Talk:John Ratcliffe (American politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Omar Ahmad (American politician) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Official photo

Okay I'm a bit confused. File:John Ratcliffe official congressional photo.jpg appears to be the standard official photo, sitting in front of the flag. But his website does present File:Congressman_John_Lee_Ratcliffe.jpg as his photo, but its odd as I don't think I've ever seen an official portrait taken in what appears to be halls of Congress. Did he just not like the first one? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Noting Nov 11 2017 Questioning of Attorney General Jeff Session

Good material for article, awaiting transcript. --Wikipietime (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Ratcliffe (American politician). 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/20140529085010/http://www.ashcroftgroupllc.com/ourteam/john-ratcliffe/ to http://www.ashcroftgroupllc.com/ourteam/john-ratcliffe/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Huge puffery

How did this happen? Wikipietime (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Second sentence second paragraph needs removed Justtoimprovewikipeida (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination to DNI post: no citation

Pls remove or I will--add citation. I've found 3 different dates re this event on 3 different wiki pages referencing Ratcliffe Coats or DNI. Stemgal92 (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Nominee?

In the infobox we have him listed as "Director of National Intelligence (nominee)". Actually he hasn't been formally nominated yet, and in fact Coats is still the DNI. I think we should remove this from the infobox until his nomination is actually submitted to Congress. Many an "intended nominee" per Twitter never actually makes it to the nomination process. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, I agree. I believe the same thing happened with Patrick Shanahan as "nominee" at the Department of Defense. I don't believe his nomination was ever formally submitted to the Senate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Should we remove that from the infobox and restore his actual current position as Representative? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC) @Muboshgu: forgot to ping. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, I think so. Don't know what others think. How do we find out if the nomination is actually submitted to Congress? (BTW don't worry about the ping, this article has been on my watchlist since I created it.) – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove it. When his name is submitted, there will be news articles saying so. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Will there be? Reading the news articles, the press is talking about it as though it was already submitted, which is doubtful. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

A few news reports (even CNN) are sloppily saying Trump "nominates" him. But most are saying "to be nominated" or "will nominate". Some are avoiding "nominate" by saying "picked" or "tapped".[1] The official nomination will definitely generate new reports. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

And now it's a non-nomination. How do we describe this? Jonathunder (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems even he says he was not formally nominated, Trump "intended to nominate" him.[2] So I guess this doesn't belong on Unsuccessful nominations to the Cabinet of the United States? Unclear. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Opinion Statement imbedded on certain platforms

Thank you! Sorry to bother you guys. 2601:603:4F00:73F7:3534:C6AF:461F:6468 (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't see it anymore because the vandalism was quickly reverted. If you still do, try clearing and reloading the page. Jonathunder (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2019

Fact-check.org and politifact are not objective or truthful organizations. Citing to them as "proof" of a fact - such as that Mueller "had to" describe his decision not to prosecute in the report - is nonsense. Same with citing to them regarding the start of the "muh Russia" investigation. There is ample evidence that the phony, Hillary Clinton paid for Steele Dossier (which, by the way, was the Clinton campaign using foreigners to try and influence the election) was the basis for the "muh Russia" witchhunt. 96.35.58.242 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have a problem with FactCheck or Politifact, take it to WP:RSN and get them listed as unreliable at WP:RSP. starship.paint (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Be wary of Ratcliffe's own claims of his career

Multiple RS[3][4] (see also this[5]) have now covered how Ratcliffe has exaggerated accomplishments. This coupled with lies about the Russia probe indicates that any self-sourced claims or statements made by this individual should be taken with a grain of salt. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This may be POV

The section about the Russian probe contains the sentence, Trump was reportedly impressed by Ratcliffe's aggressive questioning of Robert Mueller during House testimony days before Trump chose him to be DNI, despite the underlying premise of Ratcliffe's questioning being found incorrect.[53][54][55] I find the last half of the sentence to be argumentative/POV, as well as irrelevant to the first part of the sentence. Trump was impressed, period. Trump didn't care if the underlying premise was correct or not. I noticed this because User:Manyoki removed it and User:Muboshgu restored it. Let's discuss it. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, I was mostly objecting to the blanking without an explanation. I did see that there's a fact check there in the citations. Perhaps it is POV.– Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

There is definitely a fact check. But it struck me as kind of synthesis - combining "Trump liked his questioning" with "but it wasn't true". Hmmm.... I see that all three references are for the "not true" part rather than the "Trump liked it" part. One of the references is a tweet - from Neal Katyal, a recognized authority, but still, opinion and primary. I'm going to leave the info in for now, but I'll remove that reference and give some thought to adding something about Trump. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, well, I did a reorganization of the section. The "it was false" statement had been redundantly reported in two paragraphs; I combined them. I added a source for Trump being impressed with Ratcliffe's performance. I left in the Katyal reference after all, since it is so pertinent. I'm happy with it now. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, great work, as always. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Mayor of Heath Texas appears to be an **unpaid** position

Looking at page 12 of the city's budget document for fiscal year 2012-2013, at http://www.heathtx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/AnnualBudget2012_2013.pdf , there are no salary or stipends budgeted for the City Council, which appears to include costs related to the Mayor.

I don't think it's unusual in a small city like Health, which has a full-time City Manager, for the elected city council members, including the Mayor, to receive no pay. But I'd like to get a (reliable) source that says that Heath doesn't pay the members of its council before stating, in this article, that Ratcliffe was an unpaid elected official of the city. Could someone help on this? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Why does it matter? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Some mayors have a lot of responsibility; unpaid mayors typically don't. I realize that this has little to do with the nomination for DNI, the current focus of discussion for this article, but I'm trying to build a fuller picture of Ratcliffe's life experience prior to getting to Congress. I think the article could benefit by a sentence or that gives a better sense of the scope of his mayoralty. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Again why does this matter? Many political careers begin with unpaid service. Seki1949 (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Unless some Reliable Source has reported it and made an issue of it, we should not say anything about it. We are not supposed to do original research; as an encyclopedia we report only what has been published in Reliable Sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

My question, in fact, was asking for a reliable source; no one commenting here, including myself, was proposing to do original research.

As for not being able to mention something unless a reliable source has "made an issue of it", that's incorrect. That isn't part of any Wikipedia policy or guideline because if it were, we wouldn't be able to include date of birth, colleges attended, dates graduated, etc., etc., in Wikipedia articles unless somehow those were controversial. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sue Gordon papagraph I just added

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Ratcliffe_(American_politician)&diff=908638584&oldid=908633424

I reckon readers will come to Ratcliffe's BLP to learn about all the issues surrounding his selection, but in the long view maybe that paragraph won't belong here. What do you think? soibangla (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you are right: it doesn't belong here. It could go in her article; it's speculation, but it's sourced speculation. But it really has nothing to do with Ratcliffe. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

That Ratcliffe (I think) has promised a clean sweep of upper management of DNI [citation needed] is relevant, if true, as would commentary (preferably by neutral or Republican experts) about the desirability of that. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like the kind of thing that would be brought up at his confirmation hearing. If he actually does get nominated, we will have a subsection on his hearing. For now, as I said below, I think we should eliminate virtually all of the commentary and second-guessing currently in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe there is abundant factual information about him for influential people to have a view on him and to warrant inclusion of reactions to his selection, there is no reason to wait for his hearings. soibangla (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

NPOV violation Director of National Intelligence nomination

The section on John Ratcliffe as a potential nominee for Director of Intelligence is a disgrace for a supposed encyclopedia. It is a hatchet piece that belongs in a different medium. There is no attempt at balance at all. No one, anywhere, at anytime has a good word to about a three term congressman on House Intelligence and Homeland Security Committee? Let's work toward a good faith revision or replacement of the appropriate sections. I'll try to post possible revisions in the next few days. Comments? Seki1949 (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we have way, way too much commentary about his prospective nomination to be DNI. IMO we should eliminate virtually all of the individual comments, maybe leaving a sentence or two summarizing. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I would oppose that. soibangla (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN (talk) makes a good point. There is way, way too much comments that basically repeat the same viewpoint over and over again. Most of it is redundant and repetitive and unnecessary. It needs to be trimmed down to the basics and that's all.CharlesShirley (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I would appreciate the discussion of alternative language before any changes are made. soibangla (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. But language is only part of the problem. I'm talking about redundant, repetitive, unnecessary info in the article which needs to be trimmed down. The existence of this stuff makes the article poor. It does not look and sound neutral. For example, in the Russia probe section there is this sentence: "Trump was reportedly impressed by Ratcliffe's aggressive questioning of Mueller, which some sources described as Ratcliffe's "audition" to be named DNI.[63]" But at the same time in the article, in the Selection to be Director of National Intelligence section, the article states: "Democratic senator Ron Wyden, a member of the Intelligence Committee, stated, "The sum total of his qualifications appears to be his record of promoting Donald Trump's conspiracy theories about the investigation into Russian interference and calling for prosecution of Trump’s political enemies."[46][47" And also, in the same section, the article states: "Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that Ratcliffe was nominated because of "blind loyalty" to Trump, as exhibited during Ratcliffe's "demagogic questioning" of former special counsel Robert Mueller.[40]" These are three different long sentences that say the same thing, in in a different manner from three different partisan sources. This is an example of something that can be trimmed down to one short sentence without all of the hyperbole. Hyperbole? Yes. Wyden's Intel Comm assignment is not necessary. Schumer's ML status in unnecessary. Repeating the same basic information from three different partisan sources is basically beating a dead horse and it is not NPOV.--CharlesShirley (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, you've told us what you don't like, can you tell us what you would like instead? Can you find an individual who has leapt to his feet to applaud Ratcliffe? The overwhelming preponderance of evidence indicates he was selected for his "qualifications" as a Trump loyalist, so it should not be surprising the article reflects that overwhelming consensus. Sometimes the perception of unfair bias is actually a reflection of reality. soibangla (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, you have edited your intital comments. Your original comment just focused on some idea that you have that editors have been asking for people who have jumped to their feet to applaud Ratcliffe. This never happened. It was you that made that claim. You just added the "preponderance of evidence" comment. So I will respond to that. Yes, the article does have a huge amount of people who said the same thing over and over again. You are right. You are making my point. The article is crammed full of statements that repeat and repeat and repeat the same notion over and over again. If the article had 40 people that said Ratcliffe said we believe Ratcliffe is unqualified that number, 40, doesn't prove anything other than the article is crammed full of the same POV from 40 different people, the vast majority of which are probably Democrats or career intel people. Thank you for making my point for me.--CharlesShirley (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I did not alter my initial comments. soibangla (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, so you miss the point. I focused completely on redundant, repetitive information. I never commented about people who "leapt to his feet to applaud Ratcliffe". That is your thing, not my thing. The redundant, repetitive (the piling on) needs to be trimmed down and summarized.CharlesShirley (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You also addressed neutrality and POV soibangla (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no attempt at balance at all I encourage you and everyone else to find content that portrays Ratcliffe in a positive light. I've looked, but I don't find much, and I don't see others adding much, either. Maybe it doesn't exist? soibangla (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Seki1949: There is no attempt at balance at all - please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. starship.paint (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

I have expressed opposition to extensive, repetitive quoting of reactions to his (proposed, not yet actual, let's keep in mind) (heh, told you so! -- MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)) nomination as DNI. Soibangla has asked to see what a shortened and more neutral summary would look like. Here's my thought: The last two paragraphs are dedicated to quoting people. The next-to-last paragraph, after an introductory sentence, quotes two Republican congressmembers praising him and two Democratic congressmembers criticizing him. IMO that could and should be reduced to a summary, such as the following (references to be retained):

Democrats asserted Ratcliffe was unqualified and too partisan to serve in such a role, considered among the most nonpartisan in the federal government, and some Republicans also privately expressed discontent with his selection and concerns about his ability to be confirmed.[42][43] Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, without naming Ratcliffe, commented that "The U.S. intelligence community works best when it is led by professionals who protect its work from political or analytical bias and who deliver unvarnished hard truths to political leaders in both the executive and legislative branches."(add this reference.) However, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr and Senator John Cornyn expressed confidence in him.[44][45] Democratic senators including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Ron Wyden, a member of the Intelligence Committee, said that Radcliffe’s only qualification for the office appeared to be "blind loyalty" to Trump, including promotion of some of Trump’s conspiracy theories about the the Russia investigation and calls for prosecution of Trump’s political enemies.[46][47][40]

The last paragraph is dedicated to concerns from the intelligence community. It says they are "current and former officials." but actually all of the people quoted are "former". I don’t think it is necessary to name them all and quote each one individually. Their comments could be summarized as follows:

Several former members of the intelligence community expressed concerns that Ratcliffe's appointment risked politicizing intelligence work.[41]48] They expressed fear that with Ratcliffe as DNI, Trump would be assuming personal control over the intelligence community, which would be expected to tell him what he wants to hear.[41][49][50] They stressed the need for intelligence to be "candid, truthful and accurate even if it is unpleasant and does not confirm to the biases of the president".[51]

I would also suggest combining these into a single paragraph of reactions. Comments? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds great. I support your proposal.CharlesShirley (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Supported. Good work MelanieN! starship.paint (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, done. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2019

An entry in the section pasted below is incorrect. John Ratcliffe graduated from Carbondale Community High School in 1983 - not 1984.

Early life and education

Born in Mount Prospect, Illinois, northwest of Chicago, Ratcliffe was the youngest of six children; both of his parents were teachers.[10][11] He graduated from Carbondale Community High School in Carbondale, Illinois, in 1984; the University of Notre Dame in 1987 with a Bachelor of Arts in Government and International Studies; and the Southern Methodist University School of Law (now Dedman School of Law) with a Juris Doctor in 1989.[12][13] Birdysauce (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Do you have any reference to show when he graduated? The existing references did not say, and a third reference I just now added shows his graduation dates from college but not high school. I have deleted the date for high school. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

not a withdrawn nomination

I question the addition of the category "Rejected or withdrawn nominees to the United States Executive Cabinet" to this article. He was never a nominee. We shouldn't have that category at Patrick M. Shanahan either since he withdrew from consideration before his name was formally submitted. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

agreed. removed. both articles. starship.paint (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Washington Post quote

For the record: User:Webmgr recently added the following quote:

John Ratcliffe has been up to no good — undertaking the most blatant and egregious politicization of intelligence that we, two career intelligence officers, have ever seen.

— Michael Morell and Mike Vickers WP

I reverted it because of WP:NEWSSTYLE. However, feel free to add a content back when it's rewritten to avoid the problem. --Nullzero (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Imagine that - Career intelligence officers don't like change. Oh, the Horror! Quoting the resistance of the intelligence community to any change is not much proof of anything Seki1949 (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)