Talk:Ted Stevens

Quotes from Stevens

There's been a minor edit war recently on whether to include a lengthy list of quotes from Stevens. Do the editors have any consensus? For reference, the quotes are below. I believe the quotes should be moved to Wikiquote; Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. The article makes Stevens' position clear without quotes. DDerby-(talk) 22:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

the quotes

Ted Stevens on CSPAN:

"This is not the way to treat a state. We are a sovereign state."

"The amendment before us now will affect only Alaska...this is something that I think is--every Senator must examine his own conscience."

"This is not the way to meet a disaster need."

"We have the smallest allocation per area of any state in the union."

"We must build bridges so we can bring together areas that are inaccessible otherwise." ( he's yelling now)

"I have never seen this suggested, to single out a state and say, 'You pay! You pay for a disaster 5,000 miles away. You shoulder the burden!'"

"We need bridges so we can get from one private area to anoth private area."

"It's not taxpayer money. It's highway-user money."

"We came here to have the same rights, same priveleges counted to the people in every other state."

"It's wrong to put us into a position where we have to explain why--why!-- this is being done, something that has never been done before-- NEVER!"

"This amendment will not pass. If it does, the bill will not pass. If it does, I'll be taken out of here on a stretcher."

"This has been the saddest day of my life." (After the defeat of a provision Stevens inserted into a defense-spending bill that allowed for drilling in ANWR. Apparently, it was a sadder day than the one in which his plane crashed, killing his first wife, Ann.)

http://www.townhall.com/blogs/c-log/MaryKatharineHam/story/2005/10/20/172180.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001931.html

Oh yes, some of these quotes should be included. This is information that I want to know as a reader. It's also newsworthy, given that his quotes were reported across the mainstream media. Why would this not be NPOV? Are these quotes from an official transcript? Christianjb 10:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Also- though Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes- some of these quotes are significant enough that they should be worked into the main text- not relegated into a quotes section. Christianjb 10:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This one too:

"I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday."

"It's a series of tubes!"

Oh please include the series of tubes quote! It just shows how little senators know about the internet. It is a startling and scary fact that is important.

more silly yelling about internets: http://media.publicknowledge.org/stevens-on-nn.mp3

NPOV

I believe that "renowned for pork" and calling shots of him picking his nose "humorous" take this article over the line.--SarekOfVulcan 08:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe he is renowned for pork...it would also be appropriate if this was used in Robert Byrd's article. Maybe renowned isn't the right word. Perhaps "well-known" would work better. I think the nose-picking pictures is a little ridiculous though

How about "often criticized." That's certainly true, particularly after this bridges to nowhere incident. · Katefan0^(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 19:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "often criticized" is acceptably neutral. I think, however, that it should be specified "in recent years", as most of his publicly criticized "pork" projects have been in the past 3 or 4 years, at least that I know of. -Lanoitarus 04:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ted Stevens was chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee for 8 years prior to last year, and was considered a senior member for many more years prior to that. I think it's fair to say he's been criticized for pork for a long time -- much longer than 3-4 years. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

it's important to note that the "bridge to nowhere" was actually a project by Cong Don Young. Sen Ted Stevens' objection was that formula money was being taken from Alaska as opposed to any other state — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.55.171 (talk • contribs)

That's incorrect. The two of them worked on getting the bridges funded together. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 22:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Katefano is wrong and has failed to substantiate his or her opinion. This article seems neutral enough to remove the tag, so I will. I commented out one sentence:

Subsequently, evidence came to light that they lied about their involvement in a 2001 Energy Task Force meeting with Dick Cheney's staff to the committee. Congress now is investigating this apparent inconsistency.

What is the antecedent of "they"? Also, the article isn't very well laid out at the moment. Is there any way of organizing some of the biographical details a little more coherently? NatusRoma 18:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree that the neutrality tag should have been removed. I think it is unfair to include such a sharp criticism in the introductory paragraph, before even the ToC, particularly for such a long-serving senator. It's definitely important and should be in the article of it but I feel the placement of it creates a clear bias. And I am a liberal and a close spectator of the Senate who is not a fan of Ted Stevens. Trojanpony 10:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarly an issue of bias, as it's certainly true enough ... but for such a long-serving senator it may be, rather, an issue of recentism. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is true but I think bias is evidenced by the fact that such a negative aspect of such a long-serving senator's record is featured as prominently as it is. I'm saying it should be moved down to a section like "Stevens' record" or something instead of being in the intro paragraph. I think the intro paragraph should be more general and neutral. Trojanpony 09:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The Hulk

Given that Senator Stevens himself takes so much glee in it, is it appropriate to add something about his famous Hulk tie? He wears it every time he's planning on a tough fight, so it seems a worthy item and appropriately useful, but there has been a decidedly disturbing trend of Wikipedia becoming "Britannica-ized" with an emphasis on sterile and a higher standard of decorum. In my view this is a very bad thing, we turn to Wikipedia for an alternative to the scholastic encyclopedias, not to mimic them, in fact, precisely for the purpose of learning things about the Hulk tie. But in deference to the community I thought I'd discuss before adding.

http://alaskalegislature.com/stories/062203/stevens.shtml

Heh. Works for me.--SarekOfVulcan 20:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. I've seen him wear it many times and he does, indeed, exult in wearing it, particularly when folks notice. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I was listening to NPR today on the way into work and happened to hear about Senator Stevens. His Hulk tie was briefly mentioned and I made a mental note to look up the article when I got to work to see what was said about it. I was dissappointed to see that there isn't anything in the article about it. Please, if someone knows a bit about the whys, wheres, and whats of this tie, put it in the article!! Dismas|^(talk) 03:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

hear hear user:user

I honestly thought this was some well written vandalism, it amazes me that it turns out to be true. How baffling! TheGreatZorko 09:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch.php?v=5QDmkSTIRX8

Comedy Central piece on Broadcast Indecency hearings in Congress: it has "F*#$ Ted Stevens" as the title, but I didn't watch it long enough to find out why.--SarekOfVulcan 22:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably because he's chairman of the Senate committee holding the hearings. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent removal of criticism

Hello -- I reverted AKGhetto's removal of the pork criticism. It's a perfectly accurate, long-time and well-circulated criticism that I think Stevens himself would probably agree with (he's pretty unabashed about doing everything he can to bring money home to Alaska.) Anyway, that aside, I wouldn't object to it being made more specific (who criticized, with some in-line links to news articles), and possibly moving it out of the introduction. As we get some distance from that tempest in a teapot, it's perhaps a matter of recentism that the entire affair is aired in the intro. I'd support moving the details down, but leaving a generic reference to the fact that he is often a lightning rod for criticism over pork barrel spending habits. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

First I want to apologize, I should have not just removed the changes, but probably expanded that section instead. I do think though that it needs to be better balanced. Yes Stevens is unabashed about admitting his doing everything he can to get maximum benefits for his state, but I think the way the article is written is one-sided. For example, to point out of what he's been accused of, I think it's only fair to have a mention as to Steven's usual response to such criticisms. His response is usually along the lines of Alaska needing to play "catch-up" to the rest of the union, that we are still a young state by comparison to much of the rest of the western states and have great need for "big" basic infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges. —akghetto ^talk 06:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that's totally fair and would support those sorts of additions. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 06:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Stevens is not a Pro-Choice politician

See here: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in-congress/congressional-record-on-choice/state.html?state=AK The lorax 22:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually he is pro-choice. He's gotten low ratings from abortion rights groups lately because he is against late term abortions and he voted for the unborn victims act. At the same time, he supports Roe and voted against the global gag rule. Look at his statement on Alito. http://stevens.senate.gov/pr_detailed.cfm?prid=323

KidAirbag 03:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not very well known (mostly because he doesn't broadcast it), but Stevens is known as "moderately pro-choice," and quietly so. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this, but Stevens is listed as a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership. I checked the website (http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/members.htm) and he's not on the list.

Net Neutrality Criticism

Is it really worth noting Stevens' astonishingly ridiculous explanation of the Internets? Granted, he basically proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has a strong opinion on a matter, and cast his vote on a matter, which he clearly doesn't have the slightest inkling of an understanding of, but this is politics and I don't think most people are really that surprised to find a Senator with a strong opinion on a matter he knows nothing about. I think that unless it becomes a more widespread controversy, we should consider removing it, and if it does become a wider controversy, it should be considered for its own small section in the article rather than a single sentence. --208.41.98.142 18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not at all clear that, as a prior author stated, Stevens was referring to CRTs when he used the word "tubes". I assumed he was attempting to use a colloquialism like "pipe", which is commonly used to refer to an internet connection. Going to edit. Somegeek 21:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Also replaced Crooks and Liars link with one to Wired in the interest of providing a less partisan source. (No disrespect to C&L intended.) Somegeek 21:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've (re-)removed the reference to CRTs as unsourced and the link to Crooks and Liars as redundant. Apparently they crept back in. I also gave a bit of background and removed some weasel terms - if he refers to a e-mail message as "an internet", I think we're quite within our rights in calling it an error. --Kizor 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And on the "internet"/email thing, was this a prepared statement or was he speaking ad lib? Anyone can make a mistake like that, even if he actually knows what he meant to say. —wwoods 22:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, and that's a fair point, but he says so repeatedly and consistently. He demonstrates the same level of understanding throughout his speech. --Kizor 22:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've completely revamped the entire section. The blogging phenomenon is documented with much greater detail and accuracy. Tens of thousands of people who had never heard of Stevens have now heard of him due to his position on network neutrality, and the path from relative obscurity (for a Senator) to explosive internet meme warrants a detailed accounting. --Deejaytalk 05:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

It was on the Daily Show for goodness sakes, it's notable in all ways shapes and forms. Doesn't it fit under WP:TDS which states if it's on the daily show it's notable -- Tawker 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think something about the "series of tubes" speech needs to be included, but I think the section as is needs to be pruned a little bit. For example, I don't see how Jon Stewart's take on the matter is terribly relevant. Thunderbunny 02:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Craigslist and Ebay auction links at the bottom of the section are already invalid, and go to pages with nothing to do with the subject. Slackingest 18:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see more on Steven's actual position on Net Neutrality and some (but not all) of the criticism/responses to his remarks moved to the daughter article. It seems like he only comes into the public's view when there is national media coverage, like on Katrina, Energy, and Net Neutrality. However, as the chair of that committee, his position on this issue is pretty relevant. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it really correct to talk about it being a "mainstrean meme"? Mainstream within the blogosphere, perhaps, but I'd guess most of the population have never even heard of the guy... 64.103.37.72

Merging Series of tubes into Ted Stevens?

After around 2 weeks of deliberating, the votes are in: 18 oppose merge, 5 support merge. Thus, the page stays where it is.--The lorax 21:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• My vote: yes, please merge, there is no need for Series of tubes to exist as an article, it's too specialized. Peter S. 20:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's give it some time and see how this develops. My guess is that leaving the daughter article would allow us to avoid deleting sourced content while not giving undue weight to these remarks in the main article. Oppose the merger, for now. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support merger or redirect. I don't think the passing phrase merits its own article. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 21:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Senator Stevens' memorable gaffe has become a sensation in the blogosphere and has been spotlighted in The New York Times and The Guardian. I think it's fair for it to be distinct.The lorax 04:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Do you think the phrase will be notable in a year? GChriss <always listening><c> 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think so - with how politicized the network neutrality debate has gotten, and with Stevens at the helm of the committee in charge, I'm certain the phrase will remain relevant. The lorax 22:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability does not wax and wane: notable now is notable in a year. Notability does not demand continued resonance. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article details the internet take's on the even and it's much better referenced. Achille 22:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - the meme has already grown far beyond Stevens himself, popping up on t-shirts, news articles, and discussion boards without any reference to Stevens. It's got a life of its own. Rob T Firefly 02:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Merge - Jokes have been made about it but in the long run, I hightly doubt this is notable to have its own article. --Phoenix Hacker 04:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Support The Internet is not like a Big Truck and the world needs to know about it. thanks Ted! It's a good thing we have people like you running our government and looking out for our best interests. -- Chuck

The substance of this vote seems to indicate disapproval for the merger. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge. The page has subsantial info that doesn't really belong here, and the meme may go on the grow, what with the growing critisism of Stevens. JQF 13:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Merging. The series of tubes thing is now an internet phenomenon in and of itself. There is already a tremendous amount of material out there that is not directly related to Senator Stevens and therefore I do not think it will suffice to have this information included in his article. At the very minimum I would suggest care in merging, as this is still an ongoing issue and there might later be a need for a separate article.--Mstahl 18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Would take up too much of the senator's article, and stands best on its own. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support In the grand scheme of things, "series of tubes" is a pretty minor phenomenon and another case of the "Internet myopia" that afflicts Wikipedia editors from time to time. Definitely deserves a mention but needs to be kept to a minimum. Thunderbunny 13:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If this sentiment (expressed in your vote and the other support votes) is true, then merger would not be a good choice because it would lead to an over-emphasis in this article. Deleting material cited to good sources is not an option. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I was trying to say. There's definitely room in this article for facts and general commentary on Ted Stevens's ill-advised statements and his position on Net Neutrality. I'm speaking out against having an article that consists largely of "and then a bunch of people wrote about it in their blogs, and then somebody made T-shirts for it on CafePress, and then Fark had a Photoshop contest about it, and then Jon Stewart having some witty remark about it was on Youtube..." Such mundane, unremarkable details are usually of next to no interest to anyone besides the individuals perpetuating the so-called "Internet phenomenon", and will in and of themselves be forgotten after a good week or two when the next "Internet phenomenon of the week" takes shape. Thunderbunny 01:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect, it's important enough to have a mention in Wikipedia but not important enough for its own full-length article. --Rob ^T 13:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem familiar with the de facto conventions for internet meme. Compare to: Bubb Rubb and others in Category:Internet memes.savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose As others have stated, it's an internet meme that is relevant enough for it's own article. Darksun 18:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose the merging. Many of Senator Stevens' ideas have grown a life of their own. His Gravina Island Bridge has become famously know as the "Bridge to Nowhere". There is no doubt that "Series of Tubes" will become sort-of like the phrase "Baba Booey" from the Howard Stern Show. People may not know who Senator Stevens is, they may not even know where the phrase "Series of Tubes" came from, but in time they will hear the expression used over, and over again. --Chris01720 00:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thunderbunny 06:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I think it deserves mention on this page, because it is relevant to Mr. Stevens, but it has grown beyond just something he said--I mean there's a techno remix of it.

• Oppose Even my mom knows about this meme. It deserves to stand on its own. Lovelac7 00:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Article can stand on it's own, and so should. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I support keeping "series of tubes" separate, as it has become its own meme, and many people are aware of the phrase but Ted Stevens' name does not immediately come to mind. The phrase has developed its own meaning much as "snakes on a plane".

• Strongly Oppose For reasons of undue weight. 'Series of Tubes' is interesting enough in its own right, and if incorporated here it would need to be trimmed heavily to avoid overshadowing the rest of the article. 198.20.40.50 20:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose What is hillarious about this gaff is that it represents the naivete of government leadership in general (even corporate leadership at times). Whether it was Ted Stevens, Ted Kennedy, Ted Williams or Ted Koppel wouldn't matter so much. See my comic strip remix at The Messaging Times

Comment: Naivety of government leadership is right. As far as I know, nobody corrected Stevens when he made the comment, or after, and I don’t think he’s given comment on what he said to any news source to explan himself, so for all we know he still thinks that, and so do other congress people. JQF 00:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose "The Series of Tubes" is already a meme on it's own by now. It would be ridiculous to merge. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 06:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose per User:Monkeykiss Project2501a 22:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose as per above -Cassandra Leo 01:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose -- It was also prime fodder for The Daily Show for a number of episodes... I mean, how could it not have been. --Bobak 22:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed.

I removed the following:

"After june of 2006 Ted Stevens has become the subject of much hillarity due to his speech about "the internets", many sites are created on ytmnd about his speech on the internet and he becomes a popular fad all over "the internets", also being intermixed with other such fads as lex luthor lexvstedremix.ytmnd.com/, the midieval times sexwithboys.ytmnd.com/, medievaltedstevens.ytmnd.com/, or adam sadler tedtodayjr.ytmnd.com/. A list of many ted stevens ytmnds ytmnd.com/list/?search=ted+stevens&user=."

Not because I think it doesn't deserve mention, but it is very poorly written and has no business here. I think YTMND should be mentioned in some fashion, since it was a large part in making this an Internet meme, but someone needs to re-write that and submit it in a better way. 65.30.40.87 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Indiana

Why is this part of the Indiana WikiProject? If someone doens't say why, I'm going to remove that tag soon.Slarson 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

An internal link to YTMND is fine, people can follow from there to the YTMND wiki which is the right place to document this stuff. Just zis Guy you know? 16:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues section changed to Criticism section

Because really, Stevens has been involved in all kinds of issues... the ones that are listed here, except for Science, which I removed in its own subsection, are all issues which people are critical of Stevens about. A true issues section should probably point out both sides of the issue, and include commentary on Steven's side of the issue for NPOV. Slarson 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the critical statements from the intro, and moved the references down into the new Criticism section. This page ought to biographical and with those statements in the intro it was pretty one-sided. Slarson 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

After reading WP:LIVING, I'm removing the poorly sourced criticisms.Slarson 17:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Make separate Criticism of Ted Stevens page ?

I'd like to call a vote on the topic of moving the information in the Criticism to a separate page. It currently takes up a large percentage of the article, and given the policy on living biographies WP:LIVING I think we should consider demoting its prominence on the page. Slarson 17:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed link to article on Ben Stevens

User from IP 132.241.246.111 added the following link after Ben Stevens' name:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14608601

I've removed it twice now. The link is irrelevant to the article about Ted Stevens. If you want to add information about Ben Stevens, do it on the page for Ben Stevens. Slarson 06:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed vandalizm

Some one wrote that he was an old coot in the first sentance of the article.

created separate criticism of ted stevens page

As promised, I have moved the criticism to its own page. Please leave commments on the we page. Also removed controversial marking from this page since all the controversy should be concentrated on the other page now.Slarson 17:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism of Ted Stevens" daughter article

Some user has apparently taken the initiative to move all of the info about Ted Steven's policies and stances (except for his support for stem cell research) to a daughter article. This would normally be fine, but I think that information about his public statements and actions can be stated neutrally in this article. The fact that he has been criticized for many of these posistions does not make the statement of his position "criticism". There are also many who support these positions that he has taken. I think these should be moved back in, making sure that they are expressed objectively first and then followed by the (positive or negative) reaction to them. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That was me. I moved it in adherence with the living person's biography policy WP:LIVING and the what wikipedia is not policy WP:NOT. Basically the criticism page are all things that cast Sen. Stevens in a negative light, are mainly stories from the last 2 years only, and there was so much of it that it took up the majority of the page. Would you expect to see so much criticism in an encyclopedia? Or at some point doesn't it start looking like a soapbox for outraged political opponents? The fact that there is a criticism page at all seems a little outside NPOV, but the community does seem to want something about these topics put in, so ok. Note that NPOV is not just about presenting an issue in a balanced way, but also what issues you choose to include and what issues you choose to leave out. He's had 37 years in the senate but his biographical page only talks about critical issues from the last 2 years?? What has he been doing the rest of the time? Doesn't seem appropriate, doesn't seem NPOV. I think in order for wikipedia to be taken seriously, it can't read like a liberal blog, and that's why its appropriate to move these things into their own page and leave the biographical information as neutral as possible.Slarson 17:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Having read this article for the first time since Slarson's move, I'm surprised by how much it has improved. The article is now by far a much more balanced look at the senator's many decades of public service. 131.247.152.4 04:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed external link to Ted Stevens Soundboard... again

I have removed the external link to Ted Stevens Soundboard. This is not the first time I am doing this. Apparently the user at IP 210.0.110.65 decided to re-insert this around February 1st, and at the same time deface my personal page. The Ted Stevens Soundboard does not add biographical information, and is instead is aimed at parodying the senator. This page has been carefully cleared of non-biographical information in accordance with Wikipedia's living person's biography policy WP:LIVING. Serious criticisms of the Senator's polcies may be voiced on the criticism page, but advertising for a parody site is not allowed here. Slarson 03:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture

That picture is hilarious. He looks so mad. Maybe we can find a more neutral picture? I'm not a fan, but that picture makes him look unaturally mean as hell.--Zombiema7 12:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Now his picture makes him look way too happy!! Hahaha. Whatever it's fine. heh. It's bigger at least.--Zombiema7 09:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Vocalist/Guitarist?

I'm a foreigner and like many of my kind I'm easily confused. Does Sen. Ted Stevens also play guitar and sing for an obscure rock band? Or vice versa? Perhaps there should be a disambiguation page for all the possible Ted Stevenses that may exist to avoid confusion. If no one has any objection, I'll proceed with the edit. Zambetis 14:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethics Issues on Biography Pages of Politicians

I have a general question about the biography of living person's policy WP:LIVING, regarding the inclusion of ethical issues on the pages of public figures like Senators. I think that the placement of ethical issues on the biography page of a senator is outside of the scope of a standard biography page. If you look at the policy on what wikipedia is not WP:NOT, you'll find the following quotation under "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:"

Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia entry. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to appropriately contextualize events. In many cases it will be impossible to create an acceptably encyclopedic biography, despite the subject having made a brief appearance in the news. Even when events in the news do merit an encyclopedia article, an article on the event rather than a biography of any person(s) involved may be more appropriate. Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews.

It seems to me that if I were a political opponent of a senator, I could list the ethical issues against that senator on their wikipedia page in order to discredit them. While these ethical issues are not false, and could be written from a neutral point of view, their presence on the page alone seems to be not neutral. Ethical issues are increasingly common in the Congress... many Senators and Congressmen come under investigation or inquiry over the course of their careers because lawmaking is highly regulated. I feel that all of these kinds of issues are out of context with a biography unless a politicians career is ended by a particular scandal.

For Ted Stevens, I created a separate page for criticism of the Senator, where I felt it was appropriate to allow the litany of criticisms about the Senator to be placed, so long as they were presented as neutrally as possible. Recently, a user has brought ethical issues from the criticism page back to the main page, and included a new ethical issue. All these are well sourced. I have seen similar practices on the pages of other Congressmen (Speaker Pelosi). I feel that all of these issues should remain on the criticism page.

Is it possible that Wikipedia needs a special policy for political figures? Could an administrator please comment? Slarson 22:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(I'm not an administrator, but Slarson told me of this posting, so I'd like to add my two cents, as someone who has added one "ethical issue" to the article and moved a second issue from the "criticisms" article to the main article.)

First, I've edited dozens of articles about U.S. Senators (not including Pelosi, who is in the House), and many more articles about Representatives, so I'm pretty comfortable saying that a separate "Criticism" page is fairly rare; rather, criticisms are either integrated into the article or are in a separate section. (For further discussion on the theoretical aspects of the matter, see the essay Wikipedia:Criticism.) I left the separate article (Criticisms of Ted Stevens essentially as is, rather than trying to integrate it, because while I have a preference for integration, I don't feel strongly enough about it to spend a lot of time discussing the matter with other editors in order to try to build consensus.

Criticism pages are rare now.. but should they be? Slarson 05:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they should be, in my opinion. If nothing else, the weight of precedence argues against them.

Second, the policy quoted above (from WP:NOT) is, in my opinion, of questionable relevance here. Taken to the extreme, it would mean most things labeled as a "current event" shouldn't even be in Wikipedia, since most current events are things that have occurred over a brief period of time.

Point taken.. we want current events in Wikipedia. But do we want them on biography pages? More on this below Slarson 05:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Third, I agree that charges that were made in the past (say, more than a year or two ago) and that weren't sustained should be given minimal, if any coverage in an article about a politician, in my opinion. This criteria doesn't apply to what I added - information from a newspaper article with a dateline of yesterday that cites an ongoing FBI investigation. For current events, per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball - editors shouldn't be deciding whether or not a particular noteworthy event (very, very, very few Senators ever are investigated by the FBI) is likely or not to lead to something further, and thus to try to decide whether or not to include it.

I agree with you, but I come to a different conclusion. I think that not being a crystal ball and not deciding if an event is likely or not to lead to something further means we should err on the side of not including it. Remember, this is a biography, which is the story of someone's life. If an event is included in the story of someone's life, shouldn't we wait until some time has passed so we are looking *BACK* to determine its relevance, not forward? Slarson 05:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My basic criteria for what should go into an article is simple - is it useful? When I read an article about someone, I'm not just interested in "what has history confirmed is important about this person", I'm also interested in "what is going on in this person's life that could shape future events?" If there are credible assertions of negative matters, there there is a high likelihood that these things are shaping and will continue to shape that person's life.

Finally, per WP:NPOV, undue weight shouldn't be given to any particular event or aspect. I think an FBI investigation of a Senator merits a couple of sentences, but not, say, an entire section or article, at least until (if ever) there are actual criminal charges.

Agreed Slarson 05:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For reference, there is a thread on a Wikipedia discussion list on this topic here Slarson 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. From what I can see, the focus seems mostly on separating criticism from the rest of the article, which most commentators seem to disagree with. (As a larger context, I think those who comment on wikien-l a rather small subset of the Wikipedia community, and policy changes and interpretation are best discussed on the talk pages of those policies, not on wikien-l.)

Also, something I missed the first time through - your questions Is it possible that Wikipedia needs a special policy for political figures? Could an administrator please comment? may indicate a misunderstanding of the role of administrators: they enforce policy, they don't create it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: It's really really confusing to know who's saying what in this conversation when participants interject their comments into the middle of someone else's comment. It works fine in an email conversation, but it doesn't work so well here. A "real" comment is forthcoming. --Yksin 00:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Now for my real comment: I think that inclusion of ethical issues & criticism is absolutely necessary in a bio article where it comes up in the career of a public official or politician.

When imbalance occurs -- e.g., when more of the article is about criticism than it is about other aspects of the politician's career -- it's usually because the editors to that point haven't devoted sufficient attention to noncontroversial aspects of the subject's career. This is certainly so in the case of this article. I would hardly say this is unusual for Wikipedia articles, where bios of living people tend very much to go after the most recent news about a subject, with very little done on earlier material -- especially if the only way to get the earlier material would require research off the Internet. In any case, I think the way to address that imbalance isn't to remove legitimate well-sourced material about a politician's controversies, or to split them into a separate article (a practice with which I disagree), but rather to do the work to fill out the biography more fully. For example, what kind of bio of Ted Stevens says nothing about his part in drafting ANCSA? -- which is arguably the most important piece of federal legislation affecting Alaska after the Alaska Statehood Act itself.

Re: the most recent controversy, involving Stevens' house in Girdwood: another aspect of this is that it appears to be but one tiny part of a very major federal investigation of political corruption in Alaska, in which Stevens' son Ben is already heavily implicated (we expect an indictment any time now), & which may or may not also reach further into Ted Stevens' actions, esp. re: his relationships with VECO Corporation executives like Bill Allen and with the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board. If it does reach up to Uncle Ted, the whole business of criticism & ethics can only be expected to grow; & would be very relevant as well as biographical information.

I personally would favor the "criticism" materical being reintegrated into this article. One possible way to do it without creating too much imbalance would be to integrate it in the context of a chronological account of his life (isn't that what a bio is after all? -- an account of someone's life?), instead of as it's own separate header. --Yksin 01:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yksin - if it isn't apparent from the interwoven comments above, let me be clear here: I agree with essentially everything you said. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yksin, I agree that it would be nice if someone were to come along and provide earlier contextual material to provide balance on this article. But that isn't what is happening. What we have is a page which begins in a state with no criticism and is therefore neutral. Then criticism arrives and throws the page out of balance. The decision is "do we keep the criticism, or do we (re)move it"? The decision is not: "do we add counterbalancing material and keep the criticism, or do we just keep the criticism?" because realistically that takes a lot more work, and people add this kind of material much less frequently.

More importantly, I think that we have to ask ourselves if this biography page is an encyclopedia article or if it is a politician-indexed news repository. Biographies are the stories of peoples lives... news sites tell us about current events. I can't see how you or John can make the case that it makes sense to mix current events with biographies. If I were to ask either of you to tell me who you were, you wouldn't start off by telling me that you almost got run over by a car today (if that were the case). You'd tell me about facts involving your situation in life that had occurred at some time in the past and are broader and categorical. The fact that you almost got run over by a car today is a current event, not a description of who you are. Well, things like this FBI investigation are like telling the story of Ted Stevens by explaining what just happened a week ago in his life. It gives the article a myopic view and at the same time throws it out of a neutral balance by focusing on negative news. Maybe this investigation is some kind of turning point for Ted, and maybe then it merits inclusion just as almost getting run over by a car may be a turning point in your life in terms of your views on jaywalking. But we don't know that yet, and so right now it just makes the article myopic and non-neutral.

John, your criteria of useful material seems straightforward and generally positive. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I think that the consequence of this is low quality articles when it comes to biographies. Note your words: "there there is a high likelihood that these things are shaping and will continue to shape that person's life. ", and Yksin's: "If it does reach up to Uncle Ted, the whole business of criticism & ethics can only be expected to grow; & would be very relevant as well as biographical information." . These statements indicate a kind of speculation on the future noteworthiness of an article, which sounds very much like using Wikipedia as a crystal ball. Is the FBI article noteworthy NOW? Sure. But that's what we have newspapers for, to tell us the news. Wikipedia ought not be a politician-indexed news source. I think that this is the source of the fundamental disagreement between us on what a biography page should tell us about a person.

And what's with "the weight of precedence argues against them", with reference to criticism pages? The weight of precedence would have argued against the Constitution... but that would have been a bad reason to not have one.

I would not be in favor of reintegrating the criticism material back into the article unless there were a massive amount of material counterbalancing it. Slarson 03:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Slarson: it would be nice if someone were to come along and provide earlier contextual material to provide balance on this article. But that isn't what is happening. No, & you are one of the editors who has chosen not to do the necessary research & writing to make it happen. Not that you or anyone else deserves to be faulted for that: there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that deserve attention, & all of us are spread thin. But even if Stevens had nothing to do with any sort of controversies (an unlikely story for any career politician), the article as it stands now is seriously inadequate as "biography."

As for me, I sat down this evening with the intent of adding further info on Stevens' earlier life & career, thanks to a well-researched non-Internet source that I happen to have at home. Stay tuned.

Re: the ongoing corruption probe in Alaska: I can't speak for other editors, but I have no plans to add much more in that regard until if/when there it seems warranted. What John provided the other day seems sufficient for now.

Would you be willing to take a look at Tom Anderson (politician)? He's one of Alaska politicians already under indictment in the Alaska corruption probe, & I've done a huge amount of the work on that article. Does it seem balanced to you, given the controversial nature of some of Anderson's activities? --Yksin 04:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense/Needs clarification

"The family later lived in Chicago, where George Stevens was an accountant before the stock market crash of 1929 instigated the Great Depression, ending his job.[2][3] Around this time, when Ted Stevens was six years old, his parents divorced, and Stevens and his three siblings went back to Indianapolis to live with their paternal grandparents, followed shortly thereafter by their father, who developed problems with his eyes and went blind for several years."

He was six and working as an account?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.44.50 (talk • contribs) 16 July 2007 08:33 (UTC (UTC)

Then sentence referring to accounting refers to George Stevens, Ted Stevens' father: "he family later lived in Chicago, where George Stevens was an accountant before the stock market crash of 1929 instigated the Great Depression, ending his job." Ted Stevens & his age don't show up till the next sentence, which says nothing about accounting. Perfectly clear. --Yksin 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing end parenthesis

Hi, I noticed in this section of the article there is an open parenthesis that is never closed, and I'm not sure where it should go so I figured I would post it here. I've bolded the parenthesis that does not get closed.

Home remodeling and Veco

On May 29, 2007, the Anchorage Daily News reported that the FBI and a federal grand jury were investigating an "extensive" remodeling project at Stevens' home in Girdwood. The remodeling work, which more than doubled the size of the modest home (public records show that the home is now 2,471 square feet (230 m²) and valued at about $441,000-which means that it was less than 1,200 square feet (110 m²) before the remodel, occurred in the summer and fall of 2000, was organized by VECO Corporation, an oil-field service company that has long been a strong lobbying presence in Juneau. Earlier in May, two top Veco executives pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy, bribery and tax charges.[42] In June, the Anchorage Daily News reported that a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., heard evidence in May about the expansion of Stevens' Girdwood home and other matters connecting Stevens to Veco.[43] In mid-June, FBI agents questioned several aides who work for Stevens as part of the investigation.[44] In July, Washingtonian magazine reported that Stevens had hired "Washington’s most powerful and expensive lawyer", Brendan Sullivan Jr., in response to the investigation.[45] Stevens' Alaska home was raided by the FBI and IRS on July 30, 2007.[46] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.244.198 (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed

I removed the words "...despite the fact that his first wife died in a 1978 plane crash which he survived." after the trivia point "On December 21, 2005, Senator Stevens said that the vote to block drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge "has been the saddest day of my life," ". I believe it's obvious that who ever added this was just attempting to ridicule Senator Steven's commitment to allow drilling in ANWR. - CaptainAmerica (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Indictment

Today Ted Stevens was indicted on criminal charges. I found this on MSNBC.com's front page, so it doesn't have an actual article on it yet. So keep an eye out for a more permanent source. --Rhymingisfun (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)