Talk:Ben Nelson

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

Factually Accurate? NPOV?[edit]

Describing Senator Nelson as only one of two pro-life Democrat in the Senate (along with Harry Reid)) is not factually accurate. Both of North Dakota's senators have ratings from the National Right to Life Committee that are as high as or higher than Senator Reid. Senator Kent Conrad has a rating of 55% and Senator Byron Dorgan has a rating of 64%. This phrase needs to be changed, or should be removed.

Also, the phrase “...whose voting record reflects a lack of support for a woman's right to choose...” seems to be not meeting NPOV and is unnecessarily long. Perhaps it should read, “...whose voting record is pro-life.” This would seem to be more on neutral ground.

Removed the claim that Nelson "opposes most gun control laws". This is simply untrue -- he has had a consistent 'F' rating from the Gun Owners of America throughout his entire tenure. -- User:Spock 29 March, 2006 1222 (UCT)

I suggest deleting the speculative statement "all of which are conservative-leaning groups that would, in all likelihood, support Republicans elsewhere but for Nelson's conservative record" unless someone can rephrase it so that it is something like "all of which support Republicans most of the time" with proper citation. Alienmercy 11:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Democrats never held a filibuster proof majority. Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman caucused with the Democrats. Sanders was reliable but Lieberman endorsed John McCain for president in 2008 and was nearly the Republican running mate.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.147.52 (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His popularity rating[edit]

To call him the "most popular senator in the country" based on his popularity among his own constituents is somewhat misleading. Perhaps a different phrasing to the effect is in order, since he would likely not be the most popular senator in the country if a poll were conducted of all Americans. 70.174.143.168 (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)jonesgp1996[reply]


Also, is it really accurate to be using a poll that is potentially almost 4 years old? And i also disagree with the use of "Survey USA", wiki should use more reliable surveys/polls like Gallup, CBS News, Rasmussen, or Quinnipiac. Often times smaller survey groups dont have large groups that offer a diverse enough opinion. I would also have to think that his approval numbers have dropped drastically after accepting a sweetheart deal this week. 136.160.191.18 (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions and votes[edit]

Rather than beginning this section with a series of subsections, each covering a particular issue, we should open with a general introductory paragraph on his position on the liberal-conservative-otherwise chart. That would be a good place to put things like his ACU and ADA ratings. Some of the information currently in the "Other votes" subsection could go up there.

I reverted an edit in the lede that changed "conservative Democrat" to "moderate Democrat": the Conservative Democrat article defines the creature as one who's conservative relative to the party, not conservative in terms of U.S. politics as a whole.

--Ammodramus (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. That's a good point, but unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't appear to be consistent on this point. A bit of research shows that Democrats with moderate (or even leftist) ACU/ADA scores are frequently referred to as "conservative," while Republicans with similar scores seem to be invariably referred to as "moderate." For example:
Nelson - "conservative" per Wikipedia - 47.26 career from ACU, 52.8 from ADA (as of 2005)
Mary Landrieu - "conservative" (though in context used relative to Dem party) - 23.2 ACU, 81.3 ADA as of 2005
Jason Altmire - "conservative" per Wikipedia - 26 ACU, 80 ADA for 2008
John Spratt - "moderate to conservative" - 23.96 ACU, 85 ADA for 2008
Olympia Snowe - "moderate" per Wikipedia - 47.88 ACU, 44.8 ADA as of 2005
Susan Collins - "moderate" per Wikipedia - 49.55 ACU, 39.4 ADA as of 2005
Lincoln Chaffee - "moderate" per Wikipedia - 37 ACU, 59.6 ADA as of 2005
While this may possibly be reflective of media reporting, it's inaccurate, inconsistent, and certainly smacks of POV. And that's without getting into entries that exclusively use quotes calling (like Evan Bayh's) and/or give positions listing (like Kent Conrad's) the person in question as "moderate" and/or "conservative" when the objective measures show otherwise. Consistency would dictate that if Nelson is a called a conservative because of his position relative to the bulk of his party, someone like Snowe should be spoken of as a liberal; likewise, if Altmire is a "conservative," John McCain (81.43 ACU, 15.6 ADA - trending leftward for the past decade) should be referred to as a "liberal" to be consistent.
This looks like a bigger problem than just the Nelson entry. Pending discussion of the broader point, I've removed the offending passage from the overview, since Nelson's relative conservatism is already described in the "Political positions and votes"/"Other votes" area. I'm not sure how to bring the wider discussion before the entire Wikipedia community from here, though.
(BTW, the lifetime ratings for ADA I found were only through 2005; looks like they no longer provide them since, and I couldn't find them for any Representatives.) Jdb1972 (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've got a point. While I don't generally give a sympathetic ear to conservative complaints about the "liberal media", it seems to be a fact that left-of-the-party R's tend to be described as "moderate"; right-of-the-party D's tend to be described as "conservative".
Nelson's position should be described in the lede, since it's one of his more noteworthy aspects. Perhaps we should state explicitly that Nelson's positions tend to be to the right of his party, citing ADA and ACU ratings; or we could cite his incidence of voting against the party's majority (available through the Washington Post:[1]. In the latter case, we should be sure to note the means and extremes for each party: in the 110th Congress, for example, Nelson disagreed with his party's majority more than any other Democrat, only voting with the party majority 81.2% of the time. Or we could use the National Journal ratings, which can be found at Project Vote Smart.
The lede should not include such unremarkable facts as Nelson's being a Methodist; and I don't think that his popularity in his own state really belongs there, either.
Try Project Vote Smart ([2]) for more recent ADA ratings, and for Representatives. At the main page, there's a bar on the left with a heading "Basic Categories". Click on "Interest Group Ratings". Pick the state, then follow your nose through a couple of other pages until you hit a page where you can click on the name of the congressman you're interested in. You can then scroll down the page; or you can pick a category off the drop-down menu below "Pick an issue". ADA ratings are under "Liberal" in that menu. National Journal ratings are under both "Conservative" and "Liberal". The NJ ratings also seem useful because they classify liberal/conservative on three issue classes: social, economic, and foreign policy.
I also think you've got a good point about WP articles generally. I've outlined a scheme for describing congressmen's positions at Talk:Bill Nelson, which article I'm currently working on; and I think it'd be an excellent thing if editors of WP articles on congressmen came to a consensus on something like that. Not only would consistency be a good thing generally; but having an agreed-upon skeleton for articles on politicians' positions would provide a pretext for deleting stuff by people who sign on only so that they can insert a misspelt sentence or two about their particular pet issues. Like you, I'm not sure how to bring it to the attention of WP editors generally.
--Ammodramus (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intro Issues[edit]

1. Having the sentence "Nelson is a Methodist." as the second sentence in the intro paragraph is inappropriate for a supposedly religion-neutral US political landscape today. It is also awkward prose.

It could be fit in as a phrase somewhere towards the end of the intro: "A Methodist and [something something], Nelson...", or should go in a personal life section later.

2. For international readers it does need to be explained somehow in the intro that "Earl" is his given name and not an aristocratic title.

Perhaps a footnote on "Earl[1]", or making "Earl" a link to an article about the US given name would work.

3. Citing "Josh Kraushaar" by name as a pundit is promotional for Mr. Kraushaar and gives his personal views an aggrandized appearance of institutional importance.

At a bare minimum, it would have to read "Blogger Josh Kraushaar...", but such name-dropping should really be reserved only for extremely prominent public figures whose very opinions are news themselves. ("President Obama himself has said that...").

Make the sentence: "Commentators have suggested that the reason for this drop is his decision to cast the 60th, deciding vote for cloture on healthcare reform legislation.[2]" It's the footnote that answers the WIkipedia question "who said that", not inappropriate body copy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.170.32 (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be any objections to deleting the last paragraph of the lead section (the one with the 2006 popularity-survey results, and the post-health-care-cloture edit)? I question whether the original fact of his popularity is important enough for the article, let alone important enough for the initial section. Moreover, it seems to draw a lot of edits from people eager to explain that Nelson is no longer at all popular in Nebraska, edits that are often not especially NPOV and that I'd also be inclined to delete on grounds of recentism. If no article-watchers object over the next week or so, I'll do the be-bold thing and excise the paragraph.
--Ammodramus (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Rotating IPs[edit]

I'm not sure if this is article-specific or global, but there are a bunch of rotating IP addresses that are blocked even for leaving comments here.

This is utterly pointless for vandals who will just change IP as soon as they get blocked -- and exceedingly annoying for people trying to do something useful.

If it needs to be done for a situation of a presently-ongoing attack, this should be like a 6-hour block that times out automatically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.170.32 (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States War Bonds Act of 2009[edit]

Should there be any reference to the recently introduced 'United States War Bonds Act of 2009' [3]? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 00:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say: let's watch the issue and see if it goes anywhere first. If the measure's not pushed and all it does is generate a few days' worth of chatter in the blogosphere, then we can safely ignore it.
--Ammodramus (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. If/when it gains more traction, I think it would be noteworthy enough to include a sentence or two about the legislation. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 21:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His legacy[edit]

It appears that Nelson's legacy will be the Cornhusker Kickback. He has been a major player on the topic of health care reform and this is not even part of his page. As with much of Wikipedia, Nelson's page appears to be little more than propaganda. Nelson has been out there campaigning to save his job since he clearly is out of touch with the will of Nebraskans. It is probable that he will lose his seat in 2012 over his votes on this issue. So is this information being censored for pure political reasons, or how could any thinking person possibly justify the blackout of Nelson's legacy issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.206.101 (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issues[edit]

This article has a number of NPOV issues that need to be addressed. Nearly every section that describes his political positions or voting record at governor or Senator gushes about the good each vote accomplished. This is a clear violation of WP:Puffery. StraussHeat (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you on a number of sections. However, I don't see major NPOV problems with the section "Cooperation with Republicans", which you deleted. It badly needs citations, and I've given it a title more descriptive of the contents ("Judicial nominations"). If you still think it ought to be taken out, could you elaborate on the problems that need to be fixed? Thanks. Ammodramus (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for citations for the piece. In the mean time, I'll go through and pick out NPOV statements and list them here for discussion. StraussHeat (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 2:

  • "During his tenure, Nelson cut spending from the previous administration by 64% while it was scheduled to rise by 13%.[7] He introduced legislation to cut crime through the Safe Streets Act and Juvenile Crime Bill, advocated for low-income families through the Kids Connection health care system, and enacted welfare reforms. He also cut taxes for over 400,000 middle income families in Nebraska.[6]"
  • "As governor, Nelson took some conservative stances on issues in right-leaning Nebraska. He pushed welfare reform before it was done at a national level and opposed President Bill Clinton's efforts on health care.[8]"


The article seems to overemphasize his cooperation with conservatives or at least his conservative bent. I don't doubt that it exists, but the overemphasis makes it read like a campaign add instead of a wiki article. There are a number of other examples in the section on his political positions/ votes. StraussHeat (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry—I'm afraid I didn't explain myself clearly. I agree with you on these passages, and agree that there are similar problems with many others. However, you specifically cut the two-paragraph subsection now titled "Judicial nominations" (which, at the time of your edit, was titled "Cooperation with Republicans"). Apart from a lousy title, which I've tried to fix, I don't see NPOV problems with that subsection.
The article's also poorly organized: a consequence, I think, of lots of editors sticking in a paragraph or six about their pet issues without regard to the flow of the article as a whole. The "Governor" subsection is particularly bad; it bounces from 1990 to 1994 to 1991 and back to 1990. I'd personally favor deleting the whole subsection and rewriting it from the ground up, with due attention to both chronological organization and NPOV. Unfortunately, researching for such a rewrite would take a very large chunk of time, which I don't have in great abundance right now. We'd need to cover the 1990 election, major issues of the first term, the 1994 election, major issues of the second term, and the 1996 run against Hagel. Since I don't think that the subsection's really capable of incremental improvement, it'd probably be best to rewrite it in userspace and then paste a complete new version in place of the old one.
--Ammodramus (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cornhusker Kickback[edit]

The section on his health care vote contains a discussion of the "corn-husker kickback." Given the magnitude of it, shouldn't it be its own subsection under healthcare? StraussHeat (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I must disagree; and I've reverted the edit that split off the subsection.
Of the six paragraphs in the new subsection, only two had anything to do with the CK. Using it for the subsection title would thus be misleading.
The phrase "Cornhusker Kickback" is associated with a particular viewpoint on the health-care bill. A Nelson proponent might argue, with equal justification, that the discussion be titled "Unfunded federal mandates" or the like, since Nelson claimed that he was motivated by opposition thereto. Using the phrase as a title, even in quote-marks, seems like a departure from NPOV.
It seems unlikely that the vast majority of those who derided the CK would have approved of Nelson's vote had the measure not included the Nebraska Medicaid provision. Certainly, it seems improbable that the dive in Nelson's approval rating among Nebraskans would not have taken place had he voted for the health-care measure without the CK. The CK offered an avenue for opponents of the measure to attack Nelson and the bill; but had there been no CK, they'd have found something else.
I think that the article as it stands places the right degree of emphasis on the CK. We use the phrase, and by including Heineman's opposition we show that dislike of the provision wasn't limited to people outside Nebraska. On the other hand, we include a brief account of Nelson's argument for it.
In my edit, I also reverted the addition of a bit about Nelson's TV commercial during a football game. That seems like an unnecessary detail in a section that's already running long.

--Ammodramus (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably right. What would you think about removing this section of one of the paragraphs:

"With the victory of Republican Scott Brown in the special election to fill the Senate seat vacated by the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority. Since Brown had declared himself opposed to the health-care measure, the party's leadership opted to enact the legislation through the budget reconciliation process.[42]"

This is wordy and I'm not sure that it even belongs here. It should suffice to say that he voted against the final bill . . . and his vote was less controversial. Also, instead of listing the counterpoints of right-to-life organizations, wouldn't something from the CBO about the kickback be more appropriate. We could also include Nelson's response to the CBOs numbers and other criticisms. StraussHeat (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need something about Brown and the reconciliation process; had it not been for that, the measure would've had to go through conference, and then the conference bill voted on, which would've offered an opportunity for a second filibuster, which would've forced Nelson to cast a second vote on cloture. If we leave out that business, it might look like Nelson voted for cloture on the bill, then voted against the identical measure, which might seem strange to the reader. (If you recall, when Brown was elected there was some hope that it spelled curtains for the measure, because the supporters wouldn't have been able to break that second filibuster, and they surely wouldn't fly in the face of the public's clearly-expressed will by using the reconciliation process...)
I think we need the pro-life counterpoint, since Nelson claimed that he'd withheld his support until the measure was amended to ensure that no federal funds, mandated premiums, etc., would be used to finance abortions. If we leave out abortion altogether, then we leave out a major point that Nelson used to justify his vote; and if we leave out the NebRL statement, we present Nelson's argument but not the opposition response.
Nelson's vote against the final measure wasn't critical, but neither was it uncontroversial. Nelnet's been a major contributor to Nelson, and it's been suggested by Nelson's opponents that he's been very willing to repay them for their contributions. I was actually sailing a little close to the wind when I included the mention of Nelnet, which is why I hung two citations on it— although Nelson didn't mention Nelnet in declaring his principled support for the free market in the federally-guaranteed-student-loan business, both the World-Herald and the Journal-Star brought it up in their news sections. I was trying to keep the paragraph short, while bringing in Nelnet in a reasonably NPOV way; I didn't think it would be right to leave it out, and I didn't want to lengthen the paragraph by bringing in the two opposing views: "Nelson once again shows that he's Nelnet's poodle" vs. "Federally guaranteed loans should be made by the free market."
I think you may be overestimating the importance of the CK. It made a convenient club for the measure's opponents to beat Nelson with; but I think that very few people who opposed the measure would've supported it had it not been for the CK; and I don't think that most of those who condemned Nelson for his vote were also praising Kennedy and Schumer and Reid and the like for their principled, un-bought votes in favor of the measure. Certainly that's true in Nebraska; as much as I regret to say it of my fellow Cornhuskerstanis, they're not at all opposed to increasing other people's taxes in order to provide goodies for Nebraska and Nebraskans. Nelson's plunge in popularity was, I think due to opposition to the basic idea of the health-care bill, and not because they were ashamed of a senator who tried to steer taxpayer cash their way.
--Ammodramus (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ben Nelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ben Nelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ben Nelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Ben Nelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ben Nelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Nelson&oldid=1207148571"