Talk:Jim Inhofe/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Koch Industries

I have reverted today's two-minute hate on Koch Industries because it fundamentally misrepresents the data from the Center for Responsive Politics (Open Secrets). There is a disclaimer at the bottom of the page which states: "The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates." Therefore, the claim that Koch Industries is Inhofe's top contributor is incorrect. The PAC and individual donations from Koch Industries employees (aggregated) are Inhofe's largest contributor, but neither the company nor any of its individual employees are at the top. The PAC is the tenth largest PAC contributor, and while the individuals are the largest (as an aggregate), that does not equate to the company being the donor, as implied by the link in the reverted edit. Horologium (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I used your exact wording above. No barometer of intelligence (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The wording is now acceptable to me and I won't revert it, although I still fail to understand why it's significant. Every candidate for congress has a top contributor, but few of their articles on Wikipedia specify who or what it is. And FWIW, the aspersions you cast upon me in your edit summary on the article page are noted and not appreciated. I feel the same way, but I didn't feel the need to use the edit summary (which cannot be refactored or struck) for a passive-aggressive slap at an editor with whom I have a content dispute. Horologium (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Grouping a PAC and all of a group's members into an "aggregate" claim is silly -- in such a case the largest "aggregate" group is "registered Republicans." Making an artificial group, no matter by whom, is SYNTH at best. Collect (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you here, Collect. It's not synthesis because CRP has made the connection for us. It's arbitrary, and is just being misused to turn the Koch brothers into the real-life analogue of Emmanuel Goldstein, but it's not synthesis. I think it is more a case of WP:UNDUE, and am considering submitting a request to the BLP or NPOV noticeboards. Much as I dislike this individual (and I do), BLP concerns are paramount, and the same holds for the Kochs. Horologium (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought the link was to a set of "search results" and not to an article from CRP? Collect (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I just added a secondary source from 2008 which says, "A strong ally of the oil and gas industries, he has received more than $1 million in campaign contributions from that sector during his time in office -- more than twice as much as any other source, according to the watchdog organization Center for Responsive Politics. His single largest donor during the current campaign cycle has been an oil-related firm, Koch Industries."   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

As worded, it specifically states the company made the donations then? Collect (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

When reporters say that "XYZ Industries" donated to a politician, they almost always mean the company's PAC. (At least in the days before "Citizens United"). However you can interpret this text as well as I can.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

IOW if a reporter makes an allegation which on its face is a felony, we should simply repeat it? Interesting sort of belief, that. The cite, btw, is not an "article" but a "search result" The Koch Industries PAC is ranked number 8 on the PAC list for Imhofe. Clearly we should then also indicate all the PACs with higher donations if we are to be intellectually honest. Or do you really think not a single NRA member made a donation? Really? It looks like the Koch group was singled out, but the members of the other organizations do not exist? Neat! Collect (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What source do you have for Koch Industries being ranked 8th in contributions to Inhofe?   Will Beback  talk  01:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually the PAC was number 10 according to CPR. Using the source cited. Meanwhile, I suggest that some memebrs of the AMA likely gave some money etc. Assuming that the "0" in any column means "no money" is not asserted by the CPR at all, and thus should not be asserted by Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The citation is to an article that says "His single largest donor during the current campaign cycle has been an oil-related firm, Koch Industries.", and to the Open Secrets site[1] which says the same thing. I'm going to restore the sourced language. If someone finds a secondary source which asserts some other figures then we can add that too.   Will Beback  talk  16:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The secondary source is incorrect, as it references the CPR website, and (just like one of the editors here), assumes that "Koch Industries" means the company. Will, your wording avoids that pitfall, and as I said, I don't have any problem with its factual accuracy. I do thought that it violates WP:UNDUE, however: the amount donated to Inhofe from Koch Industries employees and the company's PAC amounts to less than one half of one percent of the $16,400,000 he has raised throughout his congressional career. In spite of that tiny percentage, we have an entire sentence dedicated specifically to Koch Industries and its employees; the preceding sentence (the rest of the paragraph) is written to provide cover for the Koch sentence. Both should be removed. Horologium (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you're misreading WP:UNDUE. This isn't a fringe view. We shouldn't assume that the subject's most prominent donors are the ones which give the most money. Likewise, if the subject made 100 speeches on fiscal policy which no one reported and one speech on foreign policy which received a lot of attention, we wouldn't be required to give more attention to the fiscal speeches. Our coverage should be proportional to the weight given topics by reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  17:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I will have to disagree with you about weight. It's not a fringe view, but it is not a particularly important part of Jim Inhofe's life and career. And so far, I've not seen a great deal of coverage in reliable sources about the minuscule proportion of contributions which come from Koch Industries, et al (the blogosphere, which is kicking up a storm of biblical proportions, doesn't count). As Koch Industries (and its employees and its PAC) are the 87th biggest donor to federal campaigns ($9 Million over the past 21 years, never more than $1.9M in any cycle), they don't have anywhere near the expenditures of left-leaning groups such as ActBlue or right-leaning groups such as Altria. Few, if any, BLPs of congressional representatives or senators discuss their donors in such excruciating detail, and I don't see why this senator should be treated any differently. Horologium (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Listing a career politician's biggest donor doesn't seem like excess detail. If there are sources which say that these contributions to Inhofe are miniscule then let's add those too.   Will Beback  talk  18:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that we need to resort to such a cumbersome wording (listing the PAC, and then the employees' contributions, and noting that they have to be combined to make them the largest) emphasizes that someone is working overtime to work this into the article. If we were talking about a single person or PAC contributing the sum, that would be one thing, but this is a conglomeration of an unknown number of individual donors. Another exception could be considered if the total contributed by any group was unusually large in comparison to other groups; that is not the case here, as the PAC is the tenth largest PAC donor, and the individual donations exceed the next highest group by less than $3000. Horologium (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

We just could go with the secondary source which simply says that Koch Industries is the largest contributor to Inhofe's campaigns. We're making this more complex than it needs to be.   Will Beback  talk  19:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already pointed out that the secondary source is wrong,(and how) and trying to rely on that alone will result in some type of dispute resolution. Horologium (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I don't quite understand how it's wrong. When people make donations over $200 they are required to list their employer. So it's relatively simple to add up the contributions made directly by Koch Industries employees and by the Koch Industries PAC. That's what the CRP does on this page.[2] Are we saying that that page is incorrect?   Will Beback  talk  19:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, but employees of Koch Industries ≠ Koch Industries. Employees are free to contribute to whomever they wish. Look at individual contributions from companies such as Goldman Sachs or Microsoft to see how individual employees often donate substantial sums to differing parties' usually each individual overwhelmingly supports one party or the other. The end result, however, is often somewhat mixed. Certain companies or industries, however, are targeted by a party, which tends to make their contributions skew one way or the other. Lawyers and labor unions generally support the Dems, while energy and tobacco companies are more likely to support the Republicans, but I'm sure that there are examples of each where employees support the "other side". Horologium (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's all correct. But I don't see how that invalidates the assertion made by this source. At the end of the day, the owners and employees of Koch Industries gave more to Inhofe than any other identifiable group, according to the CRP, and that fact was notable enough to appear in a secondary source.   Will Beback  talk  20:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say that; it lists ALL of the "identifiable groups"; it doesn't single out Koch Industries (PAC and employees) for special treatment, and as I have repeatedly stated, that secondary source misrepresents the data from CRP (and I have explained how it does so), and is therefore not an acceptable source. Horologium (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Media references to the contributions of a company have traditionally been a shorthand for contributions by the company's employees and/or owners and related PACs. I don't think that's inaccurate, just a standard practice. I'm sure I could find a dozen similar references in unimpeachably reliable sources regarding other candidates and companies. That seems like nit-picking.   Will Beback  talk  07:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Most of the PACs listed show no individual contributions listed, including the Aircraft Owners & Pilots, UPS, National Assn. of Realtors, the NRA, AMA, and National Auto Dealers Assn.

Which source says this? It seems like a bit of a reach.   Will Beback  talk  18:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason that those groups lack individual donations is because they don't employ many people; they are industry or interest groups, not employers. The PACs representing groups with individual donations are all those of companies which employ substantial numbers of people. CRP's donor lookup relies on employer data provided by the donors, not to which interest groups they belong. Horologium (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Might you note that the AMA shows absolutely ZERO member contributions to Imhofe? Do you really think not a single doctor in the entire US made a donation? Not a single Realtor made a contribution? Not a single pilot made a contribution? Most PACs represent common interest groups in point of fact - and are not contributions by an employer. BTW, last I looked, UPS has a substantial number of employees (well over four hundred thousand) - and not a single one contributed?! The material about employers is clearly not complete, and so saying or implying that it is is clearly contrary to common sense, and CONTRARY to what the site says. And, contrary to the inane "citation needed" bit - the amounts of ZERO are clearly shown on the cited page - it is silly to say that where a page says "0" that a citation is needed separately to show the "0". Collect (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying that you think Open Secrets/CRP is an unreliable source for campaign finance info?   Will Beback  talk  19:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, but Collect is a bit confused here. Contributions to PACs will show up as PAC contributions to the candidate. Individual donations are sorted by EMPLOYER, not interest group. 100,000 doctors individually donating to Coburn would not show up on the list, because individual donations are from individuals, and the donor lookup uses employer data. It doesn't look at occupation, such as "doctor", "pilot", or "realtor". As to UPS and its missing employee donations, total donations from a single individual to a single candidate of less than $200 don't need to be reported individually, and I'm willing to bet that UPS doesn't have people who are donating large sums to any single candidate. For example, the $20 contribution I made to a candidate in 2000 does not show up on any contribution list, because it didn't meet the reporting threshold; the candidate's campaign simply had to note a $20 donation was made. I'm not sure if I'm making this any clearer. Horologium (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

So far as I know, all of that is correct. However none of that invalidates the source. It's just how campaign contributions are reported. If we have a source which says that doctors or pilots gave more money than Koch Industries then we can add that too.   Will Beback  talk  20:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)In which case not a single one of UPS' 400K+ employees made a contribution to Imhofe. Nope - the cite specifically states that all it deals with is what was reported to the FEC. It makes no claims otherwise at all. And I would suggest we should also link to the list of PACS contributing to his opponent. I am willing to bet some interesting overlaps exist. And all I state is that the contributions total for Koch is not directly comparable to the PACS for which zero other individual contributions are sorted in the FEC records. Seems like that would be quite non-contentious, and fully sourced to boot. BTW, Will, rraising "straw issues" is not called for here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Note [3] individual contributions from 13 other groups topped the Koch employee contributions. Single largest group is "retired." "Health professionals" is pretty high on the list as well. Unless the article for some reason must mention Koch and no one else, I suggest this page also be added. Reliable source relevant to campaign contributions. I trust, of course, that the reason for the current mention has nothing to do with pushing the "Koch" connection into every possible article on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a different list. In that list the Oil & Gas industry, of which Koch is a part, is still on top.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Of which Koch is a part" is a very weak argument indeed. They were less than half that industry's total, in fact, and singling them out is not really relevant for the Inhofe BLP, and more a sign that an editor or editors actively inserting Koch in various articles thought it was a good idea to insert them here as well. Searching for various lists and choosing a contributor which is not even half the amount, and then synthesizing it into "Oil and Gas gave money, and Koch was a big contributor within that group is sufficient to say Koch is somehow a really really big contributor" is COATRACK at best, likely SYNTH and OR combined, and invalid in a third party BLP. Neat! Collect (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Summarizing what a source says is not SYNTH. Adding material directly relevant to the subject's political campaigning, as found in secondary sources, is not COATRACK. Nobody has suggested the language ou post, so that seems like a strawman. The text in the article is a neutral summary that does not violate any Wikipedia policy.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You are taking a search result and then imputing material from a table and not stated as a text claim. Would you allow me to cite a table and make statements based on the data in the table? Not likely. Heck, you found me citing Time for a journalist writing an anti-smoking article in Time to be "demeaning" of all things! We are grossly abusing CRP for the claims you seek to add here, and it is not an RS for the claim as you assert the claim. Cheers. At least I am consisten as to what is proper and improper in a BLP. Collect (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Collect, please be truthful. I never said that reporting a smoking was demeaning.   Will Beback  [[User talk:Will

Beback|talk]]  00:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To be precise you wrote: Picking out one for mention might be a cherry-picking issue unless there are independent sources to show that one is more noteworthy than the rest referring to my noting her anti-smoking article in Time. RD232 wrote: This is just part of a pretty self-evident campaign by Collect to denigrate a respected journalist.

I still fail to see how noting an anti-smoking article denigrates anyone at all.

You stated that you knew of no BLPs noting that a famous person (in this case a journalist) had been a debutante (I had not used that word, by the way). I pointed out that many famous people (well over a hundred on Wikipedia) had that fact noted, including famous authors and journalists. Seems that the NYT is no good as a reliable source, but tables from seach functions at CRP are reliable sources LOL! Collect (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So do you admit that I never said it was "demeaning" and that you made that up? I really don't see what any of of this has to do with this topic. Nobody is claiming Inhofe was a debutante, but if you have sources for it go ahead and add it. ;)   Will Beback  talk  07:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize to the Wikipedia editor community for my recent conduct on this article. Reviewing the chain of events, my original mention of the Koch brothers was not supported by the citation I used, and then the various reversions and revisions (with accompanying snarky edit descriptions) were no better. It's no excuse, but I think I was suffering from some displaced anger caused by chronic pain. Like I said, no excuse, just a feeble effort at explanation. I've recused myself from this article, and I don't edit any other climate change or Koch-related articles, so hopefully I will be of no more trouble on this matter. No barometer of intelligence (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Two of the four Koch Brother siblings, Charles de Ganahl Koch and David H. Koch, own a substantial majority of corporate shares of and control Koch Industries. The donations are nominally bipartisan, but in fact greatly favor Republicans, and conservative Republicans in primaries over more moderate ones. When it is useful to them, they also direct contributions made from their subsidiaries. In addition to that, organizations which they have founded, co-founded and/or have been the main financial backer at various times, have shown the same favoritism in terms of their support or opposition. These include of course, Americans for Prosperity, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Club for Growth, etc.

Inhofe draws particular support from them because of his congressional leadership in climate change denialism, a key issue for them.

Perhaps an analysis of state contributions will be helpful. Records of same posted by the National Institute on Money in State Politics can clarify this giving. Their website lists contributions made between 2004 and 2010 to 124 Kansas state (not federal) candidates. That number represents overwhelmingly Republican recipients and the donations made to Republicans tend to be far larger than those made to Democrats. In addition to that, many wholly owned and other subsidiaries (which also appear to file taxes as "S" corporations) and individuals connected to ownership or upper management make large direct contributions ($1,000 or more) to a much narrower group of candidates.

These seem to include the following PACs: Flint Hills Resources, Koch Chemical Technology Group, Invista, Koch Mineral Services, Koch Supply and Trading, Koch Cellulose and Koch Exploration. Each of those contributed to the theocratic former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline for instance. Koch Industries also directly contributed $75,000 to the Kansas Republican party during this period, and $2,000 to the Kansas Republican Senatorial Committee. Each of these entities gave to Kline's primary and/or general campaigns, as did Mr. and Mrs. David and Mr. and Mrs. Charles Koch.

Insiders making many $1,000-$2,000 contributions to individuals include Charles G. Koch and his wife, Elizabeth Buzzi Koch, David H. Koch and his wife Julia F. Koch, and executives (President/CEO) Mike Morgan and (Governmental Relations Director) David Robertson.

Thus, to suggest that it is unfair to note an aggregated but very narrow source of contributions, or a pattern of such contributions, such as exists with the Koch PACs and insiders, seems somewhat disingenuous. Activist (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Motive item to add?

• Inhofe admits — global warming argument all about money, not science March 16, 2012 Skeptic (U.S. magazine) 99.181.140.167 (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems rather thin and could be explained as the cost driving him to uncover a deeper truth or something. Hcobb (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thin maybe, but I don't see your other comment from the link. Please comment further. 99.181.136.208 (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm putting it forwards as a possible explanation of his comment. When we have multiple possible readings then choosing one by ourselves is OR. Let's see a more RS dig into this and uncover some vast right wing conspiracy before adding this. What we need to avoid is an automatic conviction of the man on the charge of changing his convictions purely for 40 pieces of silver. Maybe the silver was only enough to get him to reconsider the issue and dig deeper to find truths beyond the main current of the lamestream media. Hcobb (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What "vast right-wing conspiracy"? 99.181.159.214 (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(od) So what is the reason to not add? 99.181.132.75 (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What "lamestream media"? 99.181.133.134 (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why "40 pieces of silver"? 108.195.138.171 (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"Environmental Issues"

The article engages in the fallacy of false equivalence in this section by giving equal credence and attention to Inhofe's position on climate change denial: "On the other hand, Inhofe's view on climate change have been praised by Australian geophysicist and climate change skeptic Bob Carter, who says that Inhofe "has been instrumental in making sure that some of the other side of the story on climate change remains in the public domain"

There are not two equal sides to the climate change "story". There is scientific consensus among tens of thousands of scientists, and there are a handful of marginally-qualified skeptics. This does not merit equal coverage or emphasis.

The page should be edited to sound less like a piece of low-quality cable TV "he-said, she-said" journalism and more like a real encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.244.123 (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the expressed concern, but I think that under both Wikipedia's policies for WP:BLP and as a matter of good encyclopedic practice, it is reasonable and desirable to provide the "other side", even if it does not have substantial scientific support. Inhofe is appropriately described in the article as a significant climate change denier, and the quote substantiates his role in that regard while still making clear that the scientific consensus is strongly against him.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2012

External links, CongLinks template, change to washpo = gIQASu669O 184.78.81.245 (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing out the broken link! Sailsbystars (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Link on Separation of Church and State broken

The link that backs up his claim of "Separation of Church and State" being the biggest hoax ever is broken, and since it is the only source that seems to claim this, I think the line "Inhofe had previously stated that Global Warming is "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state," should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concchambers (talk • contribs) 05:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• An alternate link to the cited source was easily found by a quick Google search; I've updated the link. This quote is also found in a January 21, 2005 Bloomberg news story.[4] So removing the quote is not warranted.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And here I was happy that such an assertion could certainly have not been made by a U.S. senator. Thanks for updating the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concchambers (talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Defense Opinion in Section on Taxpayer-funded travel

The following defense-related line was tacked on the the end of the Taxpayer-Funded Travel section.

“ In 2012, Inhofe said that Obama's plan for "developing a new stealth bomber" meant "terminating the next-generation bomber" ”

It should be moved to an appropriate section (even if newly created) or deleted. Arbalest Mike (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Death of Son

Since this article is protected, I want to inform the administrators who edit this page that today (November 11, 2013), Inhofe's son was killed in a plane crash outside Tulsa, Oklahoma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaKardii (talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

This article needs to be written to provide a neutral point of view of the Senator. This article is written from a liberal and critical ppoint of view, very different than articles about liberal senators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.22.24.23 (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is 'locked', but should be edited from a non-biased point of view. For example, highlighting his stance on marriage, and saying his is 'hostile' to Gay issues is very biased. Rodchen (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

2014

And what would you say otherwise? He hates "gays"? He is anti-gay in the same way that southern whites were anti-black in 1900... it's really pretty simple... He is probably one of the most bigoted people currently in politics. Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the first thing that ought to be done to unbias the article and make it encyclopaedic is to have the name of the article reflecting his formal name. This should be not a campaign advertisement which it currently is. That goes for any politician that is listed in an encyclopaedia by their "buddy name". Jim is his "election name", I take it? Is it the name his handlers have given him to personalize him? It was what they do in the state of New York... Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME... AnonMoos (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Spin within the Global warming denier section?

The opening lines of that section read "Inhofe, former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, does not believe that human activities cause climate change,[33] despite consensus of scientific opinion that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities.[34] In The Republican War on Science, Chris Mooney stated that Inhofe "politicizes and misuses the science of climate change".[35]" Those last two lines add a completely unnecessary left-winged commentary on Mr. Inhofe's view on climate change, using a VERY anti Republican document as a source. Regardless of your stance on Mr. Inhofe and his views, this is not appropriate in an unbiased publication, and I believe they should be removed. To avoid starting a war, I decided to make a post here. A politician's wikipedia page is NOT the correct place to discuss Climate Change or its validity. Kude90 (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Kude90, fair point; that source appears to be critical of the Senator and his party's views on this topic. It's nice to have the wikilinks, though; keeping the encyclopedia interconnected; let's try to keep those. What would you propose? It looks like we should simply add another sentence supporting the Senator and his views. Do you have a source? Prhartcom (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I propose removal of the "despite consensus of scientific opinion that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" phrase entirely. There are other more appropriate articles/places for the discussion on global warming, and its validity or lack thereof. Furthermore, I don't think "The Republican War on Science" can be perceived as an unbiased source of information on a Republican Senator. I think that should be either reinforced with a more neutral source, or removed entirely. Kude90 (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Inhofe's opinions on this are at best fringe, and under WP:WEIGHT policy should be clearly shown as such, with the majority view explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it. As for Chris Mooney's analysis, coverage of it is appropriate. While that doesn't have to be in the opening paragraph, it does at least set the context for the subsequent repetition of misinformation from Inhofe which otherwise tends to give "equal validity" to his fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 10:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. The purpose of WP is not to right great wrongs. I also removed a non-rs from right-wing watch. Arzel (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree on proposing removal of "... despite consensus of scientific opinion that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities..." This is neither a true nor factual statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.126.170 (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not required to be "neutral" between the assertion that the earth is flat and the assertion that the earth is quasi-spherical. Climate denialism is not at the flat earth stage of discreditation yet, but it's steadily moving in that direction... AnonMoos (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. The purpose of WP is not to right great wrongs. Arzel (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we must remove the "attack statement" and I agree with Arzel's edit to remove it. I reverted Arzel's attempt to remove Senator Inhofe's statement that climate change is a hoax and his "God's still up there" quote. The Senator did make this statement and is quite well-known for it. Wikipedia is not censored; we must be true to the facts. I will add a supporting source to this statement. Prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Environmental issues

There are a lot of things wrong with Dave souza's recent additions to the "Environmental issues" subsection, the most notable being that it's way, way, way too detailed (and therefore unencyclopedic). A whole soapbox-y paragraph devoted to the rhetoric used in a single speech by a flamethowing veteran senator is, in my view, blatantly against WP:BALASPS. I don't see anything especially noteworthy about this speech. The fact that the paragraph has to rely on the GPO transcript is evidence of its non-noteworthiness. Then in the next paragraph we have a 5-line quote (waaaay too long) sourced to a broken link at Tulsa World. I don't understand how any of this content adds to the section. In my view both paragraphs should be removed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Multiple reliable secondary sources refer specifically to this speech, and it is pointed out as the start of Inhofe's hoax allegations which are clearly noteworthy. Given time, I'll provide a secondary source and trim the second part of the paragraph to points noted in that source, while showing context.

The version you previously reverted to had severe problems of dead sources and over-reliance on primary sources. If you want to contest these points, please be specific and show secondary sources supporting your views.

I agree that the remainder of the section wanders about and should be tightened, which I'll work on improving. As for balancing aspects, these have to be shown in the context of Inhofe's position with due weight to the science Inhofe is disputing, and not presented to give his fringe views "equal validity" without context.

As you may note, I've already trimmed my proposed wording considerably, while still summarising the secondary sourced issues. Please discuss any specific wording you think should be trimmed. . . dave souza, talk 23:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not deleted both paragraphs altogether? If the sole significance of the speech is that it was first time Inhofe alleged a hoax, then 3 points: (1) our content doesn't even say that, (2) it says a lot more than that, and (3) it doesn't seem very noteworthy; the point is that he believes global warming is a hoax, not when he first started saying that. And the fact that he believes global warming is a hoax is already covered in the preceding paragraph. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This is still in progress, the 2003 speech and hearing are described in various sources as famous, and as a seminal point in his career should be outlined in sufficient depth. Some of the remainder is indeed a bit prolix, I've trimmed the 2006 interview with Tulsa World drastically and will review what it and other paragraphs contribute. Some aspects need more coverage, so I'll integrate that.

As for WP:BALASPS, environmental and particularly climate issues are clearly central to his career post 2002. The Israel section follows, with a massive amount of quotation from primary source material based on a couple of speeches he gave in 2002. That looks completely disproportionate, do you want to trim it? . . dave souza, talk 07:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

A 2009 article in The Daily Beast by Denver Nicks is a good source for facts and weight of facts on Inhofe. Yopienso (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, from WP:RSN apparently The Daily Beast is reliable as a source of opinion, and Denver Nicks does look like a source of informed opinion. Mostly about other aspects of Inhofe's career, it does support the importance of the climate topic area: "Sen. Inhofe is perhaps most notorious for his contentious position on global warming." It gives a second view on some of the quotes, which is useful. Perhaps worth citing in some of the other sections as well. . . dave souza, talk 09:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC) In particular the Israel section! . . dave souza, talk 10:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I am all for the coverage of Inhofe's positions on global warming. Just not for the extensive coverage of this one particular speech and this one particular interview. Inhofe has made a lot of notable statements about global warming, with no indication that these two in particular are so much more notable than the rest. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The cited sources show otherwise, I've noticed several referring to that 2003 speech and hearing. To add one more, "As I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, "much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science." I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people". Am working on the remainder of the section, in particular there's some difficulty with finding the original of "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state." Since Inhofe's speeches seem to be available online, why not that one? It will be a great help if you can help to confirm the authenticity or otherwise of that quote. . dave souza, talk 19:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Ha! Seems to have come from a telephone interview with Bloomberg, since it's widely repeated we'd better make that clear. . dave souza, talk 19:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sen. Inhofe often participates in a 'gish gallop' of points, which makes any review of them lengthy and less readable. But it would be un-encyclopaedic to leave them stated by hanging. If we're going to mention the 98-1 vote, we should also mention the 59-40 majority-affirm-yet-failure to affirm anthropogenic warming... a single reference would hold both: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/22/gop-senators-admit-climate-change-not-hoax-refuse-blame-humans In this realm, I think this clearly sums up the current context better than the 98-1 he voted for but the 59-40 he voted against. 174.62.68.53 (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to extend this much. Common Dreams looks a bit questionable as a source, and the sequence is rather unclear. The following indicate that the "hoax" amendment was the first vote: "Senate Votes 98-1 That Climate Change 'Is Not A Hoax'". NBC News. 21 January 2015. Retrieved 26 January 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) Goldenberg, Suzanne (22 January 2015). "US Senate refuses to accept humanity's role in global climate change, again". the Guardian. Retrieved 26 January 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) Guess we could add on at the end, cited to NBC: An amendment stating "Climate change is real; and human activity contributes to climate change" was supported by 59 votes to 40, but failed to reach the 60 needed to pass. However, I've not found how Inhofe actually voted on that, so it's less personal. . . dave souza, talk 11:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources issues

I've started removing points that are inadequately sourced that seem to lack broader coverage. One particular paragraph,
Inhofe, while indicating he believed there were uncertainties related to climate science and that mandatory emissions reductions would have an adverse impact on the U.S. economy, voted on June 22, 2005 to reject an amendment to an energy bill that would have forced reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases and created a mandatory emissions trading scheme.<ref: Associated Press. Senate Defeats Move to Cap Climate Gases. June 22, 2005, repeated by NBC News.
ia incoherent, the source seems to only give it a passing mention, and it doesn't look very significant so I'll remove it. Please advise and provide secondary sources if you think these should be reinstated. . . dave souza, talk 20:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as we acknowledge that the Senator's own office is a terrible source for information:

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/exclusive-photos-show-russian-military-in-ukraine-arming-separatists/

Hcobb (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Impartiality of the phrase "conservative media such as Fox"

The phrase "conservative media such as Fox" is unnecessarily contentious and similar phrases would be rejected if they labeled other media outlets as being "liberal". The wording in its current state is already a modification of what is found in the source. Finally, when you revert someone's edit, you should explain why instead of just saying to discuss it in the talk page.--HerbSewell (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

OK removed "such as Fox" bit - all should be good now. Vsmith (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't "media such as Fox" better than "conservative media"? I was able to find several several sources, sources equally notable as the source used here, on various topics that speak of the "liberal media," and then proceed to list as examples various sources, (e.g., Newsmax, The New York Times, and USA TODAY). "Conservative media such as Fox," and "liberal media such as The New York Times" is too contentious, while "conservative media" is vague and also contentious. What is the "conservative media"? Is is media that supposedly has a right-wing bias? Is conservative equivalent to right-wing? Can a media outlet be classified by an adjective which describes its supposed bias? It would be difficult to verify the statement aside from a general reference to media that's conservative, the meaning of which is unclear. This phrase is as objectionable as the phrase, "mainstream media," or "liberal media." It wouldn't even be appropriate to classify media with declared political affiliations as "liberal," or "conservative." Wikipedia should not confirm or deny that we can classify outlets by their political affiliation. On the other hand, naming the specific outlet is verifiable, objective, and unambiguous.--HerbSewell (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

A comprehensive explanation was given here. The current wording is "through his access to conservative media"—that is an accurate and reasonable statement. Are you saying Inhofe has access to non-conservative media? Or there is no such thing as conservative media? Or that conservative is a pejorative label? Would Inhofe be unhappy that an article refers to his access to conservative media? Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying Inhofe has access to non-conservative media?

I object to the any classification of a media outlet based on supposed politically affiliation. If the phrase, "liberal media," appeared in an otherwise reliable and noteworthy source, I would not support the phrase's inclusion because a media outlet, by the law of excluded middle, must be liberal or non-liberal.

Or there is no such thing as conservative media?

Whether it exists or not is a contentious issue. Does the "liberal media" exist? If a source in an article classifies Newsmax and CNN as being part of the "liberal media," should that be included without an in-text attribution?

Or that conservative is a pejorative label?

Nothing I said implies or assumes that. "Liberal", in most contexts, is not pejorative. "Liberal media", when "liberal" refers to a political persuasion in opposition to conservatism, is usually pejorative.

Would Inhofe be unhappy that an article refers to his access to conservative media?

The question seems irrelevant to me. Maybe he considers Fox news the only unbiased and trustworthy media outlet while its competitors are nothing more than mouthpieces for the liberal, secular, and homosexual agenda, and that "conservative media" is redundant because the truth is conservative. I have no idea.--HerbSewell (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

A comprehensive explanation was given here

I'm not sure how comprehensive that is. I authored about half of those posts, the last of which was a suggestion that further comments on that issue should be written here. There was no significant resolution.--HerbSewell (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The text in question is "through his access to conservative media" so mentioning "liberal" is not relevant. Are you questioning whether Inhofe is conservative and has access to conservative media? The whole point of the source is that the statement is correct—I can't work out why there would be a fuss about such a sky is blue issue. Here is an example of what WP:LABEL is on about: suppose Fox News described Inhofe as "a great guy"—LABEL is saying the article should have "Fox News described Inhofe as a great guy" (if WP:DUE and WP:RS)—the article should not attach an editorial adjective to alert the reader about something in the mind of the editor. The case under discussion is entirely different because it's an obvious fact that Inhofe has access to conservative media and his views would not be favorably displayed in some other types of media. That is obvious to everyone participating here, but it might be news to the legendary young person who is reading the article in order to understand the topic. I would agree the issue is minor, but the misunderstanding behind the insistence that the word be removed is a problem because edit warring over established text should not be rewarded, and the misunderstanding should be cleared up in order to avoid a campaign to remove the word "conservative" wherever it appears on Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The text in question is "through his access to conservative media" so mentioning "liberal" is not relevant.

Within the comparison that I was making, it was relevant. You might disagree with the comparison, but it was relevant to my point, which was that the phrase "conservative media" would be equally improper as "liberal media," a phrase that can be found in several books equally noteworthy and reliable as the source used for the sentence in question.

Are you questioning whether Inhofe is conservative and has access to conservative media?

No, I am questioning the propriety of the phrase "conservative media."

The whole point of the source is that the statement is correct—I can't work out why there would be a fuss about such a sky is blue issue.

I'm not objecting to the statement's truthfulness, so your point is irrelevant.

The case under discussion is entirely different because it's an obvious fact that Inhofe has access to conservative media and his views would not be favorably displayed in some other types of media.

I would object equally to an article using the phrase "liberal media" to describe what sort of media outlets are used by a "liberal" politician to spread his views.

That is obvious to everyone participating here, but it might be news to the legendary young person who is reading the article in order to understand the topic.

Obviousness to you or the lack of it somebody else is irrelevant.

I would agree the issue is minor, but the misunderstanding behind the insistence that the word be removed is a problem because edit warring over established text should not be rewarded, and the misunderstanding should be cleared up in order to avoid a campaign to remove the word "conservative" wherever it appears on Wikipedia.

Excuse me, but that is a blatant straw man. Nothing I ever said could have been reasonably interpreted as suggesting that we "remove the word 'conservative' wherever it appears on Wikipedia." I don't know how to respond to this fabrication that is a monstrous caricature of my position. If I should take you as earnest, I should say that you have completely misunderstood everything I have said and I recommended; all your input up until now has been given under a total misapprehension and should be considered useless because it has been a response to a fictional "campaign". Read everything I've written and try again to offer a proper response.--HerbSewell (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, we'll each read everything which has been written on this issue. What then? The text has been in the article since around January 2015 so can be assumed to have consensus per WP:SILENT. Some of my comments concern the text in the article, while others are more general. It would help if the two were not conflated—remarks about a possible campaign are not relevant to the issue and were made simply to explain why I'm not throwing up my hands and letting the most persistent have their view prevail. No one has supported your position so further attempts to remove the text by repeating the edit should not occur. See WP:DR. The fundamental point of the current text is that Inhofe has successfully spread his views through a website and his access to conservative media—that's just a motherhood affirmation of fact, and is not an attempt to LABEL the media. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to insert the phrase "liberal media" if a noteworthy and reliable source used it without an in-text attribution if the information contained in the source was relevant to an article's subject?--HerbSewell (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The question here is why is it inappropriate to report what the reliable source is saying? Gamaliel (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You already, and rightly, removed the bit about the "conservative echo chamber," so even you must admit that certain phrases are inappropriate for a neutral point of view.--HerbSewell (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV does not prohibit us from reporting what reliable sources say, nor does it require us to change the meaning of what has been said. Gamaliel (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

But that's exactly what you did.--HerbSewell (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I can put the phrase back in if you want. I only removed it because you wouldn't stop edit warring. Gamaliel (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You really think that the phrase "conservative echo chamber" is impartial? It would be one thing if there was a in-text attribution, but there wasn't any.--HerbSewell (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care, I came here to talk about the rest of the sentence. Gamaliel (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, my point is that is that "conservative media" would be as equally inappropriate as "liberal media," regardless of the notability of the source.--HerbSewell (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

What language would you suggest we substitute which also conveys the same information as the reliable source? Gamaliel (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There isn't any because an essential point was about the "conservative echo chamber." If a source spoke of the "liberal media," the information should be modified because Wikipedia shouldn't confirm or deny that there is such a thing. An in-text attribution would be the only way to appropriately include that information.--HerbSewell (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

So you aren't questioning that this is a reliable source, you aren't disputing its accuracy, you just insist that we can't report what the source actually says. Gamaliel (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No.--HerbSewell (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

we can't report what the source actually says

We aren't merely reporting it, we're speaking as if it's a fact. The guidelines already allow using in-text attribution even when the sources are reliable. From WP:YESPOV: "For example, an article should not state that 'genocide is an evil action', but it may state that 'genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.'" I could imagine the statement, "genocide is an evil action," appearing in a reliable source and I would not dispute its accuracy, but the guidelines remonstrate against inserting such a statement without in-text attribution. Consider this statement from Christopher A. Bail's book, Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream, published by Princeton University Press: "Although MEF's Campus Watch campaign influenced conservative media outlets such as Fox News, the Washington Times, and the Wall Street Journal most heavily, it also received extended coverage from centrist and liberal media outlets such as Newsweek, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, USA Today, and the San Francisco Chronicle." I consider this source to be reliable and the statement to be accurate to the extent that media outlets can be categorized by their political persuasion, but that categorization should not appear on Wikipedia.--HerbSewell (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It's quite bizarre to conflate "genocide is an evil action" with the obvious and uncontroversial and sourced fact that the Inhofe is conservative and has access to conservative media. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't "conflate" anything. The statement, "genocide is an evil action," is an example of a sentence in an article that might be an accurate representation of what is found in a reliable source and isn't disputed, but one that would not be inserted in an article. It was merely a counterexample to Gamaliel's implication that a sentence which is found in a reliable source and it not disputed should be inserted in order to "report what the source actually says." Besides, using my example, "genocide is an evil action," is a statement that's "obvious and uncontroversial and sourced."--HerbSewell (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Would the phrase, "liberal media," be acceptable if it was found in a reliable source and information was relevant to the subject?--HerbSewell (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Inhofe. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/senator-inhofe-erroneously-cooling-trend-0427.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Marriage

The comments regarding marriage is very biased toward the left. Why does it say 'he is hostile to gay rights'. It should say 'he is a supporter of traditional marriage.' Or does Wikepedia now even not even pretend to be 'unbiased'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.36.45.123 (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This issue has not yet been addressed. Rodchen (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is my opinion that "hostile to gay rights" and "supporter of traditional marriage" are not the same things and should not be considered interchangeable. Joetho (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Joe

What matters is not our opinion but the facts. The facts are that Inhofe has been consistently hostile toward gay people. He's on record as saying in 2006: "My wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship." What, seriously? He's also consistently voted against any pro-gay (or other pro-civil rights) legislation, including: Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006), Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002), Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996), Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996), Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006), Amend Constitution to define traditional marriage. (Jun 2008), State definition of marriage supersedes federal gay marriage. (Feb 2014). That's hostility, loud and clear. Jk180 (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Military service

I'm a bit puzzled. The article says that Inhofe served in the U.S. Army in 1957 and 1958. Spending a period that ranged from under 2 months to less than two years would be very unusual in those times. There was no active draft, as the Korean conflict was long over. He wasn't married during the period, so a hardship discharge would be improbable. So why was his hitch so short? In those days, many enlistees washed out in boot camp, the initial 3-month training. I unsuccessfully tried to access the cited article by going to the Association of the U.S. Army website by use of its internal website browser, since the reference as posted in Wikipedia had a broken link. When I tried to access the article from the posted link, I got a message that the site was untrusted. Finally, the article says that Inhofe was trained as a pilot by the U.S. Navy. It doesn't reflect Navy service, however, and I can't imagine that they trained civilians to fly, an extremely expensive proposition. Can anyone explain these anomalies? Activist (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

People certainly were drafted in 1957 and 1958. Ever heard of Elvis Presley?107.133.158.129 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I am confused as to his military service. The bio says he served in the army as a specialist. But, under the pilot incident, it says he was trained to fly by the navy. IAmBecomeDeath (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

There is apparently more to his “military story” than what is publicly known. In 1958, two years was the minimum enlistment. Thus, he was likely separated early for one of several potential reasons. Considering that he wields significant power as the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), this is significant. CarlitosCorazon 13:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharleyHart (talk • contribs)

Senator Inhofe's committee assignments

Senator Inhofe is not ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public works committee. Having attended a few committee meetings myself, and after checking http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home Senator David Vitter is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. -- 16:44, 18 November 2014‎ 2601:b:5800:1a63:ec9f:382a:3e89:fc58

Military service discrepancy

Just noticed that at the top of the page in the table his military service is 56-58 and in “Early Life” it’s listed as 57-58. Unable to correct due to edit locking. Vizier Jafar (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2020

A September 16 edit deleted the entirety of a Controversy entry concerning an episode in 2010 when Inhofe landed his plane on a closed runway, endangering several airport workers. The supposed justification was poor sourcing, but the episode is well documented. At most, a notation questioning the source (or calling for additional citations) was needed; wholesale deletion is unjustified, and the deletion should be reverted. 66.167.32.176 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/us/15inhofe.html https://www.avweb.com/news/faa-investigating-senator-inhofes-closed-runway-landing/ https://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/report-inhofe-landing-plane-scary-053250 66.167.32.176 (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Please specify which edit should be reverted using a permenant link. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. A ten-year-old non-judicial administrative ruling that has not been challenged is not a "Controversy". It is WP:UNDUE to retrieve the prior text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Typo in this article

From this page: supported just as must spending

Clearly the word "must" should be "much"

I can't edit this simple typo. IdgaraBert (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)