Talk:Arlen Specter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Political Role Section

I think that this section, or at least the example provided, is misleading. As early as this morning (Meet the Press 2/5/06), Specter still maintains that the NSA spying program is on shaky legal ground, and probably illegal. I believe that statements regarding the president 'acting in good faith' were said in reaction to suggestions to whether or not impeachment proceedings were appropriate. I do not think Specter's mind has been changed on this issue as of yet. User: DamonJay

NPOV

This article sure does not seem to take a NPOV and takes a rather hateful tone.

An edit speculating on why Arlen Spector is getting involved with the NFL/Spygate/Videotape Destruction issue was removed.ColonelKernel (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Specter Has Consistently Been Soft on Illegal Immigration

As late as 2007, Specter supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. During his long political career, Specter has been almost silent on the issue of the flood of illegal immigration. Such an important state and national issue can hardly be missing from a recounting of his legislative career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.144.127 (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

New photo

Someone asked for a more recent picture awhile ago...I'm not sure why the comment was deleted. His Senate website doesn't seem to have any recent pictures; does anyone have a newer picture?Vic Troy

I found a good photo at a PA league of women voters and posted it today. Merecat 22:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did it go, then? The present one is terribly outdated. --Dupes 17:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is still a problem. The current photo is so old as to be almost unrecognizable. -Will Beback 02:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The photo in the article looks at least 20 years old. A more recent photo is needed. I would not, however, be opposed to putting the current photo somewhere else in the article.

I was actually about to post a new section about this, but it seems it's already a noted issue. I didn't even recognize him when I saw the picture. This is pretty important. Someone needs to get on this. I'm a pretty new editor, so I'm not entirely familiar with the procedure needed to insert pictures and cite them, but maybe we should stop talking about it and just do it. Nobody appears to have any objections.--Zombiema7 10:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sid Simelia

The picture shown at the top of the page is the most recent one that has been put out by Arlen's press office. I formerly worked as an intern in the D.C. office, and while I should make it clear that I am not responding officially, this is simply my knowledge that I wish to impart on the WikiCommunity. The 2nd picture down on the page was Arlen's original bio picture (commonly referred to as the "Bar Mitzvah picture" around the office). Also, if you look closely at the bottom-left of the newest picture, you'll notice something else 'poking' into the frame. This is the shoulder of Senator Specter's Chief of Staff, Scott Hoeflich. Arlen doesn't smile when he's the only one in the picture.

Hope this info was helpful, entertaining, distracting, et cetera.

Ekatz2 —Preceding comment was added at 20:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerns About Re-election Passage, Hoefel/Specter Race

I could be mistaken, but I don't recall many observers asserting that Specter had moved too far to the right in order to win his last campaign for that seat.

Aside from making some concessions to the Bush administration with respect to facilitating the confirmation of prospective federal judges I don't think he embraced mainstream conservative Republicanism at all.

In fact, he condoned the decision by some union locals to produce Specter-Kerry lawn signs.

If anything, most people were of the view that conservatives staying home-or voting, but withholding their votes from Specter-would pose more of a challenge to his re-election.

Plus, the way his victory is described is a bit misleading.

Yes, in comparison to most Senate races-where the incumbent faces no real opposition-Specter's victory was "narrow," but in comparison to other races he has contested-for example, his razor-thin victory over his female opponent in 1992-his margin of victory was rather large.

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Texas

Putting WikiProject Texas here so the bot will not retag it. Ingrid 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Out of morbid curiosity, why is it that the bot feels that this page should be tagged as WikiProject Texas? Sixtus LXVI 18:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

NARAL

The following parenthetical statement should be removed:

• • (although he recieved a 20% rating from NARAL, indicating a pro-life record)

as NARAL's criteria are extremely partisan and do not accurately express stance on abortion in an NPOV manner. His 20% rating comes from a budget issue he voted against and some judicial nominees he supported. Not making abortion a hot-button automatic rubber-stamp issue is very different from being Pro-Life.

References

Why did this article use the non-standard section heading "footnotes" instead of the standard "References"? I changed it to use "References".

Why have contributors left thos references as simple inline inline links? Inline links really really suck. If they expire then no-one can fix the article by searching for a mirror, or an alternative source. Please everybody, if you are the person adding a reference try to use the {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} templates. If that is too difficult, at least put the article's title, author, publisher and date of publication in the reference. Thanks! Geo Swan 12:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC) (This is what conversion to the use of the cite template look like.)

Does this reference really satisdy the authoritative and verifiable requirements for an encyclopedic reference? http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~battle/senators/specter.htm

It points to a page with no explanation of who did the research.

Cheers! Geo Swan 12:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Case in point, the second reference was a dead link. Because whoever placed it didn't provide any details, it can't be fixed. It can only be pruned. Geo Swan 14:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

clarification

Hey all. I was reading through and came to this sentence in the paragraph about Kennedy:

"His connections with the case are dubious after former CIA and Watergate figure Howard Hunt wrote a book just before his death[2] implicating Johnson in the assassination."

Johnson who - Lyndon Johnson? He isn't mentioned previously (or anywhere else) in the article, which is usually done before identifying only by last name. I don't know a lot about this topic so I'll leave it to y'all to correct if you see fit. Jodamn 23:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This sentence should probably be removed -- first of all, what does "dubious" mean? Second, the Kennedy assassination is obviously a controversial topic with hundreds of books with diverse and often speculative theories. As such, I'd like to see more than one source (or at least more specificity) before accepting the claim that anything "dubious" transpired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.30.31.167 (talk) 18:33, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I can't quite parse the grammar of that line. Someone who knows what its getting at should rewrite it.--68.102.156.139 22:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Single Bullet theory

It seems some here just can't let it go - they have to discredit the "single bullet theory" - the Warren Commission's contention that at a critical point, president Kennedy and governor Connally were hit by the same bullet and therefore Oswald could have been the lone assassin. When I added clarification on Specter's authorship of the theory, I saw some clearly POV language on this theory, so I reworded it to be neutral.

So "the controversial "single bullet theory" to attempt to explain the commission's preconceived conclusion that a lone assassin killed Kennedy" (which is misleading to say the least) I changed to "the controversial "single bullet theory" which explained how a single assassin killed Kennedy and wounded Texas Governor John Connally."

Then, someone changed that to "which purportedly explained how a single assassin killed Kennedy and wounded Texas Governor John Connally." and after I reverted THAT POV line, pointing out that the theory DID "explain" how the two were shot, though, obviously, you are free to dismiss the explanation as many have. And THAT was changed again to "which supposedly explained how a single assassin killed Kennedy and wounded Texas Governor John Connally."

Let's get a grip here. To insert words like "supposedly" and "purportedly" to the text is adding a subjective opinion on the subject. In my view, the easiest and most neutral way to address this without getting into controversy is to simply state that the theory provided an explanation for how a single assassin both killed Kennedy and wounded the governor. There is NO need I can see here for noting that others don't agree with this conclusion ESPECIALLY given the fact that earlier the theory is described as being "controversial" thus implying its conclusions are not universally accepted. If one wants to explore the issue, one needs only to click on the link. Cheers Canada Jack (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I do see where you're coming from, Canada Jack.

There's an unfortunate ambiguity with the word "explained" in this sentence that is difficult to clear up in a neutral way (although the presence of the modifier "controversial" certainly does help with this). On the one hand, there is "explain" in the sense of giving a successful, conclusive account. On the other hand, there is "explain" in the sense of expounding a particular view or theory. Ideally, we'd want a different verb here that conveys only the latter sense. Any suggestions? 71.117.230.228 (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

71: How about simply saying "provided an explanation for" replacing "explanation"? I think that that removes the inference that this was a "definitive" explanation. Canada Jack (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a little better, but I think one could do better still by reworking the entire sentence. Not to quibble here, and, granted, this is not an article about the John F. Kennedy assassination or the single bullet theory. But there's also another issue with this sentence. The single bullet theory by itself didn't purport to show how a single assassin could have killed Kennedy and wounded Connally, since it didn't concern the lethal shot (or shots) to the President's head. By itself, it purported to show only that the bullet in question caused all of the non-lethal wounds suffered by Kennedy and Connally during the shooting. The sentence as it stands is false, strictly speaking, but it does have the virtue of conveying that the lone assassin hypothesis depends crucially on the truth of the single bullet theory. And that's important. Still, I think the whole sentence could be rewritten in a way that renders it both true and neutral on the controversial matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.230.123 (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Here is how it reads now: As an assistant counsel for the commission, he authored or co-authored[2] the controversial "single bullet theory," which provided an explanation as to how a single assassin killed Kennedy and wounded Texas Governor John Connally.

How about... As an assistant counsel for the commission, he authored or co-authored[2] the controversial "single bullet theory," which suggested the non-fatal wounds to president Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally were caused by the same bullet. This was a crucial assertion for the Warren Commission as if the two were wounded by separate bullets, there would likely have been a second assassin and therefore a conspiracy.

It's important to note that this working theory, which emerged in April, 1964, arose out of the realization that the non-fatal wound to Kennedy was caused by a bullet which exited his body and "should have ripped up the car" but did not. The working theory was that "if Governor Connally was in the path of the bullet it would have struck him." The first assumption was that a second bullet struck Connally (ie., he was hit by two bullets) as the recovered bullet seemed to "pristine." However, later tests showed it indeed could have caused the wounds. By April 27 1964, the consensus was, given the lack of damage to the limousine and the assumption that Connally was hit by one, not two, bullets, that a single bullet caused the damage. On May 7, 1964, the Commission requested a reenactment to test its theory and on May 24, the reenactment took place. This reenactment, calibrated by the positions of the president and governor as seen in the Zapruder film, various other images and films such as the Nix film and the Muchmore film (the latter two for the fatal shot) confirmed a) that the bullet which passed through Kennedy would have hit Connally as he was in a direct line of fire as seen from Oswald's nest and the bullet did not strike anything but flesh in Kennedy and therefore was likely not deflected and b) Connally was in a position to have received the wounds he received if struck by the same bullet.

I note the above to address the claim that the theory was part of some "preconceived" conclusion that Oswald acted alone. The WC had more or less concluded Oswald acted alone to that point as all evidence pointed in that direction. But if one reads the accounts of the Zapruder discussions, one realizes that a) the film was hard to interpret and b) any scenario which suggested a second bullet here would not match the rest of the evidence. Indeed, the possibility that two bullets were involved was in fact considered though the WC (in contrast to most conspiracy theorists) realized that any bullet which struck Kennedy had to also hit Connally.

Canada Jack (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

User Gamaliel (wasn't that Harding's middle name?) omitted this section of text: This was a crucial assertion for the Warren Commission as if the two were wounded by separate bullets, there would likely have been a second assassin and therefore a conspiracy. Gamaliel said in omitting the text: Not necessarily since all the wounds were caused by bullets travelling the same direction.

Without gumming the main page up with this Warren Commission stuff, I would say that there is a pretty strong argument from many people that if the WC did not establish the single bullet argument, there HAD to be another assassin, given the timing problems. True, there is an argument, looking at only the Zapruder film, that two shots could have been fired by Oswald in enough time. The HSCA concluded Kennedy was hit around Z190, and if Connally was hit around Z235 as some claim, then there was sufficient time - some 2.4 seconds - for Oswald to fire off two rounds (1.6 seconds needed if using iron sights). However, making this argument ignores other evidence - such as when Connally was hit, the bullet HAD TO have passed through Kennedy first. Which would, therefore, mean that Kennedy was hit twice before the fatal shot, an assertion which isn't backed up by any evidence. Or that a tree blocked Oswald's view at frame 190 making that presumed shot an unlikely occurrence. I would say we should re-insert the text as most pro and anti-conspiracy theorists in fact make this point - two shots almost certainly mean two assassins. Besides the text says "likely" not "certainly" there would have been two assassins. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the material in question appearing in the article if there is a reliable source stating it. Gamaliel (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have Vincent Bugliosi, arguably the current most prominent anti-conspiracy theorist, saying "Despite the Warren Commission's assertion that the single-bullet theory was not essential to its conclusion that there was no evidence of a conspiracy, as critics would correctly point out, the single-bullet theory was [emphasis in original] essential to its findings. Commission assistant counsel Norman Redlich put it more bluntly: 'To say that [Kennedy and Connally] were hit by separate bullets is synontmous with saying that there were two assassins.' " (the Redlich quote, according to Bugliosi's reference number is from page 43 of Edward Jay Epstein's 1966 book "Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth.")

I will insert the citation.Canada Jack (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence as it now stands, thanks to Canada Jack's last revision, should be acceptable to conspiracy theorists and non-conspiracy theorists alike. Good work. I'm tempted to replace the word "suggested" with "argued," but this is a minor concern. It seems to me that some of the foregoing discussion really belongs on the discussion page for the Single Bullet Theory article, though. That's the best place for discussing the evidence on either side in relation to a Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.230.123 (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My main concern initially was the claim that Specter came up with the single bullet theory which is a claim that may not be true, or at least needs some clarification. However, upon looking at what is on the single bullet theory page, I realize that much of the context which is discussed above is lacking, ie., why the Warren Commission came up with the theory is not mentioned, and this, I feel, should be discussed. Perhaps I will bring this up on the relevant page. Canada Jack (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Account on Spector's Representation of Ira Einhorn

The article makes a reference to Spector having represented Ira Einhorn 'prior to having become district attorney' with reference to Einhorn's conviction in the 1977 murder of Holly Maddux, but this clearly was after Spector's initial election to the post of DA in 1965. See the article on Ira Einhorn for additional detail. This needs to be researched and reconciled. This also suggests there be short additional coverage of Spector's history (if any) as a defense attorney, and the type of law he practiced privately, which would strengthen the background. MariaMitchell (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Publications?

I was going through my library of books and found this text: "Police Guide to Search and Seizure, Interrogation and Confession", by Arlen Specter and Marvin Katz (copyright 1967 by the authors and published by the Chilton Company). On the last page of the pamphlet (p. 64), the text identifies Specter (among other things) as the DA in Philadelphia (we already show this in the wiki-article), and it also says that "Marvin Katz is a lawyer in private practice in Philadelphia and is a member of the Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Bar Associations. Educated at the University of Pennsylvania and Yale Law School, he was an Editor of the Yale Law Journal from 1952-1954.

Does this publication have a place in the Specter article? Maybe we can afford a "publications" section at the bottom...

—Kanodin (talk to me / slap me) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Political Positions

I would really like to see more about his political positions, not just his past. The guy is coming up for a tough 2010 reelection campaign and I think it would add to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.225.63 (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Section on Spygate

It's extremely biased and offers little about what actually happened. Most of it is just claims that he has a conflict of interest, etc. Enigma ^message 19:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Polish Jokes

In December he has told some offensive Polish jokes, which was brought to the attention of media; he later apologized to the Polish minority. Ref. I wonder if this should be added to the controversies section? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should--Retracted (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Negative comments posted re Specter & Stimulus Package

Within fifteen minutes of Sen Specter and Collins coming out in favor of the Stimulus Package (on the GOP side), 75.73.147.116 modified the page to read the [Specter] "is a traitor." I removed the comment.

Shadow Two (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"stimulus" is misspelled in a header I don't know how to change it while the article is under protection. Arjadre (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)arjadre

Switching Parties

The AP just reported that sources say Specter intends to switch parties. I'd still suggest waiting on published reports before making any changes, though. Dayewalker (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/specter-will-run-as-a-democrat-in-2010/

Washington Post http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/specter-to-switch-parties.html

Agreed. It's already reads "Democratic" in the infobox. Any word on whether this switch is effective as of today? The sources are silent on that. For example, Jeffords annouced in early May 2001 he would switch, but the swith did not occur until June 6, 2001.DCmacnut<> 16:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is also a very right wing bias point of view and the way it was written, the neutrality of his switching parties section should be examined. Liberal and Promised should be reexamined. He did not promise to run as a Republican, we was quoted as saying that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.166.190.124 (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected the lede to tone down the POV phrasing.DCmacnut<> 17:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The most neutral, NPOV way to report on his promise to run as a Republican is to quote his exact words. It's a fact that he said those words. So I added them to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Grundle, I agree that the whole quote is more appropriate, but in adding it you removed the point that his March statement referred to whether he would run as an Independent - so I reinstated that part. The whole thing is now in the 2010 senate section. Tvoz/talk 02:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Specter should not yet be listed as a Democrat, because here, on the Senate website he still has an R next to his name. Additionally, (although this isn't sourced), I watched Specter's press conference yesterday, and he stated that he cannot change his registration in Pennsylvania until May. However, the Senate website, I believe, is sufficient sourcing. The listing of Specter as a Democrat or as a member of the Democratic Party is premature and should be reversed. Penthamontar (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Specter's press conference, where he states that he has not yet changed registration, can be viewed here. Penthamontar (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all material in the article that states that Specter is already a Democrat. I apologize for not building consensus, but I believe that my actions are fully justified and encouraged under WP:BOLP. This is because I can find no source that states that Specter is, now, a Democrat, and the Senate website lists him as a Republican. Penthamontar (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Senate webmaster is slow to update the website is outweighed by Specter publicly stating that he will run in the PA Democratic primary and Reid stating that Specter will keep his seniority in the Democratic caucus. Specter is no longer a Republican. Rillian (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Senate website has changed. Penthamontar (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

Quite an onslaught of edits coming about the party switch. Any thoughts about whether the page should be temporarily semi-protected? -Pete (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be, but, who am I...? 24.98.20.220 (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Who are you? A valued second opinion. Thanks for your perspective. I've semi'd for a day. -Pete (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If any new or unregistered users would like to propose changes to the article, they are welcome to suggest them on the talk page. You can call attention to such proposals by placing {{editsemiprotected}} before your proposed change. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Minor, but the text "Democratic (2009-) is appearing at the bottom with the footnote, rather than on the table. 68.181.218.75 (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This had already been done by the time I looked at the request, with this edit. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  22:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Caucus with Democrats? Chair of any Senate Committees?

I am supposing that Specter will caucus with the Democrats, but will he become chairman of any Senate committee?

I will see how the semiprotected status works out for this article. I have asked my question, and will await whatever the news produces or other editors learn elsewhere. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

On that note, shouldn't we say that Specter "holds" the committee seats (the page currently says "held") - until we have a source saying that he has been re-assigned? His official U.S. Senate page still lists him as having his "old" committee seats, including being the ranking member of an appropriations subcommittee and the judiciary committee. [1]

To answer Dthomsen8's question, MSNBC reports that he won't assume any chairmanships before the election [2] and the Wall Street Journal confirms that he will maintain his seniority despite switching parties. [3] --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

so what is he right now?

Officially? Dem or Rep? Is he a Republican until 2010 until he runs as a Democrat? Will he caucus with the Dems until then? Lemniwinks (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, just like a normal citizen, Specter is free to change his party designation whenever he wants, so I'd say he's a Democrat.

If you were wondering if the fact he was elected on the Republican line in 2004 is relevant... in the US, votes are explicitly for a person, not a party. The fact that candidates run on party lines is solely an "organizational endorsement" deal. Once elected a Congressperson is free to do whatever they want. For example... In 1994, a bunch of conservative Democratic Representatives, generally from the South, switched to being Republicans so as to stay in the majority (quite important for having power, especially in the House). This was despite the fact that they'd just been reelected as Democrats that very year (Nathan Deal for one example). SnowFire (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a person is officially considered to be part of whatever party they are registered to vote as. therefore I think Specter's switch will be official when he reregisters to vote as a Democrat in Pennsylvania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.68.43 (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As a senator, what is most relevant to his encyclopedia article is which party he caucuses with in the Senate - I'd go by whatever the official Senate website says. Currently it still says "Republican" and the committee listings still show him as the ranking member (e.g. senior member of the minority (Republican) party) in the Committee on the Judiciary. The announcements as I understood them said that he was going to run for re-election as a Democrat, not that he would caucus with them immediately. Additionally, neither the Senate Republican Conference (www.src.gov) nor the Senate Democratic Caucus (democrats.senate.gov) list Specter as having changed parties yet. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

He is not yet a Democrat; see my above comment. Penthamontar (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's official now that he's a Democrat - he's been assigned his committee seats (same committees, unsure about subcommittees) as a Democrat in S.Res. 130. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Equal Justice Act

This bit was in the Specter article:

The bill failed in the 110th Congress due to opposition from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) who blocked the bill and the House-passed Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2007 being placed upon the Senate's unanimous consent calendar for a vote. <ref>MacLean, Norbert Basil III (aka NBM3) Republicans lawmakers in Congress don’t support Supreme Court access for troops, Equal Justice for Troops blog, April 29, 2009 /ref It has been reported that Senator Specter worked tirelessly to clear the Graham block so that America's service members would have equal access to the Supreme Court but was unsuccessful with the Republican cloakroom. ref MacLean, Norbert Basil III (aka NBM3), Chief Senate GOP sponsor of the Equal Justice for United States Military Personnel Act of 2009 to switch parties, Equal Justice for Troops blog, April 28, 2009 /ref

As the (highly partisan) author of the blog in question lives in Australia, does not source his blog posts, and presumably, being badly injured (as it says on the profile), does not nightly totter over to D.C. to hear the latest gossip, and as I have found no evidence on CNN, NY Times or the Washington Post of any news about this bill, or any holds, I am leaving this bit out.

Somercet (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This entire matter was being overemphasized - this is one bill among many that he has sponsored in his Senate career, and not arguably the most prominent. It does not merit a separate subsection, or the repetition within the section - I have shortened it and agree with Somercet that the material referenced by the blog is not reliably sourced, so is removed. The Senate section does not need subsections at all - and the ones that had been added were not accurate (as I said in edit summary, support of Clarence Thomas is not evidence of being a moderate, for example) and the sections were uneven and not particularly neutral. But mostly they are unnecessary at this time. Tvoz/talk 08:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute: Disagree with leaving out Republican holds and Specter’s involvement in attempting to clear holds

The 2007 House-passed bill of the 110th Congress and the favorably reported Senate version were written about in the following newspapers or recognized blogs:

• Army Times: Maze, Rick, Bill would let troops appeal to Supreme Court, Army Times, September 12, 2008

• New York Times: Becker, Bernie, Military Appeals Process is Challenged, New York Times, November 27, 2008, A30

• National Law Journal: Coyle, Marcia, Military appeals lack way to top, The National Law Journal, August 18, 2008, front page

• San Diego Union Tribune: Rogers, Rick, Bill Offers Troops Way to Appeal, San Diego Union Tribune, July 26, 2007

• Wall Street Journal blog: Slater, Dan, Supreme Court Access for Military Members Convicted of Crimes?, Wall Street Journal Law Blog, September 30, 2008

Republican holds on House and Senate bills are reported here:

• CAAFlog (recognized as a respected legal blog by the American Bar Association and Lexis) BIG news: House of Representatives passes bill to expand servicemembers' access to SCOTUS CAAFLOG.com, September 28, 2008

• Legal Times: Palazzolo, Joe, Service Members One Step Closer to SCOTUS Access, The Blog of Legal Times, September 30, 2008

• Los Angeles Daily Journal (reprinted on Equal Justice for Troops): MacLean, Norbert Basil III, Case highlights need for action on service members’ court access, Los Angeles Daily Journal, March 20, 2009, page 6

• Navy Times: Maze, Rick, Appeal rights bill may die in Senate, Navy Times, September 30, 2008 (retrieved October 12, 2008

• National Law Journal: Coyle, Marcia, House approves bill allowing high court petitions by servicemen convicted of crimes, National Law Journal, October 6, 2008

The Australian whose blog, Equal Justice for Troops, you refer to is also an American citizen and U.S. Navy veteran according to the LA Times, Legal Times, NY Times, SD Union Tribune, WSJ. The SDUT reported that he first raised the issue and proposed the legislation. MacLean has also written published commentary about the issue and the legislation in the LA Times, Legal Times, LA Daily Journal and SF Daily Journal. Commentary that MacLean wrote which appeared on page 6 of the Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journals on March 20, 2009 discuss the Republican holds. CAAFlog and Legal Times reported MacLean as the principal moving force behind the legislation. In this regard, citing his blog about Republican holds is reliably sourced. MacLean is a credible source on the issue. It’s also clear given his published commentary of just six weeks ago in two separate daily law publications (LA and SF Daily Journals) that he is in the know on this issue despite his illness and residence in Australia.

The Specter article, at its current posture, does not give any indication why the bill failed. A reader could assume it was due to the Democrats (which is not the case). (Mattwashdc (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Thanks Matt - it is certainly possible that I cut it back too much, and I agree that many of the above sources could be appropriate (I haven't read them yet). My objection to the blog is not because of an Australian connection, but because blogs of that kind (not a newspaper blog, for example) are inherently not reliable sources because of the lack of oversight, etc. So perhaps a bit more should be included as to why the bill has failed to pass, but it should not be as prominent in the article as it had been, because it's not as if this is Specter's cornerstone legislation that is immediately associated with him in people's minds, something like "McCain-Feingold" which is prominently associated with those two individuals. Perhaps a separate article should be written about this bill and/or about the problem that this bill is addressing - or perhaps there is another article that addresses similar matters where a detailed explanation of this bill would be appropriate. But this is Specter's biography, and this is just one of the many bills he supported or sponsored. So my edits were designed to give it appropriate weight, eliminate an unreliable source, and what I wanted is to keep it focused on Specter - if I went too far, I am certainly open to correcting that. But I don't think we should go back to what you had there, in this article. I'd like to hear what others think too. Tvoz/talk 19:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Specter & death penalty

In the "Early years" section the current entry says "Although a death penalty supporter, as prosecutor he questioned the fairness of the Pennsylvania death penalty statute in 1972.[12]"

However the cited footnote (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,712208,00.html) says he & Sprague argued that the law was being interpreted 'fairly'

I dont think that the Time article really supports the point that he "questioned the fairness of the Pennsylvania death penalty", especially as the use of the word 'although' in the wiki article seems to me to indicate that the arguement he & Sprague were making was that the law WAS being arbitarily imposed when it seems to me that the cited article says they were argueing the opposite

I hope this post is in line with the guidelines, I'm new to this sort of thing

80.249.48.109 (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC) mark p

Jewish

Why is the only mention of him being Jewish a small line on the infobox. As a Jew I think this should be mentioned in the article itself, maybe some mention of just how religious he is, how it may have influenced his more liberal or conservative views, how has he felt about the social Christian conservative movement in the Republican Party, does the fact that Judaism allows abortion influenced him on that issue, what about death penalty. Is there a reason any of that hasnt been looked into and added? Has someone already thought about all that and didnt find any sources on any of it?Camelbinky (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

First, it is also clearly mentioned in the narrative, in the "Early life" section where we tend to include such things in our biographies. Secondly, if there are reliable sources that discuss his religious beliefs and how they have affected his views I think that would be quite welcome in this article - at least I would argue in favor of it. I don't see anything in the article's talk archives about any discussion of this, so it isn't that sources were presented and rejected as far as I can see. If you find appropriate material, sourced in an acceptable way (see WP:RS), by all means bring it here and let's see how it fits - either directly into the article or here on Talk. I am interested in the subject as well, and will see if I find anything too when I have a chance. But please do look into it. Tvoz/talk 19:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Note, though, that of course I don't mean original research or synthesis - we need sources that make the connection between Specter's personal religious beliefs and his political positions, not speculation that "since Judaism allows such and such, and Specter is Jewish (or and Specter is an observant Jew if he is), then therefore Specter's position on such-and-such is a result of his religion." Unless reliable sources are making the connection, we can't include that kind of speculative statement. Tvoz/talk 20:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I hadnt noticed that one sentence mention that he was raised Jewish. And to clarify I did not mean to seem like I was promoting OR or any type of synthesis, I just thought it was strange that nobody ever seemed to have researched (I use the word research for finding references and sources, not OR, some people jump down my throat for that). The Republican Party is not exactly known for having alot of Jews and IS known for Christian Conservativism, so I just assume that it mustve come up at some point in his career, his electorate is the same as that which voted a majority for Rick Santorum. I just was curious if anyone had looked and simply didnt find anything on the web or in newspaper archives. I'm too busy working on getting other articles I care more about up to GA level so I dont have time, but I hope others read this and think, "oh yea, that's a good thing to research" and then have the time to do it. Good luck!Camelbinky (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Spector's external links didn't previously have a section for "critics" as David Barton's entry does, which entry has Spector's false accusation, making him a false Jew.75.139.214.136 (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

nitwit?

First time editing, but i've noticed that in the first sentence it said "american politician, senator, and nitwit." I've removed the "nitwit" portion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ireallyneedanewsn (talk • contribs) 00:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ntwitt seems valid89.241.78.114 (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page has been vandalized. The entire text now reads variations of "Wait a minute", an obvious reference to yesterday's town hall meeting in Pennsylvania. I have no idea what to do about this, so I thought I'd just state the obvious. StanHater (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it. Brothejr (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. StanHater (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Junior or senior

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/06/new-democrat-specter-loses-commitee-seniority/

So does that mean he's a junior senator now? I'm a little confused about what all this means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amn12 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "junior senator" refers to the senator of two representing a single state who has served in the Senate for less time. Pennsylvania's two senators are Specter and Casey. Since Specter has served in the Senate longer than Casey, Specter is still "the senior U.S. senator from Pennsylvania."

Furthermore, senators have at least two other kinds of seniority -- seniority within the Senate as a whole and seniority within his or her own party caucus. By changing parties, Specter doesn't lose his seniority within the Senate as a whole, but in order to keep committee assignments/chairmanships/etc., he had to negotiate with the Democratic leadership what his seniority would be in the party caucus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.79.35.227 (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

less enthusiastic

"in recent years has been less enthusiastic about weakening consumer protection laws than many members of his party" - I don't see any source for this and am curious what "less enthusiastic" means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.250.85 (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Arlen Specter seemed enthusiastic today when he told conservative Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota to "act like a lady." Heatonbb (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Should "Specter is engaged in a competitive Democratic primary in 2010 against Congressman Joe Sestak. In general election polling, Specter has been shown to face a competitive re-election bid against former Republican Congressman Pat Toomey. Arlen Specter was treated for Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2005 and 2008. He is currently in remission" be in the introduction? They would be more appropriately placed in the body of the article. Myownworst (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the aforementioned parts from the introduction for the time being. If anyone thinks it should remain, please respond to me here. Myownworst (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Badly written

The following sentence is very badly written.

Specter is a Democrat, but was a Republican from 1965 (when he changed parties in order to challenge the Democratic district attorney of Philadelphia[2]) until switching back to the Democratic Party in 2009.

I suggest that break it into two sentences and remove the parenthesis. -- A. L. M. 12:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal life

I dont think his Hodgins Disease deserves its own section. I suggest combining it with the early life section and making it a "Personal Life" section. Triggafinga (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Initiative to bring Saudis to court over 9/11

On December 26, 2009 Specter introduced legislation that would revoke the ban on litigation against Saudi Arabia for complicity in the terror attacks. There are several news stories detailing this. I found this at Current.com. Isn't this significant enough to warrant presentation in our article? __meco (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Controversial" single bullet theory

I removed the word 'controversial' from the statement concerning the senator's authorship of the single bullet theory. Although it may have been a controversial theory at the time or among a specific subset of the population, I don't know that this concern is widely held enough to justify the blanket declaration of controversy. If you want to allude to controversy, perhaps we could do so in a separate sentence with more elaboration concerning who finds this theory controversial; ideally, have citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.132.205 (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the sentence that said that the single bullet theory was crucial to the lone assassin thesis. I know it quoted a book, but I have Bugliosi's page 456 in front of me and it certainly says no such thing! Actually, the author repeatedly points to the observation made by the WC that the single bullet is *not* crucial to the conclusion that all the shots came from Oswald's position (even though Bugliosi has zero doubts about the SBT). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.251.19 (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

End of Senate Career

Please stop changing the end of Specter's Senate career to the innocuous "His career in the Senate ended on Jan 3, 2011. He was succeeded by Pat Toomey." That implies that he simply retired and didn't run again. He DID run, and he LOST a re-election bid. It happened. I'm sure some of Specter's supporters don't LIKE that it happened, but it still happened, and thus absolutely deserves to be mentioned right where it is. It's not fair to either Pat Toomey OR Joe Sestak to ignore this fact.

Yes, I'm well aware that this is covered in the 2010 Campaign section, but it's BARELY covered, and the details are much more concerned in that section with his switch from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party (as it should be.) Timber72 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Military career

In the text it states he reached the rank of second lieutenant in the Air Force, but the infobox shows a rank of first lieutenant. Does anyone happen to know why these are different? Chris La Mantia (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

In The News-nomination.

I have nominated this article for posting at In The News. If you have updated it since Specter's death you can add yourself as an updater by editing the template at the top of the nomination. You can edit the nomination here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Arlen_Specter_for_Recent_Deaths_ticker μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arlen Specter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DCI2026 (talk · contribs) 17:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I will begin this review as soon as I finish reviewing Nagore Dargah. dci | TALK 17:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Content review

• The lead is good. It's of appropriate length and reads well. dci | TALK 00:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Early life –
  • I wouldn't mind seeing a few more sources in the second paragraph; for example, after the part about his father's WWI injury.
  • Would it not be best to have a separate "Personal life" section? I understand it would be short, but I'm not sure the information in the last paragraph pertains to his early life.
• Early political career –

Remaining GA criteria

• No problems with article focus. dci | TALK 00:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• No issues with image copyrights; all's well on that front. dci | TALK 00:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• No problems with neutrality or stability. dci | TALK 00:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Update

I understand it's been a while, but I'm not seeing any real obstacles to passing the article. There's nothing of note to comment on in the remaining parts of the article; prose is clear and abides by MOS throughout, and comments made under "Remaining GA critera" remain true throughout. I will pass the article. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Danke schὂn! Go Phightins! 21:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)