Talk:Richard Blumenthal

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

Vietnam Veteran Claims[edit]

Why isn't there anything about Blumenthal's "mis-statements" he was a Vietnam Veteran? In fact he never even left the state of Connecticut. I think you got to stamp the word "biased" on the whole article if that isn't in there. That's apart of his record and it belongs in there. --24.177.0.156 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You must have accidentally overlooked this passage in the article Richard Blumenthal#Misrepresenting military service allegations.
Billmckern (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Year of Birth?[edit]

When was he born?RexRex84 21:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe 1945 but am having trouble finding a link with that date. He was not born in 1952

He looks incredibly young to be born in 1946, an error??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendenhows (talkcontribs) 04:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What![edit]

Huh? What?

For a man who's done SO MUCH For the state of CT and consumer rights in the Nation, I'm shocked to see the man's biographical info (like, date of birth?) is completely missing.

If I weren't at work now, I'd fill it in myself.

Maybe later ... but, just to let everyone else know - yeah, I'm shocked too.

Kyanwan 20:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Kyanwan is exactly correct, why isn't there a "Military Service" section? Since there is so much controversy about that, Wikipedia would be the perfect place to document his actual service record. There must be some verifiable public information about his military service record somewhere. Davemartin7777 (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Which version of his military record would you want? The lies or the official one?Victor9876 (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Worst AG[edit]

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) did an excellent study on the worst state AG's and found him to be the worst. Based on what it said I think it was rightly deserved. [1]--76.31.242.174 (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If CEI thinks he's the worst, that's a ringing endorsement of him. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"If CEI thinks he's the worst, that's a ringing endorsement of him." No kidding, the CEI is nothing more than a a pro-corporate, anti-environmental, right-wing front groupDavemartin7777 (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck[edit]

Please now. This is an encyclopedia. The mere fact that Glenn Beck criticized someone does not immediately warrant mention in their encyclopedic biography. Let's try to remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia - the biography should look similar to what would be written in Encyclopedia Brittanica, for instance, and I doubt they'd cite a lengthy blockquote of hyperbolic outrage from the Glenn Beck show as a meaningful part of Blumenthal's biography. MastCell Talk 21:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, Beck, like him or not has over 2 million viewers.[1] Yahoo already has 10,000 references to the event. [2] I think the nature of this fracas clearly has become more significant than the usual interview.

So if it a)isn't defamatory since it is the persons' own words, and b)attracted significant national attention; why is it out?

I suspect that had Blumenthal had his way with Beck the WP editors would be eager to include a reference to the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.194 (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Although this is a slightly dated issue with the new attention drawn to this article perhaps the rest of us on Wikipedia should know that it's suppose to be written like the Brittanica. Really MastCell? Woods01 (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Slate[edit]

I rem'd

Blumenthal has attracted national attention for his approach to seeking publicity for himself and his legal initiatives. <ref>http://www.slate.com/?id=89649</ref>

Discussion of him in a decent-sized Slate article does show "national attention" to him. And "his approach to seeking publicity for himself and his legal initiatives" is implicit in what is mentioned (even tho in far different words). But the inadequately prepared footnote conceals, e.g., the title "Richard Blumenthal -- He was supposed to be president. So why is he only Connecticut's attorney general?", and the fact that that "approach" is a small portion of this single 'graph

He rapidly made himself the state's most popular politician—"a secular saint," as his 1998 GOP opponent Santa Mendoza calls him, sarcastically—because he combined his populist causes with masterful PR and relentless campaigning. His critics smack him with the old line, "The most dangerous place in Connecticut is between Dick Blumenthal and a TV camera." He virtually moved into the CNN studio during the Microsoft proceedings. And Blumenthal is a Terminator on the campaign trail: He attends every funeral and gala and works rope lines as though his life depends on it. Blumenthal isn't a natural glad-hander or even a good one—he's stiff and chilly—but he works like the devil at it.

which is the extent of its attention to what could be construed as criticism of him, and it does not support the idea that publicity-seeking by him is what "attracted" even that instance of national attention (not a pattern of national attention to it, which is an interpretation that the removed material invited).
BTW, "the old line" is not a reference to that phrase reflecting a popular view of RB, but to there being a well established generic expression that politicians' (and other celebrities') names are plugged into: "Origin of "Most dangerous place is between Schumer and a camera ..." from Room Eight -- New York Politics, hit 3 of

Results 1-10 of about 3,450 for "most dangerous place" "is between" "and a TV camera"

says "By at least 1984, the most dangerous place to be in Washington was between Phil Gramm and a tv camera." and that it derives from versions old enuf to be "... a politician and a microphone" or "... [politician's name] and a microphone", i.e., those from when radio was the only broadcast news medium (& RB's folks were picking out a nursery school for him).
And the targets mentioned in the G-extracts of those 10 are

Chuck Schumer (6 mentions)
Phil Gramm (3 mentions)
Buddy Cianci (1 mention)
Trent Lott (1 mention)
RB (1 mention)

(Totals to more than ten bcz of mentions of two in one article; the "1 mention" guys are in that order bcz they were hits 8-10 in that order.)
Pursuing the same search further (#10 was the Slate article i've already cited),

#12 is the first addl ref to RB, matching the Slate article verbatim et literatim, 9 years after it.
(Another 6 names are mentioned by #20, one of them being Oscar.)
#37 cites the accompanying WP article.
#48 cites Slate (according to the G-extract "The most dangerous place in Connecticut is between Dick Blumenthal and a TV camera,' Slate ... There have always been people who sell drugs and other ..." [ellipsis sic in extract]), but is now a false hit.
#57 is the accompanying WP article.
#60 is Slate, dateline yesterday, largely recycling the content of their cited article.
#61 (according to the G-extract "most dangerous place in Connecticut is between Dick Blumenthal and a TV camera,' quipped ... found 'many instances' in which sex-for-money ads in Kansas ..." [ellipsis sic in extract]) is now a false hit on the search page "Kansas City Kansas on TV Search".
#72, Ballotpedia-wiki article explicitly started from ours, including the passage in question.
#87 Commenting on yesterday's Daily Kos, "The worst criticism I found was from a Slate article 9 years ago 'The most dangerous place in Connecticut is between Dick Blumenthal and a TV camera'."
#97 Facebook quote from the accompanying article (attribution: "says the wiki").

These demonstrate that one source attributes application of the expression to RB to unnamed others and that many others have relied on it, without any hint (such as using "Richard" rather than "Dick" in the quote -- Slate used "Richard" twice, but "Dick" only in the bon mot, and plz note <<about 176,000 for "richard blumenthal" "attorney general">> and <<about 8,630 for "dick blumenthal" "attorney general">>) that anyone says it except by relying on Slate. In order to assert it's used against him, we don't need names to attribute such use to, but we do need either names of such users, or multiple AGs and/or CT pols and/or CT political reporters who report its use re him to be routine among those with first-hand experience with him.
--Jerzyt 05:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Spitzer parallel[edit]

I removed this ref:

<ref>[2]</ref>

Yeah, bloggers are observers, but not encyclopedically notable ones; blog posts not made by notable journalists in roles as journalists, nor as part of a journalist's employment by a reliable (i.e., usually, notable) publication, cannot be used as refs.
--Jerzyt 07:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnes case[edit]

I'm rem'g (from the "Criticism" section)

In a landmark Connecticut Supreme Court decision, Blumenthal v. Barnes a unanimous court determined that Blumenthal sued the owner of a charter school while lacking authority to bring the suit. Justice Peter T. Zarella concluded in this 2002 opinion that the office of the attorney general is "a creature of statute that is governed by statute and, thus, has no common-law authority."<ref>http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/261cr122.pdf</ref><ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E6DD103AF931A2575BC0A9649C8B63</ref>

Attys bring suits, in order to settle disputes; it's in the nature of disputes that one side wins and the other loses, and being the loser is not cause per se for criticism. While i didn't read the footnotes (which could have been cited by number if relevant, it doesn't appear that the court did more than disagree with the AG about whether he had standing, without any hint of accusing him of anything culpable, as "lacking authority to bring the suit" in a "Criticism" section would seem to imply. An atty who brings only suits that he wins is a bad one bcz he leaves too much on the table. The Times item is of interest only bcz it explicitly contradicts the unsupported claim of a "landmark ... decision".
There's probably nothing relevant in the rem'd material; if there is, more work needs to be done finding the sources that say the case was a basis for criticism or more than "limited 'both in significance and number.' "
--Jerzyt 08:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage[edit]

I rem'd

While he has personally argued many high profile appellate cases in the past, on May 14, 2007 he sent a subordinate to argue the state's case before the Connecticut Supreme Court on this issue.

when the ref on it turned out to be dead, bcz i could not pursue the source to see if it could have been fixed to be acceptable. As it stood, it was a clear case of SYNTH by being juxtaposed with the preceding sent (relevant to his bio) without indicating why the relationship between the two is noteworthy. Who says this one was "high profile"? Did someone notable complain about his priorities, and get taken seriously? Was there more than priorities at issue, like a claim he tried to obscure his position on the law, or on the public-policy issue? Was he claimed to have neglected his official obligations?
--Jerzyt 09:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Pequots[edit]

I tried to make sense out of

Blumenthal has led the fight against recognition of the Mashantucket Pequot People as a separate Nation after they refused to provide compensation for those American citizens injured on the premises of Foxwoods Casino.<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE3D71038F931A15756C0A962958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all</ref>

In light of the fact that in the ref he is described as saying that (in the NYT's paraphrase) "an Indian reservation is essentially sovereign soil with its own rules", the grammatical tense of "has led the fight" seems inconsistent. Could it be all over, in light of Mashantucket Pequot Tribe#20th century history? Or did someone confound that tribe with the unrecognized Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation? I took out any mention of anyone fighting recognition. When there is something consistent with the ref to be added, it should be either sourced or fact-tagged, lest it be discarded again for being unsupported by a ref whose scope it appears to lie within.
--Jerzyt 10:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead sentence and Obfuscation[edit]

I going to remove the prone to obfuscations(or whatever it is) business. Maybe, big maybe, it belongs further into the lead, but it doesn't even make since, it should read who is prone to....--Tom (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I put the word "Obfuscation" in a header preceding discussions of Blumenthal's lying about his record. Obfuscation is the appropriate word in lieu of "lying". As an Attorney General, Blumenthal would have had anyone embellishing their testimony in a matter of law, held in Contempt and put in jail with fines. Why this matter should not pertain to Blumenthal himself, as others have reverted the word, is beyond my ability to understand, unless it is because they are supporters or just ignorant of the term and too lazy to look it up, or click on the word as I linked it to the definition. The term is appropriate and it should stand. After suggestions to remove it from the led, I placed it in the proper place away from the led. Now others are reverting calling it garbage and just a controversy. It is not a controversy, it is a fact as his admissions validate.Victor9876 (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Put the ego aside. I will admit, I never saw the word obfuscation before you put it in the lead sentence yesterday. And I will say the wikipedia page on obfuscation is very good and there are a lot of people who may agree with that viewpoint on Blumenthal. That being said, the section is about his Senate campaign and important developments that have come along during the campaign trail have been put into subsections. The PAC contributions and the Vietnam controversy are very significant, but they are within the subsections because they occurred along the campaign trail. On the issue, there are many people who say he lied to the public. Others will say he obfuscated the public, which means he made a calculated attempt to mislead people intentionally. Others hold firm and say Blumenthal made unintentional mistakes and misspoke. For this reason, since there are different groups of people with different opinions, it is considered a controversy.
That being said, I believe the idea of putting "multiple obfuscations" in the lead sentence and title headlines is not the best solution because it characterizes him and simplifies the controversy to one POV. It also puts a spin on his personality for an entire section that is mostly about his campaign and the U.S. Senate election.
Remember, the readers of Wikipedia should be able to read the material inside the sections and come to their conclusion on the issue, because there are people who hold different views on this issue and would not regard it hands-down as a clear "obfuscation". --Screwball23 talk 18:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Screwball123, obfuscation is not a point of view, when the party admits to having said untrue things. Period. The term was designed for Blumenthal's admissions (not specifically Blumenthal). Any reader aware of the current situation could not possibly come to any other conclusion..."O.K., he admits to mis-speaking several times on the same issue and knew it wasn't true, but that doesn't make him a liar or trying to mislead others" could not possibly be the outcome given his admissions and all the video tape of him saying it. Plus, the saying that he served in Vietnam is a slap in the face of those who did serve in Nam and those who lost their lives there. As a politician he was flagrantly lying to gain public support and show himself in a different light from being a draft dodger (that is my take, outside of the article). He put the spin on his personality by making false representations and got caught, I didn't expose it, the media did. Once he admitted it (after knowledge that the video and his true record were revealed), the spin stopped, and he was exposed for the liar that he is. There are no more relevations to come. He obfuscated his record not only on Nam, but other areas of public trust. If you put a stamp on his forehead that says "LIAR", it would be true, and verifiable, a WP pre-requisite. I put obfuscate instead of liar to prevent warring, not encourage it.Victor9876 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to split the difference guys. The lede mentions the controversy without using the word "obfuscate." Blumenthal's been dropping like a rock in the polls, so this has clearly had a substantial impact on the campaign. Simmons, a two-time Bronze Star winner, is making political hay with it. This isn't over by a long shot, but I think we've reached a version everyone can accept, even if no one is really happy with it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, that Slate article I've referenced makes mincemeat out of Blumenthal. It itemizes all the times he's demanded absolute truth and full disclosure from others, in his role as attorney general. No blurring of the truth in any way is allowed under Blumenthal's own rules. The article is loaded with links to news stories about Blumenthal's demands for absolute truth, and for harsh consequences for those who fail to provide it. Have a look. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, I would like to make my position on this article clear. Victor, I know exactly how you feel. I have been through some edit wars and spoken with some very acerbic wikipedians, and I know how it feels to have something you know is true in your heart being removed or pushed aside senselessly. I encourage you to sleep on this one, because it may feel valuable to you that Blumenthal's record be fully exposed and people educated to the facts, but in the case of his statements, it is difficult to characterize them at strictly factual information. I can tell you probably value a candid presentation of information, we have to remind ourselves that readers of wikipedia are assuming this is not a game; they expect what they see here to be the truth, without any POV whatsoever. For that reason, we have to be very careful in our edits, much more so than may be comfortable.
"Obfuscate" means to intentionally miscommunicate or confuse a message so others cannot understand it. The problem here is intent. You (or me) cannot prove what his intent was, and there is plenty of controversy over what exactly his speeches meant or how confused his message was. There are people who met him and felt that they heard honesty on his record, and there are those who met him and felt they had been lied to. There is even an entire controversy concerning how his delivery of the messages may have changed over time, or how frequently he made statements, and there are people who would say he "exaggerated" or "misspoke" or "made a mistake" over "lied". The sheer diversity of opinion makes this one of this cases where a strict adherence to the facts and references is especially important. I do want to distance myself from what Phoenix and Winslow has said. There is no reason to think that Blumenthal's demands for "the absolute truth" from his subordinates during legal litigation make him an honest person. I personally find Phoenix and Winslow's whitewashing to be very obvious, and want to make it clear that I find such covert messaging equally damaging to a NPOV article. --Screwball23 talk 01:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I understand what you are getting at Screwball123 and in your explanation, I believe you are sincere. However, obfuscate (please click on the word and re-read), WP's definition -"Obfuscation is the concealment of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret."

The "concealment of intended meaning" clause goes to intent. I hate to be pedantic about it, and after re-reading the word again myself, maybe liar is more specific and should be allowed. That being said, the course of my ire is over and I'm willing to put it to rest and allow the article to stand. My confession is that I've been before prosecutors before who have used the exact tactics of embellishing a charge to go way beyond the scope of a civil infraction, just to win a case. I do get delight out of seeing someone like Blumenthal, get the same treatment they dish out because of their standards, yet, they don't want to be held accountable for their transgressions of the facts, because they are granted immunity as attorney's under the law - but not in the public forum. I'll leave the matter alone and move on. Thanks. Victor9876 (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Section on Vietnam controversy seems disproportionately long[edit]

I added a {recentism} tag to the section on the Vietnam controversy. The length of this section seems vastly disproportionate, going into a blow-by-blow account of all the events (and the spin on both sides) over the past week. I think a discussion of this length would be excessive even in, say, the article on the 2010 Connecticut Senate race, to say nothing of the article on Blumenthal.

I'd suggest trimming this down to a single paragraph. I think we could boil it down to a statement that he had in the past given speeches in which he seemed to have claimed to serve in Vietnam (with a ref to the NYT article that broke the story), and a sentence about his response in the press conference (with a link to an article about that). If people want more details, they can go to Wikinews, or any of the interweb's fine news-providing organizations. -- Narsil (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That will eventually happen. Right now the story is a hot topic and everyone wants to post the latest revelations, even though some will be redundant. That is rampant throughout WP in the first week of information. I don't know if one paragraph will suffice, however, it will eventually get trimmed down. Victor9876 (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough! I figure the {recentism} tag will serve to remind someone to trim this down when the time comes. But that time needn't be just now. -- Narsil (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Media Matters is harshly partisan. That entire paragraph can go, in my opinion. The Vietnam controversy is not a flash in the pan. Recently, Blumenthal's notability arises almost entirely from this controversy. Even real political junkies can't name any Senate nominees who aren't already in the Senate, with two exceptions: Richard Blumenthal and Joe Sestak. So I think the May 20 version[3] I created was a good compromise. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to try working on this article. I believe my May 20 version was pretty good, and I haven't seen any argument against that in three days. I'm going to go ahead and restore that version, with some slight modifications from the subsequent editing, such as moving the reference to the swimming team, which I thought was a good idea. But generally, expansion of the section since May 20 and removal of any mention of this controversy from the article lede is not a good idea. The lede needed more information; but in the Vietnam section, we can have such a thing as too much information. I think we need to find representative quotes from across the publication spectrum. But we don't need a quote from every publication that ever had anything to say about it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to combine your reversion with some of my May 21 edits [4] to make it a little more succinct. For example, that USA Today quote is superfluous, and identifying the Huffington Post as "from the left" is needless editorializing. —Designate (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Draft evasion[edit]

I have a link to the meriam webster dictionary def, which is a good description for draft dodging.[5]. The word avoid doesn't hold as much relevance to this situation.[6]--Screwball23 talk 16:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Later controversy section[edit]

Let's be clear: the controversy was about his intention for joining the Marine Corps. Did he evade the draft? Was there a realistic chance that he could be picked? These are the questions that arose from his later interview.

Now, in recent editing, there has been some dispute about how to word the lead sentence of this controversy:

A In a later interview, Blumenthal said he realized he might serve in Vietnam when he joined the Marine Corps Reserve, saying “I did not want to avoid service. I did realize reservists could be called up, and that it was something that I wanted to do."
—versus—
B Blumenthal later told the Connecticut Mirror that he had full intentions of serving in Vietnam when he joined the Marine Corps Reserve, saying “I did realize reservists could be called up, and that was something that I wanted to do.”

A - This statement is misleading, IMO, because it sidetracks the controversy about Blumenthal's Vietnam service, and it uses the word realized inappropriately. The reason this is controversial is because military experts say it was highly, highly unlikely that his unit had any realistic chance of being picked. By saying he said "he realized he might serve in Vietnam", Blumenthal's quote is given undue weight and those later statements critical of him are being contradicted, nullifying the controversy.

B - The lead sentence in B identifies the controversy and makes it clear why this is an issue of controversy.

Again, this is a discussion page, and all opinions are welcome. Please post your thoughts. Thanks!! -Screwball23 talk 17:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

Anaxial (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Screwball23 talk
I support B because in my opinion, it best represents the controversy surrounding Blumenthal's statements.
Viewpoint by Flatterworld (talk · contribs)

First, Blumenthal was saying what he himself believed as a teenager. Whatever 'experts on the Vietnam draft' as quoted in the news story might have believed then or in retrospect, any conflict in those beliefs is irrelevant. He was #152 and up to #195 was eligible. That's why I put the actual numbers in, so readers could draw their own conclusions. Three-quarters meant the odds were in his favor, but there was some serious downside risk (to put it in today's terms). Second, I think you're conflating two points he made. A) He wanted to serve. B) He realized the Reserves might include Vietnam. It appears you're interpreting that as meaning he wanted to serve specifically in Vietnam, and I don't think that's what he meant. Obviously if he wanted to serve specifically in Vietnam, he wouldn't have signed up for the Reserves. Third, 'evade' is obviously different from 'avoid'. I understand your desire to imply he did something illegal or dishonorable, but he didn't. I don't even know that I'd choose 'avoid' so much as 'chose a different alternative'. At any rate, he didn't do a Cheney and get a series of deferments and then claim he had "other priorities" as if those who did their duty and served honorably did not. I understand you don't like what Blumenthal did, but I think we should keep this in perspective. Flatterworld (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Now, you are making assumptions about my motives, which is far outside the scope of this discussion and is putting this into a more personal argument. Please refrain from that, because I think what we are talking about can be resolved peacefully. What I am advocating for is simply that we lay out the controversy surrounding his later statements. What I see in A is a redundant phrase that does not spell out any controversy whatsoever. It even seems to nullify later statements. It reads "blumenthal joined the marine corps realizing that he may serve in Vietnam, as he said in an interview, "I joined the marine corps realizing i might be called for Vietnam, and it was something I wanted to do." By putting the word realized forward, without quoting, the narration of this line seems to advocate that this was a true and factual realization.--Screwball23 talk 22:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
In that case, use A and substitute 'understood' for 'realized'. Flatterworld (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Third opinion by Anaxial

Given that you both agree on the inclusion of the statement "I did realise reservists could be called up," the inclusion of the additional statement "he realised he might serve in Vietnam when he joined" seems to me to be redundant - the information is already there, in his own words, no need to repeat or rephrase it. On the other hand, the statement "he had full intentions of serving in Vietnam" does not seem to be directly supported by the quote - he just says he didn't want to avoid it. It's not obvious to me that the "something I want to do" line refers to Vietnam specifically, rather than serving in general (I'm not saying it definitely doesn't mean that, just that it's not obvious, so we might want to avoid interpreting it in that way). I'd suggest something along the lines of:

'Blumenthal later told the Connecticut Mirror that he did not want to avoid service in Vietnam when he joined the Marine Corps Reserve, saying “I did realize reservists could be called up, and that was something that I wanted to do.”

Anaxial (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. I second this statement by Anaxial, and believe it adequately covers the controversy.--Screwball23 talk 20:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The coverage of Blumenthal's later controversy is still a matter of dispute. I am most-inclined to agree with Anaxial's statement which puts forward the controversy from the Connecticut Mirror article. I want to emphasize my feeling that we should not reiterate Blumenthal's statements, as that can give the perception that we are endorsing them.

At this time, it seems there are two statements up for discussion.

A Blumenthal later told the Connecticut Mirror that he wanted to serve and understood that might include Vietnam when he joined the Marine Corps Reserve, saying “I did realize reservists could be called up, and that was something that I wanted to do.”
B Blumenthal later told the Connecticut Mirror that he did not want to avoid service in Vietnam when he joined the Marine Corps Reserve, saying “I did realize reservists could be called up, and that was something that I wanted to do.”

I feel A puts undue weight on Blumenthal's statements, as it says he "understood" that he might serve. By saying he "understood" he might serve, we are simply reiterating what he said at the expense of covering the controversy adequately. I support B because it is simple, lays out the controversy at the heart of the matter (did he want to avoid Vietnam service?) and leaves the reader with no misinterpretation (did he sign because he wanted to go to Vietnam?).--Screwball23 talk 21:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Based on the last two edits by Screwball23 (his insistence on linking the simple word 'discrepancy' with the article on Flip-flop (politics) taking the cake), and his creation (which I found after this discussion started) of an entire article called Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010 - not even Michael Bloomberg has the need for separate articles about his campaigns! - I don't see the point in wasting further time and effort on this discussion as it's clearly going to continue to be a word-by-word fight to make Blumenthal look as bad as possible, and this will continue on every single statement in this article. It appears others have already come to that conclusion, as no one else is participating in this discussion. If he's that determined to poison the well for her opponent, I have other Wikipedia articles I can spend my time on. ftr, I note this article has nothing about Blumenthal's issue positions. I would call that 'undue lack of weight' which makes this particular discussion almost trivial. Furthermore, Linda McMahon's campaign article has nothing on issue positions either, as he left that in her main article - along with her campaign logo, a photo of well-drilling to 'illustrate' her position of this, and much more than a 'summary style' sentence or two. I would say he and I have very different views on what articles about politicians and campaigns should focus on, and the purpose of an encyclopedia (or the purpose of a political campaign, for that matter). I care about Wikipedia's reputation, but not at the expense of the hundreds of other candidate articles. There's also a limit to assuming good faith, and imo he's passed it. Good night, and good luck. Flatterworld (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing statement - strange section heading[edit]

There may have been overly aggressive summarization in this article: In the section "New York Times Vietnam story", there is no actual statement that he did not serve in Vietnam (contrary to his claims) -- it's only kinda/sorta implied.

Also, it's an odd choice for a section title. It's subject is not the New York Times itself, but Claims made by Blumenthal he served in Vietnam. Watergate is not known as Washington Post Watergate story and Monica Lewinsky is not known as Drudge Report White House intern story. patsw (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The second sentence says it: The article reported that Blumenthal, a member of the Marine Corps Reserve, "obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war." He avoided going to war, thus he didn't serve. Maybe it could be more explicit. —Designate (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Its quite revealing that all this right wing assult does not include one single quote about his Vietnam era service, only a quote from the right about what they said he said. Why not include the published quotes? Not what the republicans say was said. Make me wonder who runs Wikipedia, a right wing think tank? Has Wiki been bought too? Totally, yellow journalism put out as fact that is not supposed to not be insulting. The smallest section is the controversy, that should be the entire page. When one joins during war one can expect to be called up, possibly not but thats just crossing your fingers. If you don't want to go to Vietnem WAIT TILL ITS OVER THEN JOIN! Sounds like the right debating the extreem right. Then some right wing group opinion about his leadership, another opinion that should be under the controversy section. I'm just saying... I'm another Vietnam Era Volunteer that was awarded the Vietnam Era Medal but did not have to go there, thank God75.197.50.65 (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Military service, late RF3O[edit]

There are, it seems to me, three items for discussion:

  1. Deferments before enlisting in the USMC Reserve;

There were lots of perfectly good reasons to get deferments, some were forced on people by circumstance, some were obtained very close to fraudulently. That there were five means that there were five, and that's all. What they were issued for, and why, are the important questions. I can imagine that he got four one-year educational deferments and then a six-month delayed enlistment deferment; rather ordinary for then and there (as I was.)

Ah, four one year college deferments, and then a year of grad school deferment, when those were granted. If that's what there was, I, at least, have no complaints about his actions in doing this. This is what people did there and then. htom (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. Expectations and service therein;

No one -- well, only someone too crazy to be a Marine (there are such) -- joins the Marines expecting that they can not be sent to war. Many people (but not at all most) do so with the hope that they won't, but understand that that hope is likely to be in vain. Then and there, the USMC Reserve was an honorable way to serve with a lower -- not low or no -- risk of combat. He seems to have served honorably.

  1. What he said -- and what others said he said -- about that service.

He has mis-spoken in characterizing his service, and not been especially forthcoming about that. His opponents have taken this and run with it. Which of them has more grievously sinned -- both have -- I don't know. I did not serve in combat, did not serve in Vietnam, and still, sometimes, say "we" meaning "all Marines of that time" -- or even all military members of that time -- elaborating if there was some question as to what I meant by "we". I think that Blumenthal started by using that, got sloppy with it, didn't want to elaborate, got away with it, and slid down the slope until the storm started.

What to say about it in the article ... I think it would help to mention those three areas of the dispute. I've got no RS for any of it. htom (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Blumenthal just won the senate seat[edit]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101102/el_yblog_upshot/2010-midterm-elections-live-blog Update accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.77.142 (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Article Overhaul[edit]

Not sure who originally added the POV tag, but the article has since been extensively rewritten to address imbalance and correct POV problems; old sources were checked for accuracy and many new sources added. Doesn't seem to be any POV problem now. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Senator Swearing-In[edit]

I recently updated the InfoBox in this article to reflect the fact that Blumenthal delayed taking office as a U.S. Senator until the completion of his term as Connecticut Attorney General on January 5, 2011, rather than resigning in order to take his Senate seat on the regularly-scheduled date of January 3 since he could not have legally served in both offices at the same time, but my edit to that effect was reverted by User:Designate based upon the fact that January 3 is the regularly-scheduled date on which U.S. Senators take office. In the interests of maintaining civility and ensuring article accuracy, I would like to propose a compromise in which the January 5, 2011 date should be listed in the InfoBox, but with a footnote explaining that his term legally began on January 3 and explaining the reason for the delay. I previously encountered a similar situation with the Mark Hatfield article where it appeared that Hatfield's terms as Governor of Oregon and U.S. Senator overlapped by a week in 1967. Upon further investigation and discussion with other users, it was determined that Hatfield delayed office as a U.S. Senator for a week in order to complete his term as Governor of Oregon, and we reached the same compromise that I an proposing here (i.e. actual date of swearing-in should be listed, but with a footnote explaining delay). --TommyBoy (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I guess for that reason it really was January 5. —Designate (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I have now updated the article to reflect this discussion. --TommyBoy (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What does "More Than Seven" Mean Exactly?[edit]

"In March 2006, Blumenthal noted that more than seven incidents of sexual assault in Connecticut had been linked directly to MySpace contacts"

We're in single figures here, not powers of ten or something else approximate. So what is "more than seven"? Eight? Nine? The reference link is 404. Come to that, 404 is "more than seven" too. It seems that a claim like this should have a precise figure. 82.71.30.178 (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Richard Blumenthal. 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:

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

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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Richard Blumenthal. 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:

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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Richard Blumenthal. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Richard Blumenthal. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Move to strike insertion regarding a quoted source that is biased as POV[edit]

Under “Military Service,” it is stated:

“There were also other occasions when his description of his military service seemed to intimate that he'd been to Vietnam, saying at a 2008 ceremony in Shelton, Connecticut, on the same topic, 'I served during the Vietnam era... I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse.'"

I find two problems here. Firstly, I don’t find this quote in the source, an article in The New York Times, given as an example of intimation. That characterization seems to be strictly the POV of whomever inserted this into the Wiki article. Secondly, I don’t see how in any way this quote by the subject “intimates” he served in Vietnam. (On the contrary, he states that he served during the Vietnam era, from which I personally would infer that he had not served in Vietnam.) This I assume refers to accounts (greatly exaggerated, I think, from my experience as a crewman in the U.S. Navy during that era) of Vietnam veterans having been taunted by anti-war activists. The general public would have had no way to know if an unknown particular serviceman in uniform then had served in Vietnam or not. Therefore, if Senator Blumenthal had been in uniform, he might well have been taunted notwithstanding his never having served in Indochina, or had heard such accounts from other servicemen.

Particularly in light of the fact that President Trump is currently attacking the subject on his Twitter account regarding this episode, I move that this above quotation from the article be expeditiously stricken as the article is likely to presently get more robust readership than usual. At the very least: “There were also other occasions when his description of his military service seemed to intimate that he'd been to Vietnam” should be removed as POV. I’m going to do so soon if others don’t weigh in with a contrary view and state their reasons.

By the way, it is inevitable in cases like this that one’s political motivations will be brought into question. Strictly to allay such, I’m a Republican since voting age and would never vote for Senator Blumenthal if I lived in his state. Like Senator Blumenthal, I’m a non-Vietnam Vietnam Era veteran and I am just trying to be objective and fair.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for making the change. it's most appreciated.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@HistoryBuff14 and Rhode Island Red: - Hey guys. I'm sorry but I'm a bit confused why this is controversial. The language I'm using is pulled directly from the source.
See "he describes the hostile reaction directed at veterans coming back from Vietnam, intimating that he was among them...“I served during the Vietnam era,” he said." (bolding for emphasis) NickCT (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
But he did serve during the Vietnam era, and hostile reactions were directed towards veterans coming back from VN. The latter would have applied to anyone in anyone in uniform regardless of where they served. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
That seems like your interpretation. I'm considering the NYT's interpretation. NickCT (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The other issue here is that the general tone of NYT piece is clearly that Blumenthal made misleading statements about his service. If you want to suggest his statements were in-fact accurate, find another source that says that. Do not use the NYT source to say his statements were in fact correct. It changes the tone of the source. NickCT (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
This is now somewhat moot as another editor went further than I had intended by eliminating any reference to this controversy under the “Military Service” section of the article. He notes that it is [extensively] covered elsewhere in the article. (See “U.S. Senate” – “2010 election.”) Due to the topical and politically charged nature of this question (and one point I was unequivocally right about is that the article was likely to get more robust readership presently than usual – look at the page view statistics yesterday!), I think that the brief mention of the controversy under the “Military Service” section of the article should have remained notwithstanding its more extensive exploration elsewhere as a lead in (without perhaps a "See..." appended). It is obvious that this controversy is regarding the subject’s military service which is where most people would first look for it. I don’t want to get into an edit war over it. However, if you want to revert this much, I’ll support you in the matter. The sentence as written was fair and objective as a brief summary of the matter.
If I am interpreting your comment correctly, it was you who wrote the part of the “Military Service” in question. As I said, I wouldn’t infer that Senator Blumenthal was “intimating” that he had been a returning Vietnam veteran by his verbiage. Someone who is a Vietnam War veteran wouldn’t be likely to characterize himself or herself as “a Vietnam War Era veteran.” He or she would spell it out. Additionally, your NY Times article source might have indeed included the quote as an example of intimation but doesn’t explicitly state such. That is presumably for the reader to discern. This reader, a Vietnam War Era veteran (who, by the way, refused to wear the “medal and ribbon” everyone in the service received during that time period as an “accolade” totally unearned by myself and which I viewed as an affront to servicemen who had actually served in Vietnam) discerned the opposite. Don’t spell it out as “intimating” as that is clearly POV and thus bias.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@HistoryBuff14: - re "but doesn’t explicitly state such" - This confuses me. Have you read the source? It looks like it does explicitly state such to me. NickCT (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I read the source and I don’t see where the article explicitly cites this as an example of “intimation,” and even if it did, that characterization is subjective for the reasons I noted above. The issue is already extensively addressed later in the Wiki article. Look, you are outvoted two to one with a third concurring opinion who wants to go even further than us two. If Rhode Island Red wants to edit war with you, so be it. But I’m out of here. As said, I’m a Republican and I was just trying to be objective and fair. Good day.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey Bud. I didn't mean to suggest you weren't editing in good faith. Sorry if it came across like that.
I respect your sentiments here, but I'm genuinely confused about how we're reading the source differently. The source specifically uses the word "intimating", and then cites several examples of "intimation". One of those examples is the quote we're using in the article.
How is this not explicit?
I understand that you and Rhode might not feel Blumenthal wasn't intimating anything. Maybe he wasn't. I don't know. All I know is that the source says he was intimating something. And on WP, we follow the source. NickCT (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Key issue is that there is clearly no consensus for the changes that NickCT has made, hence they were reverted, and in keeping with WP policy, contested information in a bio should not be re-inserted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red: - You're deleting information which has been in this article for a while. I'm restoring it. Per WP:BRD it's up to you to discuss and demonstrate consensus for the change. NickCT (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Anything related to the "controversy" over Blumenthal's military service ought to appear under the 2010 campaign, or under his Senate service since then. It should not appear under the military service heading for two reasons. One is that the description of his military service is fact-based and straightforward. The other is that placing the same information under military service, and under the 2010 campaign, and under his Senate service since then is redundant and repetitive and redundant. You don't need to say the same thing multiple times in multiple places.
Billmckern (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Billmckern: - I'm not opposed to moving the content. NickCT (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)