Talk:Jim Bunning

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

Exaggeration[edit]

The sentence "After a long series of false campaign ads, ugly homophobic attacks against Mongiardo, and George W. Bush's big win in the state, Bunning narrowly won the November 2 election by a mere 23,000 votes." seems to be more than a tad bit biased. For example, as I live in Kentucky I can tell you that there was a fair amount of mud-slinging on both sides. Besides, "factually accurate campaign ads" is a paradox nowadays. Much of what Mongiardo said, of course, was well exaggerated too.

I suppose my main problem with this article is that it makes Bunning out to be some sort of crazed maniac and Mongiardo out ot be his helpless victim. You should at least attempt to balance your criticizism of Bunning with the other side of the story.

Nobody is going to stop you if you want to fix it, you know. Everyking 04:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Guess I will, then. Thanks. clhenry89 12:23, 12 Mar 2005

Disinvited[edit]

This story, about Bunning no longer being quite so welcome in Michigan since he voted against Detroit, may be worth noting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployment filibuster[edit]

I would remind anoymous editors concerned about this issue that Wikipedia is not a forum. Regardless of one's personal feelings about Mr. Bunning's filibuster of the unemployment extension bill, please try to keep comments on this talk page limited to improvements/edits to the article as it relates to this issue. Thank you.DCmacnut<> 15:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sen. Bunning is not engaged in a filibuster. He simply placed a senatorial hold on the bill that includes emergency funding of federal unemployment. He doesn't have to talk incessantly like Jimmy Stewart. All he has to do is to show up each day (currently Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday) for Morning Roll Call, object to consideration of the motion and stick around long enough for the Morning's Business to be concluded.
It is just past 8 o'clock on the east coast. The NY Times just reported that Bunning dropped his objection to extending jobless benefits. Since this is probably the last significant action that Sen. Bunning will take before he retires (and the only one I have ever heard of), shouldn't we report it in his biography, say after the Ended 2010 re-election campaign subsection, unless you think it deserves a separate article? I just wanted to get agreement; this will be the first time I've ever written a section in a BLP. Or do you think it's too newsy? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it needs a separate article, but I would write it up as a well-written section. I would love to see it expanded from what it is now since it incorrectly states that he was filibustering. As long as it is written neutrally -- plenty of space given to a synopsis of his positions and those of the others, both Democratic and Republican, then I think it would be a very interesting section. The PBS NewsHour had an interesting piece about it today which would be available online. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 03:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Bunning isn't placing a senatorial hold. Instead, the bill is being passed by unanimous consent because it was considered routine. With unanimous consent, only one senator needs to object publically (not silently, as with a senatorial hold) and the bill won't pass -- it isn't unanimous. Therefore, if he didn't concede (he did), then it would take about a week or so to go through the parliamentary procedures to pass the bill by a super majority vote -- most probably would have passed by more than 70 votes, at least. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 03:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all arguing semantics here. The Washington Post and other reliable sources have referred to this as a "one man filibuster." A filibuster doesn't necessarily mean talking and talking for hours. It can mean in the simplest terms holding up a bill. As has been said, this isn't a hold. Bunning has to actually be on the floor to object to the UC request. He can't simply object once in the morning and then leave for the day. If he did, anyone could offer the UC motion, and if Bunning wasn't there to object the bill goes through. Given the fact that he has to be on the floor to object, I'd say that close enough to qualify as a filibuster.DCmacnut<> 03:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A filibuster, or "speaking or talking out a bill", is a form of obstruction in the United States Senate whereby a senator attempts to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a bill by extending the debate on that bill. In the United States Senate, the Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless 3/5 of the Senate (60 out of 100 Senators "duly chosen and sworn")[1] brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. According to the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could however be achieved by a simple majority This is from Filibuster_(United_States) what he is doing is NOT a filibuster, even if news sources are trying to hype it up as such, he is 1 man he cannot filibuster he can just object to unanimous consen. If anything what he is doing is the oposite of a filibuster which is an attempt to prevent a vote, he is attempting to force a vote. i just changed it. Smitty1337 (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the only form of filibuster. A filibuster is any manipulation of a legislature's rules meant to bring about a desired outcome through delay. Quoting the lead of Filibuster (United States) does not change the word's definition. I think what you don't understand is that a filibuster is different from the filibuster. -Rrius (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Smitty -- semantics is important here. I don't see the harm in explaining the process as a objection to unanimous consent. I also don't see the problem of saying something like, "While media sources described this as a filibuster, it is in fact etc." Not every media source is calling it a filibuster. The PBS NewsHouse explained it succinctly and should be used as a source. The NYT didn't describe it as a filibuster. I vote we make it clear since it is so easily verified. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 05:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with explaining the method of filibustering, but I object to the implication in your proposed formulation because it implies that those actions aren't a filibuster. They are; they just happen not to be the sort of filibuster we normally associate with the Senate. -Rrius (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just semantics, I am right, please read http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm a filibuster is ONLY this. even if it is used incorrectly in popular culture to mean obstruction, it is an actual parlimentary action in the senate and it means blocking cloture. I.E. filibuster means to PREVENT a vote, not what bunning did, which is to force a vote. Smitty1337 (talk) 05:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rrius -- if there are verifiable reliable sources that describe this as a filibuster, then it should be called that here. WP:V isn't about truth but verifiability. Then I would suggest something like, "Characterized as a filibuster by the media, it is an objection to unanimous consent which requires only one dissenter as compared to forty for a super majority filibuster.". ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 05:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"compared to forty for a super majority filibuster." implies that this is a type of filibuster, or that there are "types" of filibusters, how about i just add some sources such as the senates page i listed above, and a few i'll canibalize from the filibuster page, im sure theres some good ones. This is NOT in any way a filibuster. I have no problem with saying that the media has called it such as long as it is explicitly clear that it is obstructionism at worst but not a filibuster, as there is no debate or cloture. Smitty1337 (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


If you want to claim WP:V. then i will point out Wikipedia:BLP. Higher quality of sources on contentious material is needed. A news article is not peer reviewed and it clearly has a factual error in an attempt to scandalize bunnings actions or to hype up the story. I have shown the source above, the senates own website stating what a filibuster is. Please find a source that can dispute that. Smitty1337 (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(It makes things more readable if you indent your comments so that the thread is clearer) I'm not a page editor. I agree that BLP articles require a high standard. I agree with you that we don't want to intimate anything scandalous. I encourage you to seek consensus here first and suggest wording and we can discuss. WP:RS doesn't require all citations to be peer-reviewed journals for BLPs. Where did you get that from? It requires published, mainstream, known for fact checking sources which the news divisions (vs. commentary) of the Washington Post, NYT , Wall Street Journal, Fox News, etc. are. If they are calling it a filibuster, then my suggested verbiage seems OK. "Characterized as a filibuster by the media, it is an objection to unanimous consent which requires only one dissenter as compared to forty for a supermajority filibuster." doesn't suggest that there are alternative filibusters. It stays neutral on the matter. I've not done Google News searching to look at all the major articles -- you should. If you can find some that explicitly states it isn't a filibuster, then we should modify the text. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 05:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
my statement about peer review wasnt about wiki policy, that was just me stating a fact, they are not. If wiki's standards are lower then my own then so be it thats fine. As for your wording i'm not entirely opposed to it, i dont mind a mention of it since its become a bit of a phrase in the media now the "one man filibuster" which irks me but I can accept it as worth mentioning it if thats what they are calling it. How about "Characterized as a "One man Filibuster" by the media (ref), it is an objection to unanimous consent which requires only one dissenter." and i will toss in some extremely easy to find source that calls it that? cnn or something idk Smitty1337 (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smitty, if you don't own a dictionary, use one of the many available online. When you suggest that "talking out a bill in the United States Senate" is the only definition of the word, you are clearly and demonstrably wrong. Spare yourself further embarrassment and look it up before continuing. -Rrius (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the united states senate, it is the only meaning of the word, i already gave you a link showing this, and there is nothing supporting your statement on the filibuster page i directed you too. Please avoid personal attacks by the way.Smitty1337 (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like that. I might even expand it a bit:

"Characterized as a "one man filibuster" by the media (ref), it is an objection to unanimous consent which requires only one dissenter. Unanimous consent is used to expedite a bill for noncontroversial measures as this bill was expected to be." ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 06:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To Rrius -- I understand your point that filibuster can simply mean delay tactics. But I believe in an encyclopedia, a certain amount of precision is helpful to the project. The suggested text doesn't state it isn't a filibuster, informal, formal or otherwise. It describes what reliable sources call it -- and most reliable sources I've seen (NYT, NewsHour), fwiw, don't use the term filibuster. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 06:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Precision doesn't really enter into it. The fact is that the word "filibuster" applies. That particular remark was not addressed to the proposed text, but to the continuing assertion that the word only has one meaning. Smitty is simply wrong about that. As I said, his being incorrect is clear and demonstrable by simply looking at any standard English-language dictionary. -Rrius (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus. I post a simple request to write a two-paragraph subsection on an article and eight hours later we have six printed pages of discussion, at least half on which are talk about the meaning of filibuster. Sheesh.
OK, I'll put in my two cents. General dictionaries are not perscriptive; they're descriptive. A dictionary writer first gathers up all sentences in the literature that contain a given word. Then he sorts them by meaning and writes out each definition. Dictionary definitions are defined by usage. Wiktionary says "(US, politics) Delaying tactics, especially long, often irrelevant speeches given in order to delay progress or the making of a decision, especially on the floor of the US Senate." (I would bet that other dictionaries have much the same definition. But please, don't quote them here.) The use of "especially" (twice) means that any form of delaying tactics, in the US or politics in general, may be termed a filibuster. If you read the Wikipedia article about filibuster, you will learn that the word predates the current Senate rules about debate and cloture.
That being said, I can find no current reports that say explicitly that what Sen. Bunning is doing is a senatorial hold (or a secret hold or an unanimous consent hold). So I guess we'll have to weasel-word around the tactic because our sources perform the same weasel. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I haven't seen addressed at all is whether this is worthy of inclusion in the article. I don't think it is; it smacks of recentism. In the great scheme of things, how important is his holding up federal payments for a few days to this article? I think, taking a step back, people will conclude that it is not really worthy of inclusion. In any event, if editors do think it should be in, the language suggested now is a bit too precious. How about, "Bunning was accused of engaging in a "one-man filibuster" by objecting to unanimous consent requests that..." -Rrius (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thats not a bad way to state it either, granted the quotes should be followed by some ref from like cnn (they are calling it that). Your right about it being recentism perhaps. I just wanted the clarification in that it is an opposition to unanimous conscent rather then an actual filibuster. I know the word filibuster, and the concept of obstructing legislation is old and not, in a wider definition, exclusive to one type of action. However in the US senate it does have a specific meaning which has been had legislation passed around it I.E. the addition of cloture. Seeing as he is in that assembly it is a bit of a mistatement to call it a filibuster. That is my only objection, but having read the discussion my current opinion is that it should be mentioned that the media dubbed it that way. Smitty1337 (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I might suggest that the previous wording was less than precious. :) But point well taken. You would want to say,

Bunning was accused of engaing in a "one-man filibuster" by Democrats and Republicans alike by objecting to unanimous consent, a procedure used for bills expected to pass routinely.

As for inclusion, I would think a mention is currently required. Folks will be coming to this article looking for this information. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 06:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support this, Does anyone object? Smitty1337 (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There very fact that you say, "I would think a mention is currently required," shows the problem. We don't add things that are noteworthy now, but will not be later. That is what WP:Recent is all about. It is simply not encyclopedic to stuff articles full of current events. This event is simply not an important part of Bunning's Senate service, so should not be included. This particular episode is dealt with blow-by-blow in a way that gives hugely disproportionate weight to it. It notes that Friday's session ran until 11:58 p.m. for god's sake. For what it's worth, I don't like Bunning as a politician, and don't care about him as a baseball player, so I'm not trying to protect him. -Rrius (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the current article text doesn't use the word filibuster so this may be moot. But I defer to the page editors. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 06:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i changed it before my first post on talk page, i was so sure of my stance that i just changed it and justified it on talk. Kinda jumped the gun on that since It took you less then half hour to make me change positions to align with your idea Smitty1337 (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not really recentism though, even if the media moves on (and they will), it will still remain a controversial legislative action he took that drew critical reactions from a great many people. It may seem less important in a year but as far as stating facts about bunning it will be part of his legislative history. Smitty1337 (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Not everything he's done that people didn't like is worthy of inclusion. If something is not going to seem important enough to have been included a few years from now, it certainly shouldn't be added now. This is not a newspaper or a ledger of news events involving Bunning. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article discussing the life of one Jim Bunning. The list of things that happened is wholly inadequate, and the entry on this particular happening (even if you assume it should be included at all) is absurdly detailed. There is no excuse for more than more than a sentence. Ideally, such a sentence would be part of a discussion of what he's like as a legislator (i.e., a pain in the ass who makes things difficult for even his own party) exemplifying his conduct, rather than the most recent item on a theme-less list of events. -Rrius (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the discussion about whether to retain the paragraph to its own section. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 06:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

infoboxes[edit]

Wouldn't it make sense to place the infoboxes in the apropos article sections (i.e. move {{Infobox MLB player}} into the "Major League Baseball" section, and {{Infobox Senator}} into the "Political career" section) and lead off the article with a simpler, less-specific one (e.g. {{infobox person}}?

On a separate matter, why is his name in the political infobox "Jim Bunning(R-Ky.)"? That's not listed as his name in the article proper, nor does the infobox's documentation instruct anybody to do so. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should "filibuster" be in the article?[edit]

Cut and pasted from above:

There very fact that you say, "I would think a mention is currently required," shows the problem. We don't add things that are noteworthy now, but will not be later. That is what WP:Recent is all about. It is simply not encyclopedic to stuff articles full of current events. This event is simply not an important part of Bunning's Senate service, so should not be included. This particular episode is dealt with blow-by-blow in a way that gives hugely disproportionate weight to it. It notes that Friday's session ran until 11:58 p.m. for god's sake. For what it's worth, I don't like Bunning as a politician, and don't care about him as a baseball player, so I'm not trying to protect him. -Rrius (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Recentism states that "Wikipedia has been praised for the way it deals with current news breaks." And that is true. I don't think the criteria listed at Recentism is applicable here. I could go through each of you would like -- maybe you could pick one that is applicable. That said, I agree that the paragraph can be cleaned up.

On February 25, 2010 Bunning objected to a proposal of unanimous consent for unemployment insurance, COBRA, and other federal programs, citing that this extension was not pay-as-you-go and wanted to fund the programs from the Stimulus Bill of 2009. While receiving some support, most of the members of the Senate urged him to drop his objections which he did on March 2nd.

Less weight, less fluff. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 06:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't have the energy to match refs with claims, so I'll just say that "March 2nd" is incorrect under WP:MOSDATE and that "On February 25, 2010" should be followed by a comma because "Month DD, YYYY" dates should always take a comma unless used as an adjective and because prepositional phrases beginning sentences should always end with a comma. Printed works sometimes skimp on the latter sort of comma because it saves them money, but we don't have that need. -Rrius (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rrius that the article's section is a "theme-less list of events" -- I was taken aback on how poorly it was written. But I don't believe that should impact adding this event. It has had major worldwide coverage -- it stopped the Senate for days, caused havoc in some quarters. This is notable. That said, I would rewrite the entire article -- things about saying "tough shit" isn't encyclopedic. His holding up this bill is. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 06:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this action is relevent and not recentism. I like the rewrite you suggested above Therefore. If nobody objects to that version i suggest changing it. Smitty1337 (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Of course it's notable, but that isn't the be-all, end-all. Gary Doer's becoming Canada's Ambassador to the United States is notable, but it is completely irrelevant to this article. There is a line somewhere, and this event is not, in itself, worthy of inclusion in this article. If anything, it makes more sense in one of the relevant procedure articles. For example, a slimmed would make sense at Unanimous consent or United States Senate to illustrate just how dependent the Senate is on UCs. It would also be relevant to a discussion about the break down in Senate comity, if such a thing exists at Wikipedia. As I said, the event could be included here as an example of something, but it is not important enough to the story of Jim Bunning to independently deserve to be here. Let's not trump this up into some great international story just because a foreign media source or two printed a "look how dysfunctional these people are" story. It is a few-days story that we have no reason to believe will ever amount to more. -Rrius (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, the story is done -- finished. Possibly remove it after a couple of months after the news spike is done - close to 4,000 Google News hits. Bunning isn't all that well known nationally so readers will come here looking for information about this. I believe we do a disservice not including a mention. I agree with you that it would be so much better if this was incorporated in a well-written integrated prose piece, but lacking that, giving the basic facts will be helpful. I think it is too soon to take this out because it may be helpful later when a properly written article could use this as an illustration of his "maverick" or "curmudgeon" (depending on one's outlook) ways. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 07:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate a bit. This event caused hundreds of thousands of people not getting benefits, tens of thousands of people were furloughed, Medicare doctors were not paid, some unemployed couldn't get medical coverage. This wasn't a minor event -- a blip. This had serious consequences -- at least up to the point he relented. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 07:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You keep repeating, "It's notable, it's notable! It matters now!" I keep trying to explain to you that I understand that, but that is not everything. If you think that the story will not be important enough for mention in a few months, then it shouldn't be included. The impact on people's lives is irrelevant. All that matters is how well-connected it is to telling the story of Bunning's life. It is, as you say, a blip. This is not a newspaper. We do not include things merely because they are of current interest. The particularly odd thing is that you think this should be here because people will be drawn in by the news coverage. If they are reading or watching the news coverage, they don't need to read the news here. -07:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, this will still be relevent in 10 years when going back and discussing the actions he took in the senate during the term in question for this section of the article. It is not recentism to include a comment as you suggested Therefore Smitty1337 (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, you don't agree. Therefore suggests it will only be relevant for a very short amount of time. The only way it will be relevant is as part of a discussion of what a dick he is as a legislator. It is not, and certainly will not be in 10 years, relevant in and of itself. We don't currently have the "Dickish Sen. Bunning story, so it should not be included for now." -Rrius (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion Therefore stated

To reiterate a bit. This event caused hundreds of thousands of people not getting benefits, tens of thousands of people were furloughed, Medicare doctors were not paid, some unemployed couldn't get medical coverage. This wasn't a minor event -- a blip. This had serious consequences -- at least up to the point he relented

is correct, it was not minor he held up an important bill. Lack of attention months or years from now does not mean that it is no longer relevent it just means that the media has moved on. This will be relevent at any time, but not given undue weight is important as well, 1 sentance and no follow up description of implications from the event. Thats my stance on it Smitty1337 (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I heard on CNN yesterday afternoon (Situation Room at 4 pm EST; I can't find the URL) that Senator Bunning may be planning to repeat his tactic on many spending bills over the spring and summer before he retires. No 30. (That's an old newspaper slug that means: More to come on this story.) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, Rruis, you are going to need to gain consensus in order to remove this text. I don't believe you have it and I'm unconvinced by your arguments. Wikipedia constantly includes breaking stories. This isn't a small story. Later, we can reconsider. This was an unusual action that had far reaching affects -- least of which was holding up the business of the Senate, giving Democrats a chance to accuse the Republican caucus of delay tactics, (not deserved, IMO, but is a fact), etc. New York Times and PBS NewsHour are two excellent citations. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its a filibuster but he is obstructing progress in the Senate, is there a better word that can be used? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a filibuster at all -- hence why I put it in scare quotes -- see the above section where we hashed this out. The bill came up for unanimous consent, used for routine bills where it is a given that all 100 Senators would OK it. Typically, a vote isn't taken. But by definition, if one Senator objects, it is no longer unanimous consent. The current article text doesn't use the word filibuster which is a good thing.
To RoyGoldsmith: You are right. According to [1]:

He said he plans to try to amend another bill containing a longer extension of benefits. And “I will be back on future spending bills,” he said.

∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Moral of the Story[edit]

"If you can't come to a consensus about how to present something of significance, best to leave it out altogether." - Wikipedia Lurkers and Trolls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.186.52 (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Healthcare bill[edit]

To avoid an edit war with Arzel. I think that statement that he missed one of the most important senate votes of the year on a hugely important bill is notable. Especially when everyone else showed up. So it should be in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bunning has been in congress for a long time. Is this one vote that much more important than any other vote? His actions didn't have any effect on the bill. He wasn't going to vote for the bill, so it is not like he, or any other Republican, was going to make any difference. Was there a large amount of covereage about him missing the bill to establish weight? Because of the procedural rules of the house and senate the vote he missed will not end up being the final bill anyway. What is the context for him being the only one to miss this vote? Unless you can show why his missing the vote was notable or relevant to HIS career it is nothing more than political hay. A minor bit of trivia that people used to try and make political points nothing more. The newer section on paygo is a similar situation that should be removed. Both sections are undue weight for a person of his length of career. Arzel (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arzel is correct -- you would need to find substantial coverage by reliable sources to establish notability for the event. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum
While I see the point Arzel is making and generally agree, the Hill is a reliable source. I guess you mean more sources would have to be found. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

  • Evan McMorris-Santoro (2009-12-24). "Staffer: 'Family Commitments' Kept Bunning Away From Health Reform Vote". Talking Points Memo. Retrieved 2010-03-05.
  • Jordan Fabian (2009-12-24). "Spokesman: Bunning missed health vote because of 'family commitments'". The Hill. Retrieved 2010-03-05.
  • Yuliya Talmazan (2009-12-24). "Jim Bunning: The Only Senator To Miss Senate Vote On Health Bill". Now Public. Retrieved 2010-03-05.
  • Meredith Shiner (2009-12-24). "Bunning misses vote for 'family commitments'". Politico. Retrieved 2010-03-05.
  • Jacque Day (2009-12-25). "Bunning Doesn't Vote". WKMS. Retrieved 2010-03-05.
  • "Bunning: Missed Health Vote for 'Family Commitments'". The Jacksonville Observer. 2009-12-26. Retrieved 2010-03-05.

Is this enough to get you started, Arzel/Therefor? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blaxthos, I never said ANYTHING about sources. Try to hold back your glee. Arzel (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec -- I was sold before you added the other 4 ;) ) I agree the Hill is a reliable source -- I was under the impression that this was your own observation in vio of NOR. Given that source, I wouldn't see a problem adding it. I would attribute it to the Hill, with something like, "The Hill reported ...." This wasn't just another vote, but one that, by gaining cloture, pushed one of the most major 21st century legislation forward to pass the Senate. The Republicans wanted a solid front and Bunning, as been his nature since deciding (forced) not to run hasn't exactly been a team player. Since it is one line, I don't think WP:UNDUE is applicable. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Talking Points Memo isn't a reliable source nor, I believe is nowpublic. But Politico definitely is. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right about nowpublic, but TPM is most certainly a reliable source. In fact, it is often cited by other reliable sources (most especially cable news channels). It should be a moot point, though, as there are multiple reliable sources listed (WKMS, Jacksonville Observer, Politico, etc). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? TPM is a blog. Although most credible on the page that discusses (say) the firing of the attorneys in the Bush admins, it is not allowed for a BLP. I rarely see it used there -- I bet you can find it, but that wouldn't be applicable (OTHERSTUFF and all). Nor would RedState, etc. BLP is unambiguous about the use of blogs.∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've re-added the comment with the Hill, the Jax Observer and Politico as sources. That should be enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, Therefore, I think you may be confusing "blog" with self-published sources; the word "blog" is not an automatic disqualifier from WP:RS. I believe the governing language is "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Given that other unquestionably reliable sources cite TPM as a reliable source itself, I think it would probably pass scrutiny. However, this is all discussion in the abstract -- we can just use one of the other available sources in this case. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be darned. I had no idea that the DailyKos, RedState and the Drudge Report are now considered RSs in Wikipedia. All are echoed on cable shows. Actually, none of them are considered reliable sources. If TPM (or TMZ or Drudge or RedState or Kos) break a story, it would never be allowed in a BLP until a published, mainstream source known for fact checking confirms the information. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS Sorry for not making it clear on the talk page that I'd used a reliable source in my sentence (the Hill). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to be sorry for -- it was my fault for not checking from the beginning! ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never stated a reliable source question. I asked what makes it notable. Just adding addtional sources does't explain to the reader or anyone else what makes this a notable event. Currently there is no context for the sentence. It is just a minor piece of trivia that means absolutely nothing without additional explanation. So, exactly what source talks about what makes this a relevant event, and if it is why is that information not in the article? Currently it answers the "who?" and the "what?" and the "where?" but without the "why?" it doesn't mean anything. Arzel (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "why" is that he is showing he doesn't feel an important vote is worth attending. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who says? Where exactly are the sources claiming that he doesn't feel an important vote is worth attending? Arzel (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple sources wouldn't comment on him skipping a vote if it wasn't important. Senators must skip votes all the time, its usually a non-issue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think consensus is pretty clear here. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given a member of Congress issues thousands of votes during his career, and given that he is probably going to miss dozens or hundreds of those (in the aggregate), if we're going to mention one specific one in his Wiki biography we must also note why it's significant enough to mention. However, I don't believe it would be appropriate to dive into any polarized criticisms or pundit pontifications on "what it means" or "why it wasn't important to him". A simple sentence or two stating the fact that the vote was missed, as well as why the missed vote is significant, should be sufficient. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think this is that notable considering it is unlikely to be the final vote on the issue. This was simply a vote to end cloture and send the bill back to the house. That said I added his reason and the result for clarity and context. Arzel (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It reads much better with your addition. Strictly speaking, it wasn't to send it back. The Senate passed the measure and now the House will pass it and send it on to the President (possibly, at least, with a reconciliation bill). It was considered the "last vote" and Republicans were upset that they couldn't make it 60-40 to symbolize unity. His absence stood out. I believe it was an important vote, but you may be right that it will be a footnote event that later can be either removed or incorporated with his other votes/positions on health care. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 00:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

external links[edit]

The external link from Washpo "WhoRunsGov" is a wiki. I am not quite sure how to remove it because of the way the external links are setup, but it does not belong. Arzel (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Jim Bunning. 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 03:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Bunning. 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) 12:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antitrust exemption[edit]

Baseball status as being exempt from antitrust laws has not really changed. The owners "voluntarily" removed the reserve clause from contracts as part of collective bargaining with the MLBPA. The Supreme Court, having ruled on the matter in 1922 in Federal Baseball Club v. National League that the exhibition of "base-ball games" was not "commerce" as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution has not changed subsequently reversed this holding, with the Court stating (on several occasions) that Congress could do this if it chose, but as of 2022 has never adopted any legislation to do so. 2600:1004:B103:28BF:0:13:B56C:F701 (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Bunning&oldid=1206477223"