-wes-clark-praises-darrell-issas-military-service.php?page=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018054213/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2000-general/us-rep.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2000-general/us-rep.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120610020341/http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/us-congress/district/49/ to http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/us-congress/district/49
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sdvote.com/voters/Eng/archive/201406bull.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161112080931/http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/us-rep/district/49 to http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/us-rep/district/49
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170904123516/http://issa.house.gov/ to https://www.issa.house.gov/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Although Issa served in the army during the Vietnam War era, no reliable sources found as of yet state that he actually served in Vietnam during the war. Accordingly, Category:American military personnel of the Vietnam War was removed from the article. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Darrell Issa has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

U.S. House of Representatives -> Elections -> 2018 "For months, Issa's Visa, CA office"...this should read "For months, Issa's Vista, CA office"

Darrell Issa had an office in the city of Vista, CA. 'Visa, CA' does not exist. Jonjonmp (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing out the typo. RudolfRed (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a significant part of his record. Here's a source for the votes on Arizona and Pennsylvania: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202111 https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202110 Wes Hermann (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Darrell Issa has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change net worth to $537 Million based on latest reporting, from Fortune Magazine: https://fortune.com/2019/12/31/richest-members-of-congress-2019-net-worth/ 138.51.115.129 (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've updated to the 2017 numbers from the source originally there. The source you linked uses data from here - also OpenSecrets - which is "assets", not "net worth". Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)