Talk:Denny Rehberg

---

A need for objective discussion of Rehberg's actions

Please take the discussion here rather than continuing the revert war. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

rehberg has the history of voting against any measure that would afford the legal protection against violence toward minorities. rehberg has been consistent at least, snubbing indian leaders in Montana as well. rehberg has been quoted in the past as saying that aids patients were going to die anyway, why bother wasting treatment on them. rehberg has tacitly approved of the sockpuppet management of his wiki entry.

when confronted by legislators regarding his lack of empathy as demonstrated by his "gay" joke, he blew them off TOTALLY, there was NO response. the time has come for rehberg to face the facts that judging from his actions, he is racist, homophobic and totally unsuited to represent the entire state of Montana.72.160.27.31 (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand why you believe this to be an important issue. However, Wikipedia has a policy, which you can see at wp:blp, that says we have to go to great lengths to be fair and neutral in biographies of living people. You might particularly want to take a look at wp:coat. We have to be careful to present things that are truly notable to the person, and even then we have to present them in context. The text you continue to insert doesn't make it clear that this event is notable, provides only one source (but mentions another, uncited one), and does not provide a neutral or complete context. So here's where we start: can you please compile links to each of the articles that have covered this event? You can use Google News to help find them. Once you have that, we can go from there in trying to work with other editors to develop neutral language.

One important point... The manner in which you and the other anonymous editors went back and forth reverting one another is called an edit war, and it's very much against our policies here. You're very lucky you weren't blocked, which would pretty much ensure your point of view would not be represented here. (This goes for both or all of you.) When you have a disagreement with another editor, the best way to solve it on the talk page. That being said, there is a certain deference to removing poorly sourced content, and in that case, you are at an even bigger disadvantage since you kept reverting despite the other editor raising legitimate wp:blp concerns.

So, here we are now. Please bring some additional reliable sources and we can go from there. If the other editor who was reverting you wants to bring up any concerns they have, now might be a good time, as well. Remember, though, the goal here is to get to a point where you both agree with what steps to take next. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Creation of Controversies Section Needed for more objective treatment of controversial statements/issues? I see that the homosexuality stuff keeps getting put back up along with the firefighter issues. PLEASE stop putting these things under the same headings as issues. Issues headings I believe are more meant to be about his official positions on things. A quote on AIDS from 1994 is not some official position on gays/gay rights/homosexuality etc. If this must be put in, it would be better housed under some section pertaining to "Controversies" or the like. A section in the page like this would be a much better catch-all than the subjective editing and biased inclusion of things that don't belong under policy positions or objective treatment of issues Tadamsmt (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking this opportunity to address the points you've raised because another editor has reverted the rather notorious Rehberg quote regarding AIDS due to a now-blind link. There seems to be little doubt that Rehberg was accurately quoted. It has been repeated often as a example of the marginalizaton of and attitudes toward discreet and disenfranchised social groups since it was originally made in 1994. The remark was made to a reporter in Montana and carried that year in the national press precisely because of the then-commonplace attitude it represented, more than as a comment on Rehberg himself. The accuracy of the quote has never been disputed by Rehberg, his former Montana state, congressional or campaign staffs, or anyone else that I've been able to determine. To restore the deleted comment and citation, I will quote a 2003 academic paper from an eminently well respected University, a presumably peer reviewed piece that cites its source as the 26th of December 1994 issue of Newsweek, p. 83. Secondly, many Wikipedia editors have objected to "controversy" sections of articles. I'm not arguing for or against such inclusion or exclusions, simply noting that it represents an issue that has so far defied resolution. Activist (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Objectivity of some sources I've noticed, especially in sourcing the boating accident that many of the primary news articles are not objective in that they are just reporters quoting his political opponents. Although the Billings Gazette or Missoulian would be reputable sources, when they just publish quotes and press releases from political opponents, a better, more objective source should be used. If one cannot be found, I don't believe it passes muster of objectivity enough to include in article Tadamsmt (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue of the boating accident was raised late in the Rehberg/Tester U.S. Senate campaign in 2012. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington(CREW), a non-partisan citizen watchdog group, raised the issue of the vigorous blocking of public access to official reports about the accident in court, eventually winning the release of the documents. Reports of the accident were covered extensively in the Billings Gazette, the city in which Rehberg lives, as well as other newspapers in the Lee publications chain in Helena and Missoula, but also in the independent Flathead Beacon, which covers the area where the accident occurred. In fact reporters were not quoting opinions of political opponents, that I've noticed, but instead primary sources at the time of the accident up until the present. Rehberg's bipartisan opponents seemed largely quiet on the issues involved. Activist (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Boating Accident

I'm going to go ahead and engage an administrator here, because you seem intent on attacking me personally. I'm disappointed that we've been unable to come to a better agreement on how best to include the facts while meeting WikiPolicy. Kozitt (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I had properly sourced material for facts such as Rehberg's release of his BAC as .05, which is legally sober at the time it was taken, but indicates that he must have been drunk at the time of the eminently predictable accident. I included links to calculators, and went through the trouble of looking up his weight, which is a factor in how many drinks it would have taken to get to the level he was finally measured at, and how long it would have taken to get back down to .05.

Rehberg has had a prior history of alcohol-associated difficulties that are relevant to the issue.

Kozitt removed those edits or moved them to another's page.

There is no question that an employer has a responsibility for the safety of his or her employees. Rehberg did not meet that test. Kozitt's edits have tried to bury that core aspect of the boat crash. I hesitate to call it an "accident" as it was almost inevitable given Barkus' state and behavior.

My assumption that Kozitt was a relative, friend, paid employee of Rehberg or was someone else with a vested interest in submurging his responsibility in the crash, such as a lobbyist from special interest whose agenda Rehberg supports, has not been dispelled by her reverts on other pages or her explanations. For instance, she reverted posted material about Land O' Lakes, not because it wasn't true, but because she disputed the source. Similarly, she covered "The Devil Wore Prada," whose main character has been the subject of a negative campaign the same source as had originated the deleted Land O' Lakes material.

Kozitt seems to feel that a NPOV is a standard that others must meet, while exempting herself from such strictures.

Activist (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm creating a section here so that we can properly discuss this issue. First, please note that it is customary to sign posts to the talk page using 4 ~ I assume I'm speaking to User:Activist, as we've been going back and forth on this issue quite a bit.

You're incorrect about my background. Take a look at my user page and contribution history--I'm just a gal who likes for things to be properly cited. That said, your contribution history reveals someone with a distinct point of view who is a motivated editor. I can respect that--having your type, your type on the other side and my type around are how Wikipedia works, but you'll want to back off of having a problem with me personally.

As for the edits, clearly I have no problem with the facts of the events as supported by independent sources, but you cannot continue to include information that is not supported by independent, third-party sources based on the obviously strong feelings that you have. The information included in the article must be verifiable (see WP:VERIFY) and it must come from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). Once your edits meet those standards, we'll have no problem. Until such time, I'll continue to clean them up. Thanks! Kozitt (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Kozitt appears determined to keep any and all vaguely negative material off Rehberg's page. It may well be that he is a paid or volunteer campaign operative.

An apparently intoxicated Rehberg got on a boat and two of his salaried staffers joined him on it. It was piloted by his extremely intoxicated friend who has a DUI arrest history and Rehberg never intervened as the board careened out-of-control around the lake.

Rehberg's poor judgment, nearly cost one staffer, Dustin Frost, his life. Frost will have permanent brain damage as a result of the crash. Rehberg was responsible for his young employees who were on the job and he failed them in failing to exercise that responsibility. The Congressman was clearly complicit in their injuries.

Wikipedia is not a service and site that exists for self-promotion of politicians, but Kozitt seems determined that it so function.

potential resource

Mining Companies Back Friend’s Bid for Senate by ERIC LIPTON Published: December 23, 2011 99.190.86.5 (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Denny Rehberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202091024/http://dennyrehberg.com/ to http://dennyrehberg.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080730201058/http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)