Talk:Marsha Blackburn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject United States / Mississippi (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Tennessee (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Marsha Blackburn is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member.
[Project Articles][Project Page][Project Talk][Assessment][Template Usage]
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject U.S. Congress (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article is about one (or many) person(s).

College[edit]

What did she graduate from university in? The article fails to mention.



Satwa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.217.255 (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Political Coruption

Iraq Soldier Controversy[edit]

The fact that Rep. Blackburn was unable to name the last person from her district to die in Iraq, even whoever she thought it was, is absolutely the point of including this in Wikipedia. She could have said the first soldier, the second to last soldier, anyone. She didn't name anybody. Shuster accused her of not knowing, and he was right. If Blackburn had said a name, any name, this would not be noteworthy. As it was, it was shown on national TV that she couldn't even weather a guess. Is that worthy of being included in the Wikipedia profile of a war supporter? You bet it is. An agreement on how to include that FACT must be reached. Anything less is obfuscation and intentional deception.Generalklagg 11:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is not whether or not she could not A soldier from her district, but whether or not she was sandbagged and misled by a reporter with an agenda. I feel that I have accurately laid out both sides of the argument highlighting the difference between "legal residence" and "home of record." Strongbad1982 is welcome to discuss why including information that is not pertinent to Mr. Shuster's arguably inaccurate question is relevant. It's not. It only serves to make her look ignorant and out of touch which for someone who has consistently edited articles on conservatives and Republicans to make them look poorly, should come as no surprise. The information is unnecessary and her knowledge (or lackthereof) per the last soldier killed from her district is demonstrated through the already included passages as it states "Shuster then asked what the name of the last soldier from her congressional district who had been killed in Iraq was, and she was not able to name the solider." What more do you need? Adding a specific paragraph on her inability to answer the question is just an attempt to make her look poorly. Not surprising given Wikipedia's general liberal tilt. Abacab 23:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Being "sandbagged" is irrelevant. It is very much a matter of record whether the Representative bothers to keep track of things like who from her district has died for her beliefs, especially in light of the fact that moments before she attacked the New York Times of "breaching the public trust". If there is a disconnect between what someone says they beleive and what their actions show them to actually beleive, then it goes in their Wiki article. If you want to talk about unneccessary, take a look at the semantic obfuscation you put forth, hiding the fact that she couldn't answer the question behind which half of a divided county a slain soldier was from. That's propaganda. I am Generalklagg, and I agree with Strongbad 100%. We look to include FACTS, you, Abacab, only wish to PREACH on your agenda. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of objective vs. subjective speech to suggest otherwise. Wikipedia isn't about your opinion as to whether the Congresswoman was "sandbagged", or whether the reporter had an "agenda". If anything, that's for Shuster's page, not this one. This article is about Rep. Blackburn, and what kind of person SHE is.

Here's a compromise edit for you:

On September 24, 2007, Blackburn was interviewed on Tucker, the news show of Tucker Carlson, which was being hosted by guest host David Shuster[1]. When asked about her outrage behind the MoveOn.org Petraeus ad campaign, Blackburn accused the New York Times of "betraying the public trust". Using the public trust issue as a segway, Shuster then asked her for the name of the last soldier from her congressional district to be killed in Iraq. She was unable to answer.

How's that for straightforward? Get's rid of all the irrelevent nonsense, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.19.126.5 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The sandbagging itself is not including in the article as is and I never did include it. I made mention of it here on the talk page. I made clear the differences between legal residence and home of record for the reader to decide whether or not Shuster got it right or wrong. In fact, using your logic, this whole "controversy" could be moved to the Shuster article save for the question that was asked, Shuster questionable accuracy, and her subsequent inability to name the LAST soldier from her district that was killed. Certainly, she could have named anyone, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if she named a random person, she would have been accused of just picking a name out of the blue to make up for lack of knowledge regardless. Anyway you slice it, you (general) and your compatriot (Strongbad1982) are intent on making her look as bad as possible. Though your compromise edit is not a bad start. By the way, I never hid the fact she didn't answer the question. How many more times do I need ot paste the same sentence in here stating SHE DID NOT ANSER THE QUESTION. Abacab 01:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your "sneaking suspicions" are irrelevant. This is a matter of fact. Painting the picture based on what you think might have happened if she had acted differently is BIASED. She didn't answer who she thought was the last person who died was. She didn't try to answer- she said she didn't know. Everything else came AFTER she said she didn't know. I absolutely stand by the revision I just put forward. That's all that needs to be in the section. The issue isn't what side of the road the soldier lived on. Questions about Shuster's journalistic integrity are best addressed on his page. Furthermore, you claim that I am trying to make her look bad, no, she already did that. Just to show you that no, I am not trying to make her look worse, let me share what I'd really like the passage to say:

On September 24, 2007, Blackburn was interviewed on Tucker, the news show of Tucker Carlson, which was being hosted by guest host David Shuster[1]. When asked about her outrage behind the MoveOn.org Petraeus ad campaign, Blackburn accused the New York Times of "betraying the public trust". Using the public trust issue as a segway, Shuster then asked her for the name of the last soldier from her congressional district to be killed in Iraq. She was unable to answer. This has led to charges of hypocrisy, as the Representative's comments painted her to be more beholden to the party line than to her constituents, the same "betrayal" of the public trust that she had accused the New York Times of moments earlier.

Like I said earlier, Abacab, trying to change the issue from what she said to the tactics used is obfuscation. She might've fallen into a trap, but it was what was in her heart that sprang the trap. No amount of "but his residence was listed as..." can undo this revelation into her character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.19.126.5 (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your consistent use of the word "obfuscation" is really quite impressive. Your lexicon is well above and beyond mine. That being said, you have consistently ignored my point about her lack of knowledge regarding the last soldier to die from her district, in Iraq, is already pointed out in the current revision. What is your problem with that? Does it need to be any clearer? Why do you keep avoiding that? I am also glad that you've at least made your bias a little more transparent with your "desired" revision as it is close to the most slanted thing you could put in there. I have never 'tried to change the issue' from what she said to tactics of David Shuster. I have included both in the current revision. Let me say it again, and I am going to use bold and caps one more time to see if you'll actually respond to this part, because so far you have not: She replied she didn't know why she couldn't recall the name, at which point Shuster questioned her integrity for not knowing the names of those from her district who had been killed for a war she supports so strongly. Blackburn became indignant and did not answer the question. What more is there to be said? Is that not pointed enough for you? What she said is still included ALONG with the slanted word "indignant." I'm not sure where you're drawing this conclusion that the current revision has attempted to show how she would have "acted differently." My comments about a "sneaking suspicion" are including in this discussion, not the current revision. My points were merely about your motives to include your incredibly skewed idea of what should be there and how anything she would or could have said would have had the left wing up in arms. If there is anyone here who has attempted to change what this whole matter is about, it's you. The facts are as follows: Shuster asked a question where his facts were wrong at worst and somewhere in between wrong on one level and right on another depending on the military terms used. Con. Blackburn did not answer the question and did not know the last soldier to die from her district. Shuster named a soldier, who has since had a conflicting home of record and legal residence. I'll say it for the eight millionth time, what more do you need? Do you want Moveon.org writing this article instead? There's nothing to "obfuscate" here. Shuster was of questionable integrity and she didn't have an answer. The end. Abacab 19:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you must have looked up "obfuscation". Well, I'm not going to just assume you're dumb and talk down to you. I'm just saying it needs to be shorter and to the point. The shorter we make it, the less "slant" can get into it. I think we both want that. So, yes, I think it needs to be clearer. It's pretty obvious that talking at length about the specific soldier distracts from the point. No one can say definitively what district he was from. Hence it is moot. It changes the discussion from talking about the issue to talking about talking about the issue, like what we're doing now. Trying to get people to do that is dishonest. I don't think you are doing it intentionally, but you are doing it. So let's use, or improve on, the compromise article (which doesn't even use the slant word "indignant", by the way), and link the detailed stuff about Shuster to the Shuster article, or somehow pare it down. Whaddya say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.19.126.5 (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree, and are busy hammering out a compromise, or did you just switch tactics to ignoring people?


The sentence "It has since been determined that the soldier did in fact claim Bon Aqua, TN as his legal residence before enlisting which is in Rep. Blackburn's district." needs a run-on sentence, and needs a citation. The grammar can be easily fixed, but the part where he listed his residence in the 7th district BEFORE he enlisted needs a source to be included. Also, it is in question whether Bon Aqua is actually in the 7th district, as Blackburn county is divided in half. A definitive source for that information would be helpful. If it's true, it's true, but as always, it needs a citation.

Saying "Blackburn rightly became indignant and did not answer the question." is unencyclopedic. "Right" and "Wrong" are subjective and cannot be included. Furthermore, I don't think Rush Limbaugh brands himself as a "comedian" and so we shouldn't either.

The statement "A further investigation revealed that Jeremy Bohannon was not actually from Rep. Blackburn's congressional district, but was from the congressional district of Rep. John Tanner." needs a citation before it can be included, because the Wahington Post lists him from Bon Aqua in Hickman County[1]. This is in the 7th district according to the Tennessee Electronic Atlas[2]. Who did the "further investigating"? Was a retraction issued? If it's true, it's true, but it needs a citation.

A request has been filed to protect this article from editing by newly registered or IP users. The sentence stating Blackburn's inability to name the last solider killed in Iraq from her own congressional district is not only relevant, it is totally encyclopedic and well sourced. It is a critical part of the story of the controversy and understanding Blackburn's history in relation to the Iraq War.Strongbad1982 22:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's unncessary and redundant. Her inability to name a soldier is already clear from the passage, "Shuster then asked what the name of the last soldier from her congressional district who had been killed in Iraq was, and she was not able to name the solider." There. It's included. You simply want an additional paragraph to make her look particularly bad. The sentence states, "SHE WAS NOT ABLE TO NAME THE SOLDIER." There. It doesn't need a special annotation. Abacab 23:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no 'sandbagging' involved, because Schuster was right the first time, and thus mistaken to issue a correction. Look it up, but don't post it to the article (because that'd be 'original research', and frankly, unnecessary as well, better just to avoid that pointlessly irrelevant can of worms). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.251.96 (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

current edit war[edit]

I will keep on RVing, so just quit it. Cornell Rockey 18:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Congresswoman Blackburn (or is it Congressman?), we know one of your staffers is playing games--get a leash on them, will ya? Blueboy96 19:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have listed that IP on WP:AN/3RR for you. —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 19:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Why can't we just try to find a reasonable solution? I replaced the image with a proper head shot, because the original wasn't that great anyway. Ho hum.... — TheKMantalk 22:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm in contact with the anon (he's one of her staffers). He has a point (that the picture with Delay isn't a very good one) and I'll ask if he has a better (e.g, copyleft) picture we could use. In the meantime, I've protected the current article. Raul654 01:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Follow up - he said he'd be happy to supply us with a copyleft replacement photo early next week. Raul654 01:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds great, but I'm not too sure why the page needs protection now. — TheKMantalk 02:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't this seem to violate the house/senate staffers shouldn't be editing wikipedia rule? If Rep. Blackburn appeared in public with Tom Delay, thats part of the historical record. Cornell Rockey 04:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
There isn't any rule against the staffers editing Wikipedia. Anyway, sure, they were in the same image together, but this is an article about "Marsha Blackburn", not an article about "that time Rep. Blackburn was standing somewhere out in the background while Tom DeLay was speaking about whatever at a podium". It wasn't the best image of her out there. — TheKMantalk 04:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
As the person who uploaded it[currently I am on a HofR pic uploading binge], I know it wasn't the only image out there. I looked through all the shots on her congressional website, and most of them were with nonnotable constituents or her meeting with the songwriter's caucus (also, nonnotable, honestly) and I forogt to check her campaign site. If you want to whitewash her record by removing an image of her with the leader of her party, thats fine, just don't claim you were removing it because it was 'a bad picture'. Plenty of articles have bad public domain images, its just that no one objects as so long as the picture, in hindsight, doesn't damage the honor of the subject of the article. Let us not forget that while repeatidly removing the image from the article, this vandal was also repeatidly removing the first paragraph of text. Perhaps they are motivated by love of marsha blackburn, but this seems like bias-motivated editing to me. Cornell Rockey 06:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The staffer removed it because including a picture of her with a now-indicted former leader of the house republicans "makes an editorial judgement" (e.g, he's saying it's not neutral). You say that removing it amounts to a whitewash. You both make a valid point. On the other hand, it *is* a crappy picture, after all, and if we can get a copyleft replacement picture, I consider that a good ending. Raul654 07:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Raul654, that the image was removed due to the fact that - come on now, who wants to be seen standing around with Tom DeLay. Obviously, as a Republican, Congressman Blackburn met with Tom DeLay, but she doesn't want to be seen as the lady who stands by Tom DeLay, I'm sure most Republican congresspersons have already had enough of a time getting out of such a sticky situation. MargaretZ 11:53, 24 February 2006

Southwestern citation unverified, removed

Removal of Trivia section[edit]

I recently removed the Trivia section, which contained one bullet point, and moved that information verbatim to the end of the "House career" section. The information about Rep. Blackburn being named "hottest woman in poltiics" fits in there chronologically, and is listed after other (more serious) awards.

I hope this is consistent with Wikipedia's policies discouraging trivia sections. Njm0 (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Earmarks[edit]

The article cites the amount of earmarks requested by Congressman Blackburn as being perhaps contradictory to her stands against pork. This is misleading because of how earmarks work. Typically, the amount of spending in a given bill is locked in, and any portion of that fixed amount not taken up by earmarks is given to the executive branch. The amount of spending stays the same, earmarks or no; the difference is that when congressmen/women earmark the spending, the public knows exactly where the money went. For this reason, Congressman Paul of Texas has said that Congress should earmark all spending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.21.186 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Hurrican Katrina Controversy section[edit]

The link footnote provided was not inaccurate.

Even if an accurate link were provided, the statement that "We're not going to cry 'emergency' every time we have a Katrina" was, according to her spokesman, a reference to including frivolous requests for spending into spending bills that deal with true emergencies.

Furthermore, the labeling of this incident as a "controversy" is not verifiable. No reports of anyone finding this statement controversial exist.

The inclusion of this incident into the Marsha Blackburn page appears to be an attempt to create negative influence on readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.85.183 (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Al Gore quote: "Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business . . ."[edit]

There have been repeated attempts to remove this Al Gore quote. This specific quote from Gore is the sole reason why the Gore-Blackburn exchange has garnered so much publicity for the subject of this entry (Blackburn); perhaps, it has generated the most publicity she has ever received (outside of general campaign publicity). Meanwhile, some editors want to delete it and simply leave a quote from Gore that all of his proceeds have gone to the non-profit group he runs. My stance is that the most neutral, non-partisan editorial stance would be to include both quotes from Gore. The contested quote is entirely accurate. The quote apparently upsets some people, but that is not a reason to cover it up. The truth will set you free. Let the reader decide whether the quote lacks merit. Thank you.129.81.80.247 (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I don't mean to suggest that this quote IS the subject of the article. Just to preempt any objections on such grounds, let me be clear that I understand this is a Blackburn entry. The quote from Gore was directed at Blackburn in response to a question she asked him. The combination of the question and answer is noteworthy as subject matter in this Congresswoman's entry. 129.81.80.247 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
"Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country [...] I am proud of it. I am proud of it." -- What does that mean? Why is this non-sensical statement notable? this is not critically commentary, but merely his opinion (or thought process). therefore this is not particularly relevant to Marsha Blackburn, and this is unnecessary. Additionally, the widely known environment, left-wing political stance is not really relevant to staunch conservative Republican, so this is not properly weighted content. --Ferrie (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, I think the most neutral approach would be to include all of Gore's response to her question, or none of Gore's response. Since it looks like it will be impossible to keep the "business" response in there, I will go ahead and delete the nonprofit response as well. That way, a curious reader and go watch the video -- and see the entirety of the response -- without allowing it to get cherry-picked here. 129.81.80.247 (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tags for peacock language, facts, lack of cites, and too many inline sources[edit]

This article is horribly sourced, especially for a biography of a living person. There's also too much "peacock" language. Wikipedia is a not a webhost for re-election campaigns. Please help to fix this situation. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bearian! I've removed the tags for now. There has been significant editing and I don't see any blatant peacock language at present. If you still have concerns please cite specific sections so they can be cleaned up. Regarding the sources, that's a different issue and you could tag for that if you want but please cite specific sources that are weak as there are many of them in the article. Thanks for you help in improving the article. Best, -- KeithbobTalk 20:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)