Talk:Evan Bayh/Archive 1

Archive 1

small confusion issue I don't have the means to correct:

" In the 2004 election he received more votes in Indiana than President Bush, a feat unheard of by a Democrat in a state as staunchly Republican as Indiana."

This can't possibly be right. What is this statement actually trying to say? Is it just an error, or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.124.165 (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement is referring to Indiana's vote for the senate race VS Indiana's vote for president. In the 2004 election, President Bush received 1,479,438 votes for President in the popular vote from Indiana voters while Evan Bayh received 1,496,976 votes in his senate bid against Marvin Scott.

The statement is trying to show that *typically* when a Presidential candidate wins the popular vote of a state by a large margin that the opposing party candidates at the state level generally lose or receive wins by much smaller margins.

This was not the case in Indiana in the 2004 Senate race. Evan Bayh, a Democrat, won by a very large margin. I see the confusion. Perhaps it should read, "He receieved more votes in Indiana for his senate election than George Bush receieved for President". Something along those lines.

Harmon1630 04:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sen Bayh did in fact receive more votes FOR SENATE than President Bush did FOR PRESIDENT. However, they clearly were not competing against each other.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.14.106 (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation

What is the exact pronounciation of his name? Bey or Baay?--Sina 09:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Bye." Ground 11:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it "Bye" or "BYE-ah"? Many news reporters have pronounced the name as "BYE-ah". --Lst27 (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm almost completely positive that his name's pronounced as "Bye," just as Ground said. I go to college in Indiana, and that's how everyone pronounces his name on campus. - RPH

OK. Thanks. --Lst27 (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I presume that the first syllable of his first name is pronounced as a short 'e', but, if not, it would be interesting to give the correct standard pronunciation. Thomasmeeks 01:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Law school

Evan Bayh's official congressional biography [1] lists his J.D. from Hoosier College. However the article indicates that he received a law degree from the University of Virginia in 1981. I will leave the text of the article as is for the moment, but intend to research this further. Potatoe 22:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I just finished extensive research on Evan Bayh, and he absolutely received his law degree from Virginia (He even delivered an address there recently). To add upon that, there is no such place as Hoosier College. I won't revert your edit though, as we'd all be better off if you continue your more thorough research to double check me. Craig R. Nielsen 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

From Bayh's website [2]: "Bayh was born in Shirkieville, Indiana. He graduated with honors in business economics from Indiana University in 1978, and received his law degree from the University of Virginia in 1981." I'll go ahead and switch it, though I'm still very curious about the Hoosier College ref. Potatoe 03:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Hoosier College reference may have been due to some confusion with the fact that the Indiana University athletic teams are known as Indiana Hoosiers and that Indiana is the Hoosier State. --Fenra 01:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hoosier College is more than likely a reference to Indiana University. According to the University of Virginia School of Law, Bayh graduated from UVa Law in 1981. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeman615 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes

Made some minor grammatical changes. Intro paragraph included: "...member of the Democratic Party, and recently has become widely considered a potential Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential election." Changed confusing sentence to: "...member of the Democratic Party, and has recently become considered a potential Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential election."--Djramey 14:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Source

In "Candidacy for National Office," is there a source for the last sentence? "Some viewed Bayh's shift as being an attempt to woo liberal Democrats who make up a large part of the presidential primary electorate." While this is inevitably true, I could just as easily write, "Some viewed Bayh's shift as an inevitable consequence of watching a failed administration grapple with a failed war." Point being, I think a source is needed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimathi (talk • contribs) 20:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio section removed.

I removed the "energy" section from focus issues - it was copied from this page. It does appear to be a "focus issue" for him though, so if someone with more knowledge of the subject could rewrite it in their own words, that would be excellent. -Elmer Clark 22:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Obvious that Bayh has been editing this

ok, i think it's pretty clear that evan bayh has been editing this, it might as well be a progadanda page for his presidential run

That seems like a questionable shot. Show examples please.Djramey 12:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the Senator himself would or has the time to edit his Wiki page.

-I have edited some of the material, which is clearly not neutral (see the history). And no, he's most likely not doing it himself, but he surely has (ahem) *helpers* who would be concerned about his bio on Wikipedia. As an example, let's see how long the abortion material stays as the first topic of the issues. 1diot 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, so far, it's still there. Hurrah for democracy! But there is still some editing needed, to get rid of the rosy picture of Bayh the magnificent. 1diot 20:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering AB comes before AG why wouldn't the abortion section come first? Durghhh.

Yes, it would come first, but it might be deleted by someone who does not want it there. Aarrgh.1diot 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

needs work

This article needs to be formatted correctly and cite its sources using the <ref> tags, and such. If there is a position, cite it. If there is a quote, cite it. If there is a reference, have some text to provide context, or remove it to the external links section. I'll try and help, but more experienced editors should help. Thanks. --198.185.18.207 20:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

congressional hearings via C-span

I have been watching C-span for quit a some time, espically the hearings and I am very angry and frustrated as to why the people who are under the gun to answer the questions that are asked of them by our elected officals (house and senate)are not held accountable to answer the question, instead, they do a lot of spin without out giving an answer or say they will get back to you on that.

When asked what is the consequnece of Iraq not meeting the benchmarks, the answer is always, we will evaulate and initiate a new plan. My question is "when do the new plans (which there have been many new plans in the last five years) cease and we can get our troops out of there. Iraq in nothing more than a money pit which corporate America is getting richer and we the (John Q public) public are getting poorer and poorer, because, the services which we (John Q public) have paid into are being are being cut of funds. In my opinion this government is being very successiful on the path of seeing that The United State of America is on the fast path of becoming a third world world country.

In watching C-span and the Sunday morning news shows, it is obvious to me that our elected officials do not care what their constituents thing only what they think, which tells me they (the elected officals) ate only self interested. I have yet to hear one of them say what their constituents want. Is that because they are un-aware or just don't give one iota? I think it is the latter.

I saw when wating the hearings that you asked pertantent questions, however, you allowed the person being asked the question to not answer the question at all, the only thing they said was something that was totaly unrelated to the question asked. I ask you what good does it do in the person (who is suppose to know the answer) not be accountabe to answer the question asked.

I can no longer say our political system works. In my view we are in a plutrocicy (a facist state) I can no longer say I am proud to be a United State citizen. I have lost just about all of my rights thank to the Patroit Act. I have NO represtation in my government (City, Township, County, State or Federal) all that is wanted from me is TAXES and more TAXES with NOTHING in return. Everything was once afforded to John Q (Social Security & Medicare) is having premium increased while deductable is being increased annually.

I am retired and do depend on Social Security (of which I have paid into for 55 years) Half of my monthly check goes for rent and utilities. My Medigap has gone up 11% annually as had the Part D. which has also gone up 10% while the deductible has gone up 12%. My car insurance has gone up 13%. As you can see where I am coming from.

If the elected officals are really interested in John Q public then why (since you have to be affluent event to run for office) don't you use your own money to pay for what ever average citizen pays. (I don't have someone to drive me from my home to office, free airfare, housing allowence, food allowence, free family trips, get $1000.00 a person to hear what I have to say, free parking space, office supplies, health care, pension plan {for ever} not to mention you staff and office space. These are all taxpays dollars being used. Why don't elected officals have to foot some of these costs.

Have you ever tried to raise two children by yourself on $17,000 annual income? Of course, most politions have no clue what it is like. Instead elected officals work with billions, millions, and trilions of dollars I don't think they have any clue what it is to work a budget consisting of $20, $50 and if you really lucky $100 bills monthly.

Well I guess I have vented enough for this time.

Have a good day.

–Jean Thornton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.115.31.114 (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

NPOV: Focus Issues

This section reads like a piece of campaign literature. Here's some examples of the wording:

As a member of the Small Business Committee, Senator Bayh has made more resources and tools available to Indiana's small businesses.

That's because these articles on politicians in Wikipedia are tracked by the politician's staff and constantly monitored. They well know that these articles are often the 1st place people look for info. Wikipedians have to remain diligent to these attempts to use wikipedia articles as virtual perpetual campaign literature. SimonATL (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

During his time in the Senate, Bayh has led efforts to combat the illegal trade practices of foreign countries, including China. Bayh’s bipartisan Stopping Overseas Subsidies (SOS) Act allows the United States to fully enforce its antisubsidy laws and increase the ability of U.S. companies to fight unfair trade.

The whole section reads like that and has links to positive articles. I think that serious NPOV work needs to be done there, as well as potentially removing the notable speeches section. Alethiareg (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bayh-Dole Act

I'm not sure what the Bayh-Dole Act has to do with the life or career of Sen. Evan Bayh. This might be more appropriate for the page devoted to his father, Sen. Birch Bayh. Just a thought.Jzk0ppqu (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Evan Bayh Introduced Legislation S. Res. 580 to Authorize an Act of War Against Iran: Blockading Them

I think his sponsorship of a bill that would encourage the blockading of Iran if they do not comply with our demands to stop uranium enrichment should be added to the article.

Blockades are known as acts of war. His sponsorship of this bill to authorize an act of war against Iran should be added to the article.

You can read up on S. Res. 580 here: [3] 72.209.12.250 (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Governor of Indiana

No information at all is better than information that is wholly positive. I will be bringing the knife to this section soon unless it is better cited or rewritten by someone knowledgeable. Slac speak up! 06:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Video game controversy

I see Bayh is listed on the Video Game Controversy portal there at the bottom, however the article itself makes no mention of what his role is in it? --Stalfur (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of apparent original research

Today, a new subsection, "controversy ... wife's corporate career" was created using material moved from the article (BLP) on the Senator's wife. The material was moved three weeks after being criticized for "coatracking" (see that article's talk page). Now, it has been noticed that the latter portion of the moved material may violate policy. I said it may represent original research. There may be merit to this, but I now think a more valid criticism is POV. I actually am unsure that the deleted material violates the spirit of these policies. I would be glad to have interested persons contribute their analysis.

The material started out quoting Evan Bayh that "I don't know the vast majority of the people who run my wife's companies." It then counters, "however, he knows Jeff Smulyan", a large contributor to his campaign funds. I have deleted that latter material because it seeks to refute the quoted claim made by Bayh. The two parts (the quote about not being influenced by his wife's business connections and the close relationship with Smulyan) were each reported, by the same reporter even; but the use of the latter to refute the former is not cited from a source. Thus the refutation seems to constitute OR and POV. Note that the wording of the latter is a cleaned up version of a blatantly POV sentence: Despite his statements, Sen. Bayh has certainly had contact with a few of his wife’s associations." This was wording inserted into the article on Susan Bayh. Hurmata (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Followup to my own preceding comment. I forgot to add that for Bayh to be well acquainted with one of "the people who run my wife's companies", namely, Jeff Smulyan, doesn't even logically contradict the original claim, which was that "I don't know the vast majority of [them]". Hurmata (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, lock the page?

I've seen this page change 3 times in the past 5 minutes saying he is the VP canidate, then he isn't, then removed. Maybe this page should be locked with all the fuss going on at the moment? --Bane1998 (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't edited the page, but he is the VP candidate. The company doing the printing for Obama's campaign accidentally released Obama-Bayh material early over the last hour or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.216.212 (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know the news, but there are possible explanations besides him being picked. Unlikely, but possible. And stickers being printed is hardly the source we should want for news like this. Not that it was sourced, anyway --131.107.0.105 (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The source of those bumper stickers isn't confirmed... they don't constitute proof of a presidential pick. So yeah, lock may be a good plan. -FlyingToaster (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

VP?

There is suddenly flury adding that Bayh is a VP for Obama. A quick scan of the news sites says nothing about this. Is there a source? Charles Edward 22:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, nothing on Obama's website. I am going to remove the info until a source can be provided. Charles Edward 22:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently they are already making the bumper stickers. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He's the pick - see CNN now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.104.111 (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC is reporting that neither Bayh nor Kaine will be Obama's number 2. Willking1979 (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that changed fast! Oops on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.104.111 (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Jewish? Episcopalian?

Articles references that he's Jewish but his categories include Episcopalian... what's up? Kushboy (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Definatly vandalism. A report on Dudge is stirring this up. Charles Edward 22:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page until an announcement that it is someone else is made, or if it is him, until things calm down. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems most appropriate. Probably should keep it protected for a day or two, until it's old news. No doubt there will be tons of vandals. Charles Edward 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect a certain mistake by whomever as intelligent as to manage to mistake John McCain for Barack Obama and Eric Cantor - who seems to indeed both be Jewish and a possible Veep-candidate - for Evan Bayh... next time check the tickets FIRST, guys... for reference purposes see: [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.114.155 (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View violations

Many recent edits to this article are now affecting its objectivity. In particular, information that might be construed as negative has been repeatedly removed.

Example:

Bayh has voted against confirming United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. He has also become increasingly critical of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, for which he voted.

Since recent news appears to indicate that Senator Bayh is actively contemplating a run for the Presidency, the removal of these relevant passages calls into question whether the article contains a Neutral Point of View. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpetersen46321 (talk • contribs) 21:16, June 25, 2006 (UTC)

I agree that information is worthy of being included, I was simply reverting because the mass reversion had written over some worthwhile edits that had happened in the middle (including pointing to the correct picture, etc.). Craig R. Nielsen 04:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing biased about it. His voting record is what it is. And as somebody looking for information on his policy stances, I think it is very much relevant to this article. --Anarchy45 16:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

--One is not arguing that Senator Evan Bayh's voting record is irrelavant. However, it is extremely brief, and for the sake of this article, it should include the REASONS that he voted in the way that he did. Simply to conspicuously and capriciously list the individuals that he has voted against confirming and to say that he's critical of a war in Iraq "for which he voted" is subliminally PARTIAL. If one wants to find information about Evan Bayh on Wikipedia, then I think it is incumbent upon those writing (these particular passages) to be more OBJECTIVE AND DETAILED.

--To the above editor, I invite you to provide this information if it can be done with a Neutral Point of View. Since these particular votes involve recent issues involving significant public discourse and controvery, their inclusion provides the reader with factual information of interest. Further, I suggest that to explain "WHY?" Senator Bayh votes as he does may go beyond the scope of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View objectives into the realm of partisanship. Once again, factual information regarding the Senator's voting record is valid and should be included whether you (the reader) happen to approve or disapprove of the results. Finally, please include caption and user information with further posts.Jpetersen46321

--In essence, you are doing noone a service by including the above... it explains Bayh's voting record, while failing to explain his reasons for voting in the manner that he did, which IS extremely important because it allows us to understand the CANDIDATE. This has nothing to do with "bias partisanship." Simply explaining why he voted in the way that he did allows the readers to understand how the candidate thinks and what he believes. Point being, I will no longer delete this excerpt (even though I have not been the only one to do so), but it's still written unprofessionally, and VAGUELY, (that is of course until it's fixed..)..Maverick20

--Please provide any gramatical and linguistic corrections that improve clarity. Further, since I do not know why Bayh voted as he did, if you can provide that information consonant with Wikipedia NPOV requirements, please do. Jpetersen46321

I would have to agree that the voting record is not biased just because it doesn't have the reasons behind each vote. However, it is potentially biased by which confirmation votes you select to include. If it does not include all confirmation votes, then they should be selected by relevancy (e.g. select the votes about people that are more prominent, or about people whose confirmation was more debated). Optimally we'd show all confirmation votes, and perhaps highlight the ones that outside sources deem relevant. I don't think it is inherently biased to include his said reasons for voting against these confirmations, however, this page is sorely lacking criticism of Bayh. It is likely that some people don't like him, and we should balance the page by including known criticism of his viewpoints and political career. Cesoid 03:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bayh is wiki-credited with "the creation of over 350,000 new jobs,". First off, the government can't create jobs. Jobs can be stolen by taking jobs from the private sector through taxation and given to the employees and family members of campaign contributors and other favorites. 98.220.18.55 (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Vice presidential speculation -- the day after someone else was chosen

I deleted two sentences added today. The first said "he was rumored to be among the [finalists]". As I understand policy statements, WP is uninterested in repeating reports of rumors. The second sentence said "Indeed, media outlets reported he had been selected". This is a doubly false statement: it was one TV station in Kansas City, and they did NOT report Bayh's SELECTION! OverEAger! :) They reported a private business had printed bumper stickers. How come it didn't [[occur to other people that maybe the company printed three different bumper stickers, each with a different running mate prospect, just so as to be ready the instant Obama made the announcement? Anyway, there never was a report that some Democratic insider had divulged that Bayh h]]ad been chosen. I have a third objection to Brewcrewer's edit: the edit summary claim that being a strong prospect for running mate is an important part of his career. On the contrary, in my opinion. The information that you were once a presidential running mate prospect is, from the moment the selection is announced, as useful as used toilet paper. I'm repeating myself from weeks ago, but a politician is not going to include in their self promotion that they were a VP prospect. The only genuine use I can see is kind of negative: if you were a strong prospect, then you got thoroughly "vetted", and if you came up clean, then in another four years that MIGHT give you a head start on being a VP prospect anew. That's not my view. Politicians don't campaign to be running mate, and being free of scandal is not the big reason for choosing someone for your running mate. Hurmata (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understand policy statements, WP is uninterested in repeating reports of rumors.

There's no policy against rumors. If the rumors are notable and sourced they belong just like other notable rumors.

The second sentence said "Indeed, media outlets reported he had been selected". This is a doubly false statement: it was one TV station in Kansas City, and they did NOT report Bayh's SELECTION!

Other media outlets did report it. They reported what the TV station in Kansas City reported. Whether all the media sources were all basing their reporting on one source does not make a difference. At the end of the day, multiple reliable sources reported on the "selection".

They reported a private business had printed bumper stickers. How come it didn't occur to other people that maybe the company printed three different bumper stickers, each with a different running mate prospect, just so as to be ready the instant Obama made the announcement? Anyway, there never was a report that some Democratic insider had divulged that Bayh had been chosen.

You are obviously pretty smart and were not fooled by the bumper stickers. However, the media sources did report that he has been selected.

a politician is not going to include in their self promotion that they were a VP prospect

Of course they won't. Therefore, at the risk of not being WP:NPOV it must be included in the article. A person's Wikipedia entry should include all the notable events of his lifetime, and it should never depend on whether he puts that event on his resume. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• According to your logic, Wikipedia condones you inserting in Wikipedia, "Bill Clinton died July 10, 2008" if Fox News reported it, AND leaving it at that. You think it's the WP community's responsibility to clean up after you with a followup edit: "30 minutes after reporting that Bill Clinton died July 10, 2008, Fox News issued a retraction". My view is different: it is unacceptable for you to insert "Obama selected Bayh[footnote--hey, an RS said it]" since the whole country knows he chose Biden. IF the mere fact that one or more RS's erroneously reported this falsehood, then you would still be duty bound to add, "Obama did not choose Bayh, he chose Biden[footnote--RS]". But you did not even cite an RS to back up your claim. Instead, you are deliberately confusing "some printshop published bumper stickers" with "Obama selected X as a running mate".

• You like to cite WP:BLP (that's an observation based on multiple articles). So, one of its rationales is to keep WP out of the business of propagating rumors. You contradict BLP by maintaining that ANY rumor is rendered notable as soon as it appears in a single RS. Hurmata (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly! If Fox News reports that Bill Clinton died and then retracted half-hour later, not only would it be included in the Bill Clinton article, there would be a separate article entitled Fox News announcing Bill Clinton death controversy. WP:BLP only limits rumors that are not covered in reliable sources. I have never claimed otherwise. Moreover, in this case, we are not really dealing with a rumor (where the truth is an issue). The very fact that there was a rumor, itself a notable event. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Brewcrewer keeps inserting the same passage basing himself on the same news article, when the citation does not contain any of the text Brewcrewer is inserting into this article. Two other users, me and Slipperyweasel, have deleted this passage, which is:

Indeed, the day before Obama chose his running mate, media outlets reported that he had chosen Bayh.

The citation actually contains a statement to the opposite effect: "On Friday night, The Associated Press reported that Bayh was not the candidate." "WAS NOT". The headline of the earlier version of the TV station "report" -- which Brewcrewer originally linked to, but the link he uses goes elsewhere now -- shows that the article is not a report, it's an opinion: that headline is "Bumper Sticker Fuels Speculation About Obama's Veep". (Apparently, Brewcrewer has been so swept up in his edit warring as not to notice the TV station has revised its report and backtracked.) The policy, WP:RS does not extend to ephemeral speculations. It refers to claims of material events, such as "a prosecutor is investigating X" or "bumper stickers saying XYZ were printed". That earlier version did not report that Obama chose Bayh, it only reported that bumper stickers saying Obama - Bayh were being printed in Kansas City. Time to give up the obsession: Obama's running mate is Joseph Biden, not Evan Bayh. Hurmata (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As an outside opinion, it does seem that the statement is not supported by the reference at all, and I have removed it again. Kevin (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Father in opening graph

Seems odd that the fact he is second generation Senator for Indiana is not mentioned in the opening paragraph, which is rather skimpy to begin with. Lord knows too many opening graphs are ridiculous (check out the Transformers movie one for an example), but I am of the belief that an opening of any article should be both informative and have just enough interesting aspects of the subject to invite further reading. 24.24.244.132 (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Turncoat" in lead

I removed the sentence that referred to Bayh as a "turncoat" in the lead for several reasons. First, WP:LEAD says the lead should be a concise summary of the article and contain nothing that is not expanded on in the article - this statement is not in the body of the article at all. Second, with its placement in the lead I beleive it give it undue weight, the way it was statement may be a violation of WP:BLP, which should be discussed here first. And finally, although some Democrats may say that, and equal number of Democrats and Republicans would probably disagree, and all that needs to also be laid out, rather than just a blanket statement. Charles Edward (Talk) 02:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Retirement announcement

I have moved the retirement announcement out of the lede; it doesn't belong there. I also reworded the lede slightly, because he is still a senator until his term ends in January 2011. I moved the stuff that was in the lede to the already-existing "Retirement" section, using it to replace speculation and a twitter link (never a reliable source). Horologium (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Most articles about notable politicians and other notable people indicate impending major events, such as retirements, in the lede. It is perfectly appropriate. In fact, it is such an important detail that I feel the lede is incomplete without it. Ithizar (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)