Talk:Thomas Massie

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021

Change profile photo to his nice new family Xmas photo to reflect the most recent reality.

https://www.reddit.com/r/HolUp/comments/r8xubt/christmas_photo_of_us_house_of_representatives/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf SeriouslywtfUSA (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Such a great human SeriouslywtfUSA (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The photo needs to have a compatible license. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@SeriouslywtfUSA Sadly some don't see that photo and its message as negative. --Ordinarymatter (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Ordinarymatter, ScottishFinnishRadish was quite clear that the content of the image wasn't the issue, merely that the image does not have the correct copyright licensing for Wikipedia. Curbon7 (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Curbon7 I didn't criticize ScottishFinnishRadish for his reply. And I didn't imply that he's pro-gun. I assumed that SeriouslywtfUSA is for more gun control and relayed to SeriouslywtfUSA that the effect of this photo could be counter-productive. --Ordinarymatter (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

For gun control it is much better to pay attention to the words: "Merry Christmas! 🎄 ps. Santa, please bring ammo."[1] Because even those who don't have a problem with guns do have a problem with Santa, please bring ammo. --Ordinarymatter (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Proof: [2] --Ordinarymatter (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Curbon7 Regarding your recent edit: I'm OK with a reset to the version of ScottishFinnishRadish (or my following version) when you get the point that my post was in no way against ScottishFinnishRadish.--Ordinarymatter (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding ...talk pages are not forums to praise/criticize what a politician does...: This issue is not about a personal misstep, it is about a main faultline in U.S. politics. In my previous post I cited the twitter reply from Adam Kinzinger a fellow Republican. And I think that even most of those Republicans who are against Adam Kinzinger are only pro-gun due to the necessities of an imperfect world.--Ordinarymatter (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Massie best known for Xmas firearms message

An editor has sought to downplay the significance of Massie's statement of december 2021, deleting it from the introduction, consigning it to one sentence under "personal". This is clearly not a mere personal matter: it was a message to all, a public act, but a politician. By virtue of both national and global coverage, this is now plainly what he's best known for and, indeed for most, the only thing he's known for. That makes it appropriate to the introduction. Discussion by editors would be helpful, I think. Dreamwoven (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

To me, it sticks out like a sore thumb when I read the intro section as something that doesn't belong there. He's had a 9 year career in the U.S. House and said/done a lot of controversial things. I would argue his actions to force Congress to convene during the early days of COVID-19 attracted more media attention and were much more consequential. I don't really think any of these things should be included in the intro section though. The main purpose of the intro section is to summarize what is in the body of the article.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Dreamwoven, this is WP:RECENTISM, pure and simple. He is not "best known" for that picture. It is not significant enough for the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Xinjiang vote

Thomas Massie was the only member of the house to vote against blocking imports from forced labor in Xinjiang, that seems pretty notable (https://www.cbs58.com/news/house-passes-bill-blocking-imports-of-products-produced-by-forced-labor-in-chinas-xinjiang-region)

Could this be added to the article somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:88:300:E180:181E:F290:E60C:7E3B (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Twitter Christmas photo

An IP editor recently removed a paragraph describing Massie's 2021 Christmas message which they described as "irrelevant information that did not fit the context of the article subheading". This seems to me quite likely to be relevant, given that it received national media attention, and if it doesn't fit under the "Personal life" header this is a problem that's easily solved. Sources in addition to the two previously cited could be added, e.g. The Guardian, BBC, NBC, NPR. I'd be interested to know what others think. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a family photo he shared so seems appropriate for the "Personal life" section. I went ahead and restored it.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

2023 Israeli voting

The bill was about equating antizionism with antisemitism, so that people could be punish for practicing it. It definantely was not about "Israeli right to exist". 195.164.141.186 (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: how Massie voted in the first impeachment of U.S. president Donald Trump and the second impeachment of U.S. president Donald Trump. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Why would that matter? Dimadick (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose splitting Thomas Massie into Thomas Massie and Political positions of Thomas Massie. The Political positions section has 15 subsections, and comprises 44.43% of the article. I believe the size of this section alone warrants a split; however, Massie's views and voting record also have a history of being unorthodox for a House Republican, which further warrants a separate article that can go into detail on his political positions. If agreed, I will do the split (but I wouldn't mind some help). — Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

From a size perspective, a split does seem logical. However, bear in mind that this article seems quite detailed for someone who sounds like a fairly minor political figure. That raises the spectre of editors questioning whether the split off section is sufficiently notable by itself, a concern that I share.

Also, care needs to be taken that it doesn't begin to read like an advertisement promoting the congressman, which articles like this frequently do precisely because they go into excessive detail about someone's accomplishments, beliefs, and personal life. I would need to reread it carefully to make sure of that, which I would prefer not to do as I'm not really that interested in this particular article or going to war over parts of it, but I was getting that impression by skimming it. It probably needs some trimming and a bit more neutrality even if it's not split, and if it is, these tasks will need to be done with each part. But there's no rush; let's see what other editors think. P Aculeius (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed down the "Political positions" section some and am thinking it is OK the way it is. To me it doesn't seem out of line with the length of a lot of other politicians' "Political positions" sections. I would really try to avoid the added complication of having an additional page unless it is really necessary. Because you know people are mostly going to want to edit the original page only because that is by far the one that gets the most views.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose, article is not overlong. There's a lot of tables, refs and other non-reading text. There is also areas that can be trimmed. Massie is not a minor political figure, by the way. Given that the only thing that matters about politicians is their political positions, removing that material from the article would be a disservice to the readers. Abductive (reasoning) 08:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

"* Oppose - Length does not meet criteria, see WP:SIZESPLIT (readable prose currently stands at 4966 words). To be frank, the items in the political positions subsection really seems scattershot. What the article needs more than splitting is good copyediting to make it coherent rather than a list of news items. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019

This Wikipedia article in the current state uses "escalation" but he used the words "escalating". I think it is also important to provide additional context that he agreed with 90% of the bill (starting 3:45 in source 71) and at that time claimed to have never voted for any tariffs, which is the primary reason for the sole "no" vote. Crazyboytony (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)