Talk:David Dreier

Untitled

Why so many statistics about Dreier's district? What's the point? I don't see this info in other congressional representative articles. -Willmcw 23:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then why don't you add statistics like those to other congressional articles? Kaibabsquirrel 04:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but how is this handled in the future? If he loses in the next election do the statistics get cut from his article and placed in his successor's article? Does it pertain to the person, David Dreier, or to the region? This is a biography, after all. And what is a gray color worker? -Willmcw 05:11, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article spends a whole lot of time on Dreier's sexual preference, and not a whole lot on anything else. While I agree that the issue is somewhat important, I think the volume of sexual preference text to other text gives the article a strong skew. The last sentence especially bugs me. One of his political opponents says he's a bad guy -- this is a surprise? But there's nothing to balance it out. So, I'm going to stick a NPOV tag on it. Novalis 11:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's accurate. There are lengthy passages on his controversial immigration stance, and some bio. He is best known today for the border controversy and then for the gay issue. I don't think that's NPOV in any way. The only part that I would get rid of is the last paragraph. You're right -- it's extraneous and heavy-handed. --JamesB3 14:51, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Was: In the Hustler expose' (Feb. 2005) Randy Economy, a well respected and hard hitting Democratic strategist with hundreds of campaigns under his belt, called Dreier a a "big huge fag" in the article. Economy, who is openly gay, served as advisor to Nelson-Hayes in her 98 and 00 races, and to Matthews during the last 6 weeks of her 04' race. Economy: "Dreier is the worse politican in America, because he is a gay man who votes against gay issues, and people are suffering from his career."

I cut the last para, and removed the npov tag. I guess it's OK now, but would like a second opinion.Novalis 21:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[reformatted Novalis' posting for clarity] That looks good: now there are two short paragraphs on his preferred issues, one on the gay controversy, and one on the immigration controversy. Seems like a good balance. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Journalist

User:Moncrief reverted my change, which mainly removed the word "gay" from the description of a journalist. This is reasonable; most style guides recommend mentioning someone's minority status only where it actually impacts the story. Here, it does not. So, I'm unreverting my change. Novalis 23:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it gives additional information to the story - he's a well-known gay activist/journalist, and it gives some feeling for why he might have been asking such a question when mainstream media won't touch such questions. Others have thoughts on whether "gay" should be included to describe Signorile or not? Moncrief 21:59, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think what is most relevent about Signorile is not his own sexual orientation but the fact that he has made a career of outing public figures. More broadly, it may be worth noting that these charges/rumors/allegations come from the left/gay community, rather than from the right/Christian community. Noting Signorile's orientation may be a shorthand way of indicating the general source of the charges. In that case, it would be relevent. -Willmcw 23:33, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

• The article makes clear that the questions and statements about Dreier's sexual preference predate the 2004 Republican Convention. Signorile is by no means the only journalist to ever question Dreier on this subject, but he is the only one to get wide attention for posing the question -- in part because he's a reknowned gay journalist and wrote about the encounter. Sandover 02:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Signorile is really more of a gay activist than he is a journalist. Would the unsigned person above who didn't like the mention of "gay journalist" be happy with "gay activist"? I do think Signorile's sexual orientation is relevant - it puts the question into context... it was asked by a gay activist. "Journalist" without qualification makes it sounds as if it's a commonly-asked question of Dreier by the mainstream media, when in fact they studiously avoid bringing it up. Moncrief 04:06, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the missing sig above. That was me. Signorile is clearly a journalist -- he makes his living by writing news stories. Sure, he's also got poltical views, but then, most journalists do. That he is famous for outing people is what's important here; if he were a straight person famous for outing people, it seems to me, the impact would be the same. It's true that his views enter into his journalism more than in most American news media, but this is purely an American thing. Major newspapers in many other countries have fairly strong affiliations with certain parties or areas of the political spectrum. For example, the Daily Telegraph is a Tory paper, while the The Guardian is with the Liberals. So, I think it's fair to call Signorile a journalist. Novalis 23:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We've all stated our opinions. Should we vote on it? Moncrief 02:12, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind voting, but I would prefer to come to a consensus. Is there no wording we can agree on? Novalis 03:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Get rid of the gay stuff. Huge part of Dreier's life on Congress? I don't think so. it's unsubstantiated rumors. If you dislike Dreier, you should not be entering the text. Sorry pal, but you've got a chip on your shoulder.

You removed the ENTIRE section on Campaign 2004, including his vote tally and all the controversy around his votes on immigration. The Dreier campaign was one of the most interesting of the 2004 election because of the dual forces of outing (sexual politics) and populism (some in his district's push to get him out of office due to his immigration votes). These are RELEVANT facts, as is, for God's sakes, the vote total he got in 2004. I would love to take this to Requests for comment for a real Wikipedia consesus, so please do revert again so I can. And moreover, there isn't anything wrong with being gay. Moncrief 22:40, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Article dispute

User:Nibblesworth is removing the entire section "Campaign 2004" from this article. In order to avoid the escalation of an edit war, I've listed this page on Requests for Comment. There is no reason to get rid of nearly half of this article that people here have worked on and have built consensus around. There are six external sources listed in the article to substantiate the information listed in that section. Dreier's congressional campaign generated a great deal of interest (for an incumbent U.S. representative from a supposedly "safe" district) in 2004, and a section on that campaign is relevant to the article. I would argue the populist reaction in his district to Dreier's perceived stance on immigration is a major reason why Republicans in Congress are less supportive of President Bush's proposed immigration reforms than they might otherwise have been. Removing an entire section of an article, without comment, that has been worked on by a number of people is not appropriate behavior for Wikipedia users. Moncrief 23:13, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Moncrief is right; couldn't Nibblesworth try some edits before zapping the info? Novalis 07:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since when is what a person does in his or her private sex life any one's business?Nobs 19:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When a person is a public official and is alleged to have put his lover on the government payroll, then their relationship is likely to become a matter of public interest. -Willmcw 06:23, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

The fact is, the article has a severe bias. Do you honestly think that unsubstantiated rumors put forth by Dreier's opposition in an election year warrant encyclopedia inserts? If there was undeniable truth that he is gay, and if he did cover that up, it would belong. However, the assertion that he is gay was brought forward by his opposition. If you insist upon listing opposition attacks to this one particular congressman, you should do it to all others. Are you prepared to look into opposition attacks on all 435 members of the House? The 100 members of the Senate? Dreier's 2004 election was heated, no doubt about that. When I first edited the article, I left that in. I simply took out the numerous sentences relating to his closet homosexuality. In effect, I balanced the article by stating that, yes, there was opposition was the gay community due to his anti-gay voting record, and that, yes, there was a lot of opposition due to his views of illegal immegration. That edit was completely reverted back to the biased article that now appears. I will not get into an edit war - that would be silly. But ask yourself this: should we investigate every election of every member of the house and state the controversies of each? Furthermore, Dreier's 2004 election was not the first in which there was controversy. Why not dredge up information from all of his campaigns? He's been in 12 of them. It seems to me that unfounded rumors of his closet homosexuality are most damaging, and are therefore asserted much more strongly than real political issues. If we cannot come to a concensus regarding this article, I will do what is in my power to have the NPOV put in dispute.

And for whatever it is worth, Brad Smith was Dreier's campaign manager in 1976, when Dreier lost, and has been his CoS ever since. He is a federal employee, and has been in the employment of the federal government for the past 25 years. His salary is a reflection of that - it has nothing to do with whether or not he is Dreier's gay lover. Again, that is an unfounded rumor, and until proof has been brought forward, asserting that this is a valid issue based on employing loved ones is moot. If I suddenly say that Nancy Pelosi's CoS is her lover, does that warrant mention in her Wiki page? Finally, if news sources other than those fundamentally against the views of Dreier begin to report on his closet homosexuality, it would be something to comment on. As of this date, only anti-Dreier sources have pushed this story. That should tell you something.

Remember, as a general rule we're not trying to "prove" anything on Wikipedia - we're simply trying to summarize verifiable information in an NPOV manner. So, if a reasonable source, like a newspaper or magazine, even a slanted one, reports a disparaging or complimentary item about a subject, then it is appropriate to add, giving the attribution that it comes from so-and-so. If there are notable controversies from past campaigns then those would be appropriate too, if anyone wants to dig them up. Also, a list of legislative accomplishments. Rather than removing information to achieve an NPOV balance, it's better to add more. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:58, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

--Nibblesworth 07:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)I agree. However, if the author is only willing to add disparaging remarks to one congressman's bio, then it is more than likely due to a biased opinion of that congressman. The fact that www.firedreier.com is listed in external links, and the fact that the author responded to my first edit with "you aren't going to whitewash this one", shows that the author is anti-Dreier. As such, he should not be writing the bio on him. I could dig up many many many articles from tiny newpapers and fringe websites about hundreds of members of congress. If I chose to direct that effort to only one congressman, whom would I pick? I can tell you, it would not be one I was in favor of. I think that the author is anti-Dreier, and as a result, should refrain from adding anything other than relevant (read: substantive and uncontested) information to the article. Wikipedia is not a political bully bullpit. Stay away if your intent is to hurt or hamper a political person or movement.

(A) I am not the "author" of this article and certainly not of the Campaign 2004 section. In fact, I don't believe that I wrote ANY of it. You can check the history. I edited it a bit, but I did not write the section. I am not "anti" Dreier or "pro" Dreier. I don't live in his district. Moreover, one's personal opinion about someone isn't a factor in whether or not they're able to help in creating a Wikipedia article about a certain subject, as long as they're willing to be NPOV. I'm pretty sure every user who worked on the Adolf Hitler article is anti-Hitler, for example. And, as I said, I didn't even write that section (or any of the rest of this article, that I can remember. I'd have to check the history). I'm interested in presenting the facts as they exist. The reason firedreier.com is there is because it was part of the story of his most recent campaign. It's clearly identified as an "anti-Dreier site" in the article. Clearly-labeled external links giving different viewpoints on subjects are a Wikipedia stable. You're welcome to add a favorable website. His own website is already there.

(B) You deleted the ENTIRE "Campaign 2004" section. You deleted the section on the populist movement in his district against Dreier's perceived stance on immigration. You deleted the information on the vote total he received. You did not do a subtle edit or attempt to work with other users who have been collaborating on this article. You merely went in to the article and deleted the entire section. The six external links and all. Who's POV in this instance?

(C) I am continually offended that you imply that being gay as something terrible. I also find it funny that you consider applying a standard that would ensure that there was no proof that either, say, Liberace or Rock Hudson were gay. Dreier has not denied he is gay. Many people who are in a position to know independently say they believe he is gay. And the reasons his sexual orientation is relevant are {1) because he voted against gay-rights bills and issues and (2) because Wikipedia reports reality as it is and the reality is that his sexual orientation did become an issue during the campaign. To omit that reality is to alter or, indeed, as I called it, to "whitewash" the historical record. As to (1) above, would you honestly have it that we shouldn't be able to mention that an African American who votes against Civil Rights bills is black, or that this interesting fact shouldn't be part of the story? I doubt it.

If you have particular concerns with the way the information is presented, make specific changes and work with people here. Going in and deleting half the article is not the way to go about it. Moncrief 07:57, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I see you're going in again and taking out the section. Do you understand what POV is? This article is not presenting a "point of view." It is merely restating the facts of the campaign. It is citing external sources. It is naming particular people and their assertions about Dreier. What exactly is the POV part to which you object? Is saying that someone is gay inherently "POV" to you? I'm not understanding how you think this article is POV. It's not enough to just say it is. Moncrief 08:04, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

This is the final bit of participation I will make in this discussion. I will simply edit as I see fit in the future.

1. In the first edit I made, I did not delete the entire Camapign 2004 section. I edited it so that it would reflect that there was pressure from gay groups and anti-immigration groups, but that he still won the election. That is all that needs to be said.

You deleted all but one sentence, which you then heavily modified. Let me take "all" back, and modify it to "all but one sentence, which you then modified." The record: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Dreier&diff=12632526&oldid=12632427 Moncrief 19:57, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

2. Nice attempt at the ad hominem attack. Not once have I said that being gay is a bad thing, yet you have brought up the fact that I seem to think being gay is evil on two occasions now. That's what liberals do. Instead of talking about the topic at hand, they call their opponent a "homophobe" or a "racist" or a "fascist". C'mon, guy. Try something new. Being gay isn't bad in itself - you and I know that. But the slant of the article, stating that Dreier is a hypocrit for being gay and voting anti-gay, is a bad slant. #1, you do not know if he is gay, nor does anyone but himself. #2, elected officials are supposed to vote based on the will of their constituents; if Dreier is gay, but his majority of republican constituents want him to vote anti-gay, isn't it a good thing that he's not adding his own personal viewpoints and biases into his political adgendas?

3. Populist movement? Huh? It was two radio talk show hosts, that's it. John & Ken decided they hated Dreier, and campaigned against him. There was no populist movement, and Dreier won with essentially the same vote count as he had during his entire career. 54% is nothing to sneeze at. Calling John & Ken and the firedreier gang a "populist movement" is placing a bit too much importance on what was, in reality, a whine fest of people OUTSIDE OF DREIER'S DISTRICT.

54% was substantially lower than the vote he had received in any election since being elected to Congress. It was the lowest vote received by any incumbent California U.S. Representative. It is surprising that a Democrat received ~48% of the vote in a solidly Republican district with an incumbent who had been in office for as long as Dreier had. The populist "movement" (perhaps "movement" is the wrong word, but populist doesn't seem to be) against Dreier among many of his constituents can be seen in the pages and pages of posts on firedreier.com and the fact that he received many fewer votes than he did in prior elections. It's not as if two radio hosts were talking to themsleves. They are the hosts of a popular radio show who had some influence. How else do you account for the lower vote total? Moncrief 19:57, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

The article is BIASED, plain and simple. It is an attack piece on Dreier. If you would like to tone down the attacks in the Campaign 2004 section, go for it and I'll try to find some common ground. However, spending 50% of the article on one of 12 elections, simply because that one had some juicy bits, is biased. If the only thing the Ted Kennedy article spoke about was the Chappaquidic, I'm complain just as loudly.

Again, tell us where you think it's biased. You continue to remove nearly all of the text - sourced information with specific names and dates. You haven't tried to build consensus. Be specific and point out where you think it's POV. Moncrief

Again, I'm not going to sit here an argue with you, as you obviously have your mind set. So be it. Either accept the fact that the article may be biased and tone down the attack, or enjoy the upcoming edit war.--Nibblesworth 18:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, rather than deleting sourced information I'd suggest you seek balance by adding sourced information which favors Dreier. Threatening an "edit war" and indicating that you will not engage in further discussion of the article is not a good way to build the consensus which will be necessary for you to "win" your war. If you think that the involved editors are biased then the best way to deal with that is to bring in additional editors by requesting their participation through a wikipedia:request for comment. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:20, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

--Nibblesworth 16:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)This is getting silly. Unless someone wants to attempt to create a non-biased 2004 campaign portion, I'll just delete it everytime it pops up. Sorry, but while the core of the campaign information my be somewhat relevant (and I don't even think it's at all relevant, but I'm biased--at least I can admit it), the way in which is it presented is biased. I have forever to edit this page, and will do so until a less biased approach (read: not a political attack piece) can be agreed upon. I'm happy, however, to figure out how a concensus can be reached.

Yes, you are biased. And your bias is in the direction of censorship. That bias is inimicable to the spirit and standards of Wikipedia. Once again, Nibblesworth, you are invited to edit and add information to the entry to balance it. But please do not delete information that is referenced and -- yes -- factual. I regard that as vandalism. Sandover 16:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't care what you call it. The article is BIASED. If we can find common ground, great. But until then, the biased information will be deleted as often as I log on. Sure, I could write in unbiased information, but it would immediately be reverted back to what currently stands. My only ammo is the delete key, since no one wants to hear my stance or give my voice any airtime. Until we all choose to act with civility, consider me a vandal, consider me a troll, consider me whatever you'd like. Just know that I will not allow political attack ads to pose as factual information.--Nibblesworth 16:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My heavens, Nibblesworth, you're overly dramatic. You haven't tried at all to reach consensus. You either delete 90% or 100% of the "Campaign 2004" section, without telling us WHAT about the section you find POV. Please familiarize yourself with the 3 revert rule. Completely NPOV speaking, by the rules and standards of Wikipedia, you are in the wrong here and action will be taken if you continue on this path. Moncrief 17:06, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

My heavens, Moncrief, it was you who reverted my first edit, which allowed for discussion of the gay and illegal immigration isses, but did it in a npov fashion. I will continue to delete 90% of the Campaign 2004 information if it continues to rely on articles from hard core pornographic magazines with ZERO literary or politcal value, fringe websites, and anti-Dreier sources. DUH! Politcal opponents make silly claims about their enemies all the time! Does tha mean they warrant mention in a resource used by children to do school research? Should unfounded rumors, maliciously spread in order to politically destroy someone, be given any sort of legitimacy on a web-resource such as Wikipedia? I think not--that's the difference between you and me.--Nibblesworth 17:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good faith attempt to find consensus with Nibblesworth

Let's go line by line here and you can tell us what you think is NPOV:

>n the fall of 2004, Dreier came under increasing scrutiny from gay rights groups because of what they characterize as one of the most anti-gay voting records in Congress, which includes support of the Defense of Marriage Act (signed by President Clinton), as well as votes against gay people adopting children, and against inclusion of homosexuality as a protected status in hate crime and employment discrimination legislation.

This is an objective fact. Do you dispute it? What part of it do you dispute? I am happy to find a reference if you disagree with any of it.

Many consider his record to be especially disturbing in light of recent speculation and reporting that he himself is gay [1] (http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/david_dreier_outed_brad_smith_gay_920.htm) [2] (http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/david_dreier_cynthia_matthews_outed_outing_gay_926.htm),

Do you dispute that this happened?

although other people believe that Dreier's votes on legislation concerning the rights of gay people have merely reflected his constituents' wishes and that his own sexual orientation is a private matter and irrelevant.

I added this section yesterday in an attempt to try and give your side a say here.

Dreier, who was "outed" online by several websites in September 2004, had been asked at the August 2004 Republican National Convention by journalist Michelangelo Signorile (who is famous for outing people) whether or not he was straight. Dreier refused to say he was heterosexual. [3] (http://www.nypress.com/17/39/news&columns/signorile.cfm)

This is true. Do you deny it? Note that the article is not saying he is gay.

Dreier was formally "outed" in print by journalist Doug Ireland in the L.A. Weekly issue of September 24-30, 2004.[4] (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/44/news-ireland.php)[5] (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/45/news-ireland.php)

This is also true. Do you want it rephreased to make it clearer that Dreier himself did not confirm that he is gay? Give us a suggestion.

Dreier's 1998 and 2000 Democratic opponent, Janice Nelson, came forward to claim that his homosexuality had been an open secret for many years.

We can get a reference on this if you need it.

His 2004 opponent, Cynthia Matthews, came out of the closet and demanded that Dreier do the same.

True fact.

Dreier did not publicly respond to these charges, and so far, the mainstream media has not picked the story story up. (Following the lead of the L. A. Weekly and a number of online blogs, Hustler Magazine, in an exposé on Dreier in its February 2005 issue, alluded to Dreier's alleged romantic relationship with Brad W. Smith, his longtime chief-of-staff as well as "roommate and constant companion."[6] (http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=88) Smith collects a $156,600 government salary for his services to Dreier, and is reportedly the highest-paid chief-of-staff working on Capitol Hill.)

Referenced. How is this POV? Again, it's reiterated that Dreier himself does not say he is gay. However, it is true that all of this was a factor in the campaign.

Dreier's vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment on September 30, 2004, the first time in his career that he did not support anti-gay legislation, was interpreted by some as a sign of concern prompted by rumors swirling about his personal life.

True. Is this POV?

While being hit from the left, Dreier was also attacked from the right, due to what some radio talk show hosts viewed as a lax policy on curbing illegal immigration. [7] (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/10181726.htm?1c) Dreier was accused of advocating for federal funds for services provided to illegal immigrants such as jails and medical care, and supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants. The immigration attacks were especially damaging. Dreier filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission against one radio talk show (The "John and Ken Show," on Los Angeles station KFI-AM) alleging that the hosts, employees of Clear Channel Corporation, were engaging in an illegal contribution to Matthews's campaign. The complaint was widely ridiculed in the media. In spite of outspending his opponent by nearly 30-1 [8] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/11/15/state0333EST0020.DTL),

What part, if any, of this do you dispute or find POV? I don't see it.

having his opponent ostracized by the Democratic Party, and being in a solidly Republican district, Dreier won his 2004 race with only 54% of the vote, the lowest incumbent win for any U.S. representative from California and his worst total since 1980. Anti-illegal immigration advocates predict that he will face a formidable conservative challenger in his 2006 primary.

Do you disagree with this? It's pretty objective-sounding to me. Do you want info added that the GOP strongly supports his re-election and that he's a party favorite so the 2006 challenge likely won't be successful according to political observers?

Dreier has served for many years as a trustee of Claremont McKenna College. According to Roll Call magazine, he has a personal fortune in excess of $7.5 million.[9]

Referenced facts.

I've made this good-faith effort. The least you can do is work with the people here and stop being silly and deleting the entire section. Moncrief 17:18, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Instead of deleting it, I've changed it to:

Campaign 2004

"In the fall of 2004, Dreier came under increasing scrutiny from gay rights groups because of what they characterize as one of the most anti-gay voting records in Congress. Many consider his record to be especially disturbing in light of recent speculation and reporting that he himself may be gay. This speculation, however, has been reported primarily by Dreier's politcal opponents, and are regarded by the mainstream media as nothing more than rumors.

Dreier was also attacked from the right, due to what some radio talk show hosts viewed as a lax policy on curbing illegal immigration. Propenets claim, however, that Dreier hopes to curb illegal immigration not through more strict border measures, but through increasing relations with Mexico and working with Mexican politicians to create an environment within Mexico that might lead to less emmigration."

Mention is given of the 2004 controversies, and no "white-washing" is taking place.--Nibblesworth 17:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why do you insist on removing facts (that he received 54% of the vote in 2004, his lowest total since 1980 and the lowest for any CA incumbent despite him being in a solidly GOP district; that his opponent was a lesbian named Cynthia Matthews who asked Dreier to come out; that the name of the radio show was John and Ken and is on KFI; that he is a trustee of Claremont McKenna and is worth $7.5 million; that he is expected to face a challenge in the 2006 primary; that his vote against the FMA on 9/30/04 was the first time in his career that he didn't vote against gay-rights legislation; that his 1998 and 2000 opponent came forward to say that his being gay is an open secret; that he outpsent Matthews 30-1 (with a source from that "fringe publication" the San Francisco Chronicle); that he was outed in the L.A. Weekly)? That is not a good-faith effort at finding common ground. Moncrief 17:29, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Good Faith Effort

Here is what I consider a bias:

In the fall of 2004, Dreier came under increasing scrutiny from gay rights groups because of what they characterize as one of the most anti-gay voting records in Congress, which includes support of the Defense of Marriage Act (signed by President Clinton), as well as votes against gay people adopting children, and against inclusion of homosexuality as a protected status in hate crime and employment discrimination legislation.

This is a one-sided view of Dreier's views of homosexuality and the law. Like many republicans, Dreier feels that legal issues surrounding homosexuality are for states to decide. This is not reflected in the article, and the one-sidedness makes him look like a homophobe.

Many consider his record to be especially disturbing in light of recent speculation and reporting that he himself is gay [1]

This is essentially stating that he is gay. "That he himself might be gay" reflects the situation much more accurately. Since there is no proof that he is gay, there is only speculation. Leaving the "might be" out of the sentence adds more oomph to the idea that he's a closet gay.

(http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/david_dreier_outed_brad_smith_gay_920.htm) [2] (http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/david_dreier_cynthia_matthews_outed_outing_gay_926.htm)

rawstory.com is not a source that commands any sort of journalistic respect. However, if rawstory.com had broken the news, and it had been picked up by the mainstream media, then it would warrant mention. As it stands, mentioning this source in order to strenghten the argument is like using a site stating that pyramids were built by aliens to debunk the idea that egyptians built them.

although other people believe that Dreier's votes on legislation concerning the rights of gay people have merely reflected his constituents' wishes and that his own sexual orientation is a private matter and irrelevant

No issues here, and I'm glad to see that you (or someone else) did put it in

Dreier, who was "outed" online by several websites in September 2004, had been asked at the August 2004 Republican National Convention by journalist Michelangelo Signorile (who is famous for outing people) whether or not he was straight. Dreier refused to say he was heterosexual. [3] (http://www.nypress.com/17/39/news&columns/signorile.cfm) Dreier was formally "outed" in print by journalist Doug Ireland in the L.A. Weekly issue of September 24-30, 2004.[4] (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/44/news-ireland.php)[5] (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/45/news-ireland.php)

This states that Dreier was outed, when in fact, he wasn't. A few journalist made the claim that he was gay, but no proof was brought forward. Also, the fact that Dreier, a life-long politician, would not comment on an issue is, by no means, worthy of mention. It has been put in this article to say: "See? He won't say he isn't gay, so he really must be, which is terrible because he's such a hypocrit."

Dreier's 1998 and 2000 Democratic opponent, Janice Nelson, came forward to claim that his homosexuality had been an open secret for many years. His 2004 opponent, Cynthia Matthews, came out of the closet and demanded that Dreier do the same. Dreier did not publicly respond to these charges, and so far, the mainstream media has not picked the story story up.

Why do we care what his one-time politcal opponent said about him? Isn't it fairly common for political opponents to attack whenever possible, in order to gain a foothold? Why does her statement get to be reported as fact, strengthening the loaded tone of the article?

(Following the lead of the L. A. Weekly and a number of online blogs, Hustler Magazine, in an exposé on Dreier in its February 2005 issue, alluded to Dreier's alleged romantic relationship with Brad W. Smith, his longtime chief-of-staff as well as "roommate and constant companion."[6] (http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=88) Smith collects a $156,600 government salary for his services to Dreier, and is reportedly the highest-paid chief-of-staff working on Capitol Hill.)

I find it silly that Huslter is being used as a reputable source. There really isn't any argument here, as anyone should be able to recognize that Flynt, who lost the Ca gubernatorial election due in part to Dreier's efforts to get Arnold in office, is a completely biased source. Are we now able to source "Asshole of the Month" articles to other prominent members of the US Govenment in Wikipedia?

In addition, this portion makes the loaded claim that Smith's salary is due to his alleged romantic involvement with Dreier. The fact is, Smith is a 25 year veteran of the Federal Government, having spent all of those 25 years as Chief of Staff. Any other 25-year CoS would warrant the same pay rate. This is not a Dreier payscale, it is the Federal Government's. Smith is also a highly skilled political operative, with countless private job offers. His position, his pay, and his tenure is due to his political abilities, not to a rumored relationship with Dreier.

Dreier's vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment on September 30, 2004, the first time in his career that he did not support anti-gay legislation, was interpreted by some as a sign of concern prompted by rumors swirling about his personal life.

The only purpose of this sentence is to further the accusation that he is a closet gay. There is bias here.

While being hit from the left, Dreier was also attacked from the right, due to what some radio talk show hosts viewed as a lax policy on curbing illegal immigration. [7] (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/10181726.htm?1c) Dreier was accused of advocating for federal funds for services provided to illegal immigrants such as jails and medical care, and supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants. The immigration attacks were especially damaging. Dreier filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission against one radio talk show (The "John and Ken Show," on Los Angeles station KFI-AM) alleging that the hosts, employees of Clear Channel Corporation, were engaging in an illegal contribution to Matthews's campaign. The complaint was widely ridiculed in the media. In spite of outspending his opponent by nearly 30-1 [8] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/11/15/state0333EST0020.DTL), having his opponent ostracized by the Democratic Party, and being in a solidly Republican district, Dreier won his 2004 race with only 54% of the vote, the lowest incumbent win for any U.S. representative from California and his worst total since 1980. Anti-illegal immigration advocates predict that he will face a formidable conservative challenger in his 2006 primary.

Loaded terms such as "especially damaging", widely ridiculed", "in spite of outspending his opponent", "won with only 54% of the vote", and "worst total" are abound in this portion. While the facts are there, the article is full of loaded words that sway the reader into thinking the guy is an idiot. The facts aren't in question here; the style is, however.

Dreier has served for many years as a trustee of Claremont McKenna College. According to Roll Call magazine, he has a personal fortune in excess of $7.5 million.[9] (http://www.nndb.com/people/980/000036872/)

The net-worth figure is new, and I have no idea why it is relevent. Seems to try to attack him by showing how much money he has made as a congressman. Again, a loaded fact, but no big deal.--Nibblesworth 17:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is lots to think about here. Thank you for finally laying out your concerns in a rational way. Moncrief 17:52, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

My two cents here: Mr. Dreier's "outing" last year is part of the historical record. His outing is a fact, and it had a profound affect not only on Mr. Dreier's campaign but on the broader gay community and on the circumstances of gays and lesbians (both closeted and out) holding or contemplating political office. (I might add that this is not merely referenced by fringe publications and pornographic magazines -- the story essentially broke on Sirius Satellite Radio on August 31, 2004, from Michelangelo Signorile on the floor of the Republican National Convention, and was in print for the first time three weeks later in L.A. Weekly, which is not really all that "fringe" out here in California. The Hustler piece is the only piece, to my knowledge, that appeared in a pornographic magazine. Although first threatened for the November 2004 issue, it was not published until February 2005, and in the end added very little information.)

On a personal note, I have firsthand knowledge of Dreier and Smith's relationship, which has lasted decades and which faded in recent years on a romantic level, though they are still close friends. The one assertion I find dubious in the various articles about Dreier and Smith is the notion that they live or have lived together, since I have been told they always — and rather scrupulously — maintained separate residences (or the appearance of them). None of this is a secret to his Washington staff, nor to his long-term friends (one of whom I dated). I have no firsthand knowledge of how the "outing" took place, nor have I ever met or spoken to any of the journalists involved. Even so, part of me wonders whether gay Republicans may have played a role in his outing, or at least in confirming some of the details, since many of them have grown disillusioned with what they, too, regard as a hypocritical voting record and actions destructive to the gay and lesbian community. Again, if you travel in the circles of the Log Cabin Republicans, you would have heard an earful about Dreier and Smith long, long ago.

I know you wish it were all a rumor, but it just ain't so. With the exception of the notion that they live or have lived together, everything I have read about Mr. Dreier in the various online and print accounts accords with what I know and have seen firsthand. As for the Wikipedia entry, every assertion here is referenced with footnotes (FYI, his personal fortune derives largely from family real estate holdings, not from his Congressional salary, as you assumed above), and none of what I have added to the entry comes from what I know firsthand, but rather, public sources. If you have a problem with any of what's written, its wording, or any aspect of how its presented or references, jump in. You are invited to be a good and conscientious citizen of this virtual community. Sandover 18:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My first thoughts here: I think part of what is grating about Nibblesworth's edits is that he makes it seem as if Dreier's being gay is some kind of malciious rumor spread only by fringe elements, a political smear campaign, with no basis in fact. If even I, who don't live anywhere near D.C. or Dreier's district, know that Dreier is gay from reputable sources, then it's clearly not that much of a secret nor is it some kind of made-up fantasy. If Nibblesworth is willing to drop that charade, then I'd be willing (and of course I'm only one person here) to find consensus on some of the language and wording to suit Nibblesworth better. This doesn't mean we say that he's gay, but it does mean we acknowledge that "Since there is no proof that he is gay, there is only speculation" (Nibblesworth's words above) is ultimately a POV stance in itself and drop the idea that his being gay is some kind of fabricated rumor. It isn't true that "the only person who knows is Dreier himself" and the rest of that. You can argue if you want that his being gay is personal or irrelevant, but please don't argue that we're making the whole thing up or that the only person to ever say it has been Larry Flynt. Moncrief 18:31, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Dreier's scorecrard from the HRC (PDF file: http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=24440) shows that he had a 17% score on gay-rights votes for the 107th Congress (I haven't found more recent ones). I'd be willing to take out the line that he has "one of the worst voting records in Congress on gay rights issues" as many legislators have a 0% score, but it should be noted that Dreier has a low score.

Also, Nibblesworth, your assertion that Dreier's non-answer to the question of whether or not he is gay is common for heterosexual politicans is inaccurate, in my opinion. Is it your assertion that genuinely heterosexual people, when asked by a reporter whether or not they are gay, would refuse to answer the question?

One more thought: I see no reason whatsoever to remove information such as the name of the radio show attacking Dreier (considering that John and Ken is a Wikipedia article itself); the vote total he received in 2004 and that it was the lowest since 1980; the name of his opponent and the fact that she came out and took the unprecedented step of asking him to come out as well; that he outspent her 30-1 and received his lowest vote total; and other verifiable facts. You haven't convinced me that any of that is POV. If you want to balance those facts with information from other campaign years, his accomplishments in office, or antyhing else positive, Nibblesworth, do so. Removing sourced facts (particularly from the SF Chronicle and L.A. weekly, neither of which are fringe) is not good faith. Moncrief 18:41, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, if Dreier is gay, I have no problem with that. I hope I have not given the impression that it matters to me. I guess what I am trying to state is that there has been very little mainstream news coverage of the "outing", which leads me to beleive that there is not enough substantive evidence to further the accusation. This is not to say that he isn't gay, but you and I and all of the news sources in the world simply do not have enough evidence to state, as fact, that he is gay. Trust me, if the Chairman of the Rules Committee was secretly hiding his homosexuality, and was verifiably outed, NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox, etc etc would have been all over it. The problem I have is that the second half seems to be written by someone who wants to let people know that Dreier is a closet gay hypocrit who votes against pro-gay issues (a loaded accusation). I have zero problem with inserting some information regarding the allegations of his homosexuality, but as they are not proven facts (and they really aren't - as suspicious as it may look, until the news really breaks within the mainstream media or until Dreier admits to it), they should be explicitly stated as such. If I recall, during Clinton's early years in office, some fringe conservative groups tried to smear Hillary's persona by asserting that she was a closet lesbian. If nearly 40% of the wikipedia article on Hillary was a loaded recollection of this ordeal, I would find that to be biased as well. I am not trying to hide anything, just trying to keep things fair and even. Is there anyway we can edit the article so that it is not so loaded, and so that it gives credence to both sides of the story?--Nibblesworth 22:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue of the mainstream media not outing him has more to do with journalism than with anything else. For whatever reason, the mainstream media has been reluctant to talk about the sexual orientation of people in the news until they reveal it themselves. Anyone in the media would have had ample evidence that Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres, for example, were both gay but they didn't touch the stories until both of those women came out themselves. In those cases, the media's standard seems to be that their sexual orientation isn't relevant to anything (though of course the media have no trouble going on and on about a straight celebrity's dating life), and the media continues to apply this same standard even when a person in the news's homosexuality actually is arguably relevant, which I think you can make a very strong case that it is in Dreier's case since he has voted against gay-rights legislation (just as the media made a big deal that the leader of the opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70s, Phyllis Schlafly, was a woman, or that no one would flinch about doing a story that a Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas, who sides with conservatives on affirmative and civil-rights cases, is black, I don't see why they shouldn't mention, if they have proof, and it seems they do since any number of people have been willing to go on the record to say it, that a legislator who votes against gay-rights bills is gay himself).

All of that is a long way of saying that I don't think you can use "the mainstream media hasn't mentioned it... therefore it's not true" as a maxim for determining if someone is gay or not. The media didn't mention that Liberace or Rock Hudson or any number of other people were gay during their lives, even though the fact of their homosexuality was an open secret. I suppose each media outlet is waiting for the other to break the story and, if the person won't come out, they don't know how to build a story without photographic proof and the like. Again, that is a matter for people who decide journalistic ethics to work out, but I don't think "Because ABC hasn't covered it, it's not true" is really an acceptable reason to assume that he can't be gay. Edit: Moreover, the article explicitly mentions that the mainstream media hasn't covered it, which I think is generous since L.A. Weekly, which has covered it, isn't far from being mainstream.

Is there any way you could add positive information on Dreier here, Nibblesworth? If you add information on his accomplishments, previous elections, and so on, the election 2004 stuff won't be 40% of the article any more. Let me take a look at how I might edit to address some of your concerns, but I still don't know specifically what those concerns are. I don't think your slash-and-burn edits are acceptable, but I'm hearing that you think including any reference to rawstory.com and Hustler is not good? Moncrief 02:59, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

New version

Update: See what you think of the changes I made, both Nibblesworth and Sandover (or anyone else reading this long page...). Moncrief 03:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)ew

Moncrief, kudos for trying to solve the problem, but you've cut too much. Brad Smith is an essential part of the outing story and belongs back in. Dreier and Smith's relationship, and the inflated government salary Dreier has arranged for his partner, were discussed in the L.A. Weekly and in every other media outlet which took on the story. Please restore them — thanks! Sandover 04:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The right way to handle Smith is not as part of the 2004 campaign, since the matter is obviously not related to any one campaign, but rather in a discussion of Dreier's overall performance as a legislator, and/or in a section on his private life. Maybe something like, "Several news sources have alleged that it is an open secret that Dreier and his longtime Chief of Staff, Bob Smith, are intimate partners. They note critically that Smith is among the most highly-paid government employees. Dreier has avoided questions about his private life and denied wrongdoing. " Followed by the footnotes. Basically, it can be noted without belaboring it, but it should be moved out of the 2004 campaign and put into another context, IMO. Likewise his net worth and college trusteeship. -Willmcw 06:24, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

The changes look good otherwise, Moncrief. Thanks for putting in the effort to address the other editor's concerns. I hope that we can add more information about his legislative record to broaden the article. Anyone interested? Cheers, -Willmcw

Willmcw and Sandover, I'll leave it to you two to add back as you see fit. I agree personally that Smith belongs in the article. I do also note Nibblesworth's point (it is so funny that we all have these weird names here, isn't it?) that Smith is getting paid that amount because it's at the high end of the CoS federal pay scale, and he's a long-term CoS. I don't have any independent confirmation of that other than Nibblesworth's word, but if that's the case, I'm not sure what real wrongdoing is being done, other than Dreier's lack of honesty about the reality of his relationship with his CoS. In other words, do we really know that he finagled to get Smith a higher salary? Anyway, add back as you see fit. Moncrief 06:41, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Edit: Sandover, I see you've made changes already. Do you really think it's unfair to say that the GOP will support Dreier in his 2006 re-election bid? From the SF Chronicle article and everything I know about his popularity in the party, this doesn't seem an unfair assertion. They certainly won't back an opposition candidate in the primary. Dreier is aligned exactly with Bush and Arnie on the issues important to the mainstream GOP leadership (and of course moreover he and Arnie are big buddies and close colleagues). Moncrief 06:46, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I hope that we can add more information about his legislative record to broaden the article. Anyone interested? Nibblesworth? You seem to know a bit about Dreier, so feel free to write about some of his accomplishments in office. I do note that several of them are already in the article. Moncrief 06:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Moncrief, I just thought it would read better not to encounter a speculative sentence of that sort. If you can actually reference the SF Chronicle on this, put it back in the article. Perhaps it was your use of the word "strongly" (as in the "Republican Party will strongly support Dreier" or some such phrase) which threw me off, because it sounded a POV bell in my head. But I didn't get particularly worked up about it, and would not be offended if it is restored.

As for Smith's salary, it is definitely outsize. People with equivalent experience and equivalent jobs apparently make much less. I think the L.A. Weekly quote helps put Smith's salary in perspective — he's making, after all, just $400 shy of what Bush's chief of staff makes. Anyway, I hope the edits are an improvement. Sandover 07:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm basing my understanding on this bit from the end of the Chronicle article you reference on the page: "Kobylt boasted that he was sure their campaign would open Dreier to a serious primary challenge in 2006, but Hoffenblum was more skeptical. The Republican establishment strongly, strongly supports him," Hoffenblum said. "Dreier would have Schwarzenegger walking precincts for him, and the president would probably join him." I see now that it's just one operative's opinion, but I do think it's probably right. Let me see if I can add back but not as strongly as before. Moncrief 07:11, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can write in order to try and balance the article out a bit. The Smith pay issue, I think, should be omitted, as its reference seems to be nothing more than an accusation of high pay for a lover. As I stated (and I'll look for some facts to back it up) he's been a high-ranking Federal Employee for nearly 25 years, and so his salary is a reflection of that. Again, I'll look for proof to back it up. I think he may be paid more than any other CoS because he's probably been a CoS longer than any other - it is a volatile job. As for rawstory.com and Hustler articles, I simply think that they should not be given so much credence - but that's me. I'm in midterms week, so things are getting a bit hectic, but I hope we can move to resolve this, and I'm glad we are able to work together. Sorry for any hot-headedness on my part earlier.--Nibblesworth 08:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have made a few minor edits, and added a few bits of info. I removed the quote from Ireland's article, as it seemed to serve as nothing more than an attack. In addition, the Ireland quote is available through the cited sources. Let me know how it looks. --Nibblesworth 08:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you feel that an explanation for the Smith salary is required, and if there is a source explaining it, then that could be added too. -Willmcw 08:38, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Is Schwarzennegger Drier's boyfriend? horseboy 10:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Photo

Could someone with a better, more current photo of Dreier please upload it? Not to dis Dreier, but the photo here now is ridiculously flattering--flattering in the sense of any photo that is 20 or 30 years old being presented as a "current" representation of someone.

Category tags

The edit that removed the category tags was me (sorry I wasn't logged in). I removed them in accordance with WP:BLP#Use_of_categories, which states that "category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless ... the subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question". Dreier doesn't. So, I'm going to remove them again, and if you put them back without discussing it here, I'm going to issue a RFA or RFC or whatever one does in these cases. Novalis 15:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I submitted an RfC on this. Novalis 15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Unless it can be shown using a reliable source that he has openly admitted to being gay, he shouldn't be put in the categories. If a source can be found, the categories can stay; if they can't be found, they need to go. This also goes against the policy for biographies of living people. I'll just quote the part I'm referring to:

"Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles"

Basically, find a source that says he has stated he is gay and the cats can stay. If a source can't be found, it must go. --13² 16:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can't add the "gay" categories until the subject affirms that he is gay. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Will, you're an admin. Can you recommend a process by which I can get =CJK= to stop re-adding the categories? Novalis 23:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a stern warning on the user's talk page. If he continues he may be blocked. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Disputed content

See sections above.

Uninvolved editor comments

I agree that the category is inappropriate and should not be included until the subject has confirmed his orientation publicly per WP:BLP#Use_of_categories. LaraLove^T/_C 16:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The category is wrong until he self-identifies via multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources. JodyB _talk 15:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy is clear, they have to publicly identify themselves as gay in order for the category to be justified.--Groovyman 08:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy is clear with respect to living persons. --Charlene 07:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Involved editor comments

Since I've expressed my opinion before I guess I'm "involved". I'll repeat and expand my previous comment. We can't add the "gay" categories until the subject affirms that he is gay, or unless there is irrefutable evidence of his orinetation (i.e. he engages in a civil union ceremony with someone of the same sex). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you restored the "Sexual Orientation" section with this edit on 29 July 2008. It has been repeatedly and improperly deleted in recent weeks. Is it election season? — Wikicrite (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

File:DavidDreier.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:DavidDreier.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:DavidDreier.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed (by original tagger, after reversion). Horologium (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Outing

Previous discussions centered on his relationship with his Chief of Staff and position on gay issues but there really should be at least some sort of acknowledgement of his outing. I restored a sentence deleted by user PDDC that alluded to his supposed boyfriend. The section should be totally rewritten to deal with the allegations, especially since Barney Frank makes a veiled reference to Dreier's homosexuality earlier in the article, which doesn't make sense taken out of context. Tomhormby (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Jim McCrery was featured in the same film and his article mentions the rumors. It seems even more important to this article since his orientation is rumored to have been the reason he was passed over for a leadership position. Tomhormby (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

All information has been scrubbed for now, for next time the discussion comes up here is a link so finding past sources is easier. Hopefully some development will make this all a passing concern, and his voting record can be seen in a clearer light. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Dreier. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081221042514/http://www.sos.ca.gov:80/elections/sov/2008_general/23_34_us_reps.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/23_34_us_reps.pdf

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: 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Dreier. 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/20100428062156/http://www.iri.org/learn-more-about-iri/board-directors-and-officers to http://www.iri.org/learn-more-about-iri/board-directors-and-officers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070725184700/http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Dreier. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/show/3965
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/about/trustees/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031222013810/http://www.dreier.house.gov/ to http://dreier.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) 20:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Dreier. 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/20120316202151/http://dreier.house.gov/releases/pr121610.shtml to http://dreier.house.gov/releases/pr121610.shtml

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) 01:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)