Talk:Chuck Grassley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The neutrality of this article isn't actually in question, since it's a lovefest for the Senator. If it wasn't edited by his Senate staff, it was edited by a member of his family. On top of that, it doesn't cite any sources for its clear campaign-headline claims. Info999 00:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And the mention of his prospective opponent has anything to do with his record or his conduct in office? Move on with the ad plants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The current issue of The New Republic (09.10.07) discusses Senator Grassley in "The strange heroism of Chuck Grassley. Earnest Goes to Washington" by Eve Fairbanks at (subscription required). The New Republic, described in Wikipedia as "socially liberal," paints a more positive picture of the Senator than this contested Wikipedia entry does.Drienstra 03:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This article highlight the senator's environmental record in a way that suggest it's a more important issue than it really is. Grassley has never pretended to be a champion of the environment, yet the long section suggest scandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course, probably needs shortened or to have more 'substance' of importance. Kopf1988 (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd probably just chop it and put it in the same section as the other interest-group ratings. Unless there's evidence that his votes on some of these issues caused particular interest (e.g. attracting news stories), I don't see any reason to highlight at length "group X says he voted the wrong way on issues A, B, and C, but the right way on issues D, E, and F" with a long laundry list. And even if we were, why the environmental ones, and not similarly verbose treatment of the other interest groups' ratings? --Delirium (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the environmental section is too large, and should be put into the same section as other interest group ratings. I do not agree that this article as it stands is partisan in favor of Grassley, and I say that as a person considerably to his left. I would argue for removing the challenge to this article's neutrality. Douglas Barber (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Position against medicinal marijuana has nothing to do w/ investigation into health care kickbacks==>gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


Noticed this article was edited by the same IP belonging to the US Senate [1] that removed vietname related claims from Tom_Harkin's article.

See slashdot and related article on misuse of wiki by politicians [2]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coaxial (talkcontribs) on 16:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC); Please sign your posts!

Contributions To American Slang[edit]

PORKULUS: A term used by Sen. Grassley to describe the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The word is a succinct portmanteau of the words pork barrel and stimulus. As of Feburary 10, 2009 it can be found on over 80,000 web pages and has gained popular informal use in many Republican and politically-conservative discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The term refers to the largest single government spending program, in USA history and in the world, and therefore is not a trivial matter. Wikipedia's verifiability criteria are met by the reference to Sen. Grassley's own Twitter 'tweet' of Feb. 2, 2009. Inclusion of the word, the discussion surrounding it and the context of its usage are encyclopedic, having met the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's own entry on the word encyclopedic. A direct link to the word "encyclopedic" in other online dictionaries would violate copyright, therefore such links are not provided here but can easily be found online.

Open discussion is welcome and encouraged. I respectfully ask that all undo's be explained at least as well as I have explained myself here. That's fair and promotes a deeper, more objective understanding of this subject at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source other than Senator Grassley's tweet that uses that term? Also, can you be certain that it came from an official Grassley Twitter account? Some alleged senatorial twitter accounts are actually run by people unaffiliated with that office. Also, WPs standards would require more than just this one source to prove notability. WP:RS requires multiple, reliable sources. Also, you have to consider whether Grassley's use of the word was fleeting. Just because he used the word does not make it notable. If you want to discuss it in the terms of his speech about the stimulus bill, that would be OK, such as "Senator Grassley, a leading critic of the stimulus bill decried the bill as little more than pork barrel spending disguised as a stimulus package, humrously referring to it as a 'porkulus'" Obviously, those are only my words; you'd have to formulate the description based on exactly what was said in the reliable source. I just don't see the term as adding anything to the discussion. Grassley's opposition to the stimulus bill is notlable, and warrants a broader discussion. His use of the term porkulus may be warranted as part of that broader discussion. But as a stand alone paragraph where the term, rather than a non-POV discussion of his views on the bill doesn't quite cut it in my opinion.DCmacnut<> 22:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Grassley's Twitter Tweet is directly referenced by his Senate web page at and can therefore be considered first-hand information, consistent with Wikipedia's criteria for Verifiability. (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources requires "reliable, third-party, published sources." Grassley's website and his twitter account would be considered a primary source. Can you provide links to a reliable, third-party source (i.e. an account from a non-senate website like a newspaper) that specifically discusses use of the term porkulus, where the term itself if the subject of the article? As I've said before, I have no objection to using the term, but only as part of a discussion supported by reliable, third-party sources of Grassley's views on the stimulus bill. Members of his senate staff are probably the ones updating his Twitter account. I see that Grassley did use the term just once in the Senate debate on February 3 (2009 Congressional Record, Vol. 155, Page S1377 , but the debate itself is still a primary source that needs additional support from third-party sources.DCmacnut<> 22:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, Rush Limbaugh was the first to use the term on January 23, and Grassley merely adopted the term in his debate. So the original edit was wrong, in that Grassley wasn't the one to coin the phrase.DCmacnut<> 22:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those references. Your referenced video shows Grassley using the term but as you pointed out, it was Limbaugh who appears to have first used the term, not Grassley. At this point, I don't believe Grassley coined the term "porkulus." If I found otherwise, I'll post it here along with any further references for everyone's objective consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Coattails", etc.[edit]

Clearly POV. You can keep in the reference to his voting record as per veterans issues, but the editorializing about coattails is POV and should not be in a wiki article. The potential opponent in 2010 information is also superfluous, and I'd encourage its deletion. HandsomeSam57 (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Family[edit]

Why is this sentence here? "Grassley is a member of The Family, a secretive Christian political organization that organizes the National Prayer Breakfast and made headlines in the summer of 2009 for its involvement in the adulterous affairs of Senator John Ensign, Governor Mark Sanford and ex-Representative Chip Pickering." It sounds like he is a member of the masons or something. Does the membership of Ensign and Sanford have any relevance to Grassley? Is it meant to associate him with individuals who cheated on their wives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahJaneSmith (talkcontribs) 18:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the irrelevant information. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


What are the symbols |} doing at the beginning of this page? David Blandford (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wendell Potter's criticism of Grassley[edit]

As per WP:Weight, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV concerns, it seems bad to me to cite information from highly biased, opinion based sources (which are Jack Cafferty's blog and Democracy Now!) on an article that is a WP:BLP.

After all, conservative columnists have called health care reform malicious socialism. We don't include that in biographical articles about Obama or Pelosi or Reid et cetera because these article have a higher standard. The Squicks (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

He's no more biased than Saul on the road to Damascus. He's an expert, an insider who knows where bodies are buried. Run-of-the-mill "conservative columnists" have no such expertise. Teabaggers have equivocated Obama and Hitler. I favor showing it all, trusting that truth eventually will out, from comparison. -MBHiii (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Please don't bring religion into this, as for you to insult my Christian beliefs like that is both unhelpful and unnecessary to the discussion.
As well, please delete your silly sexual slur about me.
There are healthcare experts such as people at the CATO Institute and the Heritage Foundation who have criticized government managed health care advocates. But that material is not in pages for Obama or other characters.
Why is that? It's because of WP:BLP rules that advise against giving undue weight to certain types of information to preserve WP:NPOV. As well, highly biased opinion based sources are to be used with extreme reservations as per WP:V and WP:RS. The Squicks (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
A RFC seems like a good idea given that there are editors who used to work on this page but have left (and I would like their input). It would serve as a beacon to let them know. The Squicks (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should opinion criticism from Wendell Potter and Jack Cafferty be in the article[edit]

Should the opinion criticism from Wendell Potter and Jack Cafferty be mentioned in the article? The Squicks (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If the criticism is factual and not diatribe, then I'm good with it. --averagejoe (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether or not the term "diatribe", which is rather subjective, applies here. You can see the exact words used in>
The Squicks (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The other reference, the CNN reporter's blog, is here>
The Squicks (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
No, we should not give such an asymmetric amount of space to opinions. Simply because they criticize him does not mean create a section and act as if they represent a mainstream view that is critical of him. Crap like this has no place in the article. Let's not turn this into a coatrack article. Richard (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that Potter's statement is opinion, without citing any fact to substantiate the position asserted. Average Iowans favor single-payer or government-option, so Chuck isn't listening to his constituents, but without citing some facts it's just opinion. I'm not comfortable with that being in the article, even though I'm watching Chuck make his every-six-years dash to the right, pandering to a small but vocal minority of Iowans, to stave off a primary fight.
The rest of the section seems to be a statement of fact, with reference cited. Chuck has taken quite a bit of money from the special interests in question, and now he's showing he's been bought and paid for. While some folks might not like his shortcomings exposed, sorry. Show some counter-facts, show some proof he's not beholden to those who bought him the seat he occupies.
My $0.02. --averagejoe (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how different you see these guys to be. Cafferty must cite sources to avoid giving mere opinions. Potter is the source; he dealt directly with these guys in industry soirées, and his accusations go utterly uncontested by them. - (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Although Potter would be more convincing if he justified his assertion with facts, I think that because he is so well qualified to comment, having been a long-time top pharmaceutical company exec and spokesman, his statement is worthy of note and should pass muster in this context. And I see nothing inappropriate in including Cafferty's statement of relevant fact. Cafferty is a respected journalist, who criticizes both sides of US politics. He does not quote any official source, but since the statement, which can easily be checked, was made on a network television program and apparently went undisputed, there seems vanishingly small risk in accepting it--Insert non-formatted text here--
Sorry, but the tiny sub section is clearly taking a side on an issue and is incredibly POV. We should not give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints. Also the sources provided are primary and should be avoided. Richard (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Potter is primary and unusually trustworthy, due to his former position. Cafferty is secondary and certainly established as a reputable journalist. MBHiii (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think DemocracyNow should be used as a WP:RS. They are an advocacy site, it would be like using conservative sites like Weekly Standard as references except DemocracyNow is even more extreme.
I don't have an opinion on the specific quotes here, except that it may be overweight in a bio. Jmcnamera (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Btw, one of the previous statements from User: is by a probable sockpuppet of User:Mbhiii who also commented here and has had some of his other socks banned in the past. Jmcnamera (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
You can't say "other sock" if that IP is not being used as a sock. - (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I think this issue is nearly resolved. JRStutler's defense was rather odd and making accusations of him being bought appear to be nothing more than original research. The Caferty blog only mentions how much he received and we cannot conclude that he was bought out. It seems that this section is nothing more than undue weight. Richard (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
...Stutler?... From another WP article: "Commentator Jack Cafferty and representatives from the Physicians for a National Health Program and Campaign Money Watch have argued that this lobbying creates a conflict of interest for the Senators" (Baucus, Lincoln, Grassley et al).[1][2] -MBHiii (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Jack Cafferty (September 3, 2009). "Six lobbyists per lawmaker enough on health care?". Retrieved October 5, 2009. 
  2. ^ Blumenthal, Paul (September 2, 2009). "Key Democrat in Health Care Talks Receives Most Health Industry Contributions in 2009". Retrieved October 5, 2009. 
I believe Richard was referring to me. Not sure what he was confused about my response. First part said that even though I think Grassley is ten-up-two-down and one part of the issue at hand supports my perspective, it is nonetheless opinion and should be removed or at least rewritten. Second part said I think the other relevant issue, Caferty, is fine and should stay. Nowhere did I say I thought my opinions or 'original research' should be included in the article. I'm sure Richard, upon reflection, will get it. --averagejoe (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your response. It seems we can agree that democracynow should not be included. However, if it is removed, then we are left with a one sentence stub section. I would support moving this elsewhere in the article and changing lobbyists for anti-health reform with simply health-care companies. Richard (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Mbhiii is again using sockpuppets to ignore this discussion and put his POV edits into the article. (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The section was removed and re-added today, with the latter edit operating on the assumption that we need a vote. Of course, that is wrong. I think the section gives undue weight to the this criticism. If there has been longstanding criticism of him as being in the pocket of the insurance industry, then that should be explained. Since it isn't, this just violates WP:UNDUE. It seems to be of huge importance because we are in the midsts of this debate, but when it is over, it won't seem so notable. Fleeting notability is not enough for Wikipedia.

I also think consensus has already developed against inclusion of the section, so I am going to remove it. -Rrius (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So far it seems the consensus is against the Wendell Potter part, but is unclear on Cafferty. In the interests of clarifying this, JRStutler (or averagejoe, I'm not sure what to call you), could you please address the point that including the Cafferty passage gives undue weight to that opinion? Specifically, it presents only a view in opposition to Grassley's (thus lacking balance), highlights an implication of corruption, and places too heavy of emphasis on his role in a current event, which role is questionable in terms of its importance to explaining Chuck Grassley. -Rrius (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Before we do anything else, the consensus that Wendell Potter's speculation should be removed means that that material should not be in this article. After all, there's something like a five editors to one support for removal. The Squicks (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Because of the legitimate WP:BLP concerns, none of it should be in until there is consensus in favour of it. -Rrius (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I seem to have come late to this party. I have reinstated the section with the reference to this discussion. I see nothing wrong with with either the source or the content. It is an opinion that is true, but Potter does give a reason for his opinion and as someone who ran an entire organization on behalf of insurance companies before his epiphany, his views are quire significant. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Helth Care Reform Opponents[edit]

This statement: "At an August 12, 2009, meeting in Iowa, Senator Grassley supported the claims by health care reform opponents that end-of-life counseling provisions in the House health care bill" is slanted, equating a particular proposal with "health care reform" and implying those supporting different reforms are "reform opponents." (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Blosspara, 13 July 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Edit link number 40 to

Blosspara (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Davtra  (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Source 7 (position on medical marijuana)[edit]

Source #7, for the following quote: Grassley is against the use of medical marijuana; even in instances involving cancer or AIDS. just leads to a short bit about his views on meth, and doesn't actually mention anything about marijuana. (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed too that the webpage doesn't actually say anything about medical marijuana, let alone if he supports it or not. This is very misleading. ( (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)).

I removed it for now. I don't know what if any his position is in this area, but I agree that the cited source did not verify the claim. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

succession box for GOP nominee?![edit]

Isn't that a bit much? He's been Senator - why have yet another box pointing out he was also the GOP nominee? Seems pretty pointless to me - as I missing something? Flatterworld (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason for it is that not every GOP nominee becomes a Senator, so if we want to track the GOP nominees AND Senators, we need two separate boxes. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

In Science news again[edit]

Grassley Questions NIH Travel on Sponsors' Dime. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Older ones:

Apparently his tenure in that area will be over soon: New Post for Senate's Medical Research Watchdog

Tijfo098 (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested change[edit]

Going through the current senators' articles, I have standardized all those that were not locked, with the style, in every case, of the majority of pages. Please italicize the list of senate seniority in the order of precedence. All other items match this article's. Missing parties and states have been filled in elsewhere, and sized where needed. Thanks. (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested change[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Under votes and ratings, the May 2009 quote, and citation, state soldiers have been fighting the flag for 200 years... seems to be at least one word missing, and a thought process. (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC) (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Partly done: I checked the source, and apparently Grassley actually made the error. It should say "fought for for over 200 years." However, since it's in a quote, I can't change it; instead, I added the "sic" template. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


United States Senate election in Iowa, 2010

Chuck Grassley (R) (inc.) 64.51%
Roxanne Conlin (D) 33.23%
John Heiderscheit (Lib.) 2.26%
There is an article on the 2010 election which references the New York Times. Perhaps some diligent soul would grab that reference and add the above chart thingy to this article's Electoral history section chart thingies? - (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Update 112th Congress[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Alpha Quadrant kindly updated the order of precedence position at my request, but my request did not include changing Sen. Dodd or Sen. Specter, before & after, to Carl Levin D Michigan and Jeff Bingaman D New Mexico,respectively (see Seniority in the United States Senate). Thanks in advance. (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Took me a little bit to figure out where you were referring to, but I think I got it updated correctly now. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Family "Research" Council[edit]

Their rating should also say "hate group Family Research Coulcil.." It's not POV to say what they are. They spend their time hating particular groups of people and trying to make laws against them. (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked it to indicate that, with appropriate reference.--averagejoe (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

His college majors[edit]

What were Grassley's undergraduate and graduate majors?CountMacula (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 October 2012[edit]

External links, CongLinks, change parameter to washpo=gIQAxsWx9O (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the update! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

SOPA / PIPA[edit]

Grassley co-sponsored PIPA, but nothing mentioning that entire fiasco is given on the page. I plan to start or contribute at least some mention of it when I don't have overworked programmer's brain strangling my motivation. Joad Marshal (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent NPR story about NASA vikings[edit]

Recent NPR story "An anonymous concerned citizen contacted Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley with a lot of questions about the Viking photos: Were the people on the clock when they were doing this? Was there any taxpayer money involved?" involving the Senator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Shouldnt his serving in the Iowa legislature be listed prior to serving in the House of Reps in the lede paragraph?[edit]

Chronologically, he served in the Iowa legislature prior to the US House. (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Grassley is seeking a seventh term in the 2016 election. Distinct from 2010, he is expected to face a strong challenge from former Democratic lieutenant governor Patty Judge."[edit]

To me this seems a bit biased towards Patty Judge. She hasn't been even elected Democratic nominee and the article doesn't mention the other 3 candidates at all in the race at the moment.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chuck Grassley. 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:

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

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 10:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Election Box changes[edit]

I added the 2016 Results and did some math to fix out some of the other boxes, The "New Independent Iowa Party" (NIP) does not have a color nor a link with this template, therefore I'm leaving their candidate (Henneger) as an Independent, they're an entirely irrelevant micro-party that seems to have contested the '14 election for Governor with the same candidate (Jim Henneger) - They're not really a party, probably just him trying to get some attention - But what I wanted to know was how to add/change colors for the party box to the side, which seems to autofill, I notice previous years Independents were gray, while this time they came out yellow, I'm trying to learn this wikipedia thing by observation, trial and error, but its mighty arcane without any explanation. - Eli — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chuck Grassley. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 03:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)