Talk:Bob Corker

Opposition to "Call Me" Ad

Hey- I think there should be mention in the Senate Race section about the "Call Me" ad which the RNC ran against Harold Ford, Jr. and which Corker opposed. Someone might consider copying a section from the Harold Ford Jr. wiki page which reads as follows:

"In October 2006, as polls indicated that Ford maintained a slight lead in the Senate race,[20] the Republican Party ran a television advertisement[21] where a white woman, played by Johanna Goldsmith, talks about meeting Ford, who was unmarried at the time, at "the Playboy party."[22] The ad was denounced by many people, including former Republican Senator and Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton, William Cohen, who called it “a very serious appeal to a racist sentiment.” Corker himself asked the Republican leadership to pull the ad, which it refused to do. Corker subsequently pulled ahead in the polls.[23]"

Illegal Alien accusation?

This was the edit comment when restoring the accusation regarding illegal aliens: "rv to restore information -- this was a notable POV expressed by prominent spokespeople, properly attributed to them and not stated as fact"

Not stated as fact? Last time I checked this was supposed to be an encyclopedia. Since when do facts not matter? Dubc0724 14:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I'll repeat what I said at the Ford talk page in summary form: one's political opponent is probably not a reliable source for information relating to controversies. If they were, then Wikipedia would be, essentially, reproducing whatever politicians were saying in political attack advertisements. Obviously, this particular situation is a bit different, because Ford made the relevant statement in a debate, not an ad. But the same logic applies, I think--we still need a reliable source discussing the facts of the "controversy" before we can print it here. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I just now noticed this deletion -- I haven't been paying close attention to this page.

Dubc0724, we are of course concerned about the facts. Here's the distinction I was drawing:

1. "Bob Corker hired illegal aliens."
2. "Ed Bryant charged that Bob Corker hired illegal aliens."

The first version is improper because it states the accusation as fact (accepting it as true). We shouldn't do that if there's a genuine dispute about it. If there's such a dispute, the NPOV policy means that we don't endorse either side. The second version, however, is quite proper. Instead of stating as fact that Corker did this, we state as fact that Bryant accused Corker of having done this. The latter point can't be seriously disputed. In instances of controversy, we fulfill NPOV by reporting (not adopting) the conflicting views, attributing each to a named prominent spokesperson.

That policy also answers jerseyko's criticism. In general, yes, we do reproduce what politicians say in attack ads. (If not, there's a WHOLE bunch of junk in the John Kerry and Bill Clinton articles that should come out.) When accusations of this type are made in a political campaign, it's a significant event. A politician who's not a fringe candidate is a prominent spokesperson for that opinion. We don't reproduce it in the sense of assuming it to be true, but we do reproduce it in the sense of reporting that the accusation was made. Furthermore, the text I wrote cited an independent source, The Tennesseean, although the link is now bad (that site apparently doesn't maintain story availability past a cutoff point). A quick search shows other independent news reports from the Chattanooga Times Free Press ([1]) and CQPolitics.com ([2]). This particular issue was particularly significant because, according to yet another independent source, Corker ran an ad accusing Ford of being soft on illegal immigration. JamesMLane t c 08:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition To Positions On Issues

The issues section also should include the following statement:

"Corker's campaign web site also includes a statement that he is in favor of the state's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage."

Senator box

Hey, I removed the info box, but now I've seen all the other candidates adding infoboxes to the winners. Can we get one that says "Senator-elect" in the main title box, and one that doesn't say "Junior Senator" as they won't be one until january, and being inaccurate for two months is too long.

Where Corker lives

Although it's a nice house with a historic past, where Bob Corker lives has no relevance to this article, and is certainly not important enough to be included in the first sentence. The content seems to have been added to provide internal links to article about the previous owners and an external link to a book about them. I think the sentence and reference should be removed, or the information moved to a more suitable part of the article with either a more suitable citation of where he lives (i.e. real estate listings or article) or a more convincing reason why Bob's house should be mentioned other than the fact that rich, influential people have lived there. Any other opinions? Flowanda 21:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think place of residence is relevant to Bob Corker / the article. It's also documented in a published book. Why it was posted isn't the issue. Qmax 21:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Where he lives is worth including, but not in the introduction. It could be moved to a more appropriate subsection. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. With the ref Qmax added, I think this works fine. Thoughts? · j e r s y k o talk · 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I dig. Thanks! Qmax 22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving the sentence does help place it in context with the rest of his personal life. However, just saying something is relevant doesn't make it relevant; without compelling reasons why this information should be included, or the vailidity of the source, then the "why" will continue to be an issue for me. Being challenged to justify our edits is an integral part of our work as editors and not something to be brushed off, even on such a seemingly small issue as this. Flowanda 05:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just questioning whether something is relevant doesn't make it not-relevant. We have a legit source (reviewed my numerous authorities), precedent (numerous other biographies list info on place of residence), and the lack of a violation of WP:BLP. Do you have a substantive argument from WP:BLP not to include the content? Qmax 12:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is precedent for discussing the homes of politicians or other notable people in Wikipedia articles (see John Edwards, for example). I tend to shy away from using other Wikipedia articles to support action in another article, however. Even discounting precedent, I'm not of aware of a policy or guideline that would encourage exclusion (Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information perhaps being the best argument, but this isn't indiscriminate as it is about the subject of the article's home). Aside from policy or guidelines, I think it should stay as a matter of editorial judgment. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Rootsweb sources and family members

If there's really a need to note the names of Corker's parents, there are better sources than user-generated Rootsweb, which doesn't meet WP:V or WP:RS. Jean Corker is only notable (per Wikikpedia policy) because of campaign ads/appearances, but I could find few still-live pages via a search: such as http://www.seymourherald.com/news/2006/may/08/9836/(probably a press release) and http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-151964551.html. Flowanda | Talk 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

It is impossible for this statement to ever comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy: "Corker is a practical person working across the aisle for bipartisan solutions." I don't care how many sources you cite after that sentence, it's pure puffery. Interwebs (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Corker said he's a practical person [3], and "working across the aisle for bipartisan solutions" is his public image. Corker is a moderate Republican who often works more with the Democrats than with his own party. He often votes against the conservative Republican majority. Gfletcher (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you're just repeating a more detailed version of the same sentence, which isn't an argument for why to include the information. Additionally, relying on Bob Corker's statement about . . . himself . . . causes so many problems with NPOV, I don't know where to start. Finally, may I ask if this is an alternate account for you? You seem to know what the manual of style is, an accomplished bit of knowledge for someone with about fifteen edits to two total articles. Interwebs (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is no reason his voting record or ideology should not be included. This article needs the critical comment. "Pure puffery" seems your delusions of grandeur. Gfletcher (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable, unbiased accounts of his voting record or ideology should certainly be included. However, his own account of his "practical nature" and an unsourced, unspecific notion that he is "working across the aisle" isn't that. Interwebs (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)