Talk:Joe Walsh (Illinois politician)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joe Walsh (Illinois politician) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Chicago

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Illinois

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) person(s).

On 17 November 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Joe Walsh (politician). The result of the discussion was Move to Joe Walsh (Illinois politician).

Election 2010

Its still undeterminded who the winner is in the Illinois 8th race. We cannot put it on here until it is offically called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politics2012 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions section

Unless this section can be sourced better, it should be removed. Reads like a poorly-written campaign site now. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

Please tell the speaker of the house to stop holding his breath and trying to make the President look bad. He does not look to have any skills accept name calling and I am tired of it.... It is time to work for the people who elected him NOT against the DEMOCRATS. It's time to make a deal. It's time to stop drawing lines in the sand... always refusing to work and blaming everyone else.....MAKE THE --99.142.43.97 (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)DEAL JOHN- PLease tell him... thanks, J. Davis--99.142.43.97 (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

child support

What is not known as fact is whether it was Speaker of the House John Bonehner's dirty trick to undermine him as an attempt by the Speaker to attack his own caucus' Tea Party folks who have been recalcitrantly refusing to agree to Bonehner's debt ceiling deal.142.157.4.23 (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Need further confirmation for the Speaker Bonheur angle. 16:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC) ,[reply]

The story about the child support is included in this article. Please cease and desist with your defamatory edits in the main space and on the talk page or you may be blocked. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Muboshgu. Please keep your personal views and opinion's about this issue off of the article or discussion page. America69 (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the fact that he has an ex-wife and children by a previous marriage (verifiable at many media sites, including the Chicago SunTimes: http://couriernews.suntimes.com/mobile/6754191-463/walsh-accuses-sun-times-of-running-hit-piece-on-his-back-child-support-troubles.html) be added under "Personal Life? DaBunny42 (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I thought it was already there? It makes no sense for his ex-wife to be disputing child support if he doesn't have an ex-wife and children from that previous marriage. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Economy size error

When Walsh was asked on the Chris Matthews Show what the size of the US economy is he answered, "3.7 trillion". ^[1] I previously posted this, should this be on the page? It was all over the media Foozy101 (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some evidence that its "all over the media" and should be included? That source you presented doesn't pass muster. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Republican Redefined. 2011-07-20 http://republicanredefined.com/2011/07/20/freshman-gop-rep-joe-walsh-spars-with-chris-matthews-on-hardball/. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Personal Life

Everything under personal life, minus the first sentence, is about his controversies. It shouldn't be listed as personal life, it is a controversy section. It is like we are hiding his controversies under the personal life banner. The first sentence should be moved to the Early life, education, and teaching career section and the remaining part of the section should be labeled properly as "controversies". This article should cover all aspects of Walsh's life in a neutral way.--Politicsislife (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh ashamed of his state for not allowing concealed handguns, warning that they were the ‘last line of defense’ if Americans need to revolt against their government

Why are the governors of America saying such dumb things? salon.com Sep 30, 2011 87.164.126.8 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign 2012

This wasn't previously noted, but he's switched his target district the redrawn 8th which is majority Democratic. He'll likely face highly personable war hero and amputee Tammy Duckworth in a likely suicide mission. Dems will devote a lot of cash and energy into finishing him off as a high-profile irritant; no exaggerration and you can look at my footnotes in the text. They have strong interests both in crushing Joe and elevating Tammy whom they regard as a rising star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mare Nostrum (talk • contribs) 09:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive controversies?

I've tagged this article with {{POV}}, because from the looks of it it gives too much attention to his controversies. The 'Controversies' section is very long, and includes some pretty trivial issues; it makes this article look like a campaign piece for his opponent. Is anyone willing to take a go at cleaning it up and making it more balanced? Robofish (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on it. In full disclosure, I staunchly oppose his policies and political activities, but I do think he deserves a more-or-less fair treatment. The truth is that thousands of voters are going to be looking at this page for reliable information and it would be a gross overstep of our duties for us to help sway the election. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did some general NPOV clean-up but there's still plenty left to do - namely, introducing more comprehensive, objective information. The page lacks detailed information on what exactly he has done during his 2010-present tenure. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it needed that much work on honestly. There was a lot there because he is known for saying controversial things. We can't just not cover them because he has many gaffes and issues. And the controversy section needs to be restored, not swept under the personal life section. That was already debated upon and decided. I am all for keeping away biases, but feel it needs to be done in a responsible way.--Politicsislife (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, you're saying you want to whitewash the article and make him seem like he is better then he really is. No wonder nobody takes Wikipedia seriously... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.82.35 (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well really there is not much that is controversial here anymore. In fact, the article now seems to slant favorably toward Joe Walsh, and there isn't even a controversy section. I am removing the tag, since there seems to be agreement here and no specific complaints. The article still needs some work, in my opinion, but I don't think it merits the bias tag, so I am removing it.--KeptSouth (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried that the article has gone too far the other way. No matter what political views one might hold it's hard to deny that Rep. Joe Walsh is a controversial figure, and yet he doesn't even have a controversy section anymore. With his recent comments on abortion and the health of the mother I believe there is ample material for a section detailing his controversial moments. Politicsn'stuff (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Politicsn'stuff 7:45, 23 October 2012[reply]

I should clarify why I added the POV to this article. Rep. Joe Walsh has gotten a lot of national/international media coverage for a state representative. Most of this coverage has focused on Walsh's controversial statements and/or controversial behavior such as the Palestinian comment, the moats comment, the child support issues, ect. An article on Walsh is not giving an accurate representation of his political career without mentioning the various controversies he has been involved in. I would edit the page myself, but I'm new to WP and, well, controversy sections are...controversial so I'd prefer to leave it in the hands of a skilled editor. Also, because there has been disagreement over what should be included in such a section it might be best to see if we can reach a general consensus before editing the page or removing the POV warning. Policsn'stuff (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does mention the controversies, and since your comment focused exclusively on a notion that it does not, and that was your reasoning for the bias tag, I am removing the tag. In addition, in biographies of living persons, we must be careful not to give too much weight or disproportionate space to criticism. Please see WP:UNDUE. To look again at the question of whether the article is negatively biased toward the congressman, all sources are reliable secondary sources, there is no controversy section, yet some controversies involving repeated positions of Walsh are mentioned, in an appropriately summarized fashion. --KeptSouth (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does mention them, however, it is far from comprehensive. Undue weight is not simply ignoring all relevant controversies because they might make someone look bad if those controversies are, in fact, legitimate, and significant. Not only that, but this is a congressman whose term has been characterized by making bold, controversial statements. A section specifically addressing these seems like a common sense inclusion, and was previously included for that reason. As it is his controversial statements/positions are scattered and should be grouped into a comprehensive section doing otherwise downplays their significance.Policsn'stuff (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Active Politician"

Can we take that tag off the talk page? It is about three years later and he doesn't seem to be pursuing any kind of public office (or being covered in the media). Safe to assume he's dropped off the radar for now? Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too think it should be removed. However, I must admit, I'm not completely sure which code to delete in order to remove that tag. --1990'sguy (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The single greatest act of racism in American history" - NPOV is a factor here

Walsh recently tweeted, "The single greatest act of racism in American history was the election of Barack Obama." Those of us with the awareness of slime molds are dropping our jaws in horror, and it's getting some press attention https://www.yahoo.com/news/americas-greatest-racial-sin-electing-194129801.html http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/29/1543610/-Former-Republican-rep-says-electing-Barack-Obama-was-most-racist-thing-in-the-history-of-America Where in the article does it belong? Does it belong, or do we just accept that lunatic-fringe bigots say kwazy stuff and I don't have sufficient NPOV to ignore it? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangemike: If this info was widely reported by reliable sources, then I would include it. The Yahoo News article I would say is OK (even though its wording is a bit questionable) but Daily Kos is a liberal blog, so it should not be used as a source. Are there any other reliable sources reporting this? If so, then I would have no problem including this. If not, then I would leave it out. Assuming we can include this, though, I personally would place it in the "Political positions" section as this seems to have more to do with Walsh's views on race and etc. --1990'sguy (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, political websites opposed to the guy are the ones reporting it most widely. HIs allies are pretending it didn't happen. I'm not gonna insist on jamming it into the article without a little consensus; but I'll admit openly that I think people should know he actually said this shit. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangemike: I don't really mind inserting this information. I'm definitely not opposed. Just as long as reliable sources are used and the material is presented fairly and NPOV, things which I trust you will be able to do :). --1990'sguy (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No response. This article has seen a lot of attention is the last few days, so I'll let the other editors watching this page help decide this. --1990'sguy (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's replied here still, so I'll just ignore this. This does not seem noteworthy of inclusion, expect possibly to elaborate on Walsh's political views. Best to keep it out. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening tweet re Dallas shooting

The article claims he deleted the tweet but "He said he was allowed to reopen his account only if the tweet was deleted, which he said had happened without him taking action." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-joe-walsh-twitter-dallas-tweet-20160708-story.html

I would have footnoted my parenthetical addition that he claims Twitter deleted it but I don't know how--most of my edits are minor copy editing.Lewis Goudy (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name among friends

In this edit, Dmack79 adds the factoid that Walsh is

known to his friends as Old Foot in His Mouth Joe

This surprises me. True, there is this, in which "Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh Has Another "Insert Foot In Mouth" Moment"; but it lacks any mention of friends. Anything else?

I'm about to revert this addition. Though if convincing evidence can be adduced for the claim, it can of course be readded. -- Hoary (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Danorton beat me to it. Well, Dmack79, where's the evidence? -- Hoary (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was simple vandalism. In another edit, he called Walsh an "asshat". I have posted a warning to his talk page. —Danorton (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I hadn't noticed the "asshat" edit. -- Hoary (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 6 external links on Joe Walsh (Illinois politician). 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. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph "Joe" Walsh

@1990'sguy: Joe is a hypocorism of Joseph. It doesn't matter if it's his first name or his middle name. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Usage_in_first_sentence there shouldn't be a "Joe" in the first line. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The manual of style says "given name," which means the first name. If his first name were Joseph, I would agree with you, but it is more unusual that it's his middle name. For people who know him as "Joe Walsh," seeing his real first name as "William" would be surprising. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Removed the "Official Joe Walsh website" since http://walshfreedom.com/ now goes to a website about AI and robots in the home. Added the Joe Walsh Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/joewalsh/ --Mindfill (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Joe Walsh (Illinois politician). 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. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 5 external links on Joe Walsh (Illinois politician). 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. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Identification

Is (politician) the correct identification? He was only an elected official 2 years. Even if you add a year for the campaign and a year each for his previous 2 runs, that is only 5 years. He has been a commentator/firebrand/media host for just as long and arguably more well known for the firebombs he throws/clickbait provocative quotes than for anything he did as a politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.13.20 (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say he's most notable for being in the House of Representatives, if only for one term. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Former" radio talk show host?

We've changed it to "former" in the lead sentence. But is that accurate? Sure, he said on TV that "I have lost my radio show."^[1] But Salem Radio Network said it was cancelling his show September 26 (apparently giving 30 days' notice), and that he is free to sign up with another syndicator if he wants.^[2] On Fox, Walsh said, "No more radio show, but that's OK. I'm going to campaign full time."^[3] So the question is, is he still doing his show this week, and until September 26? If he is, we should not be saying "former" radio host. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

^ Budryk, Zack (August 26, 2019). "Joe Walsh says he lost his national radio show". The Hill. Retrieved August 26, 2019. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "Salem Will Drop Presidential Candidate Joe Walsh's Syndicated Show". Inside Radio. August 27, 2019. Retrieved 27 August 2019.
^ Wulfsohn, Joseph A. (August 27, 2019). "Joe Walsh says he's lost radio show since launching Trump challenge". Fox News. Retrieved 27 August 2019.

P.S. In the last paragraph of the lead we say "Walsh began hosting a talk radio show, which ended once he began his presidential campaign". If he is still doing it we should change that as well. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy: I just did a major edit to rework the entire lead for prose and flow. I removed "former" from the lead for now. I also removed any mention of the end of the show from the lead--frankly, I don't think the end would warrant more than a passing mention even if it is confirmed and does not belong at all until we do know for sure what exactly is happening when.

As I noted in my edit summary, my edit is far from perfect and I certainly don't want to act like I own the article--I am glad we see eye-to-eye on how to discuss his status as a radio show host. If you have the time, could you look over the rest of my edit and make adjustments as needed? I would appreciate a second set of eyes. Thank you and happy editing! PrairieKid (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think your rewrite was very much an improvement. I did a little copy editing. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

add Walsh warns that Americans listening to Fox News are lied to daily ?

Joe Walsh warns that Americans listening to Fox News are lied to daily on YouTube CNN Nov 3, 2019

such as See also Fox News controversies ? X1\ (talk)

Requested move 17 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move to Joe Walsh (Illinois politician). There is consensus to move the article back to Joe Walsh (Illinois politician); there is no consensus to move the article elsewhere at this time. (closed by non-admin page mover) SkyWarrior 22:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Walsh (American politician) → Joe Walsh (politician) – He is the primary topic for Joe Walsh (politician) per wikipedia:PRIMARYPDAB. There would be a hatnote if people were looking for other people. See the pageviews for proof https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2021-11-16&pages=Joe_Walsh_(American_politician)%7CJoe_Walsh_(Irish_politician)%7CJoseph_Walsh_(Massachusetts_politician)%7CJoseph_Charles_Walsh%7CJoseph_T._Walsh Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:PDAB. The proposed move does nothing to improve clarity. 162 etc. (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no evidence that he is the primary. I would, though, support a move back to Joe Walsh (Illinois politician), which is currently a redirect to the (American politician) article name. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the Irish cabinet minister is much more notable than a one-term US representative. This Joe Walsh is likely only in the lead because he's the only living one out of the three, so moving on the basis of that would constitute WP:RECENTISM. Also support a move back to (Illinois politician) per Orangemike. YttriumShrew (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 162 etc., Orange Mike and YttriumShrew. Likewise support restoring Joe Walsh (American politician) → Joe Walsh (Illinois politician), thus undoing the unilateral move of 26 August 2019. The parenthetical qualifier for Joe Walsh (American politician) [created February 2010] should be analogous to that for Joseph Walsh (Massachusetts politician) [created March 2006], not to the qualifier for Joe Walsh (Irish politician) [created February 2004]. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per YttriumShrew. ~~Neutral~~ on "Illinois politician". User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed that there is already a Joseph Walsh (Massachusetts politician) so we should switch to Illinois. There's occasionally reason to partially disambiguate or to rely on small details with "(politician)", but never for "(American politician)". User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose around 95% of views is probably not enough but I'd support Roman Spinner's alternative. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak citations

Nearly the entire overview section lacks citation and many of the claims in this section are not repeated elsewhere that citations exist. Wthompson2009 (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Republican Redefined. 2011-07-20 http://republicanredefined.com/2011/07/20/freshman-gop-rep-joe-walsh-spars-with-chris-matthews-on-hardball/. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[2] Budryk, Zack (August 26, 2019). "Joe Walsh says he lost his national radio show". The Hill. Retrieved August 26, 2019. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[3] "Salem Will Drop Presidential Candidate Joe Walsh's Syndicated Show". Inside Radio. August 27, 2019. Retrieved 27 August 2019.

[4] Wulfsohn, Joseph A. (August 27, 2019). "Joe Walsh says he's lost radio show since launching Trump challenge". Fox News. Retrieved 27 August 2019.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]