Talk:Sam Brownback

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

Former good article nomineeSam Brownback was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 16, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed

Loaded/biased phrases[edit]

The goal of all people editing Wikipedia entries should be to maintain neutrality while presenting facts in the most objective light possible. Certain phrases are being regularly added and removed from this entry, such as that involves the cloning and destruction of human embryos, research that millions of American tax payers believe is morally wrong from the views section. Yes, millions of Americans *do* view stem-cell research as morally wrong, but what relevance does that have to do with an entry about a single man? Absolutely none. What does it have to do with attempting to push forward a certain political agenda? A whole lot. If you look at the user profiles of some of the people editing to include these phrases, you quickly see a pattern forming. Likewise, if you wish to include something like Because of the latter belief, he condemned the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas and believes that sodomy laws are "legitimate tools" and favors prison sentences for homosexuals, please reference or otherwise provide source materials. Otherwise, you are just pushing through that much more propaganda. Neutrality, objectivity, factuality. Come on, people. 71.252.108.85 12:33, 8 April 2006

West Bank[edit]

(Note that the discussion below was moved from my talk page. Marquardtika (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC) )

I had just started looking at your edits to the Brownback article and discovered in the process that you were simultaneously doing more edits. I had noted that the exportation plan that Brownback backed was by a far-right winger, a Knesset party leader (who is now deceased, I think). It called for the deportation of all Arabs from the West Bank to a new state that would be coercively imposed on Jordan and within the latter's current borders. My source was The Forward, formerly the Jewish Daily Forward, a historic Diaspora publication based in New York. My concern was that it be noted in the article that the proposal which Brownback backed was essentially ethic cleansing, though not genocide, of course. It also would not have been limited to Muslims, and would have been forcible where it needed to be. Though most West Bank residents who have already not been pushed out are Sunni Arabs, many are Christians, mostly Greek Orthodox as in Bethlehem, and there are Druze, who are not thought of as Muslims, though it's hard to quantify how many there are in the population meant to be expelled. Bedouins would also have been removed. I think you may have substituted the word "encouraged" (to leave) for "deported" or "expelled," but then perhaps reverted yourself in that respect. My point is that the initiative was radically ethnic, rather than specifically religious, and something that not even the right-wing, governing Likudists agreed with. I'm not any sort of an expert on Israeli, West Bank or Near East politics, but these distinctions seem quite important to the subject of the article. I thought it might be helpful it we communicated directly and consensually sorted this out. You don't apparently have an email contact on your Wikipedia web page so I've posted this here. Feel free to contact me directly, if you'd like, via the Wikipedia email contact function or my Talk page, and/or to delete this note. Thanks much. Activist (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I also note that according to the CIA, only 12-14% of West Bank residents are Jewish, so this would mean the wholesale removal of [1] some seven eighths of the current population. Activist (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Re. the content on the Israel/Palestine stuff, my initial issue was that it was housed in the section on Brownback's 2017 ambassadorial nomination. This was a position he took in 2007 as a presidential candidate. I don't have an issue with including this content, but I think what you added duplicated information that was already in the "Israel and the Palestinian Territories" section of the article. We just need to make sure the sourcing used supports the exact wording used in our article. Regarding the federal refugee resettlement program, I don't think the sentence "It would have predominantly affected Syrians fleeing their country's civil war" is supported by the Newsweek citation. The only thing I see about Syria in that article is "The CAIR said that the move was motivated by 'fear of possibly resettling primarily Muslim refugees from Syria in that state.'" That's the opinion of CAIR, an opponent of Brownback, so I don't think that appropriately backs up the material. I also don't know why Brownback's opposition to Trump's proposed Muslim travel ban, which is included in the Newsweek source, was removed. I think we also have a WP:BALANCE and WP:CHERRYPICKING issue in regards to the reception of Brownback's nomination. We have quotations by two people who oppose Brownback, but you have removed quotations from two people who supported his nomination. We should reflect both sides her, per WP:DUE. This source that we use has positive quotes from Chris Seiple, Dave DePue, Russell Moore, and Ashley McGuire and negative quotes from Tom Witt, Moussa Elbayoumy, and Moti Rieber. The Newsweek citation has a positive quote from Zuhdi Jasser and a negative quote from Robert McCaw. Basically, the reliable sources show a 50/50 split in terms of groups and individuals opposing vs. supporting Brownback. Our article includes two negative opinions, but no positive ones. That doesn't appear to me to fairly summarize the reception to Brownback's nomination. Perhaps we should do away with the quotations, and instead say "Brownback's nomination was supported by XYZ groups/individuals and opposed by XYZ groups/individuals." I think that would be a way to impartially portray the variety of opinions reflected by the sources we're using. What do you think? Marquardtika (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
One more note for now--I'm confused by this edit summary, which states "Catholic Association disappeared in early 19th century". Maybe you're thinking of a different Catholic Association, but the cited sources appears to refer to this group, which is active in the present day. Marquardtika (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're confused. The Catholic Association is an organization that went defunct 190 years ago. I'm confused. You first started editing Wikipedia in February 2015, made 41 edits in the next 22 months, less than two per month, but since President Trump has nominated individuals for top posts in his administration, you've made about 1,000 edits per month entirely on behalf of advancing a score or less of those nominations to confirmation or in support of their work, have done it apparently entirely between the hours of 9-5, M-F, or about one every ten minutes with time off for lunch. You take a characterization of a far-right wing Israeli politician and remove the "far" modifier, even though that's in the title of the article from the former Jewish Daily Forward. You changed Brownback's supported and reliably sourced promotion of forced deportation and expulsion of all Arabs living in the West Bank to another country which has indicated its opposition to such a resettlement of non-citizens and you characterize that as a move to "encourage" them to exile themselves. The term Lebensraum comes to mind. So perhaps you can describe why you feel you are only looking for "balance" and why these appearances appear to be deceiving. If you had a topic ban on Trump appointments you wouldn't be editing at all, I'm guessing. Help me out here. Explain yourself. Are these merely amazing coincidences, or somehow just random occurrences? Activist (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
"The Catholic Association is an organization that went defunct 190 years ago. I'm confused." You are confused. You yourself added this citation from the Wichita Eagle, which includes: "Ashley McGuire, senior fellow at The Catholic Association, said it was exciting to see a Catholic in the role of ambassador. 'But his role will be to advocate for people of all faiths,' McGuire said. 'The Church has long stood for freedom of religion for people of all faiths, so I suspect he’ll draw on his Catholic faith. ... He’s qualified and is considered an expert on the issue and somebody who used his time in office to really advocate in a meaningful way for people persecuted on the basis of their faith.'" A simple Google search for "Catholic Association" brings up the website of The Catholic Association, a group that, judging by the fact that it has a website and the fact that a journalist managed to conduct an interview with one of their (presumably live!) staffers, did not go defunct 190 years ago. I truly do not know why you keep insisting that this group went defunct 190 years ago, but I implore you to read through the sourcing that you yourself provided to see that you appear to be in error. Anyway, I laid out pretty clearly above that the two sources we're using include 50/50 support and opposition for Brownback's nomination, so it's WP:UNDUE to only include quotes from opponents and none from supporters. And as you hopefully see by now, removing the Catholic Association's quote because you erroneously believe that the organization went defunct 190 years ago was a spurious reason for removal. Marquardtika (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The Catholic Association that you reference, rather than the formidable early 19th Century organization of the same name which has a Wikipedia article, appears to be a largely paper, political front group, even less than a mail drop, rather than a real, functioning, membership organization. McGuire is one of four speakers representing the organization, but there really doesn't appear to be any other staff or an actual office. It has revenues of close to half a million bucks a year, but spends only $79 on "office expenses." Media inquiries are forwarded to a right wing public relations corporation that represents organizations such as the RNC. Its domain name has been around for a bit over a decade, and it has an e-mail address, but it's absolutely ephemeral. You're a reporter. You should be able to figure this out. Look at their 990s. See if you can find an address for them. Try K Street. Activist (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Sam Brownback. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Restoration of deleted text[edit]

Brownback's nomination and confirmation as International Ambassador for Religious Freedom met considerable opposition with many groups in Kansas and elsewhere protesting his nomination and citing specifics as to why it was inappropriate. Autonomous removal of thoroughly discussed text, with the claim that uncited "positive" hypothetical statements should be added for "balance," violates Wikipedia consensus process. I restored the deletions. The confirmation vote required the intervention of the Vice President to break a tie vote that would have killed the nomination. No Democrats voted for confirmation.Activist (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

First, I only trimmed the wording of that section. I left the mention, refs, and even the specific names of the opposers in the text. It's WP:UNDUE to devote so much text to three people/interest groups opposed to the nomination, and we don't need the exact quotes.
About the confirmation vote, it was literally split in half, with equal supports and opposes on both sides. Why then do we only discuss people criticizing the appointment? If I had more time, I would add some positive reaction to the nomination.
But these two issues (including the quoted statements made by the opposers, and including positive opinion) are two separate issues for me. Even without a positive viewpoint, that paragraph should be trimmed. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Restoration of appropriate characterization[edit]

I've changed the modifier for Tommy Robinson from "right wing," back to "far right." He has only tried to appear to be less than that, toning down his rhetoric, when he was either in prison or going to court. He is extreme to the point where even UKIP barred him from joining because of his history of overt violence. He's not only an extreme anti-Islamist, but he's a career criminal. His reputation is so toxic that he found it necessary to use stolen identities to both enter and leave the U.S. If any editor has any doubts, they can read his Wikipedia article and the articles about the organizations and actions he's led. Activist (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The source literally calls him "right-wing." We're going to stick to the source, rather than engage in WP:OR or WP:COATRACK[2]. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
"We're?" Got a mouse in your pocket? The last line of the cited story refers to him as "far-right." I also suggested that you go to the Tommy Robinson article if you wanted to look further. In just the titles alone of the citations in the article, he and the organizations he's led are referred to as far-right a dozen times at least. I even Wikilinked it for you. Had you looked at that you might have noticed that these sequential and many others refer to him and his as "far-right."

"UK far-right figure Tommy Robinson jailed for contempt". Business Insider. 29 May 2018. Archived from the original on 15 June 2018. Retrieved 15 June 2018.- "Morrissey defends Tommy Robinson and new far-right party". The Week. 7 June 2018. Archived from the original on 15 June 2018. Retrieved 15 June 2018.- Hamilton, Fiona (30 May 2018). "Far-right provocateur Tommy Robinson jailed over court rant". The Times. Archived from the original on 15 June 2018. Retrieved 15 June 2018.- Morrin, Siobhan (29 May 2018). "Why Tommy Robinson Was Jailed, and Why U.S. Rightwingers Care". Time. Archived from the original on 15 June 2018. Retrieved 15 June 2018.- Palmer, Ewan (29 May 2018). "WHY WAS TOMMY ROBINSON ARRESTED? FAR-RIGHT ACTIVIST JAILED FOR 13 MONTHS FOR 'PREJUDICING RAPE TRIAL'". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 15 June 2018. Retrieved 15 June 2018. "The EDL - Britain's Far Right Social Movement" Archived 21 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine., Radicalism and New Media Research Group, University of Northampton, 22 September 2011. Retrieved 2 February 2012

Needless to say, I'm changing it back to agree with the other editor(s?) whom you had previously reverted. It's been in the article for at least 2 1/2 months. Activist (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

IT services under Sam Brownback[edit]

I am attempting to trace back the sequence which resulted in unused computer equipment under Sam Brownback's administration. The project was for "Kansas GovCloud".[1] "The initiative was launched under one of Gov. Sam Brownback’s previous heads of IT, and later scuttled by the current IT director"[2] --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

References