Talk:John Ensign/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vandalism

Somebody needs to remove the picture of Eliot Spitzer, which some troll posted on Wikipedia, and replace it with a picture of John Ensign.--Susan Nunes 16 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.29.41 (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Pro-life section POV

Added section for this POV issue. --789so7isstuffed (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The section regarding Ensign's Pro-Life (and other) views are seriously POV, especially quoting a rating from an abortion-rights advocacy organization, which is POV by its very nature. Using words such as "obstructed" instead of words like "fought" or "opposed" with regard to legislation lend a POV overtone to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsrtegl (talk • contribs) 18:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I took the initiative to make these changes in the article itself because a significant time has passed since the POV issue was first mentioned in the discussion page (2 months) and and the POV warning was added to the article (1 month). Please reply in the discussion if you disagree with my direction. If no disagreement is made within the next week, I will go ahead and remove the POV warning. --789so7isstuffed (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are my actions and justifications to improve factual accuracy and remove POV:

1) Removed quote-marks arround both pro-life and pro-choice, because they can be seen as an effort to diminish the meaning of those terms.

2) Added and cited National Right to Life Committee ranking to balance NARAL Pro-Choice America ranking.

3) Added citation to Child Custody Protection Act bill language on thomas.loc.gov.

4) Used bill language to describle Child Custody Protection Act.

5) Removed criticism of Child Custody Protection Act because it appears to be factually incorrect (see below).

6) Added and cited National Right to Life Committee ranking after reference to Harry Reid for reference purposes. A 0% rating generally signifies a Pro-choice record, despite Reid's declared pro-life position.

7) Removed citation to the percentage of Nevadans who are pro-choice because public policy polling is not about the subject of the article (see below).

(5) This section appears to be contradicted by the actual testimony of John Harrison:

Several law professors, including Professor John Harrison of University Virginia School of Law and Professor Peter Rubin of Georgetown University Law Center believe this legislation to be unconstitutional because, among other things, the law essentially treats human beings as interstate commerce.

Here is the relevant part of the tesimony:

"Even under the more limited view of the commerce power that has prevailed in the past, S. 851 would be within Congress' power." [1]

(7) Public policy polling section:

64% of Ensign's constituents in Nevada identify themselves as "pro-choice."

Removed the POV dispute warning today. --789so7isstuffed (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Larry Craig resignation subsection

It also does not appear to be an encyclopedic event for the subject of this article. Would be interested in hearing if others think this should be added back to the article. Also, after doing a search of Wikipedia, no other Senator who called on Larry Craig to resign had a reference to that action in their article. --789so7isstuffed (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Called for resignation of Larry Craig

On August 30, 2007, Ensign called for the resignation of Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) after allegations of his solicitation in a men's bathroom.

• In light of June, 2009, events, I'd say that this subsection is definitely relevant. I also found worthy of noting, looking back now and being reminded, the exchanges around the time of the original event as to whether Craig and David Vitter's respective offenses were consistently addressed by fellow Republicans. Specifically, Sen. Patrick Leahy on Fox News Sunday traced the difference to local/Congressional politics: that Craig would be replaced by a Republican by a Republican governor of Idaho while Vitter would likely be replaced by a Democrat. I think all of this is relevant in itself, but in light of recent events the section should definitely be reinstated and expanded with this info.Swliv (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I've now expanded the Craig article with the political dialogue I started describing above, including Ensign's role. I'm leaning now toward reinstating the section you removed to the Ensign article, allowing the link to the Craig section to cover the issue. Having done the historical part, I think it's definitely important as regards Ensign's current situation. ... I'm looking into ... the Jon Huntsman Jr. confirmation situation, and .... No, I don't think Ensign's likely to resign. ... Yet. Swliv (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is important to include in the main article Ensign's comments on Larry Craig in view of his own actions on the same moral issues upon which he called for Craig's resignation. Merlin1935 (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Doing so would violate WP:NEU, and would also be WP:COATRACK. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends on how the entry is presented. If it is reported as a matter of fact rather than an opinion, then it would be in compliance without violation of the rules you have cited. This is an issue of which Senator Ensign has faced much public criticism. Reporting widespread criticism by itself does not equate to bias, and Wikipedia is replete with entries of criticisms against public figures. In fact, a failure to report a prominent case of criticism may be construed as reverse bias or favoritism. Merlin1935 (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the Wikipedia article on Senator Larry Craig includes (and rightly so) Craig's severe criticism of former President Bill Clinton on the same moral issue of which he (Craig) later pled guilty. Also, Wikipedia entry on Bill Clinton features a severe criticism of Clinton's credibility by John Ensign. Therefore, including here Ensign's critique of Craig is by far not a precedent, rather it should be mandatory due to this special circumstance. Merlin1935 (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that it can be reported as fact, as you said, without it being a quotefarm, as it once was. However, it may also be best served on the Larry Craig scandal page as well. Furthermore, it should not be given undue weight. A sentence or two with reliable sourced refernces, written in a neutral manor should be OK. I advise that you word it here first, prior to putting it in the article, even though it is not required. So that all active editors can comment and it can be added with consensus, so that if it were to be removed, it can be clearly shown that it kept with all relevent WPs, had been reviewed in the past, and can be readded more speedily.

Since the subject of this article is an active politican we must strive to uphold the neutrality of the article, regadless of whether our individual biases may or may not agree with that politicans policy positions. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Merlin1935 (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal section

This section does not appear to have any encyclopedic value. I plan to remove this section if there is no objections --789so7isstuffed (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed this section after not seeing any objections here on the talk page. I have temporarily included the full text of this section below in case the consensus opinion is that this should be added back to the main article on the subject. --789so7isstuffed (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal

In April 2003, the Associated Press reported that Ensign was one of six Congressmen living in a Capitol Hill townhouse subsidized by The Family, a religious organization.

I removed the line about "David Coe" and "The Family". There was no citation in the article itself (though there is some sort of citation here. Further, clicking the link for "David Coe" leads to an article about a fantasy writer. Is this the right person? Maybe "Doug Coe", leader of the religious group "The Family"? Further still the link to "The Family" lead to an article generically about groups of related people - not a specific organization. Try "The Family (Christian political organization" perhaps. Needs more careful editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapscallion (talk • contribs) 16:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge needed

Small article on "mistress", Cynthia Hampton, should be merged here if anything there is worth keeping. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

IMHO Cynthia Hampton would clearly fall under WP:BLP1E. I see no indication that there should be a separate article on her.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I was too lazy to nominate it for deletion, so I was suggesting a merge so that Cynthia Hampton could just be redirected to this section. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree on suggestion to merge - then delete after the 15 minutes is up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.23.226 (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Should be merged into John Ensign -- Hux (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please merge, notability.Jarhed (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Article should be merged, old article should redirect to this section,, old article should be deleted. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there's no objections to a merge. I'm looking at the article, and I'm not seing anything BLP complient that should be brought into this article that isn't already here. If no one objects or beats me to it, I'm thinking of just making that page a redirect to the section og this article.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created a redirect[2]. If that was too bold feel free to revert and continue the discussion.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

POV of Extramarital affair Section

At present the section is not worded neutrally, and is worded in such a way to be bias towards onside of the political spectrum or the other. Editors should watch this page, and edit it so that only citible facts are stated, and the neutrality of this section is maintained. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the following material, and the POV template:

According to the Chris Matthews' show Hardball, this affair was not Ensign's first. Apparently, he had an affair with another staffer in 2002. {fact|date=June 2009}} On June 17, 2009, the Associated Press reported that during a two week period in 2002, Ensign abruptly dropped from the public view. An insider knowledgeable with that episode [anonymous] revealed that Ensign told a close associate that his absence followed an earlier affair. The Las Vegas Sun, in an article by Benjamin Grove dated Wed, Feb 27, 2002 confirmed Ensign was absent from the Washington scene reporting that Ensign had "dropped his official business to deal with a personal matter". Chris Cillizza and Paul Kane reporting in the Washington Post on June 16, 2009, state that when Ensign returned from that respite, Ensign told the Las Vegas Sun that he was "not making any comments one way or the other. I'm just asking people to respect my privacy".Citation: Washington Post, June 16, 2009. The Washington Post also reported in 1999 that Ensign "will not be alone in a car with a woman" to avoid misperceptions. Citation: New York Daily News, June 18, 2009 This remark was made via a link to an old story on Talking Points Memo, about how Ensign and other Christian conservative politicians adhere to an unwritten rule against meeting alone with women other than their wives. Citation: Washington Post, June 19, 2009.

In 2007, Ensign called for the resignation of Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), after Craig pleaded guilty to sexual solicitation in a men's bathroom. Ensign also defended other Republican lawmakers' calls for Craig's resignation. Ensign did not call for Senator David Vitter (R-LA) to resign following accusations about using a call girl.

The first of these two paragraphs is based on rumors - there is absolutely no hard evidence - that Ensign had an affair in or prior to 2002. The two week absence (though you can't tell this from the text I removed) was apparently for reconciling with his wife, not for the affair itself. And, in any case, this is so insubstantial - absolutely nothing of consequence came from it - that I think we can let readers find out about it by reading the sources already cited in the section.

The second of these paragraphs also seems to me to be largely irrelevant. Basically, the paragraph attempts to call Ensign a hypocrite without actually using that word, but the matter is clouded by the fact that the analogy is wrong (Senator Craig had plead guilty, Ensign has not) and by Ensign's not calling for Senator Vitter's resignation, though the circumstances were somewhat similar. In short, with regard to what Ensign said with regard to Craig and Vitter, I fail to see the relevance, and even if Ensign truly was being hypocritical here, I fail to see how that is particularly newsworthy. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Recently there have been POV attacks upon this article that need to be addressed. I have reverted them in keeping with the neutral nature of Wikipedia. I ask other editors to be vigilant in watching this page for future POV actions. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the "However, the remark was most likely directed towards the cover-up of the affair. " bit because calling on Clinton to resign and the "He has no credibility left." comment are not necessarily related to his views on marriage and more likely related to his views on integrity and the presidency. The sentence should be moved to a different section. IMHO, the current placement is a "POV attack"! --MatTrue (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, anything that you can do to make this article more NPOV would be beneficial. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pro-life section

I removed thefollowing: Ensign opposed the Prevention First Act. The Prevention First Act was co-authored by Harry Reid, the senior senator from Nevada, who also considers himself pro-life. Its purpose is to reduce the number of abortions by preventing unintended pregnancies, chiefly through improving information about and access to family planning.

Do we include everything this person opposed in this article and if this is to be included, can it be written in aNPOV way? I see that there was a back and forth so I brought it here. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This one is interesting because it puts him at odds with his fellow pro-life Nevadan, Reid. (As the article notes, they're often allied.) As for NPOV, the text states that the bill would promote family planning. That's a controversial subject. We could give pros and cons but I think it's more efficient to give neither and leave that to the wikilinked article. If your concern is that we ought to elaborate on the reasons for supporting or opposing the bill, perhaps you could suggest some suitably concise language. JamesMLane t c 22:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to whom? Maybe say he opposed it without all the original research commentary added. --Tom (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I readded his opposition to this red link bill/whateveritis without the extraneous commentary. I would still leave it out. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You leave out the "extraneous commentary" that tells people what's in the bill and includes the one fact that I singled out as indicating the reason for reporting this position. It is not "extraneous commentary" to report these facts. What is it you claim is not NPOV about this? POV would be "Ensign, true to his political strategy of appealing to the radical religious right in the Republican Party, opposed the Prevention First Act, thinking it better that teenage girls get pregnant rather than use contraception that would upset the self-appoint moral guardians who support him." That would, actually, be pretty accurate, but POV. In your version, we might as well state his position on bill S.3731 or whatever, without more. If you think the description of the bill is POV, please feel free to edit it, but don't leave the reader hanging with a bare sentence like that. JamesMLane t c 00:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, it seems that you want to add certain facts/commentary to promote your POV/agenda. Got it. Why did he oppose this act? Not your POV agenda commentary above, but for real? Do we know or have a source for that? And yes, we might as well state his position on bill S.3731 or whatever, without more leaves out all/any POV unless more can be sourced. --Tom (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This, as I first stated, seems pretty non notable and unsourced so removed, anyways, --Tom (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your incessant reiteration that it's POV doesn't make it so. What's POV about it? The description of the bill seems to me to be neutral. If you think it's too laudatory, feel free to rewrite it. (The bill title is arguably POV but bills are usually given nonneutral titles by their sponsors. You don't seem to have any problem with "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists", which Ensign supported. What's the difference -- POV in bill titles is fine with you as long as it portrays Ensign as nobly opposing terrorists?) I'll hold off for now restoring the information you're trying to suppress, because I don't like edit warring, but if you can't bring yourself to explain the POV issue or propose a neutral alternative, then I'm going to conclude that there's no further point in trying to work anything out with you. JamesMLane t c 20:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point, its more about the non notabiity of the red link bill rather than the title of it. How is that bill even notable? Do you have a source for his opposition? That might help resolve this since hopefully the material could match the citation if it warrants inclusion at all. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A U.S. Senator votes on hundreds of bills every year; if the Wikipedia articles listed each one and has just a sentence of information about the bill, that would overwhelm all other information in the article. And that would be a violation of WP:NPOV - undue space and weight.

So, as a general rule, if there is no newspaper coverage of a Senator's position or vote on a bill, that position/vote doesn't merit inclusion in Wikipedia, per WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. And no, that doesn't mean if there is newspaper coverage, the position/vote is automatically worth mentioning. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Extramarital split

The section regarding the article subject's personal life, has grown into a large portion of this section, and rather than this being used as a WP:COATRACK, perhaps this section should be split per WP:SPINOUT and an own article being created under the title Cynthia Hampton Affair or some other appropriate name that keeps with WP:NEU. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I could see the spinoff entitled Ensign-Hampton affair. Having looked at Affairs#Famous affairs, the Cunningham-Agee Affair for example has provided me with a cautionary awareness of the nuances and challenges of working in this personal-professional realm. I can personally recall the "Cunningham-Agee Affair" from the news, I had no problem remembering from seeing that blue-linked phrase on the affairs list. I wanted to just say, here, "Fine, 'Ensign-Hampton' is like 'Cunningham-Agee'" and move on. Then I found the blue link went to Mary Cunningham. And there there's a well-constructed life-story with only a "they both denied" reference to the 1980 affair or non-affair. I'd half-forgotten, but the two parties married two years later; she at least had been married once before, whether during the affair or non-affair it doesn't say.

Anyway, I am fine -- as I have been from the start -- with the Ensign-Hampton affair remaining as a large but relevant part of the Senator's article. But I can go to the spinoff, too. And, not to leave any lingering loose ends, the Ensign-Hampton affair I would now say is more substantive than the Cunningham-Agee affair or non-affair. The Cunningham-Agee's is a good story, too, maybe not yet fully told in Wikipedia. But the relative substance of the Ensign-Hampton's would add to the reasons to have a separate article in this case.

I do prefer the lower-case "a" in the proposed title. Swliv (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see spinning out to a Ensign-Hampton affair title. But I do believe that having said affair being a large part of the article does not keep with WP:BLP and falls under WP:UNDUE. Having a separate article separates the issue, and removes them from this page, which will go a long way with developing that article.

But if this is the case, to be neutral, perhaps if we are naming affairs a-b affair, perhaps Lewinsky scandal should be renamed Clinton-Lewinsky affair; and if we are not keeping with that template, then perhaps this spinout should be entitled the Hampton scandal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

How undue? Well, I guess we'll know more if the special prosecutor takes it further. It feels to me there's a big tangle of professional issues in this "personal" affair. I know when I saw that the FEC and DoJ had backed off, and added that to the Extramarital affair section this afternoon, I wondered "Is there possibly really nothing there ..." of let's call it bona fide public interest? I've always felt there was something there; though the Cunningham-Agee round was instructive for me in this regard, as I tried to elucidate above. (Being in the business realm, the issue of "public interest" has to be drawn differently there anyway ...; I'm trying to get some grasp on these issues as I go, here.) ... Well, I'm glad to wait for the special prosecutor to determine the undue-ness, re: Ensign, and am glad to have the spinoff in the meantime.

As to the naming of the spinoff: The "Famous affairs" list linked to above I've looked back at again, now, in light of your comments. The bottom line is there's no consistent rule, I'd say. Lewinsky's there, named as you say. Cunningham-Agee as I said, named the way I like in the list ... but linked in the end to her name. Hemings-Jefferson Affair links to Sally Hemings. Then there's the Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal and Tiger Woods#Car accident and alleged affairs; and the Nelson-Hamilton Affair linked to Horatio Nelson .... I don't think you were proposing a major template-imposition project; and linking to what? the less-powerful usually female party? ... Anyway, I still like the two-name, a-b; as did the composer(s) of the "Famous affairs" list, I intuit from the way he/she/they presented several with two names. Oh, yeh. Then there's the Harden–Eulenburg Affair; Harden was an accuser; Eulenberg was one of the two parties in the actual or supposed affair; General Kuno, Graf von Moltke, the second party in the actual or supposed affair, wasn't even named in the article title. In the absence of any consistent current template, I think we ... have the latitude to choose what we prefer. Yes? Maybe spell it out as a possible template, too. ... I don't know.

Any help? Hope so. Swliv (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am first cautious regarding the inclusion of the content here due to the possibility that it is given WP:UNDUE weight in this article and may bring up WP:BLP concerns. While the content is factual as it is being supported by references from reliable sources, it maybe presented in a manor which is meant as an attack against the subject of this article.

As for a naming convention, I am attempting to look at a name, for a spinout, that is consistent with other similar articles, while maintaining WP:NEU. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Not hearing objection I shall move the content to the article Hampton scandal, as it beats out the name Ensign-Hampton affair by a few more hits. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Resignation

Just a reminder: we need reliable sources for the resignation news. Let's wait a few hours for confirmation and verifiable information. Thanks. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

He has a statement confirming this on his own Senate website. [3]

Now that it's led to the guy's resignation from the U.S. Senate, I think it's time to address this beyond the current "Due to a Senate ethics committee investigation relating to events which originated from his personal life" and "the outcome of this event led to an investigation by the FBI and the Senate". Abrazame (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? Also, does anyone have a source for Heller as successor? It doesn't seem to be in the NYT blog story that's currently linked. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Governor Sandoval has not yet appointed a replacement for Ensign. While several sources have suggested Heller is likely to receive the appointment, to my knowledge no credible source has reported it has happened. Bonehed (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So based on the statement on his website, he is resigning due to continuing pressure from the Senate Ethics Committee, and the FEC and FBI investigations did not lead to any charges? The article should reflect this statement, no? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Would an administrator care to update the article (e.g. the politician template/tense in article) per Ensign's resignation effective May 3 per his official Senate website? See also this as ref for Dean Heller, Ensign's successor. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Today is still May 2, and we don't know whether his resignation is effective at midnight or at some specified time during the day tomorrow. The best thing to do would be to wait until the Congressional Record is posted tomorrow morning at [4], where we can read the text of the letter to Joe Biden, which will answer that question.

I would take Ensign's comments to mean midnight, but that is subject to interpretation. And although Heller will assume office as soon as Ensign's resignation takes effect, I am unsure as to when he will take the oath of office. I'll agree with you, we'll wait and see. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

When politicians resign, they regularly say publicly they are leaving on X date, but in their resignation letters specify a time such as 5:00 p.m. Thus, you really can't read a failure to state a time publicly as meaning midnight. -Rrius (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As the point is he resigned as of the 3rd of May in order to avoid having to testify against himself on the 4th of May, I assumed his resignation would be as of end of day May 3rd, not the beginning. Yes, we can't state what time without a source, but we cannot presume it to have happened until the end of the day on the 3rd, and even then we might as well find a source that he kept his word. Abrazame (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The page has now been updated by another user. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Simple edit request

A while back, I archived three press releases from Ensign's office in anticipation of his Senate page going dark. Unfortunately, I wrote "|archive" instead of "|archiveurl". Would an editor please correct the error? -Rrius (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The page is no longer protected, so you may proceed with your edit. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be appropriate in a historical sense to expand the chronology of his resignation. A Senator was forced to resign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.126.250 (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John Ensign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050228085747/http://sos.state.nv.us:80/nvelection/1998recount/ to http://sos.state.nv.us/nvelection/1998recount/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060622010941/http://sos.state.nv.us/nvelection/2000General/ElectionSummary.htm to http://sos.state.nv.us/nvelection/2000General/ElectionSummary.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Review of WP Projects associated with article

I have deleted "Tambayan Philippines" and "Asian American" projects and especially disagree with their assigning this article as of "Mid Importance." According to documented RS articles, Ensign has never met his Filipino-German grandfather and did not learn of this ancestry until about the age of 40. He clearly did not grow up in any Filipino or Asian-American culture, so it seems inappropriate to associate him with those WP projects, no matter that he tried to highlight this ancestry in political campaigns. Given his family background, he was likely more influenced by his mother's Italian-American family, but no one seems to be trying to emphasize that. Parkwells (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Ensign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090620235750/http://ensign.senate.gov:80/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Media.PressReleases to http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Media.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=fd766f79-d7c7-9e6e-53f6-f70b2fb18393

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)