This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
I want to draw attention to the Controversies section and ask the opinion of other editors as to its format and content. The paragraph discusses Hobson’s mentioning in a Wall Street Journal article related to overseas trips by members of Congress. The article is worthy of mention, but a sentence was included in the article speculating that Hobson’s actions may have violated congressional ethics rules and perhaps federal law. The article, which is more than 15 years old, did say that. Question for other editors is whether that reference should be removed from the article since Hobson was never reprimanded for ethics concerns and did not face legal charges. It seems to me that should matter since so much time has passed. The speculation in the article appears to have been incorrect, although WSJ is certainly a reliable source. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having not heard from other editors on this matter, I have changed the language to better address the above concerns. The new language reads:
Because House rules prohibit members from accepting any gifts worth $50 or more, the article cited the opinions of “experts” on congressional ethics who speculated that the trip may have violated House rules and possibly federal law. However, no legal or ethics charges were brought forward and no impropriety was alleged by either legal or congressional ethics officials. Go4thProsper (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
