Talk:John Doolittle

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

Abramoff 2[edit]

Reliance on partisan opinion blog - Talkingpointsmemo - for claiming $85,000 in donations to Doolittle from 2002-2005 from three individuals (Rudy, Buckham, Wilkes) and wives. Federal Election Commission database, available at www.fec.gov, shows no contributions at all from Wilkes and less than $4000 combined from Rudy and Buckham; also $1000 from Wendy Buckham, nothing from any female Rudy (alias?). Under federal law, no person could legally give over $8100 in that time period, so even if Rudy's wife gave under another name, and Wilkes wife gave the legal maximum, their contributions would be far below the legal limit. Generally, it is probably unwise to rely on a source such as Talking Points Memo, especially when the official source (in this case the FEC) is readily available on the web. EABSE 04:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)EABSE[reply]

Here is the critical wording that you deleted and I put back: During the period 2002 to 2005, Doolittle received at least $85,000 in campaign contributions from Wilkes, PerfectWave associates and their wives, and from ASG lobbyists Edwin A. Buckham and Tony C. Rudy
Please note that the $85,000 included contributions from PerfectWave associates and their wives, not just Wilkes and the two associates and their wives. In fact, it is common (as was the case with Katherine Harris, twice) that illegal contributions are funneled to a candidate by getting employees to write checks, then reimbursing them. Also please note that it is not uncommon for wives to have different last names; the lack of a female Rudy proves nothing.
Finally, please note that the talkingpointsmemo link that you attack was actually for the NEXT sentence in the paragraph, regarding a fundraiser, and NOT for the $85,000. Yet you also removed -- without any explanation - the sentence on the fundraiser, which was amply supported by the talkingpointsmemo link. That sort of overkill can be taken by some people as evidence of bad faith.
In summary: (a) please LOOK at a link before you attack its credibility, and (b) when you feel that something is wrong, in an article as controversial as this one has become, please consider putting a "citation needed" tag, and/or saying that you INTEND to delete it, in a talk/discussion page, before doing so. John Broughton 05:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Original research - your checking the FEC database - isn't the best way to review a wikipedia article. If instead you'd done a Google search on $85,000 in campaign contributions from Wilkes, for example, you would have gotten over 300 results. Following the first one would have led to this Washington Post article. And, not by coincidence, that link is already in the NEXT paragraph of the wikipedia article. John Broughton 05:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment that checking the FEC database is original research. I happen to disagree. The FEC are the ones who did the Original Research. They are the ones who compiled the data and they are the ones who put it together for exactly the purpose. EABSE is nether compiling new data nor using data in a new way. The FEC database is precisely for tracking down campaign contributions. HOWEVER, I do agree that it is possible that EABSE might have missed a few things in the database. Can't we just summon up a list of all campaign contributions during that time period and find out fairly quickly if TPM is accurate? It shouldn't be hard to find out who these wife's are. ---J.Smith 09:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try again: the $85,000 figure, and that sentence, were NOT from talkingpointsmemo (TPM). They were from newspaper reports, including (as cited above) the Washington Post. So the question is - do you think that all of those other newspapers were WRONG? And if you do, do you plan to violate Wikipedia:No original research in order to disprove them? (I don't see how summon up a list of all campaign contributions during that time period is anything BUT original research; what is in the FEC database is relatively raw data.)
Moreover, unless you get a list of PerfectWave employees and their spouses during that time period, the answer is NO, you really can't identify which contributions were legal and which were not, even if if you did want to. [Can we walk away from this horse? It's dead.] John Broughton 17:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are they lying? No idea. It's happened before and it will happen again. The news gets crap wrong all the time. I'm just responding to your question, not trying to make a meta-argument that news articles cant' be sourced.
Saying someone contributed X amount and pointing at a link to entry in the FEC database is not OR. Pointing at TPM is inappropriate in the context it's used. Read my comments at the bottom of the page (Where new comments SHOULD be, BTW) This is dead? You just gonna close the debate because you know your right and were all wrong? The debate isn't dead until everyone is satisfied. ---J.Smith 20:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - pointing a one piece of data in the FEC database (X contributed Y amount on such-and-such a date) is not OR. And if the sentence in question had said "the following four folks contributed $85,000", then MAYBE it would have been okay to point to the FEC database and say it didn't support that statement. But, as noted above, this is all moot - the sentence said that a bunch of employees were used to funnel contributions to Doolittle, and you, and I, and everyone else, don't have access to the list of PerfectWave employees and their spouses that would permit a review of the FEC database to confirm or disprove the story.
Is the newspaper (the source of the $85K figure) lying? I can't prove it's not, but I can offer a wager (say, 100 to 1 odds) that there is a substantial basis for that figure and related information. If you're proposing that all wikipedia editors stop quoting, and linking to, the Washington Post, because it MIGHT be lying in any given circumstance, I suggest you take that to the Wikipedia:Village Pump and see what others think. Or, if you or someone else can cite a source that says that the folks who came up with the $85,000 figure are wrong, I'd certain welcome including that source - and the argument - in the article. In the meantime, I think the figure, and sentence, should stand as is.
Pointing at TPM was absolutely correct. TPM was the source of ONE SENTENCE, regarding a fundraiser. It was an absolutely valid source for THAT sentence.
I realize that it was easy to assume that the TPM source/URL/link at the end of the paragraph was for the entire paragraph, but that assumption ought to have been checked (by following the link). Instead, what was done was to say that TPM is a bad source (and it is, for certain things), and then to delete the entire paragraph.
Finally, thank you for not getting into an edit war over this. And I really would like to move on to discussing something else. John Broughton 01:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It takes two to get into an edit war. Regarding TPM site: that citation is to a heavily bias blog. The article would be better served if we can find a better source. I think it's a bad idea in the same way that it wouldn't be appropriate to cite Rush L's comments in in the Clinton article. (regarding facts & figures that is...). (please check my comments regarding citation-needed tags at the bottom of the page.) ---J.Smith 09:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abramoff 1[edit]

Abramoff listed John Doolittle as also using the boxes 5 times, though Doolittle claims he used a box only once, though he admits that he failed to report that to the FEC, The Washington Post, Dec. 26, 2004;

  • In a recent interview on the radio he admited he used it "infrequently" and had failed to report it. He did however report it when it was brought to his attention. (Signed: J.Smith) 04:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Doolittles wife, Julie Doolittle, received 10% commissions for arranging fundraisers for her husband John Doolittle and his PAC pays her business. David Whitney,

Doolittles PAC Pays His Wifes Firm; The Company Has Received $28,000 For Setting Up Fundraisers, The Sacramento Bee, August 15, 2004.

Ms. Doolittle also helped plan a fundraiser for Abramoffs Capital Athletic Foundation. Paul Kane,

  • It was her busness to setup fundrasiers after all... DOJ has subpoenaed the records, but has since done nothing. (Signed: J.Smith) 04:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rep. Doolittles Wife Gets Subpoenaed, Roll Call, July 29, 2004.

John Doolittle has received $7,000 in campaign and pac contributions from the Abramoffs and he used one of Abramoffs skyboxes without reporting the in-kind contribution to the FEC. Schmidt and Birnbaum, Washington Post, Dec. 26, 2004


link

The times is a much better source for the story than the partisan left coaster. But I still think more info is required to make a real connection here. The major figures in the scandal received $136,000 in contributions --Gorgonzilla 21:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poll - should Doolittle return Abramoff money?[edit]

Should Rep. John Doolittle return contributions he received from Jack Abramoff or his clients?

No, he hasn't been convicted of breaking any laws. 23.39% (116)

He should return the money that came from casinos 4.64% (23)

He should return all of the money. 48.59% (241)

What difference does it make? 23.39% (116)

Total Votes: 496

http://theunion.com/article/20060114/OPINION/101140140&SearchID=73233656781227


  • Website polls are, unscientific, bias and very susceptible to vandalism. I'd rather we not use it at a source for anything. (Signed: J.Smith) 04:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federal funds for interchange project[edit]

Great job on that section... might be a bit long now! I think you avoided pov quite nicely. ---J.Smith 19:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It probably is a bit long for its (relative) importance, and I'd welcome someone else trimming it a bit. John Broughton 19:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a relevant wikinews article? Would could always truncate it completely and direct people to the wikinews article for more info. *shrug* ---J.Smith 09:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war and vandalism[edit]

Ok, first of all, removing huge sections of text over and over IS VANDALISM! That's the only word for it. Oh, it is a blockable offence to violate the WP:3RR. Lastly... [1] looks like a valid edit. I'll be reverting back to it. The wording is better, the phrasing is clearer and it presents things a bit better, and it dosn't have the page blanking in it. ---J.Smith 06:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/[edit]

I think sourcing talkingpointsmemo.com in the way that it has been sourced in inappropriate. Starting a fact and then sourcing a secondary source isn't appropriate. I plan on removing it this by the end of this weekend. I'm leaving it for now with the faith that someone can find a better source and that tpm might be a decent starting point for research. ---J.Smith 09:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to the accuracy of news reports in this area, it's an interesting issue. I would point out a recent article in Public Opinion Quarterly, a refereed journal published by Oxford, by MIT Professors Stephen Ansolabehere and James Snyder, [2], noting that press reports tend to overstate campaign contributions by as much as eightfold. I think the goal should be accuracy, judgment, and fairness. Personally, I would think anything that cannot be better sourced than TPM should be deleted. Partisan blogs of any stripe are simply not acceptable sources - though they may include links to acceptable sources. EABSE

Citation Needed[edit]

We have some serious need of citations in parts of this article. Can we work on that insteed of this revert war? I'd had to need to go back to the WP:3RR people AGAIN. ---J.Smith 09:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needed Sections:[edit]

If you take a look at this article it is mainly focused on the criticisms section. I think that section takes up like 3/4 of the words on the page. Some of Doolittle's most important acomplishments are only mentioned in the intro and never again. There is something wrong with that I think.

Here is a partial list of things we need to do a bit of writing on to 'round out' the article, in my opinion.

  • Background
    • Education
    • Carrier as a lawyer
  • Accomplishments
    • Role exposing the House banking scandal (this would really be just a 1-3 liner with a see-also link I guess)
    • Notable Bills authored
    • Awards

Even if someone doesnt want to do with writing yourself, you can simply add some links to potential sources of information. That would be really helpful. ---J.Smith 10:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Doolittle[edit]

Rather than get into an edit war, I'd like to discuss the issue here. Most of the press has been reporting that she gets a 15% commission, not 10%. Further, there is no evidence, other than an editorial from the highly partisan "Gunowners of California" which states that this is "among the lowest in the industry." Further, quotes from the Sac Bee are last year, and conflict with new information from (or are oudated as compared to) here (e.g., amounts: $136k vs $180K).

And so, I much prefer the previous version on this. Thoughts anyone? -- Sholom 03:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions was founded just after Congressman Doolittle gained a seat on the Appropriations Committee, in March 2001. It is based at the couple's home in Oakton, Va. SDFS has no employees. The firm charged her husband's campaign and his Superior California Political Action Committee a 15 percent commission on any contribution she helped bring in. Federal and state campaign records show that Julie Doolittle has received nearly $180,000 in commissions from her husband's political fundraising since late 2001. [21].
Julie Doolittle's charges for fund-raising are claimed to be among the lowest in the fund raising business, [22]but these claims are unsubstantiated and heavily disputed[23].
Maybe we should just remove the entire paragraph? Commissions for political fund raising are standard and unremarkable.... and it's a bit misleading to those who aren't familiar with the practice, which is the reason opponents of politicians like to bring it up in political attacks. ---J.Smith 19:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commissions for fundraising by a SPOUSE are virtually unknown - when a spouse is employed (a very small percentage of the time, for U.S. Representatives, certainly), it's apparently at a flat salary. Moreover, Julie Doolittle had NEVER been a fundraiser before 2001. And fundraising for her husband appears to be the source of most of her income - there are only a couple of other (known, problematical) clients, clients who might well have employed her as a way of gaining favor with John.
Consider this - you're a PAC or a business or a labor union or whatever, and you know that you can either (a) make a donation directly to John Doolittle's campaign (I assume), or (b) make that same donation via Julie, which puts 15% of it into John's pockets (California, where John resides, being a community property state, whatever Julie earns is money that John earns). Pretty interesting choice, yes? Particularly since John's campaign doesn't really need 100% of the money, because he's in a safe seat.
My understanding of the situation is from the San Diego Union-Tribune article of March 21st. If J. Smith really believes that what Julie did is perfectly normal, then perhaps he can provide a citation or two to that effect (to something other than a right-wing blog). And I note that elsewhere he has claimed that Julie has done fundraising for charity's, political campaigns, PACs, etc for about 15 years. That isn't supported at all by the newspaper article I cite - if it's true, I'd really like to see a link to a (reputable) source. John Broughton 02:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm learning quite a bit about the situation regarding Julie. I dislike your tone John and the implications. However, from what I understand Julie was working as a fund raiser before she started SDFS. Maybe I'm wrong? I know SDFS is new (2001) but I'm fairly sure it wasn't the first time she was in the fund-raising business. The articles cited say she's never don't political fund raising... that is a different ballpark then say charitable fund raising. (same game, different park). I dunno... I'll look into it. ---J.Smith 19:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research Notes:

  • Californians for a Cleaner Congress is group "rising eyebrows" [3] - should be included.
  • "The practice is legal as long as the spouse is doing legitimate campaign work at a fair market price." [4]
  • http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000158.php - "Like Doolittle's wife, Sweeney's wife Gayle Ford had no known prior fundraising experience"
  • "Doolittle had tried several other Washington-based PAC fundraisers in the past but none matched Sierra Dominion's hard work and effectiveness, Robinson said." / ""Julie has significant experience in fund-raising and event planning and has performed similar duties for several clients," he said." [5] - reasoning for using wife as fundraiser.
  • "Sierra Dominion's compensation is based entirely on performance in that it receives a percentage in what it is directly involved in raising," Robinson said. "This arrangement is not only consistent with that of other fund raisers but is designed to avoid the appearance that Sierra Dominion is compensated for anything other than its tireless and effective work. Any suggestion otherwise is completely without merit." - [6] there response to accusations.
  • Well, my first impression was only half right. ---J.Smith 19:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
J - thanks for the work in researching this. If my tone was inappropriate, it's because I get frustrated when editors seem to simply want to remove negative information because somehow it "unfairly" reflects on someone they support. Or when people present very selective or one-sided arguments.
Several comments on your research notes:
  • Julie has significant experience in fund-raising and event planning and has performed similar duties for several clients actually doesn't address the critical point - had she ever done fundraising BEFORE she started doing it for her husband? (Certainly, she NOW has significant experience and other clients - but in 2001, what was her experience when her husband hired her?) I continue to believe that the answer is NO, based on what I've read, but would welcome additional information.
That's your view... I was just presenting -there- counter argument. However, I have yet find anything to suggest she had any previous experience. ---J.Smith 19:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cite an example of a spouse, Gayle Ford, doing fundraising. What you didn't quote (from that same article) is this: Her rate, 10 percent, was more modest than Julie Doolittle's 15 percent. And this: It's true that a number of Members have family on the payroll, but this is the only example that we could find, besides Doolittle, of a family member being paid on commission.
These are just my notes... ---J.Smith 19:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I wanted to make sure that that your notes would not be interpreted as reflecting both sides of the issue because of the absense of other information here. John Broughton 22:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, I think I read somewhere that hiring Julie Doolittle coincided with John getting a seat on the Appropriations committee of the House in 2001, a position that made him much more interesting to potential campaign contributors. So even if Julie was more successful (it would be nice to have actual numbers here), it doesn't necessarily follow that it was because of her hard work as opposed to John's new position (and the change, in 2001, from a Democratic to a Republican White House). John Broughton 14:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's your view. One of the source above (I think auburn journal) said he tried a few companies first and found them to be inadequate. I'm betting his thought were basically: "Hay, why should we be paying these guys 15% when my wife could do everything they do and do it the way I want it done?" ---J.Smith 19:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case... I think were debating the topic and not to content at this point. Is there anything that should be added/taken out? Is its current form acceptable? ---J.Smith 19:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having been the last to edit the section, yes, its current form is acceptable, and I don't think there is anything that should be taken out. I reserve the right to add things (or to support others who want to add things) - I've not been able to spend a lot of time on this article. John Broughton 22:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Election coverage[edit]

In an edit summary, Asbl said: Let's remember this is an article about Doolittle, not about the elections. Giving an internal link to the challengers is OK, but not to their web sites.

I'm coming around to the position that if a challenger isn't significant enough to have a wikipedia article about him/her, then it's not that important to provide a link to his/her website. [I do note, however, that one of the greatest powers of wikipedia - compared to paper articles - is the ability to save the reader from the trouble of a google search. I don't really think that a link - which shows up, to a reader, as all of four characters - is that distracting. So I'd be hapy to hear a strong argument for keeping these.]
But I do object to any (implicit?) argument that the 2006 election should not get much space on Doolittle's page. It should not IF the conclusion is foregone and therefore not really of much interest. (And as I've said elsewhere, a good supporting link to that effect is really helpful, as well as explicitly stating that the election is not going to be exciting.) But a really contested election - that WOULD BE important. And it WOULD BE relevant to Doolittle - if he wasn't a Congressman, his opinions wouldn't get the time of day of any big town newspaper editor in the country. Assuming it wasn't covered in a separte article elsewhere, then it should get a lot of space in this article. John Broughton 02:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see what the fuss is about. This is an article about John Doolittle, not an article about the 2006 race for California's 4th Congressional district. Therefore, all information in the article must be written in a way that pertains to John Doolittle. It is certainly legitimate name anybody challenging him, and link to their Wikipedia articles (if they exist), but I don't see how you can legitimiately claim that a link to an opponent's campaign site belongs in Doolittle's encyclopedic article.
I'll let others give their opinions. --Asbl 02:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We do need to provide a source to show that they are running. There campaign website provides that.... Unless you wanna find something else. *shrug* I do like the new wording better then the old. ---J.Smith 05:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed 'em. Also removed the flowery POV language. ---J.S (t|c) 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of sale of land to U.S. government[edit]

Is "Blocking of sale of land to U.S. government" really all that controversial? Just curious. -- Sholom 19:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea is that there's a specific quid pro quo here. --User At Work 21:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but "begging the question" like it does is highly suggestive of a POV. I say remove it as random trivia unless there is some kind of notable controversy about it. ---J.S (t|c) 22:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate having a discussion here before editing is done in the article itself.
I think what happened is noteworthy because (a) no one besides Doolittle opposed the sale; (b) there was no discussion before the rider was inserted (illustrating how Congress works); (c) Doolittle opposed the sale on what appear to be me to be bogus "public ownership" concerns; and [I added information] (d) Doolittle just got campaign contributions from those trying to make the deal happen [if Doolittle were completely ethical, he'd return such contributions, IMHO]. John Broughton 14:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still highly "begging the question" and that is totally inappropriate for wikipedia. Also, keep your comments ON THE ARTICLE, not on John himself. ---J.S (t|c) 15:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

franking mention[edit]

I was going to revert it too, but it looks like I was beat. Sorry bout that. 1. It was a copyvio. 2. it was highly POV (begging the question, etc) and 3, it made a claim that John violated the law with no citation. (franked mail for the August 9th primary at taxpayer expense. implies he violated federal law) ---J.S (t|c) 01:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put back the one sentence from the newspaper article that I'm assuming you inadvertently deleted. One sentence, of course, is not a copyright violation - it's fair use. And the sentence was strictly factual, not POV. So I hope there isn't any problem with keeping it in. John Broughton 12:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Doolittle and the draft[edit]

The following was deleted from the article, in a new section called "Avoiding Vietnam": During Vietnam Doolittle (a fierce opponent of Communism) got several student deferments. But in March of 1972, John Doolittle was ordered to report for physical examination. In April of of that year, his classification history remarks say FTR (Failure to Report). John Doolittle's lottery number, according public records was 38.[7].

The reason for the deletion was (rv - no reliable source.). I generally agree with the deletion, but want to make add some points:

  • The link goes to a copy of what appears to be a genuine document, a Selective Service summary of Doolittle's draft status.
  • Doolittle graduated from college in 1972 (I assume; he graduated from high school in 1968), and then did a two year Mormon mission in Argentina. This is the normal pattern for young male Mormons.
  • It appears from the Selective Service record that going on this mission makes Doolittle a "divinity student", and he was accordingly reclassified as 4-D. I assume that is the norm for Mormon missionaries.
  • The record shows Doolittle in a 1-A status from 6-12-72 to 7-25-72. It's possible that the "Failure to Report" (in April) was an administrative mistake of sorts (on Doolittle's part, for assuming he did not have to show up, or the Board's part, if notified of his pending mission). It's also possible that Doolittle decided to go on the mission when faced with being inducted. Both of those scenarios are sheer speculation at this point.
  • What really did happen between April and July 1972 seems interesting enough to merit a couple of sentences in the article on Doolittle; what is lacking now is both the complete story and a reputable source for it. John Broughton | Talk 11:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think your right there... expecialy since a real "failed to report" is a crime and Doolittle was never charged with a crime.
We need to keep a careful eye on anything that "Doolittl" adds to the article. It seems faily likely to me the account is a sock (seems to have more knoledge then a first time user would) and even if not the account is here for one reason only... to interject POV into wikipedia. (take a look at Doolittl's contributions...) ---J.S (t|c) 17:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed "Vietnam" section[edit]

The section was a direct copy/paste from the Sac Bee article. I removed it to comply with copyright law. Please please don't do that again User:Doolitt. Heres the source so it can be used again:

David Whitney, E-mail adds fuel to the fire, Sacramento Bee, October 13, 2006, page A6

-- ---J.S (t|c) 20:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism (controversies) section[edit]

The criticism section overwhelmed the whole of the rest of the article and was clearly written by an opponent for political motives. This is unacceptable per our policy on biographies of living people. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Guy 21:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, I'm not sure how one would shorten the section without simply removing tons of factual, cited material. It's written from a NPOV tone but the weight the section carries in the article does break NPOV... I'm just not sure what to do about it. Thanks for stopping bye. ---J.S (t|c) 22:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The controversies section is, like the rest of the article, an accumulation of information over many months, written by many different people. If it "overwhelmed" the article, the right thing to do is to identify (HERE) sections that seem out of proportion to their importance; I'll be happy to do whatever I can to reduce their scope. And, as J.Smith noted, there was tons of factual, cited material (by my count, about 40 citations). This are not new citations - J.Smith, for example, I'm sure, has closely reviewed them.
Let's not, in the middle of a close election, remove ALL the material on controversies of someone running for re-election. John Broughton | Talk 22:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Guy is trying to do is to encurage us to write a more consise summary of those issues. ---J.S (t|c) 22:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
J. Smith is, in essence, correct. I think we all know about WP:NPOV#Undue weight? We also have a firm policy, WP:LIVING, which has the backing of foundation. Brad Patrick is aware of the issues on this article. So: there is nothing wrong with covering criticisms of a politician, but not to the exclusion of all else. The article when I came to it was almost nothing but criticism. Any casual reader would be left with the indelible impression that this person is venal and corrupt. Unless we can cite an impartial source which says he is venal and corrupt - which would mean, in this case, an impeachment hearing - we need to tread extremely carefully. Close fought election? Of zero relevance to Wikipedia. Seriously. No relevance whatsoever. We are not here to either help or hinder the campaign of any of the parties involved. This is the tenth most popular site on the Internet and an absolute magnet for people pushing a particular point of view. The level of tolerance for political soapboxing in articles on living individuals is currently standing at zero. I hope we can rely on the editors of this article to act responsibly and reintroduce only that critisism which is significant, and ensure that the overall tone of the article is balanced. The alternative is probably to call in the WP:OFFICE. Unless one of you wants to underwrite the foundation's legal bills?
For the avoidance of doubt, innuendo and guilt by association are absolutely unacceptable. And we do not state as fact that which is the opinion of his critics, or accept as significant that which only his critics say is significant. Hopefully it will not be necessary to protect the article, since I think everyone can be grown up about this. Guy 22:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more thing: I don't even live in America. In as much as I am interested in US politics, I see every election over there as a contest between the far right and the extreme right. This is not about politics, it's about the difference between journalism and an encyclopaedia. No disrespect to those who have sourced the statements, I'm sure they can be attributed, but their significance is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and the major source of claims to significance appears to be his critics. The name John M. Poswall has been mentioned. Guy 22:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted back only the most important of the "controversies". As to the major source of claims to significance appears to be his critics, I do not believe that is true with what I just posted. The source of statements of FACT - who did what, when, fully conforming to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - are from sources that fully comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability.

You said: We are not here to either help or hinder the campaign of any of the parties involved. Fine - but deleting extremely well-sourced text that is fully complaint with WP:BLP (I have removed dozens, if not hundreds of postings that violated that, particularly Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material; I believe I can recognize it) is helping Doolittle's campaign. If someone reads something, elsewhere, that is (shall we say) questionable about Doolittle and, turning to the wikipedia article, finds NOTHING negative, what will they conclude?

I hope that with the more limited information that I have posted, we can move to (minor) edits and discussions of details here, rather than whether half of the article should be completely removed. John Broughton | Talk 01:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another opinion: I do understand about the "weight" of having a large amount of controversial material -- but the fact of the matter is that Doolittle is involved in a number of seemingly controverial actions that take a non-trivial amount of words to explain adequately. I typed "John Doolittle" into news.google, and the top hit I got was an indirect link to this Wash Post article which mentions he's under Dept of Justice investigation. AP reported, just today "Rep. Doolittle paying lawyer to talk to DOJ in Abramoff probe" (here). Certainly none of this implies he's done anything wrong -- but the fact remains that he is involved in controversial things and he is being investigated. I think John Broughton, above, did a yeoman's job in reducing it (I hope he didn't reduce it too much). Finally, the person above who wrote "The criticism section ... was clearly written by an opponent for political motives" is out of line, demonstrating both a lack of knowlege of the history of this article, as well as violating "good faith." To him I write: instead of marching in with both guns-a-blazing, making massive deletions, and making comments like "unsourced" when it's full of footnotes, why not attempt to work cooperatively here? -- Sholom 02:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is not much point shouting about FACTS here. Policy states that the coverage of points of view must be proportionate. Clearly Doolittle's opponents believe that every criticism of him is of surpassing importance, as long as it reduces his chances of re-election, and equally clearly his supporters will think otherwise. Neither group is relevant to us, nor is the fact that there is a campaign ongoing. We should aim for the style of coverage you would see in a fair and impartial biography or maybe a New York Times profile. Yes, we can have controversy, but not to the extent that it dominates the article. It is now less dominant but still the piece is distinctly negative. I waded in because I am an admin and this was posted on the admins noticeboard because of issues of WP:LIVING; Brad Patrick posted in that thread. There was one particular editor involved who is suspected to be a trenchant critic of Doolittle, that user has been blocked, but the rest of the article showed signs of the steady creeping in of politicised views which is more or less inevitable with a political biography. I am sure that the rest of you can make a decent job of appropriately covering the controversies without overwhelming the article. It looks to me as if John Broughton and J. Smith between them, to name but two, will be able to agree a decently balanced version. That will be just fine. Guy 08:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some further minor edits to (slightly) reduce the length of the controversies section, and to make it a bit clearer. John Broughton | Talk 13:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: this issue began as a posting to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#User:Doolittl by User:J.smith, regarding User:Doolittl's name and suspected (partisan) identity. The user was then blocked by an admin. After that, J.smith reposted his initial comment to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#John Doolittle and John M. Poswall, said I expect this to continue, and concluded I wouldn't be surprised if Jimbo gets a call and WP:OFFICE is invoked at some point. Any advise would be appreciated. User:Brad Patrick, the Wikipedia Media Foundation lawyer (I believe) next posted: If something real is happening that requires WMF to do something, please let us know. If they are just duking it out over content, whatever.
User Doolittl posted to the article 5 times, all between October 13 and October 15 [8]; J.smith was involved in reverting part or all of the five postings; none of the postings remained in the article for more than 24 hours. John Broughton | Talk 16:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the concerns expressed here seriously, I've reviewed the WP:LIVING policy and thought it might be useful to put the relevant portion here:

Public figures
In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.
Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out.
Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.

As to how this relates to the present article:

A. Doolittle is a significant public figure. Far from being an obscure backbencher, he is a member of the leadership of the House of Representatives, a Deputy Majority Whip and Secretary of the House Republican Conference.
B. There are certainly a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources, many of which have been cited and linked in various versions of this page.
C. The controversies are notable and relevant, irrespective of the election. It is not guilt by association, for example, to observe that — according to Dept. of Justice prosecutors cited in the Washington Post — Doolittle himself is currently the subject of a federal criminal investigation in connection with the influence-peddling of a convicted briber whom Doolittle himself admitted having a close personal and professional relationship with and accepted money from, who had put Doolittle's wife on his payroll, etc. This seems to me several orders of magnitude more notable and relevant than the example of "alleged to have had an affair; he denies it" scandal offered by the WP policy as potentially legitimate. Leaving politics aside, a person who uses Wikipedia and who was looking for information about this and other controversies would want and expect to read about it here.

To clarify, this is not an argument for reverting back to the previous version, nor am I taking issue with anything stated above. It's just an attempt to focus with a little more particularity on how the WP:Living policy applies to this particular page. There are some real issues here that go to the heart of what make this individual "notable" without descending into hatchet-jobbery. Louche 18:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abramoff connections - section[edit]

Abramoff connections
Main article: Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal
John Doolittle has been entangled in the scandal involving Jack Abramoff. Doolittle has denied any wrongdoing, and on April 18, 2006 he hired a former prosecutor from Ken Starr's office as his media adviser on the matter.[19]

Is there any way we can merge most of the "Abramoff connections" section to the main article on the subject? (Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal) Usually when there is a "main article" on something it is only summarised in the parent article. I'll look into it. ---J.S (t|c) 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've made the surgery... *removes bloody surgical gloves* any comments/criticisms? ---J.S (t|c) 16:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the Abramoff-Doolittle connections are around CNMI, not Indian tribes. As far as I know, Doolittle isn't accused of doing anything for tribes (writing letters, inserting remarks into Congressional Record), though he did get contributions from tribes (because Abramoff, presumably, had millions of tribal dollars to direct; CNMI is pretty poor). And the Abramoff/CNMI article is only halfway presentable.
I'm not going to revert the changes you made because I agree in principal that if the details are in the main article (as they are now, since you moved them - thank you), a brief summary should suffice, but I plan to revisit this in the very near future. In the meantime, I changed the wikilink so it drops the reader right into the section of Doolittle; he/she can then look at the rest of the article if interested. John Broughton | Talk 17:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my guess (without looking) is that you moved the slimmed-down version of the details to the Abramoff article; if so, if you don't get there first, I'm going to replace the slimmed-down version with the full version that was there two days ago. John Broughton | Talk 17:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connections to Brent Wilkes[edit]

This whole section seems quite "guilty by association" esk. ("Person A was evil. Person A gave Person B money. Person B did X.") Lets take a look at the section and decide if we should keep it or not. ---J.S (t|c) 16:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite relevant - my sense is that Doolittle hasn't been indicted yet because Wilkes has yet to be indicted; then the prosecutors will discuss a reduced sentence in exchange for cooperation. (I certainly wouldn't say that in the main article; it's speculation.) In fact, I think the Wilkes-Doolittle connection is potentially more dangerous to Doolittle than the Abramoff-Doolittle connection, though Abramoff is cooperating with prosecutors and Wilkes has not yet done so.
What might be done, again, is a "main article" link to the Brent Wilkes article, and a brief summary in the Doolittle article. And if we do that, then the full version of the details that were in the Doolittle article should be put into the Wilkes article, not just the details now in the article. John Broughton | Talk 17:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube[edit]

rv. Exactly what is inappropriate about a link to a video showing a debate? (Please cite policy, and consider that the video isn't being used to support text in the article).)

YouTube is in essence a free webhost. It is inherently unreliable and there is no fact checking. I'd be a lot more comfortable with an official or news source who is hosting their own copy of the debate. In addition, YouTube and/or the poster at YouTube is technicly in violation of copyright law and I don't think it's a good idea for wikipedia to be a party to that. (It's possible that the rights were released or there is a loophole in fairuse, but it doesn't say). ---J.S (t|c) 03:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDNjV-dH4SQ Debate on October 11, 2006, between Doolittle and Brown]</ref>
Well, it certainly doesn't show Doolittle at his finest. I'm going to agree with you on this point because the person who posted the videos clearly has an axe to grind (I happen to think it's a fine axe, but that's a different matter), and that extreme partisanship gets in the way of the viewer coming to his/her own conclusions, which is what wikipedia is about.
I'd probably disagree with you if the only issue were copyright - that matter has arisen elsewhere (with websites that have copied entire newspaper articles), and I think the consensus is that wikipedia incurs no liability by linking to another website that may have copyright problems. But the copyright is not the only issue here, so I'm going to drop the matter. John Broughton | Talk 13:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the montages are amusing. I'm sure your right that we don't have a liability problem with it, I think it just looks bad for us. ---J.S (t|c) 15:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to jump in and disagree -- since when is the fact that the info is on a "free webhost" an issue? Wikipedia is free, too. So is all of google (and, in fact, google is purchasing YouTube). I think a video of a debate is an _excellent_ resource. I'd love to see links of videos of all debates between all the candidates. Who cares if it doesn't show one candidate or another at their finest? (I have not seen the video, are there other problems with it?) I think it ought to be included as a valuable external link. -- Sholom 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. How is it even remotely relevant that the person who posted the youtube videos has an axe to grind? The purpose of the link to the video is not to influence the "viewer's conclusions". The link is to provide a supporting reference for the presumably neutral content in the Wikipedia article. Video of the guy saying whatever it is that's relevant is a good reference. Who cares who posted it? (I'm asking as a general matter. I don't have an opinion about whether this particular edit should stay or go.) Louche 17:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sholom, the fact that it's a free web host is a problem because there is no assurance that the video isn't doctored. I could, given the appropriate equipment, have Doolittle saying anything I wanted with varying degrees of believability. When dealing with BLP we need to be very careful of that kind of thing. I know where not using this as a source, but WP:RS and WP:BLP has some things to say about personal websites.
Louche, all it does it raises a red-flag to any particular slanting the clips might have. The page also has highly slanted "out of context" clips as well.
WP:EL - Links normally to be avoided does say to avoid links to places violating copyrights. I'm not sure if that's the case, but no information is provided. (It could be fair use under "public interest", but I'm not sure) ---J.S (t|c) 17:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, didn't explain. I watched a bit of the linked video, then looked at the intro video. The editor chopped the debate into 12 or 13 parts because of YouTube's 10 minute limit; the linked video is one segnment in the middle. The intro video is highly partisan (for example, apparently Doolittle likes to mention the ACLU a lot, as an example of evil incarnate; it's sort of Daily Showish to string them all together, as the editor has done. The other videos, I'm guessing, were NOT similarly edited (from what I can tell, Doolittle is pretty interesting even unedited.) So I suppose that listing the links to all the segments except the (partisan) intro might work? John Broughton | Talk 21:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the "daily-show" one. I scanned though a few of the others too. It does look like he reproduced the entire debate in 13+ parts... I'm just worried about YouTobe being so unreliable. I'd feel so much more comfortable if it was hosted on a site with some kind of fact checking. (Ie, a newspaper's website, an official campaign site, the TV station's site, etc). ---J.S (t|c) 21:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to 69.249.253.211[edit]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.166.224.67 (talk • contribs)

These go on user talk pages... ---J.S (t|c) 16:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sac bee[edit]

Is a legit source. Devilmaycares 00:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, but irrelevant. The subject is so insignificant that the been barley dedicated a sentence at the END of the article to it. It's not important enough to be here, it's highly POV and it's "begging the question," a rhetorical device used in political debates and not appropriate for wikipedia. I know you have an agenda here. I can tell from your edits. ---J.S (t|c) 01:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

insignificant? The man is 100% warmonger if he's the kind who supports a war so long as he doesn't have to fight that is a major issue. Devilmaycares 02:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's YOUR point of view of the issue. HIS statement was that he planned to fight in Vietnam after he finished his obligation to his religion. Now, I have no idea what is true, but the quote you put in the article is not acceptable. ---J.S (t|c) 03:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

Many of the "controversies" explained in the section are written in a way that presumes guilt. Statements like "John Doolittle has been entangled in the scandal involving Jack Abramoff" are non-NPOV, and should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VermontMaster (talk • contribs)

He has been "entangled." I'm not sure how "entangled" presumes guilt however? Do you have any other examples of problem areas? ---J.S (t|c) 22:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current events, future election candidate, and POV tags[edit]

Why the heck do we need the "current events" tag? The article hasn't really been changing all that much in the past week. I'm going to remove it as an unnecessary disclaimer. ---J.S (t|c) 23:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've also removed the POV tag and added a future election tag. (And I thought your response in the section immediately above was excellent, by the way.) John Broughton | Talk 13:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John. ---J.S (t|c) 15:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes section[edit]

First of all, the source (brainyquote.com) is an advertising covered website that doesnt cite it's own sources. That makes it a very poor source indeed.

Secondly, when someone chooses a list of quotes, they chose it to prove a point. That's called POV editing and it's not acceptable.

Lastly, wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. There is a Wiki for quotes: go put the quotes on their. ---J.S (t|c) 06:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you have a problem with quote from brainyquote.com you've got some work cut out for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=brainyquote&fulltext=Search

grazon 06:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with -this- issue. Your choices of quotes is fairly telling. ---J.S (t|c) 06:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy my post was intended to let you know I agreed with the point you had made and that since you feel the need to remove the quotes I found on brainyquote.com you should also feel the need to remove others as well since that's the only way to act with out advocating a NPOV.

grazon 06:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mind indenting please? And I'm sure you don't mean quite what you said... ---J.S (t|c) 15:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berjaya Resort[edit]

I removed the part about him getting massages and stuff because it was unreferenced and seems unnecessary IMHO [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Doolittle&diff=111925742&oldid=110244170] (since the activities were paid for by Doolittle, I don't see it as particularly relevant). The next reference in fact mentions this a bit but is also quotes a spokesperson as saying the massages etc were paid for by Doolittle. Unless there is someone disputing this, we have to accept it as fact IMHO. So if someone feels there is merit, ensure it's referenced and make sure you mention that it was paid for by Doolittle. Nil Einne 22:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

context[edit]

The "vacation" is typical... a typical milking of the system. I think the context is important and by removing it you create a bias of selective information. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I generally find myself to be as cynical as the next, my understanding is that most fact-finding missions are not weeklong family beach vacations to resort locations. For example, one may disagree with whether Congressional representatives should have done their recent CODEL to Greenland, Germany, Belgium, and England on global warming over Memorial Day weekend, but it's certainly quite different from Doolittle's "mission". Even on the Abramoff-funded Russian junket in 1997 actual business was done. That may have been corrupt, but it wasn't a vacation like the Abramoff trips to St. Andrews and Saipan.
In short, fact-finding missions generally seem to fall into three categories - vacations (often characterized by the family coming with); payoffs by foreign interests; legitimate foreign policy excursions. Many fall to some degree within all three categories, but it is certainly not the case that the pure vacation junket is typical or representative.--User At Work 22:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we head down a very problematical path when editors have the discretion to add "context" that they (personally) think is helpful. For Doolittle's trip, one might add context like (I'm making up these "facts" for illustrative purposes): the trip occurred in February 2005, when temperatures in Washington D.C. were around 40 degrees F, compared to 80 degrees F in Malaysia; the cost of the trip, at $1,500 per person per day, was about 5 times what the average tourist to Malaysia spends per day; and the trip cost was more than three times the average cost Congressional trips in 2005.
The point I'm trying to make is that "context" is an endless thing (did the trip tie loosely, or closely, or not at all to work by committees or subcommittees on which Doolittle serves; has he made trips before to this area of the world that were clearly work-related; have other members of Congress gone to the same area and spent about the same amount of money; what do critics say about the usefulness of such trips; what do critics say about why organizations pay for such trips; etc., etc.). I don't think we really want to have fights, in the future, over not only what facts directly related to a subject should be in the article (I note that J.Smith, some time ago, was successful in considerably shortening the article on Doolittle), but also over what facts that provide "context" should or should not be in the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Doolittle. 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 23:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Doolittle. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on John Doolittle. 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) 14:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Doolittle. 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) 07:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Doolittle. 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) 14:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Doolittle&oldid=1207012733"