Talk:Joni Ernst

Inappropriate content

In this edit, I removed content which, in addition to being WP:undue includes content referenced to unreliable sources, cherry picked poll references, subjective statements, and irrelevant references to comedic commentary.CFredkin (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In addition the reference to people thinking it was in bad taste is WP:undue, since it only appears to have been mentioned in one of the many, many sources that covered the ad.CFredkin (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The ad received widespread coverage in reliable sources and detailing that coverage is not "undue weight". As for your other claims: poll ratings have not been "cherry picked" - the four polls mentioned are the only four polls taken of the Republican primary field and as the sources point out, her polling numbers have improved since the ad, which was the whole point of it. And yes, the ad has been satirised, notably enough to receive widespread coverage. As for your claims that there are "unreliable sources" and "subjective statements", since you didn't mention specifics, I have no idea what you're referring to. Politico and The Des Moines Register are not "unreliable" and it's not "subjective" to detail how her polling numbers have improved since the ad aired. Tiller54 (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The ad did indeed receive very widespread media attention, and the attention was overwhelmingly positive. The vast majority of the commentary was about how the ad went viral and was considered to be very effective. To say that the reaction was mixed or somehow negative is indeed WP:undue. Per WP:BLP, the burden of justification resides with the editor adding or restoring content to a BLP.CFredkin (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Then why did you remove references stating that reception to the ad was positive? And why did you remove information about how her polling numbers improved after the ad aired? If the reception was "overwhelmingly positive" as you say, then why didn't you add references stating that? Because it's not true: reaction was mixed, which is what the sources say and thus what the article says. You've provided no references at all to back up your claims and instead just deleted every one provided that you don't like. Reporting what numerous sources have said does not violate WP:UNDUE and there is no justification for deleting sources and content under the veil of it while offering no sources to support your actions. Tiller54 (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

These sources covered the ad without mentioning anything "mixed" about the response: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. They all said that the ad was effective and humorous. References from a relatively obscure international pub and an op ed don't make your content mainstream. In addition, the Iowa Republican is not reliable (as I'm sure you would say if I tried to add anything remotely negative to a Democratic politician's BLP). The statement that she struggled with fundraising is totally subjective. Finally polls of elections are fleeting and not relevant for inclusion in a bio (especially since the polls are included in the election article which is linked from the section). Once again, per WP:BLP the content should be removed unless/until rational justification is provided for including it.CFredkin (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Most of the sources you provided do not support your position at all. 1 only mentions the ad in passing, 2 says the ad went viral and nothing more, 4 just gives a rundown of what she says in the ad, 5 is about how she was laughed at on late-night TV and 6 calls the ad "memorable" but also "provocative". Only 3 called it humorous or offered any analysis of the ad at all. Not mentioning the response to the ad is not the same thing as an "overwhelmingly positive" response and to claim that "They all said that the ad was effective and humorous" is completely untrue - 4 didn't call the ad anything, 1 called it funny and 1 called it memorable but provocative. That, combined with the existing sources, is the very definition of a mixed response.

As for The Iowa Republican, I didn't see a problem with it when I added it but in the spirit of compromise, I'll remove it and the quote from it. And no, I don't edit with a POV, only adding positive things to Republican articles and only adding negative things to Democratic articles.

The statement that she struggled with fundraising before the ad is what the source specifically says and is in fact supported by one of the sources you just provided! 6: "Palin's endorsement is likely to provide a major fundraising boost to Ernst, who has thus far lagged in that department -- a deficiency that she acknowledged in an interview with RealClearPolitics earlier this month."

Likewise, the sources provided point to the ad as the reason her polling numbers have gone up, which is is clearly relevant to the ad. Tiller54 (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Mis-represented quote

In this edit] I've removed a quote which is mis-represented based on the source. The context of the quote in the source was not a criticism. The commentary from the speaker regarding Ernst was actually positive.CFredkin (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Also untrue. With added context: "Ernst is “pulling the guard card” as a “tactical move to put to rest a general concern.” “She is cloaking her missed votes in the aura of the guard services,” Goldford said. “That is one of those things no one could argue with.”" Tiller54 (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read the source. It's not a criticism. Once again, I'm removing the content per WP:BLP.CFredkin (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. "She is cloaking her missed votes in the aura of the guard services. That is one of those things no one could argue with" is not a "positive" quote about Ernst as you claim. Tiller54 (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It is YOUR interpretation to say that it's criticism. In addition the quote is not notable or relevant.CFredkin (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pleased we were able to come to an agreement on the above issue, although I have just tweaked the grammar. I've not re-added this quote but re-worded the paragraph a little and added the link to the initial interview. Tiller54 (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Changes to page

An unregistered IP and a newly-created account are making the same edits to this page constantly, despite being told by several editors that the edits do not follow WP:STLYE, and despite being warned for edit warring numerous times. Tiller54 (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Portrait

What's the rationale for changing the portrait to the smaller image?CFredkin (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the editor's subjective intent. However, our objective practice has been to use official portraits, if available, and if not copyrighted. Bearian (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Blog Post

Why is the following blog post notable in this BLP:

This statement was described by Susan Milligan from US News as "stunning" and "a rewriting of history that demands a new definition of the word 'audacious.'"CFredkin (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Because it is written by an SME: Susan Milligan is a political and foreign affairs writer for U.S. News & World Report. Per WP:RS : Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Cwobeel (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I can see you you first edit war and then engage in a discussion. If that is your behavior, I suggest you change it otherwise I am not interested in having a discussion. See WP:BRD Cwobeel (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't make it notable for this BLP. If every inflammatory, subjective comment by a writer/political contributor is added to a politician's BLP, it will quickly become nothing but a gossip sheet. I should note that Ernst's opponent has provided quite a bit of fodder for scathing commentary by political pundits. I hope and expect that you would be supportive of adding such commentary to his BLP as well.

With regards to your accusations, I'll note that I initiated the Talk discussion here.CFredkin (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You initiated it when? Before your revert or afterCwobeel (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I initiated it before you did.CFredkin (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Your second revert was at 16:42, 14 May 2014 [7]. And this “discussion” was started at 16:45, 14 May 2014, after that revert... Cwobeel (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Your revert was at 16:37, yet I still managed to initiate this Talk discussion before you.CFredkin (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The point is: don't revert back and then post on the talk page. As for your complaint, it is unfounded. Her comments received much criticism and her comments and the criticism that followed (which is hardly "inflammatory [and] subjective") are indeed notable. Removing all mention of the response to her comment, so that all that is posted is her comment and her "clarification" is not appropriate. Tiller54 (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The point is: adding inflammatory, POV comments from political pundits is not appropriate. If all editors start doing that, it will be a race to the bottom for the site.CFredkin (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The comments are not "inflammatory" or "POV" and journalists are reliable sources, not "political pundits". Tiller54 (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Biographies can and should contain any significant controversies and criticism per WP:NPOV. Ernst comments on the Iraq war WMD debacle was substantial and we should have some material that described the uproar. Cwobeel (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure. But these statements aren't even close to being noteworthy. What makes the speakers credible on the subject? Videos and cartoons have been made (and mentioned in reliable sources) parodying Braley's gaffe at the trial lawyer fundraiser. Is it appropriate to include a gif of a cartoon of the incident in Braley's bio? Do you think it's possible to find someone writing for a reliable source who has questioned his standing as a human being? Let's stick to the facts and include commentary where it's from someone particularly notable.CFredkin (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you don't like them doesn't make them "not noteworthy". As you seem to be unfamiliar with what makes a source credible, I refer you to WP:RS. As for your characterisation of these comments as "question[ing] [her] standing as a human being" and comparing them to a satirical cartoon, that is utter nonsense. Cwobeel and I agree and have pointed to actual policies. You disagree and have referenced... nothing. There's your consensus my friend. Tiller54 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The policies I'm referring to are WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Please take a look and familiarize yourself with them. Friend.CFredkin (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources are reliable and verifiable and, as Cwobeel points out, WP:NPOV does not mean that BLPs should not contain criticism. Tiller54 (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But WP:NPOV means representing FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and, as far as possible, WITHOUT BIAS all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. And WP:BLP says BLPs should be written responsibly, CAUTIOUSLY, and in a DISPASSIONATE tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. [Emphasis mine]] And the content in dispute doesn't come close to satisfying those parameters.CFredkin (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

There have been no reliable sources that have called what she said correct. All the sources I could find said that what she said about WMD was completely wrong. Reporting what was written about her comments is in line with that. Despite what you say, the response to her comments has not been "inflammatory", nor has it come from "bloggers" and "pundits", it's come from journalists at reliable sources. It is not an "overstatement" to report that the overwhelming response to her bizarre claim was a negative one. Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring the "avoid understatement" part when you go and do something like this and completely remove any mention of the negative coverage her comments received. Saying "she said this, then she clarified and said this" without saying WHY she clarified her comments is nonsensical. Tiller54 (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Popping in a bit late here, but just to weigh in -- A columnist's characterization of the reception of her comments doesn't seem like it belongs here, unless we can credibly say that that columnist's analysis is notable in itself (which doesn't seem to be the case) Arbor8 (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not a characterisation of the reception, it's the actual reception to her comments. Tiller54 (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose the following: We either 1) remove the statement in Ernst's bio to the effect that her wmd received "considerable negative attention", or 2) we add a similar statement to Braley's bio regarding his fundraising gaffe. As it stands now different editing standards are being applied for each bio. Thoughts?CFredkin (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

What is said on Bruce Braley's page is not relevant to what is said on Joni Ernst's. Tiller54 (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Yes, WP:OTHER is precisely what I was looking for. This should be decided on its merits, not on what is going on on some other page. On that count, Wikipedia is exceptionally clear. Arbor8 (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What's the rationale for removing this from Ernst's quote? It provides the rationale for her statement. Also the Register included the entire statement in their quote of her. They did not do that for other questions. So I think that demonstrates its significance.CFredkin (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Not including it essentially removes her statement from its context.CFredkin (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It just doesn't seem relevant to what makes the quote notable. But I don't feel strongly about it to be honest. Arbor8 (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the quote is not relevant or notable... and yet CFredkin continues to edit war and restores the quote anyway. Tiller54 (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I restored the remainder of the quote based on Arbor's response. You just chimed in now, and have neither responded to my points above nor provided a rationale for why it's not notable.CFredkin (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you restored the entirety of the quote. You know there's a discussion going on and you just restore it anyway. Where her husband served and whether WMD is still a "hot-button topic" in Saudi Arabia isn't relevant to her comments on the existence of WMD prior to the war and was not part of the controversy her comments engendered. Thus, it's not relevant or notable. Tiller54 (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You can't arbitrarily prune a quote from a reliable source. The implication of the sentence is that her husband was in a position to have been exposed to information that justifies her statement.CFredkin (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been "pruned", the relevant part of the quote is included in full. Your interpretation of what she meant when she said "that's a hot-button topic in that area" is precisely that: your interpretation. It's not what was picked up on and it's not what that part of her quote that received the attention. Thus, it's not relevant. Still, you continue to ignore the talk page. Now you've reverted to the version you want and then asked for full protection. That is completely inappropriate and I expect you to self-revert as the discussion is still ongoing and there is no consensus to make the edits that you want made. Tiller54 (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no reference to "concealed carry" in the source provided for the statement that was just restored in this edit. Also, including 5 references to source a statement is WP:pointy disruptive editing.CFredkin (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The statement is that her comments caused significant controversy. 5 references to support that is hardly "excessive" and is certainly not "disruptive". Tiller54 (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do you need five references? Isn't an indication of national coverage sufficient?CFredkin (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's potentially contentious and to source the claim that her comments received "considerable negative attention", a considerable number of sources are provided. Tiller54 (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I think additional sources can be added later if requested by another editor.CFredkin (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with "considerable negative attention" is that phrase does not appear anywhere in the litany of sources provided (some are reliable and some are unreliable). That phrase is the opinion of an editor of this article and that's all it is. I attempted to save only substantive part of the sentence that can withstand scrutiny by taking the word "scrutiny" from the Washington Post article and work it into the article. But "considerable"? No. It is a blip on the radar screen of life. That's my opinion and my opinion is as important as the other editors of this article, i.e., not very important at all. And "negative"? No. A good discussion about Iraq, in my humble opinion, will be good for election and she is getting attention, not a bad thing for a candidate in four person primary. Once again, it is my opinion, not fact and my opinion is the not the way we are supposed to develop our articles. What does matter is what the Wash Post said and they said commented on more "scrutiny" has come her way since she has picked up in the polls. Now that fact is notable and is supposed by a reliable source. That should be the focus, not on whether any editor here--who might or might not have a bias toward the subject of the article--thinks it is "considerable" or "negative", etc.--NK (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps "considerable" is unnecessary, but are you really saying that coverage like 1 2 3 4 is "not negative"? And which sources do you think are "unreliable"? The Hill? U.S. News & World Report? The fact is notable and so is what the response to it was, which was clearly not overwhelmingly positive... Tiller54 (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on the sources, I think we could reasonably say: "Her opponents attacked her response."CFredkin (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Tiller54 (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Protected

The article has been protected five days due to a dispute that was reported. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Protection can be lifted if agreement is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Editorializing, spin and OR

Regarding this edit: [8], which I have reverted: This source [9] speaks of Ernst attempt to deflect the AWOL criticism by citing her National Guard service, but the Gazette article says differently" A review by The Gazette of the Iowa Senate Journal and her schedule obtained through a Freedom of Information and Iowa open records request from the Iowa National Guard, shows that few — 10 percent, or 12 of the 117 missed votes — came on days when she was on active duty. Drake University politics professor Dennis J. Goldford said Ernst is “pulling the guard card” as a “tactical move to put to rest a general concern.” “She is cloaking her missed votes in the aura of the guard services,” Goldford said. “That is one of those things no one could argue with.”. So If you want to use that source you need to say what the source say and not spin it or cherry pick. Cwobeel (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

And this source of March 5 [10] speaks of concerns about Ernst missing 71 of 95 votes tallied in the chamber since Feb 24. That is when her spokesman Flowers try to spin it with the National Guard argument, which was thoroughly debunked by the Gazette in the other article published April 14. So these two sources now that they have been brought up here, need to be used specifically as reported by the Gazette: the attempted spin, and the subsequent debunking. Cwobeel (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, CFredkin thinks that said "cloaking herself" quote is "not a criticism. The commentary from the speaker regarding Ernst was actually positive." Tiller54 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't care is that is positive or negative, I just care about reporting what the sources say. Let the readers make that assessment for themselves. Cwobeel (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but that was his reason for removing the information entirely. Tiller54 (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If editors want to remove well sourced material, which complies with WP:RS and WP:BLP, they need to engage in a discussion here, in particular when the material is data, not opinion. Cwobeel (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Chamber of Commerce Endorsement

There are many, many very reliable sources mentioning the fact that the Chamber endorse Ernst. That would seem to indicate that it is notable for her bio.CFredkin (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

All endorsements go here: United_States_Senate_election_in_Michigan,_2014#Endorsements_2 Cwobeel (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. But I don't think that precludes them from being included in the bio if they're particularly notable. The Lt. Gov. endorsement was highlighted initially. Palin, Romney, and the CoC endorsements have received a great deal of attention more recently.CFredkin (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:RECENT? Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

One can remove the "more recently" from my previous statement and my point would still apply.CFredkin (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The CoC endorses a candidate in practically every race at every level, it's what they do. Listing them on the elections page is fine, but they're not relevant to BLPs unless they're significant. Romney endorsing a candidate? Quite notable, as he's not really done that since the 2012 election. The same for Obama. CoC and labour union endorsements (for example) on the other hand? Not notable. Tiller54 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It's notable because there are many Republicans running in the primary. The CoC has only endorsed her.CFredkin (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of other organisations have endorsed her (VOICES of Conservative Women, anyone?), but just because they picked her over one of the others, doesn't make it a notable endorsement in and of itself. Tiller54 (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, the true indication of its notability is the fact that it has been very widely covered by the national media.CFredkin (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that an endorsement received attention when it was made does not make it notable. It's a textbook example of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Newsworthy? Yes. Notable? No. Tiller54 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't think it is that notable. But surely the endorsement by Romney is. Cwobeel (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, his endorsement is. The Chamber's? Not so much. Tiller54 (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The Chamber endorsement was very widely covered by the national media. If you want more sources, I can give them to you.CFredkin (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As Cwobeel and I have stated, this is WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that an endorsement received coverage does not make it notable, nor is there any enduring notability from it which would justify inclusion in her BLP. Tiller54 (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It didn't just receive coverage. It received widespread coverage in the national media.CFredkin (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The endorsement was made, it was reported on. That doesn't mean it conveys any enduring notability, which is what the policy requires. Tiller54 (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Widespread coverage by national media is the best indicator of notability. There are many more mentions of the Chamber endorsement in the national media than there are of her WMD comment. In fact, I can make a strong argument based on media coverage that the current content on the WMD comment in the article is WP:Undue.CFredkin (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The same goes for the AWOL comment made by her opponent. What's the "enduring notability" of that? Based on the number of reliable sources mentioning it, I can argue it shouldn't be in the bio at all.CFredkin (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As WP:NOTNEWS states: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Thus, an endorsement by the CoC, who endorse in practically every race at every level, has no enduring notability and indeed no real relevance to her article. Tiller54 (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not all Chamber endorsements get media coverage, much less extensive national media coverage. By that measure, the endorsement is notable. What's your rationale for including the WMD comment and the AWOL comment?CFredkin (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

And even if they do get media coverage, that still doesn't mean they convey any enduring notability and it still doesn't make it relevant to a BLP. An election article? Yes. But not here. Again, per the actual policy: "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements (ie: an endorsement by the Chamber of Commerce) is not a sufficient basis for inclusion." Tiller54 (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The news coverage of the chamber endorsement wasn't of the announcement. It's of the impact and the meaning. And you still haven't answered my questions above.CFredkin (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You are not listening to the arguments made. There is no consensus for including this, you being the only one pushing for this. We could start an RFC, but it is a waste of time. Cwobeel (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin, please do not WP:EDITWAR, as you appear to be doing. There is no consensus to include this material because it is a textbook example of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Note that all but one of the sources you provided also say that Ernst has been endorsed by the Senate Conservatives Fund, which I note that you are not trying to add to her article. Such an endorsement also has no lasting notability, and is also not relevant to her BLP. Tiller54 (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You guys are really something. This page is put on full protection for 5 days, and you have nothing to say in Talk. Then the day before the primary, you start up again on the same edits as before protection. Not only that, but you don't address my points or my questions above.CFredkin (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I was not even aware of the page protection. Please avoid ad hominems. Cwobeel (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You haven't raised any points, you've just attempted to filibuster the discussion. Cwobeel and I have pointed to actual policy, you've done nothing except make the same point over and over again. Tiller54 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this endorsement is more notable than the rest; it has gotten attention on blogs over several days. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM is not a good argument for including this endorsement. Cwobeel (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM is not a good argument for excluding this endorsement.--NK (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is. Cwobeel (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course it isn't.--NK (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this a five-minute argument or the full half-hour? Tiller54 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Touche Cwobeel (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that we have a break due to page protection, which of course protected the wrong version, we have time for endless argumentation about WP:RECENTISM and this not so notable endorsement. Cwobeel (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and that should give you plenty of time to respond to my question above.CFredkin (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

We can all thank NazariyKaminski for this wiki-break: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Tiller54_reported_by_User:NazariyKaminski_.28Result:_Locked.29. Pity that he did not inform me about this report at ANI as customary. And pity as well that he reported Tiller54 but not CFredkin. Ah POV wars. Cwobeel (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No pity. That's hogwash. I did not have to inform you. You were not reported. I notified the person that was required to be notified. Don't make up rules to support your personal attacks.--NK (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hogwash my foot. You mentioned my name in that ANI thread as an "edit warrior", when I reverted a single time. Shame on you. Cwobeel (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not call you an "edit warrior"--that is your term, not mine. But obviously that term came to your head based upon your actions and you know better what's going on there than I do. So if the shoe fits. . . And I will repeat I did not have to notify you. So don't make things up.--NK (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense, since last time you reported me but not Tiller.CFredkin (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

When did I do that? This is the first time I encountered user Tiller. Cwobeel (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

My view is that endorsements of candidates should go on the campaign articles and not in the biography of the politician. Why? Because it is based on an event specifically to a campaign. Compare with real biographical information, such as political positions, commentary about these positions in particular when the subject himself/herself respond to criticisms or praise. Cwobeel (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion. You have a right to your personal opinion. However, it is not a hard and fast rule of Wikipedia. That fact is that there hundreds of articles about politicians in Wikipedia where the endorsements of various people and organizations are listed. That is fact. You have not explained why your opinion should only be applied Joni Ernst's article. If you want to make a policy change to Wikipedia go through the proper channels, but just trying to impose your personal opinion on one article is inappropriate--it is called POV-pushing.--NK (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The hard and fast rule in Wikipedia is to be collegial with fellow editors, and not making this a WP:BATTLE. Of course I have an opinion and so you do. This discussion is designed to look for and find consensus on the subject of including or not yet-another-endorsement-for-a-politician in his or her biography. Cwobeel (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As usual you did not respond to the facts of the situation and chose instead to focus on what you believe to the issue. The issue is quite clear. There is no rule that states that endorsements cannot be part of the article on a politician. There are Democrats that have these endorsements listed and there are Republicans that have these endorsements listed. If you do not like the endorsements, which is your opinion and you have a right to your opinion, then you need to take that issue up in the appropriate place. This is not the appropriate place. I would encourage you to take the topic there. If you want to make a policy change then I would highly encourage you to read this article from Wikipedia and make yourself familiar with it: Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance.--NK (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If we are in the mood of lecturing each other gratuitously, here is one for you: WP:CONSENSUS#Reaching_consensus_through_discussion Cwobeel (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You are not attempting to reach consensus. There is no substantive reason that the Chamber of Commerce endorsement should not be in the article. You just don't want it in. There have been many, many reliable sources provided to show that the endorsement was critical to her performance in yesterday's election. This is fact, not opinion. Now, you have an opinion that you don't want the endorsement in. But you have not provided substantive reasons why it should be excluded. All you have provided, so far, is your opinion. But notability is not based upon the one opinion of one editor or two editors. You need to provide substantive reasons for the exclusion. If you want to change the way that all politicians' articles are written then you need to take that policy debate elsewhere because this is not correct place for it. You need to provide a reliable source that states that the Chamber of Commerce endorsement is not notable or important to her victory. You have not provided that reliable source because you are basing your reasoning on your own personal preference, which is not a rationale that is the basis for these types of decisions. Also, you keep attempting to deflect from the subject by saying that you are being mistreated or something or other, which of course you aren't. You just need to provide a reliable source that supports your personal opinion. But you have not done that. Please provide a reliable source that supports your personal opinion that the Chamber of Commerce endorsement was not important. Please work toward consensus by providing substantive support for your position. That is how consensus is reached. You need to do your part to reach consensus. I haven't seen it yet.--NK (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. You are an editor that was/is keen on her victory. That explains a lot. I will leave this discussion for now to concentrate on more rewarding editing than this. Cwobeel (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That phrase "her victory" does not explain anything. I have asked you repeatedly to provide a reliable source to support your position and you have not provided one. You have seen that you aren't getting anywhere with your agenda and instead of being forthcoming on why you are leaving you are making up hogwash about me and my editing. I love the fact that you attack others as POV-pushers but if someone points out your behavior you tell them they need to quit. You don't have a reliable source to support your personal opinion that the Chamber of Commerce endorsement was not notable. You also know that making the argument that we should change all politician's article so that there are no endorsements is basically a policy issue for all of Wikipedia and I'm not going to accept that argument as a reason to exclude the Chamber of Commerce endorsement. If you want to change the policies of Wikipedia so that no endorsements for politicians are allowed on their article page then you know you need to take that discussion to the appropriate forum (Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance). So you are leaving the discussion and casting aspersions on me as you go, simply because you cannot or will not provide a reliable source that supports your claim that the Chamber of Commerce endorsement was not important or notable to the election yesterday. If you had a reliable source to support your position then you would have simply provided it and then we could have had a discussion about what significance that reliable source was and how it fits in context with the long, long list of reliable sources that supports my position and the position of the other editors that disagree with you. But you don't have a reliable source so you are leaving and taking pot shots as you go. You don't have a reliable source so there is no need for the pot shots, just accept it and move on.--NK (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. Your verbosity gives it away already. Cwobeel (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Verbosity"!!!! Wow! Big word. Besides you said you were moving on, but I guess that was just another empty, hollow promise. Anyway, I have to verbose to get a point across to the thick.--NK (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the ad hominem, which amply demonstrate you behavior. Cwobeel (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You promised to go away. Why can't you follow up on your promise. You don't have a reliable source to support your personal opinion, as the Disney song advocates, let it go.--NK (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit requested

Ernst wins Iowa GOP U.S. Senate race [11] Cwobeel (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Last sentence in the lede should read:

She is the GOP nominee for the United States Senate from Iowa in the 2014 midterms election.

Cwobeel (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the update! Please file another edit request if anything needs tweaking. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Expanding

Political positions

We ought to add more material to that section, for example.

• Life begins at conception.
• Marriage is a religious institution, defined as a union between one man and one woman
• Social Security and Medicare must be preserved and protected
• Scrap the tax code and start over

Source [12] Cwobeel (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Personal life

We ought to add the castrating hog’s quote from her now famous campaign ad “I grew up castrating hogs on an Iowa farm”. Not only an interesting tidbit from her childhood, but also the fact that this add propelled her to win the nomination as widely reported. [13] Cwobeel (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Tentherism

This edit makes the claim that, because Ernts <sp> stated that Congress shouldn't pass laws that the states might nullify, and according to the source "nullification" was used to justify opposition to the abolition of slavery, Ernst's comment is related to "Tentherism". The source does not state that.CFredkin (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin (talk · contribs) says in edit summary: Source doesn't claim her comment is related to "Tentherism” and deletes this edit [14].

Here is what the source says:

"Tentherism" was one of the primary justifications used by pro-slavery advocate John Calhoun in the years leading up to the Civil War, and a hundred years later, by segregationists opposing civil rights. More recently, conservatives have resurrected the theory to argue for nullification of federal gun laws, the Affordable Care Act and other federal regulations."

- Cwobeel (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Note that it doesn't say that Ernst's comment is related to "Tentherism".CFredkin (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the last sentence? What UPI is saying is that recently, conservatives have resurrected the theory to argue for nullification of federal gun laws, the Affordable Care Act and other federal regulations, which means exactly that they see her comments as directly related. Otherwise why would they have included that material in the article if it was not related to Enrst? Care to explain? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we can say definitively why it was included. Perhaps they felt it would be an interesting point of interest for their readers....CFredkin (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC) The source doesn't provide the context for her statement (i.e. Was it in response to a query regarding ACA, gun laws, slavery?)

I find your line of argument quite remarkable. Here we have an article by the UPI, in specifically on the subject of Ernst's comments on nullification, in which Thenterism is described and you say that these are unrelated? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Glenn Beck?

I don't see any mention of Ernst' name on this webpage, currently used as a source in the article http://www.glennbeck.com/agenda21/]. Did you mean to site the book itself? Because that would be a different citation style, I believe. Right now, I'm not really sure what this webpage is supposed to be adding re. Ernst. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Read the source in Yahoo News: [15]

The latest primary comments that could haunt her Senate bid are on the topic of Agenda 21, a community planning provision in a decades-old United Nations treaty that’s become an object of fear and conspiracy theories on the right, and especially in the commentaries and writing of Glenn Beck. and, this as well:

But her positions on the 1992 U.N. recommendations for countries to become more environmentally sustainable — which Beck made the basis of his novel "Agenda 21," about a “violent and tyrannical government” ruling “what was once known as America” — are perhaps her greatest flirtation with the politics of the conspiracy-minded.

- Cwobeel (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's in the Yahoo News article. Again, I ask: why the link to Glenn Beck's website, where there is no mention of Joni Ernst? How is that not WP:COATRACK? Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I can understand that you may not like these comments, but these are her own comments, and as such can be included and in no way or manner can be argued that it is a coatrack. The context provided in the Yahoo News article, a solid WP:RS, about Beck is also important. Remember, we are not here ro pass judgement on sources, we are here to report what reliable sources say about a subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood my concern. I'm wondering why Glenn Beck's website is being used as a reference here. It doesn't mention Joni Ernst, the subject of this article. So this is WP:COATRACK in the sense that this article is now being used as a place to "hang" information that's not really about the subject of the article. I.e. Beck's website, which doesn't mention Joni Ernst. Why would we have that in this article. We don't need it anyway, since the Yahoo News story provides plenty of context. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be neutral. We're not supposed to be stringing references together to create a particular narrative. Based on the fact that you say you find Ernst's comments "idiotic" [16], it sounds like you have a particular point of view about this material that you're trying to promote here. Also, your edit summary stating you "need a break from the stupidity" is interpreted as a personal attack. Please don't do that again. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Said that because I am frustrated with the whitewashing attempts. Yes, of course I have a negative opinion on the subject, same as you may have a positive one, but that does not preclude you or I to edit this article, does it?. Now, to my break. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

To avoid frustration in the future, I'd suggest building consensus on the talk page first prior to posting any material that is likely to be contentious. Also, accusing me of whitewashing is a bit rich given my legitimate concern about WP:COATRACK. Please WP:AGF. You haven't responded to my question about why you think we should be using Glenn Beck's website as a source here when it doesn't mention Ernst. Enjoy your break. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The material is only contentious because these statements by Ernst are contentious on their own merits. My edit, now reverted to oblivion, was an honest attempt to represent the source as close as possible. (The link to the Agenda 21 book page at glennbeck.com was there as a courtesy to readers; It can be deleted, I have no problems with that.) What I have a problem with is the poor state that section is now in, by what I still consider as a blatant attempt at whitewash. Here we have a Senate candidate espousing the one of the most fringe theories ever concocted, and we also have an article in a WP:RS that calls it as it is, mentioning Beck’s novel and other contextual information, and here we are just mentioning her remarks about this fringe, right-wing conspiracy theory as if there is nothing to it? How is that not whitewashing? Can you explain? I will initiate an WP:RFC to address this issue tomorrow, after my break. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The commentary on Agenda 21 is not appropriate because this is a bio. In bio's we indicate politicians' stances on issues. We don't discuss the merits of the issues themselves. If readers want more info on a topic, they can read the corresponding articles.CFredkin (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to thoroughly discussing this issue and achieving community consensus, hopefully with the aid of an RFC. Including a reference that doesn't mention the article's topic is not a courtesy to readers, it's a violation of policy. If you hadn't immediately reverted my edit when I made that minor change, perhaps more of your original edits would have stood. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

First, apologies for my outburst yesterday; that was not fair to both of you. we could avoid the long trip to RFC, if you could agree to the following version:

See also: Agenda 21 opposition

At January 2004 GOP forum in Montgomery County, Iowa, Ernst warned that Agenda 21, the 1992 Agenda 21 U.N. recommendation for countries to be more environmentally friendly, could force Iowa farmers off their land, dictate what cities Iowans must live in, and control how Iowa citizens travel from place to place, stating that “We don’t want to see a further push with Agenda 21, where the Agenda 21 and the government telling us that these are the urban centers that you will live in; these are the ways that you will travel to other urban centers", and argued that Agenda 21 would force “moving people off of their agricultural land and consolidating them into city centers, and then telling them that you don't have property rights anymore.”

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd suggest the following compromise. The quote is her opening statement on the issue:

At a January 2014 GOP forum in Montgomery County, Iowa, Ernst warned that Agenda 21, the U.N.'s 1992 voluntary action plan for sustainable development, could force Iowa farmers off their land, dictate what cities Iowans must live in, and control how Iowa citizens travel from place to place, stating that “The United Nations has imposed this upon us, and as a U.S. senator, I would say, ‘No more. No more Agenda 21.’ Community planning — to the effect that it is implementing eminent domain and taking away property rights away from individuals — I don’t agree with that. And especially in a place such as Iowa, where we rely heavily upon our agricultural community, our rural communities. We don’t want to see things like eminent domain come into play."CFredkin (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with your proposal, if we can link a see also directly to Agenda_21#Opposition where the positions of republican, tea party, and others from the right are presented. This instead of providing context directly in this article about that position. That was the intent of my compromise proposal. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the see also is redundant and inappropriate given the link in the article. Also I think the link should go to the Agenda 21 article itself, instead of some sub-section.CFredkin (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:HAT: "Hatnotes are short notes placed at the top of an article or section of an article (hence the name "hat"). Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking. Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because they were redirected, because the sought article uses a more specific, disambiguated title, or because the sought article and the article with the hatnote have similar names. Hatnotes provide links to the possibly sought article or to a disambiguation page." Your edit does not appear to be appropriate based on this definition.CFredkin (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think there are currently too many sub-sections under "political positions." I would suggest the following sub-headings:

• Economic Issues (to include current sections on Taxes, Federal Budget, and Minimum Wage)
• Environmental Issues (to include current sections on Farm Bill, Clean Water Act, Federal Regulation, and Agenda 21)
• Views on Constitution (to include current sections on Nullification & States Rights and Rights of Gun Owners)
• Foreign Policy
• Social Issues

We're left with one sentence on health care and one blurb on federal involvement with education. We could have an "Other Issues" section, or put health care and education under economic issues.

I think this reorganization would help us avoid excessive subsections per WP:LAYOUT. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That would work. But let's finish the first issue before we do the reorg. In respons to CFredkin, the issue we are trying to find a compromise about, is the fact that the source presents a critique of her position on Agenda 21, as being fringe. I had that in the article, but it was removed. So, my compromise proposal is to not include the critique (that could be included per WP:NPOV), but to instead link to the subsection at Agenda 21 dealing with that issue. if we can't arrive to an agreements that we can live with, we can proceed with the RFC to seek additional feedback. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think what's currently in the article is fine. There's a link to the Agenda 21 page, where a reader can easily scroll down to the opposition section. Putting in a "see also" tabbed to a specific section of the article seems like overkill. Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What is in the article now does not reflect what the source says. I will attempt to use CFredkin proposed text with one addition fully attributed to the source. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Cwobeel, I appreciate the good faith effort toward reaching a compromise. But I still disagree with inclusion of references to conspiracy theories, etc. with respect to Agenda 21. The reason is that references to stances by politicians in BLP's don't include commentary on the issues themselves, even if they're included in the source. There are plenty of reliable sources that reference the fact that specific politicians' voted for PPACA and also include negative commentary on PPACA itself. However references to the fact that the politicians' voted for PPACA in their BLP's don't include the negative commentary on PPACA. The same goes for human-caused climate change, partial birth abortion, etc. If readers want to learn more about the issues, they can click the link and read the articles dedicated to those subjects.CFredkin (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP does not trump NPOV, and per NPOV we need to report what reliable sources say about a subject. Otherwise all our BLPs would be devoid of criticism, and that is at the core of my concern in this instance - Cwobeel (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

We can't give a backgrounder on each issue or policy area that a politician has made a comment about. That's what the articles on those issues are for. It wouldn't make sense to go down the list of issues that are listed and under each sub-section put a "see also: main article." As in "Joni Ernst said something about guns and the 2nd Amendment once....See also: U.S. Constitution," or "Joni Ernst doesn't like ACA....See also: ACA." That's what wikilinks are for. You also wouldn't say "Joni Ernst doesn't like ACA, a health care law that has stirred controversy after the troubled rollout of Healthcare.gov." If that information is relevant, it will be on the appropriate page. It's not our place to give commentary. One Yahoo News story doesn't demand a primer on Agenda 21 be inserted here. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Red herring, my friend. I am not arguing for a "primer" on Agenda 21 or anything close to it. My question remains: Are you arguing that criticism of a politician position can't be included in an article about that politician, in particular when a WP:RS refers to it specifically and when the entire purpose of the article was to highlight that fact? This is the title of the article: "Will Joni Ernst’s flirtations with the political fringe haunt her in November?". Aren't we violating NPOV by cherry-picking from that article just what Ernst said and not commentary from the source? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source, referring also to the tape obtained by Yahoo News:

Yahoo News has also unearthed examples of Ernst commenting on “Agenda 21,” a preoccupation of conspiracy-mongering on the right, in which she suggests Agenda 21 could force farmers from their land and exert vast control over Iowans. She subsequently backed off the idea, but her original dabbling in it prompted Yahoo’s Meredith Shiner to accuse Ernst of “flirtations with the political fringe.” Steve Benen recently observed that Ernst “seems to hold beliefs that put her squarely on the furthest fringes of American political thought.” [17]

- Cwobeel (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned that your stated motive here is to introduce criticism into the article. Certainly sometimes it's appropriate to insert criticism into articles, but that shouldn't be the primary editorial objective. We're supposed to be giving a balanced account that reflects what the body of reliable sources have said about an article's subject. We're not supposed to be going out of our way to look for ways to intentionally add criticism to an article. That would be agenda-pushing. So please make your case for specific inclusion of particular material based on the merits of the material and accompanying sources, and not based on your previously stated desire to add criticism into the article. Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

What happened to AGF? Take a look at my contributions to this page and tell me if I have not added a balanced view. My point is very simple: If we use a source to support material in an article, 'we are not to cherry pick from the material, rather, we have to represent as close as possible and without bias what the source says. That is WP:NPOV 101, and that I exactly what I have done. Have a nice day, busy with another article today. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Reporting what sources say

Re. this edit [18], yes, when we use a source we do report what it says. Of course we can't report every single thing that every single source says, because then we'd be reprinting entire articles right here on Wikipedia. So we summarize what sources say. And that's been amply done with regards to Ernst's views on the 10th Amendment. Including the quote "may wish to brush up on her high school civics" is overkill. Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Obviously we disagree. Can we find consensus, or do we have to go through an RFC? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Can material that is critical to the subject be included in the article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a dispute about inclusion of critical information reported in reliable sources. The diffs showing the disputed materials are:

• [19] Yahoo news uncovers a tape about a statement made by Eernst on Agenda 21 and reports it in an article titled Will Joni Ernst’s flirtations with the political fringe haunt her in November? - The disputed material is:

“and described the subject of her remarks as a ”decades-old United Nations treaty that’s become an object of fear and conspiracy theories on the right.”

• [20] An article by the UPI, in which the source makes a critical statement about the lack of understanding by Ernst about nullification. The disputed material is (my highlight):

According to an article published by the UPI, Supreme Court case law has determined that the Constitution forbids nullification, and interprets the Tenth Amendment as a basic statement, and not a prohibition against the federal government from passing additional laws not already enumerated in the Constitution, and stated that Ernst "may wish to brush up on her high school civics.”

These are just two specific cases in the dispute, but the RFC is specifically designed to address the question if material that is critical about the subject can be included in the article, if the material is reported in a reliable source.

Comments

• Support - If we are using sources that are reliable to support material in the article, it is not our role to cherry-pick from the source, and we have to report what the source says per WP:NPOV, and within the context in which the source reports it. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - The reliable source makes a neutral statement about Agenda 21, and we may not take some parts of the source that someone likes while not using other parts of the source that someone doesn't like. There are a wide range of reliable sources discussing the fact that right-wing claims about Agenda 21 are basically conspiracy theories, and it is trivial to demonstrate that the predominant mainstream view is that such claims are, indeed, conspiracy theories. We must not give a fringe theory undue weight and when we mention them, we are more or less obligated to note that they are significantly outside the mainstream POV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is not well-served by inserting campaign rhetoric and opinion of any sort pro or con about any person. Discussions at WP:RS already make clear that headlines are not written by journalists as a rule, and using material which is opinion in nature to make claims about a living person is likely to run afoul of WP:BLP as well. Best to state straight facts, and not insert anything like object of fear and conspiracy theories on the right which appears on its face to connect the person with "conspiracy theories", where such comments are scarcely worded in a neutral manner. Ditto may wish to brush up on her high school civics which is unlikely to be a statement of fact. The UPI piece also includes "Tentherism" was one of the primary justifications used by pro-slavery advocate John Calhoun in the years leading up to the Civil War, and a hundred years later, by segregationists opposing civil rights. We could not include that on a bet -- it implies a connection of Ernst to segregationist thinking. Sorry -- the piece is clearly editorial in nature, and can only be used for the author's opinions expressed as opinion. Collect (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Both of these are attributed to the source and in full compliance with WP:NPOV. By your arguments, no editorial comments would be allowed in articles, which is ridiculous. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Please tell me exactly what you refer to in your comments -- opinions should always be referred to as opinions, and should not be given undue weight. In the case at hand, you seem to say we should say "The UPI compared her stand to that of segregationists and slave owners" as being absolutely equally sourced to the editorial column. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I am not arguing for the inclusion of that material. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I think the article would well served with brief text on what Agenda 21 and nullification are, and why they are controversial. That of course would be different from the reverted text. The reverted text is merely quoted criticism of Ernst and her statements. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the very useful suggestion. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm removing this tag because the RfC as written violates the guidelines specified at WP:RfC. The description is not neutral and (in addition) it completely misrepresents the dispute with respect to the first item below. The Talk discussion above indicates that the issue with the first edit has to do with commentary on an issue (Agenda 21) that multiple editors contend is neither relevant nor appropriate in a BLP.CFredkin (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I've created a separate RfC to address the issues with the first edit below. I won't object to this RfC being created if the first edit below is removed.CFredkin (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC looks great on the Bio page. No bias there at all.CFredkin (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks for the pointers, lesson learned. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should this commentary on issues be included in BLPs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should commentary on issues be included in Joni Ernst?CFredkin (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose - References to stances by politicians in BLP's don't include commentary on the issues themselves, even if they're included in the source. For example, there are plenty of reliable sources that reference the fact that specific politicians' voted for PPACA and also include negative commentary on PPACA itself. However references to the fact that the politicians' voted for PPACA in their BLP's don't include the negative commentary on PPACA. The reason is that the existence of reliable sources that mention a particular politician in the midst of commentary on an issue can become an excuse to "litigate" the issue in a BLP. BLP's will be filled with commentary on the pros and cons of issues. If readers want to learn more about the issues, they can click the link and read the articles dedicated to those subjects.CFredkin (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Excepting that editorial opinions about the specific living person, used in a NPOV manner and wording, and properly and clearly ascribed as opinions, may be used judiciously. Using opinions not about the person, but about issues where the source does not mention the living person runs afoul of WP:SYNTH and may be viewed as a "coat rack". Collect (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless the reference is a reliable source that is also cited as an opinion and includes opposing citations as well that are clearly stated as such. Fraulein451 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: This article isn't the place to discuss the background or merits of any particular public policy stance. That's a recipe for WP:COATRACK. We should simply be stating the candidate's position on given issues. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So, no criticism of politicians found in reliable sources? How is that compatible with WP:NPOV?

As no one at all has made that claim, you run the risk of being seen as raising a non-issue against good faith. Cheers and have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't follow your argument. My question remains unanswered. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No one has suggested no criticism of politicians found in reliable sources (is allowed . I trust that if no one suggests something that your question is rhetorical at best. Answers to rhetorical questions which have no factual basis are difficult, so I can understand your belief that I did not answer your rhetorical question. Collect (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh man, you are really something. :) Anyway, it seems we are not close to find a solution to this. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as undue weight. Honestly, the whole paragraph smacks of undueism (is this really relevant to her article?) but surely the characterization of the treaty is irrelevant. Red Slash 18:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Responding to notice from feedback request service. As I understand it, the question is whether the material in the diff should be included. I don't see the problem with including the full explanation provided by this person. Obviously there is no BLP issue, as it does not reflect upon the subject of the article. So what else is there? It is her opinion, and explains in fuller fashion why she feels as she does. Coretheapple (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The scope of the subject heading is grossly different than the question below the heading. Are you asking people about all BLPs or just the change to this article referenced in the link provided? There's a major difference in context between "all BLPs" and "this change proposed for Joni Ernst". Please revise the wording of one or the other to make the scope of the question clear. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Social Programs

This edit removes a reference to "social programs" that doesn't exist in the source.CFredkin (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Impeachment

Once the protection is lifted, I would want add the following sentence in the Political positions#Impeachment of Obama section. As we had many disputes already, posting it early will give a chance to editors to comment.

At a Montgomery County, Iowa candidate forum in January 2004, Ernst said that Obama had “become a dictator” and that he needed to be held accountable for his executive actions, “whether that’s removal from office, whether that’s impeachment.”

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Overstates what the source would support, thus opposed here.

Ernst was asked what “punishment” Obama should suffer if the Supreme Court ruled against him in a then-pending case on the constitutionality of his recess appointments, and what she would do as a senator to stop his “blatant abuse of power.”

shows the context of the material.

"If any president oversteps their bounds, there are procedures in place for Congress and the American people to hold him or her accountable. Impeachment is a strong word and should not be thrown around lightly.”

are the words of her spokesperson, which appear to indicate that the context of the question was important. Which supports

When asked at a forum about the Supreme Court case about the constitutionality of Obama's recess appointments, she said that if he acted unconstitutionally, he should face the proper repercussions as determined by Congress, "whether that's removal from office, whether that's impeachment." Her spokeswoman has stated " "If any president oversteps their bounds, there are procedures in place for Congress and the American people to hold him or her accountable. Impeachment is a strong word and should not be thrown around lightly.”"

Anything more from that source would have to include OR and SYNTH as we do not generally use quotes wrenched from their full context. Collect (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If we are to keep the context, which is always really important, then we need to add the entire back story and as reported in the source say the fact that the spokesperson downplayed the impeachment statement AFTER yahoo reported the video they unearthed. Per the report: "On Tuesday, Ernst spokeswoman Gretchen Hamel downplayed the significance of the video and provided Yahoo News with the following statement: "If any president oversteps their bounds, there are procedures in place for Congress and the American people to hold him or her accountable. Impeachment is a strong word and should not be thrown around lightly.” Once the protection is lifted, I will add you text with that addition. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, her statement about impeachment was made in January (during the primary), and the downplaying statement was made in August. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sexual harassment

Ditto, per above, I would like to add this:

In an interview with Time Magazine, Ernst said that she was sexually harassed in the military, stating that “I had comments, passes, things like that” which she was able to stop, and she will support removing sexual assault cases from the chain of command, breaking with the stance of the GOP and the Pentagon on that issue.

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Overstates what the source states: backing the removal of cases of sexual assault from the military chain of command, a position that puts her at odds with much of the GOP. is insufficient to say "stance of the GOP and Pentagon."

Ernst would refer all reports to an independent investigator outside of the chain of command and if criminal charges are warranted, then those cases would be referred to “an independent, experience prosecutor.”

Which was not what the Gillibrand proposal was in any case ("which would refer all sexual harassment cases to the Judge Advocates General Corps" and which failed in the Senate). What you can use from the source is

Ernst says she was sexually harassed in the military, and supports having an investigator outside the chain of command refer cases of sexual harassment to the Judge Advocate General Corps.

Anything more is likely to be a misuse of the source. Collect (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that's a good suggestion. Thank you. But I think we need to add her own words, about the harassment she said she suffered, otherwise we will leave our readers wondering what was the extent of the harassment. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The statement about Judge advocate is SYNTH, I am afraid. This is what the source says (my highlight): "Ernst isn’t endorsing Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s bill, her staff says, which would refer all sexual harassment cases to the Judge Advocates General Corps, but she pledged to work “with Senator Gillibrand and other Senate leaders in seeking bipartisan support for new legislation.” Ernst would refer all reports to an independent investigator outside of the chain of command and if criminal charges are warranted, then those cases would be referred to “an independent, experience prosecutor.” - Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ans lastly, there is no merit in removing the fact that she breaks from the Pentagon and GOP stances, as reported in the RS. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Um -- I stated her exact position as given in the source provided -- it is not SYNTH to use what the source states quite clearly -- SYNTH applies to combining disparate sources. As for your claim that the GOP as a party rejects her position -- which is different from the Gillibrand proposal - that is clearly OR and SYNTH. Sorry -- I fear you misapprehend just what SYNTH refers to. And the "scope of her harassment" has what, precisely, to do with the GOP? Collect (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming quite a conversation. Best would be to to an edit and allow you and others to improve and correct if needed. As for your question about the "scope of the harassment", that has nothing to do with the GOP, of course. But that is needed, otherwise readers may not know what was the extent, per her own words: “I had comments, passes, things like that”, and the fact that she was able to stop them. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

edit trying to insert Koch Brothers into this BLP

Where a very weak link might exist (she praised a PAC which is then gratuitously coat racked with a Koch Wikilink) it is up to the person proposing inclusion of the coat rack to gain consensus on the talk page as a positive requirement. I suggest that praising a PAC might possibly fit in, but the parenthetical coat rack is not valid here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So fix it instead of reverting. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that Ernst knows the Kochs is not notable. It is not even worthy of a mention. That's just a dog whistle.--NK (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. These are good sources and this is biographical, as Ernst is clearly declaring how she was lifted out of anonymity and became a viable candidate by the support of a Koch backed group. I am not making that up, it is her own words. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This from the New York Times, an undeniable reliable source: "The channel released audio of three other Republicans in tough Senate races — Representatives Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Cory Gardner of Colorado, and Joni Ernst, a state senator in Iowa — all of whom also praised Charles G. and David H. Koch and the millions of dollars they have provided to help Republican candidates." - Cwobeel (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Your only real problem is that the quote actually attributed to Ernst does not even mention the Kochs. Find a transcript where she mentions the Kochs as bring her backers, else this looks like a prime coat rack indeed. Praising a person, saying "These people back good guys" is weak, "These guys gave me a lot of money" would be strong. And if she only mentions AFP, then using the parenthetical coat rack for Koch is also against Wikipedia policy. Collect (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So, what the NYT said is not good for this article? How can you say that? That is a secondary and reliable source as you requested when you reverted my edit first. Is this a moving target now?. I will post at BLP/N to seek additional comments for uninvolved editors. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You are catenating several topics -- you wish to claim she praised a specific PAC - which is not supported by the NYT. You then wish to assert that she specifically prosed the Kochs - but that is not precisely supported in connection with your claim she praised the PAC. And since the NYT refers to a tape, find a transcript of that primary source and seek to find out if the NYT was simply overreaching and the quote the NYT actually gives is correct -- in which case the mention of the PAC should go, or that she mentions the PAC in which case the connection to the Kochs must go. Votre choix. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

These are two different sources describing tapes from the same event. WP:BLUE comes to mind. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Quote

Why is the quote not notable? This is a biography of Joni Ernst, and if Ernst describes her ascendance from an little known senator from a rural part of Iowa, this is good material for her biography. Here is the quote:

"I was not known at that time. A little-known state senator from a very rural part of Iowa, known through my National Guard service and some circles in Iowa. But the exposure to this group and to this network and the opportunity to meet so many of you, that really started my trajectory."

- Cwobeel (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Like most people, she has said a lot of things. A Wikipedia article is a place for an encyclopedic overview of a topic, not a place to include scores of recent cherry-picked quotes. Particular notability must be established for everything in the article. Even if an event is notable, that doesn't mean we need to include verbatim quotes from Ernst about it–we can have a nice summary. I'm afraid this article is resembling what is described in this National Journal article [21]. "Meanwhile, Democrats have stocked away some controversial statements Ernst made during her primary—like suggesting impeachment should be an option for President Obama, or her comments about states being able to 'nullify' federal laws—since the general election began..." Sound familiar? Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that LPs can say something about themselves, which contains biographical information, and we are not to quote them in their article in WP because it has political consequences? Is that what you are saying? I think we need an RFC on this subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we can't possibly add everything a candidate has ever said to their article. We must weigh inclusion carefully, with an eye toward long-term notability. Otherwise, we are prone to selection bias. As the National Journal article shows, the information that has been added to this page recently is all from Democratic Party campaign strategy--finding specific "saved" quotes from Ernst's primary run to attack her. It's not encyclopaedic to let a campaign cycle, and more problematically, a candidate's opponent, define what is supposed to be an encyclopedic overview. See Wikipedia:Recentism for a primer on why it's not neutral or desirable to make a biographical article a running commentary on contemporaneous events. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand the context, but this is biographical info, in her owns words. Actually, it is the opposite of recentism, as Ernst said that back in June. I will compose an RFC. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is this quote by Joni Ernst relevant for her bio?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is this quote from Join Ernst, about how her career trajectory was impacted by the exposure she received through a political group, suitable for inclusion in her biography?

“I was not known at that time. A little-known state senator from a very rural part of Iowa, known through my National Guard service and some circles in Iowa. But the exposure to this group and to this network and the opportunity to meet so many of you, that really started my trajectory." Joni Ernst, June 2014 at an Americans for Prosperity event.

- Cwobeel (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Really? "Trajectory"? It is clear she thanked a group, but adding "It helped my career trajectory" is about as useless as one can imagine. BLPs with useless quotes do not actually help readers. Collect (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

But these are her words, not mine, neither the source's. As a reader, I would be very interested to know how she came to be known as a viable candidate, don't you think? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

And it is our task as editors to separate the wheat from the chaff -- and the "trajectory" quote is clearly chaff. She thanked them for supporting her -- that is the actual gist of what is there. That she somehow viewed herself as being launched on a rocket is totally inane here - it is not a claim with sufficient weight to be used in the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Your words against Ernst's. Guess who has more weight? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Applying your rationale, what do we do with other "innane" quotes in the article? One can make the same argument, no? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The test here isn't "did someone say this one thing or not?" It's "we're building a timeless encyclopedia...has one particular event/quote, etc. risen to the level of prominence and notability that it should be particularly singled out for inclusion?" Again, we can't put everything she's said in this article. We need to summarize events, and collaboratively decide which events have received a level of widespread, timeless coverage that they are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article--not a campaign pamphlet. Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, here is a shot collection of sources. Take your pick. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

National news

* USA Today [22]

* Huffington Post [23]

* CBS News [24]

* NBC News [25]

* MSNBC [26]

Local news

* Des Moines Register [27]

* The Gazette (Iowa) [28]

* The Globe Gazette [29]

* Sioux City Journal [30]

* Waterloo Courier [31]

These are all dated yesterday and today. How is that not WP:RECENTISM? Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The speech was given in June ... only that the tapes only surfaced yesterday. This is the first instance that I found in which Ernst describes her career as a politician in that manner, giving a very useful insight of her views on that subject, and I think it is unique biographical material. In any case, I'll let others weigh in. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The existence of reliable sourcing for content is necessary, but not necessarily sufficient. I think we should also ask whether a quote has long-term significance. In this case, I don't think it does.CFredkin (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It is an editorial matter subject to WP:CONSENSUS and per that policy, without an affirmative consensus, it does not go in. See WP:NEWBLPBAN Standard Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions are authorised for the area of conflict, namely any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in any namespace based on the ArbCom ruling: Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached. Pursuant to that ruling, all editors are here informed that this is a BLP and that any admin may invoke discretionary sanctions on it. Collect (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, really Collect? Was that needed for a direct quote from a living person? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It is applicable to all BLPs per ArbCom -- it has now been invoked on several political BLPs at this point. I did not write it. Collect (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Then make a mention and put a wiki link, rather than scare the shit out of people coming to comment. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yell at ArbCom then and not at me -- they are the ones who made the rule. Berating me is not only silly, it does not change a single word of the rule. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support . No WP:BLP issues as it is a direct quote from Ernst own words, without commentary, analysis, or critique. Meets WP:BURDEN as it is sourced to numerous WP:RS. It is encyclopedic as it illuminates the subject’s own views on how her political career was made successful, and this is the biographical article of a politician. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose We should not be adding a Democratic talking point to the biography of a Republican candidate in the middle of a hotly contested campaign. (Disclosure: I am a Democrat off-Wikipedia. Here, I back the NPOV Party.) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't seem like a quotation from a speech made at a gala or similar event should go here. --Precision123 (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment User:Cullen328, I am open to different views. It just depends on the sources and the context. Could you provide me with the sources that report this quotation (or other ones you propose to cite it with)? Thank you. --Precision123 (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Because it is clearly sourced, in the subjects own words and concise and to the point I see nothing wrong in having her quote. Fraulein451 (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment This is an encyclopedia, not a not a newspaper. We don't cover every little detail that gets covered in the mainstream press. Is there any indication of the lasting significance of this coverage? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. In the article we are saying for example, that Ernst, while in college, took part in an agricultural exchange to the Soviet Union. That is useful biographical info even if not well covered, because it throws some light into her formation as a person and a politician. In the same vein, this comment is biographical as is a direct quote from Ernst about how she views her career, and who helped her achieve her current prominence as a candidate to the U.S. Senate. Makes sense? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of editorials for claims of fact

In general - no. They may be used for opinions cited properly as opinions, but not for claims of fact. Collect (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

These are, again, 'her own words. This is not opinion or editorializing. Why are you so afraid to present in this article Ernst own views on issues? What is going on? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Added another source for that material, there are more if needed. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This woman is an elected official. Surely we can find votes she has made and bills she has sponsored that illuminate her policy positions, rather than adding cherry-picked quotes as if they represent "policy." Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Finding votes" is WP:SYNTH. We report what sources say about a subject, per WP:V and WP:NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Finding votes is synthesis? I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm suggesting that an accurate way of reflecting Ernst's policy views would be to find reliable sources that describe how she has actually voted on bills, and which bills she has sponsored. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ernst is running for Congress. There are no bills she could have passed in the Iowa senate that would guide our readers to understand her positions nationally. That is why what Ernst has said publicly on federal and national issues is being reported in reliable sources, and we do the same here. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No. This is an encyclopedia article that should reflect what has actually happened, not what anyone speculates might happen based on quotes the candidate has made. The goal of this article is not to attempt to determine what might happen if Ernst is elected. She has an actual record that we can report on. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely we can report her positions as she declares them and they get reported. See for example David Brat and other freshman candidates that have no record. With your argument, we should not be having articles about them at all. See WP:NPOV that is crystal clear about this: representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you say that her political positions published in reliable sources are not significant for a politician running for Congress? Please.... - Cwobeel (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

But she has a record. She's an elected official. I'm saying we should include information about what's she actually done as an elected official, rather than speculation about her potential future policy positions based on quotes of hers that are included in editorials. A quote isn't a "policy position" unless it says "if elected, I will vote for X." Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

She has a record as a state senator, and you can add material about that record if not currently in the article. But that does not preclude us from adding information reported in reliable sources about her positions nationally or otherwise. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Aslo note the difference between "policy position" and "political position". Not the same, and the section is "Political positions". - Cwobeel (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

What I have an issue with is that we are happy to leave "positive" editorial comments (see the Time editorial at the end of the "2014 U.S. Senate election", but you are to remove all seemingly negative editorial comments (which BTW, I believe them not to be negative; if I was a strong conservative I would love her for these comments). That seems contradictory to NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Are the ones you wish to add particularly notable in the realm of US political commentary? "Time" is generally considered a notable source. Which neutrally worded negative comments would you like to see added? And why is each one notable enough for inclusion? Collect (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You are asking questions, but never seem to answer mine. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh? You made a statement, and I asked you directly which sources you wished to use and why they are notable, and what their addition would give the article under Wikipedia policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is one, which was deleted: - Cwobeel (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ernst believes that Federal judges should have an "understanding where the Constitution came from and our laws, and they all did come from God."

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The Gazette - editorial commentary. Second part of the "quote" only, and no context given for what preceded the quote. Des Moines Register - editorial commentary. Has your quote. No context. Esquire - editorial commentary. Second part of quote only. No context. In short all three are editorial opinion, and not usable for claims of fact, but only for the opinions of hteir writers properly cited as opinion. Editorial columns are not RS for claims of fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That is completely ridiculous. We are not presenting an editorial view (and even if we did that would be fine per WP:NPOV). We are presenting FACTS: that is Ernst own words. I am finding it extremely difficult to continuing assuming good faith here. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Have it your way: I have removed other material sources to "editorials", and added POV tag - Cwobeel (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing

I know that editing means adding content, editing existing content, and removing content. But if you look at this article's history you can see that some editors are basically deleting content with no attempt to improve or research new content. That is what makes all the discussions above difficult. What is the point of spending time researching material to improve an article, while seemingly all other contributors' interest is to delete content with what I believe to be specious arguments that don't hold any water?. For example, all these arguments above about not being able to include in this article things that Ernts has said simply because the quotes were part of an editorial? Or removing content because the source included some mild criticism, while leaving other content that contains superlatives? Give me a bloody break. I am taking a break from this article for a while. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the Wikipedia policies involved. If you dislike them, you have the ability to change and amend them just like every other page on Wikipedia. Using this page as a soapbox, however, will not change a single one of them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No my friend. This has nothing to do with policies which I can recite as well or better than you. This article is off my watchlist for a week. See ya. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Medicare and Social Security

As stated in my edit summary, I removed a reference to Social Security which is redundant with this statement earlier in the bio: "She has also expressed support for a partial privatization of Social Security accounts for young workers."

The following statement in this edit is not included in the source: "...which includes protecting benefits for current Medicare recipients, while reforming the system so that younger generations take part on a privatized system."

Also, the following general commentary on the status of Medicare is not relevant to her bio: "According to The Gazette, independent studies show that these younger generations will have to pay more.CFredkin (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

BOLD Deletion

I don't think it is appropriate to delete full documented materials just because it is silly season. This is a bio of a politician and politicians viewpoints, positions, and quotes are all relevant to such bios. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

: @Collect: Why on earth Ernst views on nullification have been deleted? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There is already a reference to the Tenth Amendment in the article.CFredkin (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

::: So what? This was deleted without any explanations:

At a forum hosted by the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition in September 2013 Ernst made comments suggesting that she thought states could nullify federal laws. Ernst stated: "Bottom line is, as a U.S. senator, why should we be passing laws that the states are considering nullifying? I mean, that's bottom line, is our legislators at the federal level should not be passing those laws." States cannot nullify federal laws.

- Cwobeel (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec)It makes political arguments in Wikipedia's voice, and the idea that politicians do not get equal treatment under WP:BLP is absurd (would you believe an edit summary claiming this is a politician after all). Neither fluff nor campaign rhetoric belongs in any BLP at all, ever. This applies, in fact, to all articles, though some appear to think that the POV of the person should make the rules differ. Collect (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, if you want to improve this article on your own:

• On climate change, Ernst said, "I don't know the science behind climate change. I can't say one way or another what is the direct impact, whether it's man-made or not." [32]

• On Social Security, which Ernst wants to privatize Ernst said said, "Within 20 years, the system will be broke," which isn't even close to resembling reality.

• On federal regulations, Ernst blamed a federal "cap and trade" law for undermining job creation. There is no federal "cap and trade" law.

• On contraception, Ernst was asked about her efforts to pass a state law that would have banned in-vitro fertilization and forms of birth control. She responded, that her bill didn't pass (????) [33]

• On the minimum wage, Ernst still doesn't seem to understand that the federal minimum is a floor and that states are free to approve higher levels if they choose. [34]

• And more [35]

have fun. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we can cite the claims to Cwobeel then? Very few climate scientists understand everything about the climate, so I doubt Cwobeel does either.

On the solvency of Social Security - it has already seen changes in ages - this is not an especially big issue. As to date when SS ends up being "in the red" - [36] should be a reliable source for anyone ... it states The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund reserves would become depleted between 2033 and 2041 under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report. Contrary to the noted expert who asserts which isn't even close to resembling reality, 2033 is 19 years away. Last I checked, 19 is actually less than 20 but YMMV.

On "cap and trade" - the US most certainly does have that in effect for SO2, NOx, etc. So much for that errant claim by our expert.

WRT claims that Ernst "doesn't seem to understand" the minimum wage laws - I fear you forget that the Federal Minimum wage is not a "universal minimum wage" and thus it is not a "floor" for state laws.

[37] is a reliable source for this. Other programs that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage apply to workers with disabilities, full-time students, and student-learners employed pursuant to sub-minimum wage certificates. These programs are not limited to the employment of young workers. indicates that there are significant exceptions to the Federal minimum wage laws.

The minimum wage law (the FLSA) applies to employees of enterprises that have annual gross volume of sales or business done of at least $500,000. It also applies to employees of smaller firms if the employees are engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, such as employees who work in transportation or communications or who regularly use the mails or telephones for interstate communications. Other persons, such as guards, janitors, and maintenance employees who perform duties which are closely related and directly essential to such interstate activities are also covered by the FLSA. It also applies to employees of federal, state or local government agencies, hospitals and schools, and it generally applies to domestic workers.

Thus the claim from our expert that the federal law is a "floor" is incorrect.

Lastly, Wikipedia is not a campaign venue, and using it as such is a perversion of the project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this opinionated back-and-forth isn't helpful, nor is it an appropriate use of an article talkpage. What is the actual content issue here? According to reliable sources, Ernst supports a "Personhood amendment", privatizing Social Security, abolishing the federal minimum wage, phasing out ethanol subsidies, and eliminating the Department of Education ([38]). If those political positions are not mentioned in the article, then they should be, as part of a comprehensive biography. Separately, Ernst has stated that she does not know whether climate change is man-made, thus putting her significantly at odds with the scientific understanding of the topic ([39]). That position should also be described as part of a comprehensive biography. Right? MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be reading more into the article about the charges made about two candidates than others would deem proper. Ernst did say "So I don’t know the science behind climate change." Which is true of 99% of all Americans, roughly. Most scientists do not know all of climate science either. So you find that an "important" comment to include? Cwobeel said she was completely wrong to suggest SS might be depleted in 20 years - so citing the actual source which says as little as 19 years seems proper on this talk page. And so on for all the views cited to our resident expert on this page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If scientists knew exactly what causes climate change then their climate change models would not be so freaking far off the mark. Ipso facto. Arzel (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore Arzel's comment for the politicized flamebait that it is (noting in passing that this is an ongoing problem with him). Collect, your response doesn't really address my point. We're not talking about knowing "all of climate science", but specifically about whether human activity plays a significant role in it. Ernst said she doesn't know whether human activity plays a role in climate change. That puts her at odds with the scientific view of climate change, in which human activity is understood to be a major driver. If you prefer, we could omit mention of the disconnect between Ernst's view and that of the relevant scientific community; I think you'd be misleading the reader by doing so, but whatever. Either way, her position on the issue should be mentioned in this article, along with her positions on the other issues cataloged above (Social Security, federal minimum wage, fetal personhood, eliminiating the Dept of Education, etc). Do you disagree with that basic premise? MastCell ^Talk 21:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I, moreover, read it as saying she does not have a science background in climatology - which is its meaning in ordinary English. In such a case, policy dictates we not insert any interpretation of our own past what an ordinary person would read into the words. Thus, we ought not make it a bigger deal than the ordinary language meaning would entail. Her position on minimum wage, as near as I can tell, is that it is a matter for individual states to decide. Her position on SS is that, absent any changes at all, the SS trust fund will be depleted in as few as 20 years -- which is exactly what the reliable sources (the official reports, in fact) state. Hardly any news value there. And again - Wikipedia is not a good campaign venue, which is where detailed lists of positions belong. Rather - this is an encyclopedia, and using it for campaign rhetoric is, in my opinion, a disservice to the project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "using [Wikipedia] for campaign rhetoric". I'm talking about summarizing a politician's positions on relevant issues, which is a central part of any comprehensive biography. Sources are numerous regarding her position on climate change; she has stated: "I can't say one way or another what is the direct impact, whether it's man-made or not". (Politico). These sources go on to note:

• "Ernst said she does not know if climate change is man-made" (Politico)
• Pressed on whether she thinks the earth is warming because of humans, she remained vague. 'I do believe that our climate is changing, but again I’m not sure what the impact of man is upon that climate change.' (Bloomberg)
• When Ernst said she was not sure that humans have caused climate change, Braley blasted her. (The Hill, emphasis mine)
• "I don’t know the science behind climate change, I can’t say one way or another what is the direct impact from whether it’s manmade or not," Ernst said. (Iowa Public Radio)

So there are sources detailing her position (that she believes the climate is changing, but is not sure whether human activity is a major cause of that change). You are not actually engaging with anything I'm saying, which is frustrating. Can you respond to the point I'm making, and clarify why we should not include a well-sourced description of position on climate change in the article? MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What is happening here, MastCell, (and in other conservative politician bios) is a shameless attempt to remove any political statements these politicians made during the Republican primary (and in some cases removing the material about their flip-flopping later on when running for the Senate) based on false BLP violations argumentation. It is shameful, not NPOV and highly disruptive. This is a bio of a politician and politicians viewpoints is what makes them notable. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean we should say in Wikipedia's voice that the SS trust fund is not facing depletion in 19 years or so just to show how wrong Ernst is? What an interesting concept - but this is not a campaign brochure for anyone. Nor would this be proper in any political BLP, The "right v. left" accusation is false here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A bio of a scientist includes his research, theories and opinions, and any significant criticism of these theories and opinions per NPOV. A politician is no different. Wikipedia articles on politician are not campaign brochures, but neither they are a resume. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And I remove fluff as rapidly as possible. The claim that an expert of some sort says the SS trust fund is not possibly being depleted in 20 years is, however, something where the official report seems to contradict our resident expert. If we try saying she is "wrong" on that, then the actual report would show the contrary in the case at hand. Do you wish to add yourself as a reliable source on that? I account for a total of 12 edits on this BLP, while the "lead editor" has well over a hundred edits on this BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Red herring again? Should I start eating fish for breakfast as well? What about the content about what Ernst said about nullification, for example? Why is that not included? Why nullification is set in scare quotes? This is a whitewash, plain and simple. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• OK, this is going nowhere fast, since we can't seem to keep from soup-spitting and arguing about editors' personal views. I'm going to go ahead and add sourced content on Ernst's relevant political views, in keeping with our standards for biographical articles of politicians. MastCell ^Talk 00:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The appropriate material requires WP:CONSENSUS, not an admin making themselves editorially involved here. Cheers -- but this is better served by an RfC or set thereof than by acts from above. Collect (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see any source cited for "States cannot nullify federal laws" so it would seem appropriate to remove the claim. Are the other claims complained of here similarly lacking in verifiability?

(I also doubt very much that the claim is true. States got a lot of men with guns; the feds, not so much.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Collect, as you know, admins are permitted to edit Wikipedia articles. They're simply not allowed to act as both an admin and an editor on the same page. I view myself as an involved editor on this page already on the basis of my participation in this content discussion (if one can call this smorgasbord of straw-man arguments and talkpage misuse a "content discussion"). So I would not act in an administrative capacity on this page, but I'm free to edit it. All of this is very basic, and I'm sure you already know this, but apparently it needs to be reiterated. If I insert well-sourced material describing relevant public-policy viewpoints, then I would expect you to have solid policy-based reasons for removing them. MastCell ^Talk 16:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, Collect please explain why my edit, which you reverted here [40] is not acceptable. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Social Security

Plenty of secondary sources confirm Ernt's statement on when the social security fund runs out.

• http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/social-security-its-worse-than-you-think.html
• http://www.cnbc.com/id/100780248#.
• http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/social-security-and-medicare-could-run-out-sooner-than-expected/

In prior years the tax surplus built up the fund, and benefits were paid directly out of the incoming revenue. Now that there is a deficit, we take a dollars worth of bond out of the fund, go to the treasury and ask for a dollar. The treasury turns around and adds a dollars worth of "real" national debt (as if it was not real debt before). When the fund is empty, approximately 2.7 trillion dollars will have been added to the national debt. (~1/6 of the current debt). To be fair, had we really treated the fund like a "lock box" as Gore famously debated, the national debt would be 2.7 trillion dollars higher right now, because the fund was in reality the "Clinton Surplus" and was spent as general revenue. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The greatest Social Security myth of all [41] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I gave the official trust fund report above. Sans any changes, the trust fund will be depleted in as little as 19 years according to the actual report. That you seem to think otherwise as our resident expert is interesting. The cite you specifically give says that we would then have to reduce benefits by 25% in order to keep on going using current taxes to balance current benefits, but I rather think cutting benefits by 25% does count as a "change". Clearly you do not think a 25% cut would be a change. Collect (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Are we really having a discussion on SS? Really? What for? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Seriously, you two. Take this public-policy debate to one of your talkpages. MastCell ^Talk 00:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Should the statement "On Social Security, which Ernst wants to privatize Ernst said said, "Within 20 years, the system will be broke," which isn't even close to resembling reality." be reflected in this BLP? 12:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

discussion

The conflict is whether an official Social Security Trust Fund report[42] which states "The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund reserves would become depleted between 2033 and 2041 under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report" supports any claim that the trust fund will be "broke" in as soon as twenty years or is the resulting claim elsewhere that SS will only have to be cut by 25% to keep on payments to people sufficiently different from "broke" to allow us in Wikipedia's voice to suggest she is wrong? Collect (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Unless there are reliable sources that describe that statement by Ernst, and describes social security on those terms. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

oppose particularly the "which isn't even close to resembling reality" part, which is massively POV. Also clear WP:SYNTH unless someone is making the comparison for us. However, it would be acceptable to quote her, and then in a separate sentence (without any comparison/contradiction grammar) say "According to the Truestees report the trust fund will be depleted in X and afterwards will only be able to pay 75% of promised benefits using tax revenues, unless other changes are made" or some such which is easily sourcable. Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtapositionGaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding that caveat would be WP:OR, unless the caveat was made in an RS addressing Ernst comments. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This analysis at the Des Moines Register explains the contention quite well: [43]. Silly season indeed. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That source supports my proposal completely does it not?Gaijin42 (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure we can all agree that Ernst said whatever was attributed to her, but what is the source language supporting the claim that she's wrong? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Has anyone actually put such language into the article or pushed to re-insert it? If so, diffs please. If not, then why are we wasting time with an RfC? This is exceptionally WP:POINTy, a waste of editors' time, and a poorly conceived and phrased RfC. I would suggest closing the RfC and trouting Collect. After that, perhaps we could come back with a more serious discussion or RfC about the Social Security material. MastCell ^Talk 16:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The points raised were from an editor on this talk page:

Just FYI, if you want to improve this article on your own:

1. On climate change, Ernst said, "I don't know the science behind climate change. I can't say one way or another what is the direct impact, whether it's man-made or not." [32]
2. On Social Security, which Ernst wants to privatize Ernst said said, "Within 20 years, the system will be broke," which isn't even close to resembling reality.
3. On federal regulations, Ernst blamed a federal "cap and trade" law for undermining job creation. There is no federal "cap and trade" law.
4. On contraception, Ernst was asked about her efforts to pass a state law that would have banned in-vitro fertilization and forms of birth control. She responded, that her bill didn't pass (????) [33]
5. On the minimum wage, Ernst still doesn't seem to understand that the federal minimum is a floor and that states are free to approve higher levels if they choose. [34]

So I rather felt that since such material was proposed by another editor, that we well ought discuss them before adding the material. So yes -- someone did most certainly make such proposals. Collect (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And the one who should be "trouted" is likely the person who made these proposals - as I was not the one to do so. Accusing me of being "pointy" is quite iffy, as it is clearly the person who made the proposals who was being such. Collect (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Close this bloody wast of time of an RFC, Collect. Blatant WP:POINT. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC on a "bold edit"

Is this edit proper?

An article in Yahoo News reported that at a January 2014 GOP forum in Montgomery County, Iowa, Ernst warned that Agenda 21, the U.N.'s 1992 voluntary action plan for sustainable development, could force Iowa farmers off their land, dictate what cities Iowans must live in, and control how Iowa citizens travel from place to place, stating that “The United Nations has imposed this upon us, and as a U.S. senator, I would say, ‘No more. No more Agenda 21.’ Community planning — to the effect that it is implementing eminent domain and taking away property rights away from individuals" <ref>{{cite web|last1=Shiner|first1=Meredith|title=Will Joni Ernst’s flirtations with the political fringe haunt her in November?|url=http://news.yahoo.com/will-joni-ernst-s-flirtations-with-the-political-fringe-haunt-her-in-november-223054974.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory|publisher=Yahoo News|accessdate=13 August 2014}}</ref> (bolding indicates the edit) 17:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

discussion

This was added sans any discussion on the talk page, and I suggest that it requires WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion. The source used appears to be an opinion column with the title Will Joni Ernst’s flirtations with the political fringe haunt her in November? which appears to be such from the title on. Collect (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)