Jump to content

Talk:Ron Johnson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Inappropriate deletion

[edit]

I restored text and reference regarding Johnson's comments about the causation of the Uvalde, Texas massacre as being the supposed teaching of Critical race theory and Wokeness that were inappropriately removed. The Wisconsin State Journal stories are eminently accessible, contrary to the removing editor's peculiar claim, and require Wikipedia readers to simply log in via Google, Facebook or by registering for free with the Journal. They are not paywalled or mysteriously hidden. The Wisconsin Governor, upon hearing Johnson's crackpot remarks, labelled them as "breathtaking," as were documented in the next day's Journal, and which comment I referenced following my restoration of the inappropriate scrubbing. In fact, I got 175,000 hits when I Googled "Cavuto, Johnson, values, shooting, CRT, and wokeness." Activist (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stories on the Wisconsin State Journal are usually accessible, but the particular link you added was broken and resulted in a 404 error for me, and I would imagine other readers would encounter the same problem. So after I pointed out the problem and you reverted me, I replaced the broken link with one to a CNN article. That is not "inappropriate scrubbing"; that is making the content accessible (and verifiable) to a wider audience.
The Cavuto interview seems to me a run-of-the-mill attempt by a politician to deflect a difficult interview question by trying to change the subject (gun violence in schools) to his preferred talking points (Wokeness/CRT). In the transcript, I don't see phrasing like "laying the blame entirely on supposed Wokeness" nor Johnson ever using the words "cause" or "causation" or him making a "claim" about that.
In a WP:BLP where WP:NPOV issues have already been raised, this kind of loaded and contentious language is avoidably pejorative (and scrub-worthy).
And especially so when the article subject has publicly denied the accusation (through a spokesman) but that denial is not included. BBQboffin (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 404 error was caused by a increasingly persistent defect in the touchpad of my aging laptop and I apologized to the editor who weighed in on it. Activist (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POV concerns (continued)

[edit]

There had been a lively discussion of the WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues on the talk page here that was recently archived (especially in the "POV issues" topic), but I was encouraged instead to start a new topic here about it.

Wording like "peddle misinformation" (when the source article never mentions that phrase), "sloganeering instead" (again, no mention in source), and repeated use of the loaded phrase "pushing" (when in one case the extent of the "pushing" was asking two rhetorical questions in an interview) seem to me to present ongoing neutrality issues.

Some of the bias is subtle, e.g. in the Immigration section: "Johnson voted against the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, which authorizes DHS to nearly double the available H-2B visas for the remainder of FY 2020." Well, yes, everything in that sentence is true and sourced, but the implication given is that Johnson voted against the bill (which is huge and far-reaching and only a tiny part relates to anything immigration-related) for this very specific immigration-related reason, and if that is true, it ought to be sourced. The impression WP gives is a negative one: this bill would have done a pro-immigrant thing, but Johnson voted against it. What a jerk he is.

And then we have the flip-side in the Social Issues section: "In 2022, Johnson expressed support for the Respect for Marriage Act, which would codify same-sex marriage into federal law." which was perfectly fine as written. But then someone edited to read: "In 2022, Johnson expressed support for the Respect for Marriage Act, which would codify same-sex marriage into federal law, and also require other states and the federal government to accept polygamous unions from another state, should a state legalize polygamy." Here the implication is that Johnson seems to be a decent guy supporting the bill, but oh, wait--he only does so because of this weird polygamy thing? What a jerk he is.

In each case, the thumbs on the scale are to a negative skewing or to overstate or overemphasize a pejorative point to be larger than it is.

Admittedly he is a difficult subject to write in a dispassionate tone about, but that's our mission here. I don't think we are succeeding with this article.BBQboffin (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Part of my reason for contributing to the talk page is because his opponent Mandela Barnes has been in the news for allegedly being evasive when asked about subjects such as whether he paid his taxes, and I question the neutrality of this; is it possible that Ron Johnson has behaved in a way that would also be considered conduct unbecoming. The evidence is there, so all we have to do is examine it.[reply]

Here's another example.[1] The cited source says: "Johnson, in an interview last month, described believers in manmade causes of climate change as "crazy" but Wikipedia rewrites that to: "In a 2010 interview, he called scientists who attribute global warming to manmade causes 'crazy'". Since the interview is not linked, it's not clear which "believers" Johnson is referring to (all of them?), but it's a quite a stretch for us to say in Wikivoice that he's got just the subset of "scientists" in mind. If he said this last week I would assume he was talking about the activists throwing cans of soup at priceless art in museums, which is a different subset. So I thought it would be an improvement to just use the inclusive "believers" ("proponents" or "supporters" are also ok with me) but I got reverted. If we can find a reliable source where he says "scientists are crazy", then fine, but we're putting words in his mouth and our thumbs on the scale here. BBQboffin (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Believers" is denialist-speak. Anthropogenic climate change is a scientific fact, and Wikipedia should not cast doubt on it by using language to describe it that suggests it is not. If we use the word, then only with attribution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trying an NPOV revision of his 1Q 2021 vaccine skepticism. It was previously "peddled misinformation" with no sources to show he profited monetarily from speaking what he said. Source doesn't say "peddling", but for over a year, we did in Wikispeak. BBQboffingrill me 06:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biased

[edit]

As always, this site is biased and unprofessional. Lean left much? 🙄 2600:1011:B10D:EB10:30AF:AA8B:96F6:7D55 (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biased beyond be¬if. There are no words, no credibility¬ity. 24.140.190.42 (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wokipedia strikes back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:95E0:59F0:14B5:1915:B9FB:5EE3 (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change

[edit]

The article says, Johnson rejects the scientific consensus on climate change,[7] describing it in 2021 as "bullshit."[32] In a 2010 interview, he called scientists who attribute global warming to manmade causes "crazy," saying the theory is "lunacy," and attributed climate change to causes other than human activity

This is as denialist as it gets. Do not whitewash his wacko anti-science beliefs in the lede when the article itself gives the lie to your edits. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the article is not your opinions, it is Johnson's opinions. Ryeisenman (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And Johnson's opinions are WP:FRINGE and need to be treated as such. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia that does not do WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a BLP, not an article about science. We wouldn't be quoting Johnson in the science article on anthropocentric climate change or sunspots, per WP:FRINGE, but in Johnson's biography (per WP:FRINGENOT) we ought to document as precisely as we can what he said and when he said it (2016 and 2022), and not delete archived, reliable sources which will be hard to find again as the original linked is deadlinked. BBQboffin (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See these discussions and the sentences from guidelines and policies I quote there:
We do not need to repeat exactly what people say about things they do not understand, and when we do, we have to add mainstream refutations. Denialists all repeat the same false rumors. "The climate is always changing" has been a talking point of climate change deniers since the 1970s, and it misrepresents the meaning of the terms "climate change" and "climate change denial". See Climate change denial#Taxonomy of climate change denial .
My last edit did not delete any links, just the repetitive nonsense of an ignorant person. If he says it again next year, and twice the year after that, will we have the same quote five times?
WP:FRINGENOT is an essay containing not an explanation of guidelines but just the opinion of one user who originally wrote mainstream journalism has a very terrible reputation for poor fact checking and bias in favor of sensationalism - it was deleted here. Pretty worthless thing to quote. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit you did delete an archived source from 2016, and per WP:PRESERVE I put it back. I think the recording the dates is important as it shows a consistency of his statements over time and we're relating that to the reader in the subject's own words. We don't have to repeat the quote, but if we can document when he first is known to have said it (2016) and last known to have said it (2022), we ought.
If you don't like WP:FRINGENOT, try WP:FRINGEBLP and ask yourself whether this page is "a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject". I think the pendulum is far on the "denigrate" side presently. BBQboffin (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is about your last revert, which reintroduced the duplicate quote, turning the article back into an ad nauseam repetition of denialist canards.
I repeat: My last edit did not delete any links. I don't know why you are dragging up past exchanges which are not the subject here, unless you are desperately collecting everything remotely resembling an argument.
I have myself linked WP:FRINGEBLP in the discussions I linked, which you probably did not read.
If you suddenly agree with deleting the duplicate, then why die you revert the deletion? I am losing patience here; you are being irrational. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with not having the quote in twice; I don't agree with deleting the 2016 source, so I restored the source only, but not the duplicate quote.
When I reverted you here it was because you had removed BOTH the quotes from the subject, and I restored one mention of it. Again, my position is that we should have the quote once, say concisely that he said it in 2016 and again in 2022. BBQboffin (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting bad reasoning is good because?
Actually, the things I explained in those other Talk pages apply here. Either delete his bad reasoning or add mainstream refutations of his bad reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

heavy bias

[edit]

Way too much bias on this page especially the "Johnson debated Barnes in October 2022; when each was asked to say something favorable about his opponent, Barnes praised Johnson as a "family man", while Johnson said Barnes had a "good upbringing" and used that to question why Barnes had "turned against America".[30]" Silly addition to a paragraph that was only a small portion of debate. Bjcoop23 (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More bias

[edit]

"used his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee to invite witnesses who promoted fringe theories about COVID-19 and spread misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations" That is entirely subjective because you can argue that Joe Biden also spread misinformation about covid vaccines when he claimed you won't get covid if you get the vaccine. That is now demonstrably false. Bjcoop23 (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False equivalence. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
vaccine "misinformation" now is wholly subjective since they haven't done one thing to prevent transmission while the biotechnology companies get richer from the fraud. Bjcoop23 (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your decision to believe that is not binding for Wikipedia. We follow reliable sources instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources in the article at the end of the third paragraph which states Johnson "used his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee to invite witnesses who promoted fringe theories about COVID-19 and spread misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations" What are these fringe theories and misinformation about COVID-19? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:8F0:3B0:BCBC:FB0:A53A:EC63 (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "lead" (first few paragraphs of an article) summarizes the content below, and you will find more detail and the sources there. The Covid-19 stuff specifically is in under Political positions/Health care/COVID-19 pandemic.
As stated in WP:LEAD, As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead. BBQboffin (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 January 2023

[edit]
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: moved. Per consensus, the politician here is the primary topic. The dab page will be moved to Ronald Johnson as per discussed. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– While there are many people named Ron Johnson listed on the disambiguation page, the Wisconsin politician is a clear primary topic. 90% of clicks from the disambiguation go to his article and he easily gets more views than everyone else with the name. He is also likely the primary topic by long-term significance; he is a three-term U.S. Senator and none of the others have done anything nearly as prominent. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:01, 3 January 2023 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2023

[edit]

Listing his views as Conspiracy Theories is wrong. One persons conspiracy theory is another persons truth. Those considered conspiracies are all politically motivated and time will bring the truth out. Recommend removing conspiracy. Wikipedias views should be objective not subjective period. 2603:7080:ED3D:8336:6133:CAB2:6714:D60F (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one of the examples where he allegedly "pushed conspiracy theories" (which ones? who are the conspirators? how did he push them?) where the source article did not even use the "conspiracy theory" term. There's still 3 other mentions of the phrase, once in regard to changing voter demographics, another with the DOJ bias against Trump, and a third regarding January 6th. BBQboffin (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2023

[edit]

The duo between Baldwin and Johnson is sure one of the most uncooperative duos in U.S. Senate history. 2600:1001:B04F:7B57:A9A1:168A:D756:E372 (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very Biased Wikepedia Page

[edit]

The biased editorial nature of this entry is apalling. The writers use language like "false claims" as if they were facts rather than opinions. 2601:204:380:69F0:B9A3:D1A9:6E9:97EE (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're proven to be false. There is nothing else to add here. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ron_Johnson&oldid=1231586356"