Talk:Tom Coburn

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

Bias[edit]

What is in the article are not facts. They are twisted misrepresentations. The author of the article should be very ashamed, using Wikipedia for the political purposes of personal destruction. It is such a disappointment to be searching for unbias information on an individual an find such sugar-coated political propaganda.

This entire article was quite obviously written by someone with a negative view of Senator Coburn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.22.23 (talk • contribs) 23:16, July 21, 2005

Yes, but the facts paint a rather negative picture of Senator Coburn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.117.9 (talk • contribs) 00:17, September 15, 2005
These are campaign points used against Sen. Coburn. Not needed in wikipedia article. If you want to campaign against him, get out and do it. Don't deligitimize WikiPedia in your campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.65.72 (talk • contribs) 01:10, October 26, 2005
Removal of the entire Controversies section is unwarranted because in most cases the negative light cast on Coburn is cast entirely by his own statements (see the Global warming and Homosexuality subsections). Those subsections don't even mention the views of the respective non-Coburn sides, much less sympathise with them. When political figures make themselves look bad with statements like "[the gay] agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today", the NPOV policy (which you, 68.97.65.72, should read) does not require us to bail them out by leaving their statements unmentioned. Doing so, in fact, would seem a very un-neutral thing to do.
I do agree with you that the section is in need of improvement. My main suggestion would be to mention Coburn's recent attempt to amend the transportation bill. Another would be to modify the section on the Roberts hearings to focus on the actual issues Coburn discussed with Roberts. And finally, I don't think the sterilization section is notable, because Coburn was not found liable for anything; it might be acceptable to say he improperly charged Medicare, but even that issue seems quite minor to me when compared to his other controversies.
I'm restoring the Controversies section in full, and I recommend that it not be deleted until we at least make an attempt to fix its problems.
— Elembis 09:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it make more sense to delete it until we atleast make an attempt to fix its problems. It only makes wikipedia look like it's full of political hacks... not respectful information. I would also like you to note how many controversy sections there are for Democrats versus Republicans. Why can't we put our politics aside, and just quit the SPIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.154.114.160 (talk • contribs)
Please use this page to identify the specific problems you have with the article. Also, please do not alter the comments of other editors on this page. Gamaliel 23:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attempted to gain some intellectual footing" rephrasing this. That is an not a neccesary attack. If you want to campaign against Coburn do it outside of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.65.72 (talk • contribs)

"Coburn stopped working on a crossword puzzle and began speaking about partisan politics" Good Grief! Just delete controversy section since to many acedemic political hacks can't control themselves. 3 Bias sections! I suggest putting a dispute warning at the top, or deleting the controversy section until some people can learn self control. BTW don't delete people's comments on the talk page just becausee they make a good point

Breast Implants[edit]

It is my opinion that last paragraph of the breast implant section is biased.

Silicone is pretty much chemically inert, and it is not scientifically proven that silicone implants cause disease such as autoimmune disease (a disease that is often faked). Just about every other country in the world still uses silicone implants.

Simply stating that the study does not prove the women are healthier, implies either that lower rates of breast cancer is not a part of health or that the implants may have offsetting harmful effects. But it has never been proven that silicone implants are harmful in other than a cosmetic manner when they rupture.

I am going to try to word this in a more neutral manner (CHF 09:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I'm going to revert your changes. It appears that your revision has introduced bias by concentrating on one controversial aspect and in effect mitigating Coburn's claim that silicone breast implants make you healthier. Further your claim that "silicone breast implants have never been proven to be harmful" is slippery POV, and takes sides in a contentious debate. Also, the fact that they are used around their world has no bearing on their saftey. Tobacco is smoked around the world as well, and most industry advocates will tell you that it's impossible to prove that tobacco is harmful to your health, and in fact, they often make the same claims as Coburn, encouraging people to smoke to improve their health. Let's stick to just the topic of what was said and avoid the POV. --Viriditas | Talk 00:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Also, I would add that this is NOT a correct statement: The health hazards claimed for breast implants have been largely discredited in recent years. Some people claimed that breast implants caused such illnesses as autoimmune disease, although both the AMA and FDA, as well as health organizations around the world, have found there to be no evidence of this. [1]. However, documented problems with breast implants include asymmetry, visibility, palpability, rupture, deflation, infection, scarring and hardening of the implants or 'capsule'. [2]

The fact is that the health hazard claims have NOT been discredited. IN fact, only one study has followed rupture, and that was the FDA study of 2001. That DID show a correlation between rupture and fibromyalgia. The FDA further acknowledges the limitations of earlier 'studies' that were funded by the manufacturer. Please see the FDA website, on the issues of the PMA, for information on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgwlaw (talk • contribs)

Controversies[edit]

I was reading this article and saw mention of the Schindler's List controversy which seemed rather strange. I put a brief mention into the article. After my edit I suddenly saw that there was a prior mention of the movie. I immediately edited my addition out wonder how did I ever miss it. Looking at history answered the question. During the time which I was doing my edit, another user reverted someone's deletion of a section of the article. I guess someone did not want anyone to know the things that Sen. Coburn is most famous for. MichaelSH 23:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to portray someone who is inherently irrational in a reasonable light. The charge (probably credible) was made during the campaign that he sterlized a woman against her will so that she wouldn't have any more abortions. That should be mentioned. The fact that it is outragous doesn't stop it from being true. This guy IS a nut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicaljunkie6 (talk • contribs)

As you pointed out... it is was a campaign hit. Every shot made at him during the campaign should not be mentioned. Don't forget that this lady already went to court and it was thrown out as a frivolous case. I believe the fact that you label U.S. Sen. Coburn as a "nut" goes to further prove the bias against him. Lets go for a NPOV article with wikipedia standards. --68.229.219.235 06:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Trav[reply]

Clean it up or delete it. People keep making great points in the discussion page but, no a few keep ignoring the talk. They just post their own political views. Please campaign somewhere else, leave wikipedia with some academic integrity. --204.154.114.124 15:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is high time the controversies section be removed (not the content, just the header). I plan to begin integrating the content itself into other sections this week. Labeling all the items below that header as a "controversy" is a form of editorializing that now, if not back when these comments were made in 2006, wikipedia at least generally frowns on. Some of them can go under Coburn's political positions, some of them under particular time headings (senate career, house career, etc). There's no need to use a header to try and tell a wikipedia reader how they should feel about the content that follows that header. This doesn't mean I think all of the wording represents NPOV and the header is the only issue, but one problem at a time. --Ur4evr (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The controversies section has been renamed "issues", which is at least less facially biased than the previous header. But maintaining those items as a separate from the rest of the article seems inconsistent and without a point. I'm still inclined, for example, to move Coburn's notable use of the Holds to his political positions, perhaps underneath fiscal conservatism. Most of the rest belong integrated with the remainder of the article, in the biographical time periods that they took place in. --Ur4evr (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything against the name of the header, but this article is a bit sprawling an unorganized, and a chronological reordering could do some good. As for the holds, that should probably be in the chrono as well. Gamaliel (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts Hearings[edit]

Why is there a Roberts Hearings section here? It is almost devoid of any intelligent content - a reference to being mocked over a crossword puzzle and a selective quotation of Coburn's actual statement. This needs to be cleaned up or deleted as unencyclopedic. --Ajdz 23:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you think of the changes I just made. I removed all the references to late night comedy shows, but I disagree that the section should be deleted because his actions during the hearing did receive much media attention. Gamaliel 01:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is better. There's no reason to note every late night joke, there wouldn't be room for anything else! I still have a problem with the treatment of the "the opposite of being dead is being alive" quote because it is so out of context. I watched the hearings and that statement was part of a larger philosophical point, but here it is presented to look somewhat idiotic. --Ajdz 06:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

Please rewrite or delete the section noted 'conroversies'. The section is way longer than any other sections ans paints a negative picture of coburn. One of the sites on there was even an anti-coburn site. Please do not be an academic political hack de-legitimizing wikipedia for personal/political gain. Make Wikipedia respected by both Republicans and Democrats by keeping it unbiased! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.219.235 (talk • contribs)

If you have specific ideas on how to improve this section, please suggest them on this page. Gamaliel 05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My idea to improve the page is to Delete the controversies section until someone can make it unbiased and intellectual. "http://www.wackytom.com/ An Anti-Coburn website" This just proves the bias against Coburn. This should not be a source. A campaign site against Sen. Coburn. Please leave deleted until it can be reworked to relevant and intellectual information. Not items like what he did for 12 mins out of an 8 hr confirmation hearing... Wikipedia is loosing legitimacy due to articles like this.

Multiple sections dealing with multiple issues will not be deleted. If you have any specific suggestions on how to improve each section, please offer them. Just saying it is "biased" and not "intellectual" is not helpful.
The fact that an anti-Coburn site is linked to is not "proof" of bias. WP articles present multiple points of view, from both supporters and detractors. If you have any pro-Coburn links to offer, feel free to add them to the article. Gamaliel 06:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An "anti-coburn" site doesn't sound much like it would pass wikipedia's litmus test for reliable sources--that is, just because some hack starts a blog doesn't mean it's a useful source. While it is certainly true that some sources will present a negative light on any person and some a positive, and that is no grounds for removal, an average hack site should only be a source for that site's own wiki entry should it become popular enough to warrant entry--Ur4evr (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The controversies section will never be unbiased or intellectual because Coburn's opponents will keep coming back to use this page to trash him. I've noted this problem previously and there has been zero interest in either removing riduculous sections (and keeping them removed) or doing the work to make the article more comprehensive. I'm not sure if Wikipedia ever had legitimacy when it comes to articles like this. --Ajdz 16:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coburn has become well-known precisely because of certain comments which are seen (at least in some sectors) as outlandish and extreme. We can hardly overlook the very things that have brought him to the notice of the wider public. --Lee Hunter 18:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There has also been "zero interest" in the part of those who accuse this article of "bias" in identifying precise problems with these sections and suggesting potential solutions besides deleting information they find unfavorable to Coburn. Gamaliel 18:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If so, that's likely because deletion is a reasonable solution to biased and otherwise useless sections, as with the section Roberts Hearings. (And where's the controversy over global warming? The comments aren't even very unique.) At the very least, an introduction to these sections is needed. Are these live controversies? Major controversies? Things only Oklahoma Democrats talk about? I've only heard of a few of them elsewhere, leaving the impression that much of it is just the typical wikipedia crusade. --Ajdz 22:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just an aside: I came to this entry to follow up a reference to Colburn that was made in conversation and found the controversies section to be extremely helpful. It doesn't seem like a rather educational and useful section should be considered POV simply because it could be viewed unflattering. 71.197.131.190 16:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"but expressed it poorly" thes is under the Schindler's list controversy. I am removing it because it is a matter of opinion. Please make article NPoV

This bias has been posted for 5 years, and still is not cleaned up. I cannot edit it so please either allow this site to be edited so it can be properly edited and made unbiased, or delete large portions of biased comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.36.45.123 (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Roberts Hearing[edit]

I felt that some of the language regarding Senator Coburn's presence at the Roberts Confirmation Hearings was somewhat slanted and mocking in some cases, particularly the picture and paragraph regarding the crossword puzzle. It seemed as though the author was trying to make the senator appear to be disinterested or even a bad actor (i.e., ". . . seemingly lamenting . . ." on his confusion with legal terms, etc.)

If the author was attempting to make Senator Coburn look like a bad senator by the thing with the crossword puzzle, need I remind him that watching a Senate Judiciay Committee Hearing is about like watching a toilet flush over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, etc. and it is understandable that he would attempt to break the monotonous atmosphere with something such as a crossword puzzle, while at the same time keeping an eye on the proceedings. Roygene 23:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like paint drying. This article is a good example of wikipedia being used to trash someone that the contributors just don't like. Before I got here the section was also comprised of out of context quotes and pretended that late-night jokes are notable, but then again, notability is irrelevant when there's another agenda at work. --Ajdz 02:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even noteworthy? Seriously... Congressman are usually playing games on their laptops or PDAs... Just because it was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart does not make it noteworthy. Now if you put "On the daily show with Jon Stewart Sen. Coburn was parodied in this way..." Seriously, most of the controversy section is not noteworthy stuff. Reccomend deletion of that section with a possible exception of Crossword 'Roberts Hearing' if in reference to the daily show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.219.235 (talk • contribs)

This is what happens to biographies on wikipedia. They become hate sites maintained by the person's enemies and "controversy" sections dominate. People are more interested in attacking and spreading rumors than actually coming up with useful information. --Ajdz 18:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"Coburn then began his questioning by revealing his confusion regarding the various legal terms bandied about during the previous day's hearings." Now I think that Coburn is a radical who should never been elected to the Senate, but what I just quoted simply does not belong in Wikipedia: it is not NPOV. Anyone have suggestions for a rewrite? MichaelSH 05:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Coburn stopped working on a crossword puzzle and began speaking about partisan politics" COME ON! Just delete controversy section since you acedemic hacks can't control yourselves!

Unbelievably Biased[edit]

This article is so biased, it's shameful. I always expected Wikipedia to be a better source than this, but maybe the public can't make a decent encyclopedia. How about a Washington Post article as a source, instead of someone's Anti-Coburn blog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.122.126.149 (talk • contribs)

I agree... This is sad. I believe if you want to put a controversy section you should keep it only to the relevant controversies... not ever single campaign point that was used against him. I am deleting controversy section until somebody wants to re-work it and make an attempt at fairness and un-bias writing.

I added " The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page." maybe someone can fix it later so that we can come to a consensus on a NPOV article for Sen. Coburn. --68.229.219.235 04:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Trav[reply]

POV tags are not intended to be left on an article indefinately so "someone can fix it later". Please identify what problems you have with the article now. Gamaliel 15:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Even the medical section ends up being a diatribe against the Republican party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bt10ant (talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Coburn redirect here?[edit]

--Greasysteve13 13:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't anymore; I've created a disambig page. Gamaliel 18:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Jack Abramoff Controversy[edit]

Is this really something that needs to be mentioned? It doesn't seem to be all the controversial, and I think if it belongs anywhere it would be in the Jack Abramoff section --TechTrav 19:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossword puzzle[edit]

It is ridiculous that people point out Coburn supposedly with a crossword puzzle in the article. How do we know he was completing a crossword? It was from the DAILY SHOW for pete's sake! I'm an Oklahoman and I dislike Coburn myself, but there is no excuse for extreme bias in the article (especially BS like this)! Scottmso 15:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post reported that he was working on a crossword puzzle. Gamaliel 16:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not noteworth if you want to put it in, put it in the Daily Show article. Every hiccup of a Senator does not need to be put into wikipedia. It's clear you don't like him... but don't ruin wikipedia just for your own personal campaigning! 68.229.219.235 04:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have different opinions about the noteworthiness of a particular incident does not mean there is bias or personal opinion involved. Please keep it civil and productive here. Gamaliel 14:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Disputes[edit]

Here's the list of unresolved dispute(s) preventing the removal of the {{POV}} from the article. Once a dispute is resolved, it is crossed off the list. --68.97.71.92 21:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contents 

   * 3 Controversies
         o 3.1 Abortion
         o 3.2 Breast implants
         o 3.3 Homosexuality
         o 3.4 Roberts confirmation hearings
         o 3.5 Schindler's List television broadcast
         o 3.6 Sterilization controversy
   * 5 References
   * 6 External links
When placing a POV tag, please give us more to work with than a list of sections that you perceive to be biased. We can't really address them, since we don't know exactly what your concerns are. Also, it's clear you're not new to Wikipedia, despite these being the first edits from your particular IP. I'm guessing you might be the same user as previously posted POV concerns from other Oklahoma City IP's (User:68.229.219.235, User:68.97.65.72); if so, the proper use of the POV tag has already been explained to you, and one of these users has been blocked for page-blanking vandalism to this page. It would be most helpful if you registered. Also, anonymous editing from multiple IP's can be problematic on controversial articles, as mentioned above. I'm going to remove the POV tag; when you replace it, please list your specific concerns on the talk page so that they can be effectively addressed. MastCell 00:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

I am attaching a POV warning for the following reasons. I believe once each reason is resolved we can then remove the POV flag.

Bias Section (I would argue that these are just campaign points that were used against him) Roberts confirmation hearings - (Crossword Puzzle, not significant/noteworthy) Sterilization controversy - (Not noteworthy)

This article has come a long way from what it started out, but still seems to be a bit negative towards him. --68.97.71.92 03:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for specifying; I think we can work with these. As far as "Bias section", I'm not sure which you're referring to. I do agree that the crossword puzzle issue is relatively non-noteworthy in the grand scheme of a House/Senate career. The quote used in the Crossword Puzzle section is also potentially extraneous, since Coburn's strong pro-life views are already summarized under 'Abortion'. As far as the sterilization issue, having read the cited source, it also seems relatively non-noteworthy - after all, the lawsuit was dismissed and Coburn was never found to have violated standard medical practice. What do the more regular contributors to this page think? MastCell 04:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These were widely reported events and should be documented in the article. We can discuss how exactly to do so and to what length, but we can't simply ignore them. Gamaliel 18:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the Crossword part should be taken out, I think it is a sad day when what is reported on the 'Daily Show' is actually considered newsworthy if not historically notable. I believe Bias Section is referring to the above section called Bias which makes many arguments? Either that or they are saying that the Controversies section is bias? Referring to the court case, I don't believe it is right to put every frivolous lawsuit into wikipedia. Otherwise I could go sue the President for attacking me, and then put it on wikipedia... If it's dismissed, it is usually because they are innocent or unable to be proven guilty. 204.154.114.82 18:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The crossword puzzle was reported in mainstream media outlets such as the Washington Post. Gamaliel 18:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is very well balanced. It allows people to draw their own conclusions about Dr. Coburn. I read it and ended up thinking "Wow, what a great guy!!" The one thing I would do is remove the portion about the crossword puzzle. It is trivial and I fail to see how it adds or detracts from Coburn's life. In fact, the entire section about Roberts could very well be revised. 70.16.29.50 04:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag[edit]

I've been away from this page for awhile, but I see the eyesore of a POV tag is still there. If it's still an issue of the crossword puzzle, and we can't reach consensus on whether it's notable enough for mention, perhaps it's worth moving on to request a 3rd opinion from uninvolved editors, or an RfC on the topic. It seems unfortunate to tag the whole article as "POV" when the dispute seems to be about the crossword puzzle thing, which is really relatively minor. MastCell 17:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tag as there's been no discussion on this for a month. Gamaliel 17:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm[edit]

This guy seems cool. Whatever POV problems there were seem largely fixed, IMO. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sterilization "Controversy"[edit]

I don't understand. Why does wikipedia allow unsubstantiated claims that have been dismised in court due to lack of evidence to stay in the profile of a Senator? I thought this kind of untrue negative campaigning would be taken off the site once it was disproven. I haven't checked, but I hope the Obama went to Islamic Schools "Controversy" is not on his page as well. If wikipedia wants to keep its reputation, why doesn't it take off these false controversies?

  • I tried deleting the section twice, but it was added back. Please explain why it is on the site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.166.228.211 (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • I agree; the charge was unsubstantiated and, therefore, unnecessary. I will report this to the Wikipedia "living persons biographies noticeboard." (P.S. Please, always sign your comments.) ProfessorPaul 00:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Genetic Discrimination Bill controversy[edit]

The link to information about Coburn blocking this bill doesn't mention Coburn. Did Coburn block this bill, and is he still blocking it? I'm deleting the bad link, if anyone can find a better one, perhaps explaining Coburn's position on the bill, it would help the article.A.V. 17:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I updated the section on the Genetic Discrimination Bill.A.V. 17:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated again today. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV phrasing?[edit]

"Coburn was considered one of the "true believers" in the Republican freshman class of 1995, and was one of the most conservative members of the House. For instance, he supported reducing the size of the federal budget and opposed abortion and supported the proposed V-chip legislation." This implies that all of the following initiatives are "conservative", while many legislators who are for the traditional conservative tenet of small government would not agree that V-chip legislation has anything to do with small government or states' rights, two large components of the traditional conservative movement. Perhaps a better example can be found than the V-chip?--Gloriamarie 18:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a further problem with the V-chip phrase. Coburn didn't actually support it. He offered the Coburn Amendment which turned the issue of censorship technology over to industry and a GAO study and there was rulemaking so that his amendment would replace Markey's (D-Mass) V-chip Amendment. That is all detailed on pages 289-290 of "Channeling Violence: The Economic Market for Violent Television Programming" by James T. Hamilton. JamesPaulWhite (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should give both sides of controversy[edit]

"On May 23, 2007, Coburn threatened to block two bills honoring the 100th birthday of Rachel Carson. Coburn called Carson's work "junk science", proclaiming that Silent Spring, "was the catalyst in the deadly worldwide stigmatization against insecticides, especially DDT."

This either needs to give more of Coburn's side or it needs to be taken out. Many have talked about how the ban of DDT has allowed cases of malaria to escalate in Africa. It seems that that was what Coburn was referring to, and if so, a note needs to be made of it, or the whole story just isn't given here.--Gloriamarie 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DDT is not banned in most countries and can still be used in controlling malaria. This is a complex issue, see the DDT page for more explanation. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to research this issue, with particular attention to the actual vote, and any other statements or actions pertaining to it. On the face of it, this section seems incomplete. Joetho (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Joe[reply]

Removals[edit]

On the Political Positions removals, was his opposition to the “Emmett Till Bill” the only position he has ever taken on “Civil Rights”? It seems that the sole source of this section was a press release from Christopher Dodd.

The lawsuit is also a no brainier. It was filed and dismissed. Does it really need a whole section devoted to it? This issue has been raised in talk before, and there was no opposition to removing it on the talk page, but some editors reverted every attempt to remove it.

The John Roberts confirmation is similar non controversy. Nothing in the cited text would seem to indicate any controversy, and the inclusion of the Daily Show’s take on this is notable how, exactly? Because it would seem to me that if the Daily Show is an appropriate source on this, why not on the Ted Kennedy article with regard to the Cape Wind Project? It would appear that some editors have a different standard with these two articles.

Anyone who decides to reinsert this material without addressing these issues on talk should refamiliarize themselves with WP:Weight and WP:BLP. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd even go so far as to say the statement from the attorney general should be removed. Relevant legal opinions about fraud are issued in the form of an indictment when it comes to attornies general. lacking an indictment, the opinion is undue weight and false light and is most likely a political decree more than an indication of a crime. This case has no legs and doesn't warrant any more mention than just saying he was subject to a malpractice suit that exonerated him. --Tbeatty 06:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was just some random lawsuit I would agree, but the fact is that it became a significant campaign issue, as verified by numerous sources. So I'm restoring it, with the other notable and sourced controversy material. If you want to discuss alternate wording, go for it, but ignoring it is not an option if this article is to be complete and neutral. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 23:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzales[edit]

The article states: "On April 19, 2007, Coburn became the first Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee to call for the firing of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as a result of the controversy concerning the dismissal of eight United States Attorneys.[5][6]"

As the cited references indicate, Coburn called for Gonzales to resign, not for his firing.

63.170.35.89 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)dzman49[reply]

Request for Comment:Controversy and Scandal Section[edit]

There currently exits several points of contention in this article. Several sections of this article serve no other purpose than to bias the article, giving non-notable events and information prominent places, skewing the tone and POV of the article and violating WP:WEIGHT. A quick overview of the talk page would seem to reinforce this, as many editors have objected to the POV issues in this article and asked for the material to be removed, to no avail. The sections are:

  • The John Roberts Confirmation. Nothing in the cited text would seem to indicate any controversy, and the inclusion of the Daily Show’s take on this is non-notable .
  • Homosexuality. The section on homosexuality is third hand quotations by fairly partisan sources, a serious BLP concern. Anytime I see …. In a quote, I have strong suspicions about the reliability and accuracy of that quote, most especially when the full source cannot be found and fully vetted. If this particular quote is so notable and prominent, why does it only have 268 hits on google, and is it not suspicious that the source was a partisan attack piece in Salon.com?
  • Allegations of non-consensual sterilization and Medicaid fraud. Once again, no charges filed by the AG, and the lawsuit (filed during a re-election bid) was dismissed as soon as it got to the

Naturally, as in too many articles here, there is only one editor who is insistent on keeping the information in the article, and ironically enough, argues the exact opposite on another page where circumstances are similar, but that’s another issue for another article. So, yeah or nay for inclusion of the following:

  1. The John Roberts Confirmation
  2. Homosexuality
  3. Allegations of non-consensual sterilization and Medicaid fraud

—Preceding unsigned comment added by TDC (talk • contribs) 22:09, 22 August 2007

There is overwhelming evidence of the notability of this issue from a dozen reliable sources. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is even more overwhelming evidence that this "scandal" was manufactured, as it went nowhere, and did nothing to impact the outcome of the election. One lawsuit in the career of a doctor who delivered 5000 babies (almost a rarity these days) brought up during a tight election, and allegations of “Medicare fraud” (also not acted on by the AG) does not seem notable, and giving the outcome of this, certainly seems to violate WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and in all likelihood WP:BLP.
And the other sections? Do you have a reason for your blanket revision of these? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this was a manufactured scandal, but it still happened, and there is ample evidence to show that it was widely discussed. It is part of the historical record and we have a duty to document notable incidents such as this one, regardless of the outcome or nature of the scandal. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 14:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salon Magazine is certainly a reliable journalistic source. I do not take any other positions in this debate just yet.Verklempt 03:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[comments removed per BLP] However, his own quotes from reliable sources and his votes in the Senate can attest to that. We don't need to include manufactured stories and information from questionable sources that clearly tend to skew the article. Coburn doesn't need Wikipedia's help to make him look like a jackass, it only serves to comprimise the integrity of the article. I say nay to inclusion. (Rayraymitts 18:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I was inclined to agree with you, when I first read the talk page, but looking at the article, I mostly don't see the 'manufactured stories and information from questionable sources' that you are referring to.... with the exception of the Schindler's list section, which is lacking sources. Dlabtot 22:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on Tom Coburn, so I'm pretty neutral on the subject. The Roberts Confirmation Hearings section should definitely go. It can't be seen as a controversy just because The Daily Show mentioned it, and it's very minor. The Homosexuality section statements could feasibly be included if they have been reported on as controversial by reliable sources-- I'd like to see evidence of this. The Medicare section should be included because it was a campaign issue and has been reported on. It might be a better fit in a Campaigns section, though, since he was found to have committed no wrongdoing, so presumably the subject is no longer controversial.--Gloriamarie 22:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whistleblower[edit]

I corrected these mistakes in the main article:

Thank you. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion[edit]

I seem to remember one of the more notable controversies from the 2004 campaign concerned his comment that abortionists should receive the death penalty because Coburn himself had performed abortions as a family practice doctor. I don't see why that be unfair to at least mention that fact in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockwood Like (talk • contribs) 16:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but you will need to find a reliable source for this information if you wish to include it. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that you note he's a family practice doctor. He is, which I confirmed on his webpage here http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorCoburn.Biography but which never appears on his wiki page. This seems odd. He apparently focuses on obstetrics (which you can do as a board certified family physician), but the only mention of "Family" is the controversial Christian group. CEB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.180.194 (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sotomayor confirmation hearings[edit]

Senator Coburn gots some 'splainin' to do. 18:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)lwwalker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.247.9 (talk)

Senate Career[edit]

Ends with "Coburn's Senate voting record is as conservative as his House record. He received a perfect 100% rating from the American Conservative Union for the year 2005. Coburn has a reputation for stalling measures in the Senate, to the chagrin of members of both major parties and many people outside of Oklahoma.[10]"

However, the source cited (NYTs) provides no reference to "many people outside Oklahoma" finding fault with his use of holds. In addition to not being found in the cite, the clause doesn't really mean much, as "many people outside Oklahoma" could be said to find fault with virtually everything as well as finding good in virtually everything, and it appears to be a little editorializing on behalf of the original wikipedia user who wrote it, to frame the legitimate remainder of the sentence more to their own liking. I've removed the phrase from the article. --Ur4evr (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fellowship[edit]

Can anyone describe to me a reason for mentioning Coburn's rooming at a place owned by The Fellowship (The Family) other than guilt by association (logical fallacy) to a "secretive" organization? I've seen zero coverage by reliable press raising any issue of wrongdoing related to Coburn's living arrangements, much less of the Fellowship itself having any role in the Ensign affair.

While discussion of Coburn's role in the Ensign affair is fair game given the coverage among reliable press outlets, there is no indication whatsoever that The Fellowship was involved or even tangentially related to Ensign's affair. All actions alluded to press coverage are those of Coburn and Ensign, and no relevant role is actually attributed to The Family. It appears to be as relevant as what they ate while discussing the matter, that is, not at all.

It smells like a smear attempt--which is fine on a blog, but shouldn't be a part of wikipedia--to try and tie Coburn to a group's beliefs when his only apparent connection is that they are his landlord. It relieves the accuser of having to actually provide reference or proof while still allowing them to get a shot in. It looks like cheap politicking, not NPOV.

I welcome feedback, but if there is no presentation of an actual role for the Fellowship in the events surrounding Ensign's affair, or of reliable news sources raising the fellowship's "relationship" with Coburn, I will remove the references or at least reform them so they do not pollute reliably sourced information with some wikipedia editor's opinion and spin. --Ur4evr (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the deal is, but not needed in the lede. --Tom (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to The Family subheader under Issues, there seems to be some uncited info. Ex 1 "Coburn is affiliated with a religious organization called The Family." Not that I can find. He lives at a home alleged to be owned by a group somehow connected to some vague entity called The Family. Am I affiliated with all my landlords? The citation link is dead, but I'm betting there's wasn't anything there showing affiliation with the org. I'll try to find a new link for the remainder.

"Coburn, together with senior members of the Family," None of the links justify this. What is a "senior member" of the family? Who are these other "senior members" who were with Coburn? This appears to be made up out of thin air. Best I can find reading the links, the c street location provides rooms for rent to those interested in bible studies and having likeminded roomies. There is no allegation that renters/studiers are "members" of anything, much less some quasi-mythic organization that doesn't even appear to own the location in question. This is either really, really sloppy or really, really biased. I also renew my objection to citing Rachel Maddow which is akin to citing to Glen Beck (on things other than Rachel Maddow and Glen Beck, respectively).

I'll excise at least these two quoted statements shortly unless someone presents real sources supporting them. Ur4evr (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy under Political positions/Health Care Reform[edit]

Does anyone know if the following is an accurate analysis?

"Political positions/Health care reform

"Coburn co-authored the Patients Choice Act of 2009 (S. 1099), a Republican plan for Health care reform in the United States[13], the goals of which aimed to 1) prevent disease and promote healthier lifestyles, 2) create affordable and accessible health insurance options, 3) equalize the tax treatment of health care, 4) modernize the Medicaid and Medicare beneficiary choice, 5) ensure compensation for injured patients, and 6) establish transparency in health care price and quality.[14]" Mrs. Peel (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C-SPAN comments on scandal coverup[edit]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43200441#43200441

So no longer refusing to talk about it. Hcobb (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A so-called "Blog"[edit]

Would other editors please comment on this article found on a so-called "blog":

"U.S. Senator Calls Robot Projects Wasteful. Robots Call Senator Wasteful", POSTED BY: ERICO GUIZZO, TUE, JUNE 14, 2011

Can it be used as a source to extend the new section on National Science Foundation criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.213.131.190 (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPSPS says no pretty unequivocally. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This guideline says yes the way I read it. According to your link "so-called blogs" (as I called them) with editors and news staff are allowed as sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.213.131.190 (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protate Cancer wording question[edit]

>In November 2013, Coburn made public that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. In 2011, he had prostate cancer surgery while also surviving colon cancer and melanoma.

Can I rewrite this -- "In November 2013, Coburn made public that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2011, and underwent surgery for it that same year. He has also been diagnosed and treated for colon cancer and melanoma"?

Thanks. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

gay rights[edit]

Kwisha reverted my properly sourced information about Coburn's positions, record and statements on gay rights. He left absolutely NO explanation on the talk page for doing so. There is absolutely no reason to exclude this information, so I'm reverting it back. Jhamilton303 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coburn and Medicare??[edit]

Coburn became eligible for Medicare Part A in his birth month in 2013 and could sign up for Part B, D, and or C in the 2013 Medicare open enrollment to go into effect Jan 2014 which could have provided better options than the available ACA exchange offerings that FEHB paid for in whole or part. Did anyone ask Coburn why he enrolled in ACA coverage instead of going with Medicare? Medicare Part A and B pay all providers except those who never take any Federal funding, which would I believe include FEHB which Coburn had been using. Supplemental plans then pay the same providers.

And how did he sign up under ACA at age 65? I tried looking at ACA plans even though I was on Medicare and until they added the features to browse without registering, I got kicked over to sign up for Medicare. Mulp (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about you comments is relevant to this BLP? Meatsgains (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tom Coburn. 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.

checkY 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tom Coburn. 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}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tom Coburn. 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}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 11:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tom Coburn/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article is an attack against Sen. Coburn. A political hack has taken it upon himself to use wikipedia as a means of campaigning... give me a break!

Last edited at 16:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Tom Coburn. 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}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Tom Coburn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tom Coburn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Coburn&oldid=1206731223"