Talk:Joni Ernst/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Inappropriate content

In this edit, I removed content which, in addition to being WP:undue includes content referenced to unreliable sources, cherry picked poll references, subjective statements, and irrelevant references to comedic commentary.CFredkin (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In addition the reference to people thinking it was in bad taste is WP:undue, since it only appears to have been mentioned in one of the many, many sources that covered the ad.CFredkin (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The ad received widespread coverage in reliable sources and detailing that coverage is not "undue weight". As for your other claims: poll ratings have not been "cherry picked" - the four polls mentioned are the only four polls taken of the Republican primary field and as the sources point out, her polling numbers have improved since the ad, which was the whole point of it. And yes, the ad has been satirised, notably enough to receive widespread coverage. As for your claims that there are "unreliable sources" and "subjective statements", since you didn't mention specifics, I have no idea what you're referring to. Politico and The Des Moines Register are not "unreliable" and it's not "subjective" to detail how her polling numbers have improved since the ad aired. Tiller54 (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The ad did indeed receive very widespread media attention, and the attention was overwhelmingly positive. The vast majority of the commentary was about how the ad went viral and was considered to be very effective. To say that the reaction was mixed or somehow negative is indeed WP:undue. Per WP:BLP, the burden of justification resides with the editor adding or restoring content to a BLP.CFredkin (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Then why did you remove references stating that reception to the ad was positive? And why did you remove information about how her polling numbers improved after the ad aired? If the reception was "overwhelmingly positive" as you say, then why didn't you add references stating that? Because it's not true: reaction was mixed, which is what the sources say and thus what the article says. You've provided no references at all to back up your claims and instead just deleted every one provided that you don't like. Reporting what numerous sources have said does not violate WP:UNDUE and there is no justification for deleting sources and content under the veil of it while offering no sources to support your actions. Tiller54 (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

These sources covered the ad without mentioning anything "mixed" about the response: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. They all said that the ad was effective and humorous. References from a relatively obscure international pub and an op ed don't make your content mainstream. In addition, the Iowa Republican is not reliable (as I'm sure you would say if I tried to add anything remotely negative to a Democratic politician's BLP). The statement that she struggled with fundraising is totally subjective. Finally polls of elections are fleeting and not relevant for inclusion in a bio (especially since the polls are included in the election article which is linked from the section). Once again, per WP:BLP the content should be removed unless/until rational justification is provided for including it.CFredkin (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Most of the sources you provided do not support your position at all. 1 only mentions the ad in passing, 2 says the ad went viral and nothing more, 4 just gives a rundown of what she says in the ad, 5 is about how she was laughed at on late-night TV and 6 calls the ad "memorable" but also "provocative". Only 3 called it humorous or offered any analysis of the ad at all. Not mentioning the response to the ad is not the same thing as an "overwhelmingly positive" response and to claim that "They all said that the ad was effective and humorous" is completely untrue - 4 didn't call the ad anything, 1 called it funny and 1 called it memorable but provocative. That, combined with the existing sources, is the very definition of a mixed response.

As for The Iowa Republican, I didn't see a problem with it when I added it but in the spirit of compromise, I'll remove it and the quote from it. And no, I don't edit with a POV, only adding positive things to Republican articles and only adding negative things to Democratic articles.

The statement that she struggled with fundraising before the ad is what the source specifically says and is in fact supported by one of the sources you just provided! 6: "Palin's endorsement is likely to provide a major fundraising boost to Ernst, who has thus far lagged in that department -- a deficiency that she acknowledged in an interview with RealClearPolitics earlier this month."

Likewise, the sources provided point to the ad as the reason her polling numbers have gone up, which is is clearly relevant to the ad. Tiller54 (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Mis-represented quote

In this edit] I've removed a quote which is mis-represented based on the source. The context of the quote in the source was not a criticism. The commentary from the speaker regarding Ernst was actually positive.CFredkin (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Also untrue. With added context: "Ernst is “pulling the guard card” as a “tactical move to put to rest a general concern.” “She is cloaking her missed votes in the aura of the guard services,” Goldford said. “That is one of those things no one could argue with.”" Tiller54 (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read the source. It's not a criticism. Once again, I'm removing the content per WP:BLP.CFredkin (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. "She is cloaking her missed votes in the aura of the guard services. That is one of those things no one could argue with" is not a "positive" quote about Ernst as you claim. Tiller54 (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It is YOUR interpretation to say that it's criticism. In addition the quote is not notable or relevant.CFredkin (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pleased we were able to come to an agreement on the above issue, although I have just tweaked the grammar. I've not re-added this quote but re-worded the paragraph a little and added the link to the initial interview. Tiller54 (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Changes to page

An unregistered IP and a newly-created account are making the same edits to this page constantly, despite being told by several editors that the edits do not follow WP:STLYE, and despite being warned for edit warring numerous times. Tiller54 (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Portrait

What's the rationale for changing the portrait to the smaller image?CFredkin (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the editor's subjective intent. However, our objective practice has been to use official portraits, if available, and if not copyrighted. Bearian (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected

The article has been protected five days due to a dispute that was reported. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Protection can be lifted if agreement is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Blog Post

Why is the following blog post notable in this BLP:

This statement was described by Susan Milligan from US News as "stunning" and "a rewriting of history that demands a new definition of the word 'audacious.'"CFredkin (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Because it is written by an SME: Susan Milligan is a political and foreign affairs writer for U.S. News & World Report. Per WP:RS : Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Cwobeel (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I can see you you first edit war and then engage in a discussion. If that is your behavior, I suggest you change it otherwise I am not interested in having a discussion. See WP:BRD Cwobeel (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't make it notable for this BLP. If every inflammatory, subjective comment by a writer/political contributor is added to a politician's BLP, it will quickly become nothing but a gossip sheet. I should note that Ernst's opponent has provided quite a bit of fodder for scathing commentary by political pundits. I hope and expect that you would be supportive of adding such commentary to his BLP as well.

With regards to your accusations, I'll note that I initiated the Talk discussion here.CFredkin (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You initiated it when? Before your revert or afterCwobeel (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I initiated it before you did.CFredkin (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Your second revert was at 16:42, 14 May 2014 [7]. And this “discussion” was started at 16:45, 14 May 2014, after that revert... Cwobeel (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Your revert was at 16:37, yet I still managed to initiate this Talk discussion before you.CFredkin (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The point is: don't revert back and then post on the talk page. As for your complaint, it is unfounded. Her comments received much criticism and her comments and the criticism that followed (which is hardly "inflammatory [and] subjective") are indeed notable. Removing all mention of the response to her comment, so that all that is posted is her comment and her "clarification" is not appropriate. Tiller54 (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The point is: adding inflammatory, POV comments from political pundits is not appropriate. If all editors start doing that, it will be a race to the bottom for the site.CFredkin (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The comments are not "inflammatory" or "POV" and journalists are reliable sources, not "political pundits". Tiller54 (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Biographies can and should contain any significant controversies and criticism per WP:NPOV. Ernst comments on the Iraq war WMD debacle was substantial and we should have some material that described the uproar. Cwobeel (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure. But these statements aren't even close to being noteworthy. What makes the speakers credible on the subject? Videos and cartoons have been made (and mentioned in reliable sources) parodying Braley's gaffe at the trial lawyer fundraiser. Is it appropriate to include a gif of a cartoon of the incident in Braley's bio? Do you think it's possible to find someone writing for a reliable source who has questioned his standing as a human being? Let's stick to the facts and include commentary where it's from someone particularly notable.CFredkin (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you don't like them doesn't make them "not noteworthy". As you seem to be unfamiliar with what makes a source credible, I refer you to WP:RS. As for your characterisation of these comments as "question[ing] [her] standing as a human being" and comparing them to a satirical cartoon, that is utter nonsense. Cwobeel and I agree and have pointed to actual policies. You disagree and have referenced... nothing. There's your consensus my friend. Tiller54 (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The policies I'm referring to are WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Please take a look and familiarize yourself with them. Friend.CFredkin (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources are reliable and verifiable and, as Cwobeel points out, WP:NPOV does not mean that BLPs should not contain criticism. Tiller54 (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But WP:NPOV means representing FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and, as far as possible, WITHOUT BIAS all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. And WP:BLP says BLPs should be written responsibly, CAUTIOUSLY, and in a DISPASSIONATE tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. [Emphasis mine]] And the content in dispute doesn't come close to satisfying those parameters.CFredkin (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

There have been no reliable sources that have called what she said correct. All the sources I could find said that what she said about WMD was completely wrong. Reporting what was written about her comments is in line with that. Despite what you say, the response to her comments has not been "inflammatory", nor has it come from "bloggers" and "pundits", it's come from journalists at reliable sources. It is not an "overstatement" to report that the overwhelming response to her bizarre claim was a negative one. Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring the "avoid understatement" part when you go and do something like this and completely remove any mention of the negative coverage her comments received. Saying "she said this, then she clarified and said this" without saying WHY she clarified her comments is nonsensical. Tiller54 (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Popping in a bit late here, but just to weigh in -- A columnist's characterization of the reception of her comments doesn't seem like it belongs here, unless we can credibly say that that columnist's analysis is notable in itself (which doesn't seem to be the case) Arbor8 (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not a characterisation of the reception, it's the actual reception to her comments. Tiller54 (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose the following: We either 1) remove the statement in Ernst's bio to the effect that her wmd received "considerable negative attention", or 2) we add a similar statement to Braley's bio regarding his fundraising gaffe. As it stands now different editing standards are being applied for each bio. Thoughts?CFredkin (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

What is said on Bruce Braley's page is not relevant to what is said on Joni Ernst's. Tiller54 (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Yes, WP:OTHER is precisely what I was looking for. This should be decided on its merits, not on what is going on on some other page. On that count, Wikipedia is exceptionally clear. Arbor8 (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What's the rationale for removing this from Ernst's quote? It provides the rationale for her statement. Also the Register included the entire statement in their quote of her. They did not do that for other questions. So I think that demonstrates its significance.CFredkin (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Not including it essentially removes her statement from its context.CFredkin (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It just doesn't seem relevant to what makes the quote notable. But I don't feel strongly about it to be honest. Arbor8 (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the quote is not relevant or notable... and yet CFredkin continues to edit war and restores the quote anyway. Tiller54 (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I restored the remainder of the quote based on Arbor's response. You just chimed in now, and have neither responded to my points above nor provided a rationale for why it's not notable.CFredkin (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you restored the entirety of the quote. You know there's a discussion going on and you just restore it anyway. Where her husband served and whether WMD is still a "hot-button topic" in Saudi Arabia isn't relevant to her comments on the existence of WMD prior to the war and was not part of the controversy her comments engendered. Thus, it's not relevant or notable. Tiller54 (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You can't arbitrarily prune a quote from a reliable source. The implication of the sentence is that her husband was in a position to have been exposed to information that justifies her statement.CFredkin (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been "pruned", the relevant part of the quote is included in full. Your interpretation of what she meant when she said "that's a hot-button topic in that area" is precisely that: your interpretation. It's not what was picked up on and it's not what that part of her quote that received the attention. Thus, it's not relevant. Still, you continue to ignore the talk page. Now you've reverted to the version you want and then asked for full protection. That is completely inappropriate and I expect you to self-revert as the discussion is still ongoing and there is no consensus to make the edits that you want made. Tiller54 (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no reference to "concealed carry" in the source provided for the statement that was just restored in this edit. Also, including 5 references to source a statement is WP:pointy disruptive editing.CFredkin (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The statement is that her comments caused significant controversy. 5 references to support that is hardly "excessive" and is certainly not "disruptive". Tiller54 (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do you need five references? Isn't an indication of national coverage sufficient?CFredkin (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's potentially contentious and to source the claim that her comments received "considerable negative attention", a considerable number of sources are provided. Tiller54 (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I think additional sources can be added later if requested by another editor.CFredkin (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with "considerable negative attention" is that phrase does not appear anywhere in the litany of sources provided (some are reliable and some are unreliable). That phrase is the opinion of an editor of this article and that's all it is. I attempted to save only substantive part of the sentence that can withstand scrutiny by taking the word "scrutiny" from the Washington Post article and work it into the article. But "considerable"? No. It is a blip on the radar screen of life. That's my opinion and my opinion is as important as the other editors of this article, i.e., not very important at all. And "negative"? No. A good discussion about Iraq, in my humble opinion, will be good for election and she is getting attention, not a bad thing for a candidate in four person primary. Once again, it is my opinion, not fact and my opinion is the not the way we are supposed to develop our articles. What does matter is what the Wash Post said and they said commented on more "scrutiny" has come her way since she has picked up in the polls. Now that fact is notable and is supposed by a reliable source. That should be the focus, not on whether any editor here--who might or might not have a bias toward the subject of the article--thinks it is "considerable" or "negative", etc.--NK (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps "considerable" is unnecessary, but are you really saying that coverage like 1 2 3 4 is "not negative"? And which sources do you think are "unreliable"? The Hill? U.S. News & World Report? The fact is notable and so is what the response to it was, which was clearly not overwhelmingly positive... Tiller54 (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on the sources, I think we could reasonably say: "Her opponents attacked her response."CFredkin (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Tiller54 (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Editorializing, spin and OR

Regarding this edit: [8], which I have reverted: This source [9] speaks of Ernst attempt to deflect the AWOL criticism by citing her National Guard service, but the Gazette article says differently" A review by The Gazette of the Iowa Senate Journal and her schedule obtained through a Freedom of Information and Iowa open records request from the Iowa National Guard, shows that few — 10 percent, or 12 of the 117 missed votes — came on days when she was on active duty. Drake University politics professor Dennis J. Goldford said Ernst is “pulling the guard card” as a “tactical move to put to rest a general concern.” “She is cloaking her missed votes in the aura of the guard services,” Goldford said. “That is one of those things no one could argue with.”. So If you want to use that source you need to say what the source say and not spin it or cherry pick. Cwobeel (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

And this source of March 5 [10] speaks of concerns about Ernst missing 71 of 95 votes tallied in the chamber since Feb 24. That is when her spokesman Flowers try to spin it with the National Guard argument, which was thoroughly debunked by the Gazette in the other article published April 14. So these two sources now that they have been brought up here, need to be used specifically as reported by the Gazette: the attempted spin, and the subsequent debunking. Cwobeel (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, CFredkin thinks that said "cloaking herself" quote is "not a criticism. The commentary from the speaker regarding Ernst was actually positive." Tiller54 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't care is that is positive or negative, I just care about reporting what the sources say. Let the readers make that assessment for themselves. Cwobeel (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but that was his reason for removing the information entirely. Tiller54 (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If editors want to remove well sourced material, which complies with WP:RS and WP:BLP, they need to engage in a discussion here, in particular when the material is data, not opinion. Cwobeel (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit requested

Ernst wins Iowa GOP U.S. Senate race [11] Cwobeel (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Last sentence in the lede should read:

She is the GOP nominee for the United States Senate from Iowa in the 2014 midterms election.

Cwobeel (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the update! Please file another edit request if anything needs tweaking. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Chamber of Commerce Endorsement

There are many, many very reliable sources mentioning the fact that the Chamber endorse Ernst. That would seem to indicate that it is notable for her bio.CFredkin (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

All endorsements go here: United_States_Senate_election_in_Michigan,_2014#Endorsements_2 Cwobeel (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. But I don't think that precludes them from being included in the bio if they're particularly notable. The Lt. Gov. endorsement was highlighted initially. Palin, Romney, and the CoC endorsements have received a great deal of attention more recently.CFredkin (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:RECENT? Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

One can remove the "more recently" from my previous statement and my point would still apply.CFredkin (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The CoC endorses a candidate in practically every race at every level, it's what they do. Listing them on the elections page is fine, but they're not relevant to BLPs unless they're significant. Romney endorsing a candidate? Quite notable, as he's not really done that since the 2012 election. The same for Obama. CoC and labour union endorsements (for example) on the other hand? Not notable. Tiller54 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It's notable because there are many Republicans running in the primary. The CoC has only endorsed her.CFredkin (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of other organisations have endorsed her (VOICES of Conservative Women, anyone?), but just because they picked her over one of the others, doesn't make it a notable endorsement in and of itself. Tiller54 (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, the true indication of its notability is the fact that it has been very widely covered by the national media.CFredkin (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that an endorsement received attention when it was made does not make it notable. It's a textbook example of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Newsworthy? Yes. Notable? No. Tiller54 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't think it is that notable. But surely the endorsement by Romney is. Cwobeel (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, his endorsement is. The Chamber's? Not so much. Tiller54 (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The Chamber endorsement was very widely covered by the national media. If you want more sources, I can give them to you.CFredkin (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As Cwobeel and I have stated, this is WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that an endorsement received coverage does not make it notable, nor is there any enduring notability from it which would justify inclusion in her BLP. Tiller54 (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It didn't just receive coverage. It received widespread coverage in the national media.CFredkin (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The endorsement was made, it was reported on. That doesn't mean it conveys any enduring notability, which is what the policy requires. Tiller54 (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Widespread coverage by national media is the best indicator of notability. There are many more mentions of the Chamber endorsement in the national media than there are of her WMD comment. In fact, I can make a strong argument based on media coverage that the current content on the WMD comment in the article is WP:Undue.CFredkin (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The same goes for the AWOL comment made by her opponent. What's the "enduring notability" of that? Based on the number of reliable sources mentioning it, I can argue it shouldn't be in the bio at all.CFredkin (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As WP:NOTNEWS states: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Thus, an endorsement by the CoC, who endorse in practically every race at every level, has no enduring notability and indeed no real relevance to her article. Tiller54 (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not all Chamber endorsements get media coverage, much less extensive national media coverage. By that measure, the endorsement is notable. What's your rationale for including the WMD comment and the AWOL comment?CFredkin (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

And even if they do get media coverage, that still doesn't mean they convey any enduring notability and it still doesn't make it relevant to a BLP. An election article? Yes. But not here. Again, per the actual policy: "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements (ie: an endorsement by the Chamber of Commerce) is not a sufficient basis for inclusion." Tiller54 (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The news coverage of the chamber endorsement wasn't of the announcement. It's of the impact and the meaning. And you still haven't answered my questions above.CFredkin (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You are not listening to the arguments made. There is no consensus for including this, you being the only one pushing for this. We could start an RFC, but it is a waste of time. Cwobeel (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin, please do not WP:EDITWAR, as you appear to be doing. There is no consensus to include this material because it is a textbook example of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Note that all but one of the sources you provided also say that Ernst has been endorsed by the Senate Conservatives Fund, which I note that you are not trying to add to her article. Such an endorsement also has no lasting notability, and is also not relevant to her BLP. Tiller54 (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You guys are really something. This page is put on full protection for 5 days, and you have nothing to say in Talk. Then the day before the primary, you start up again on the same edits as before protection. Not only that, but you don't address my points or my questions above.CFredkin (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I was not even aware of the page protection. Please avoid ad hominems. Cwobeel (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You haven't raised any points, you've just attempted to filibuster the discussion. Cwobeel and I have pointed to actual policy, you've done nothing except make the same point over and over again. Tiller54 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this endorsement is more notable than the rest; it has gotten attention on blogs over several days. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM is not a good argument for including this endorsement. Cwobeel (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM is not a good argument for excluding this endorsement.--NK (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is. Cwobeel (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course it isn't.--NK (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this a five-minute argument or the full half-hour? Tiller54 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Touche Cwobeel (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that we have a break due to page protection, which of course protected the wrong version, we have time for endless argumentation about WP:RECENTISM and this not so notable endorsement. Cwobeel (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and that should give you plenty of time to respond to my question above.CFredkin (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

We can all thank NazariyKaminski for this wiki-break: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Tiller54_reported_by_User:NazariyKaminski_.28Result:_Locked.29. Pity that he did not inform me about this report at ANI as customary. And pity as well that he reported Tiller54 but not CFredkin. Ah POV wars. Cwobeel (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No pity. That's hogwash. I did not have to inform you. You were not reported. I notified the person that was required to be notified. Don't make up rules to support your personal attacks.--NK (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hogwash my foot. You mentioned my name in that ANI thread as an "edit warrior", when I reverted a single time. Shame on you. Cwobeel (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not call you an "edit warrior"--that is your term, not mine. But obviously that term came to your head based upon your actions and you know better what's going on there than I do. So if the shoe fits. . . And I will repeat I did not have to notify you. So don't make things up.--NK (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense, since last time you reported me but not Tiller.CFredkin (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

When did I do that? This is the first time I encountered user Tiller. Cwobeel (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

My view is that endorsements of candidates should go on the campaign articles and not in the biography of the politician. Why? Because it is based on an event specifically to a campaign. Compare with real biographical information, such as political positions, commentary about these positions in particular when the subject himself/herself respond to criticisms or praise. Cwobeel (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion. You have a right to your personal opinion. However, it is not a hard and fast rule of Wikipedia. That fact is that there hundreds of articles about politicians in Wikipedia where the endorsements of various people and organizations are listed. That is fact. You have not explained why your opinion should only be applied Joni Ernst's article. If you want to make a policy change to Wikipedia go through the proper channels, but just trying to impose your personal opinion on one article is inappropriate--it is called POV-pushing.--NK (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The hard and fast rule in Wikipedia is to be collegial with fellow editors, and not making this a WP:BATTLE. Of course I have an opinion and so you do. This discussion is designed to look for and find consensus on the subject of including or not yet-another-endorsement-for-a-politician in his or her biography. Cwobeel (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As usual you did not respond to the facts of the situation and chose instead to focus on what you believe to the issue. The issue is quite clear. There is no rule that states that endorsements cannot be part of the article on a politician. There are Democrats that have these endorsements listed and there are Republicans that have these endorsements listed. If you do not like the endorsements, which is your opinion and you have a right to your opinion, then you need to take that issue up in the appropriate place. This is not the appropriate place. I would encourage you to take the topic there. If you want to make a policy change then I would highly encourage you to read this article from Wikipedia and make yourself familiar with it: Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance.--NK (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If we are in the mood of lecturing each other gratuitously, here is one for you: WP:CONSENSUS#Reaching_consensus_through_discussion Cwobeel (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You are not attempting to reach consensus. There is no substantive reason that the Chamber of Commerce endorsement should not be in the article. You just don't want it in. There have been many, many reliable sources provided to show that the endorsement was critical to her performance in yesterday's election. This is fact, not opinion. Now, you have an opinion that you don't want the endorsement in. But you have not provided substantive reasons why it should be excluded. All you have provided, so far, is your opinion. But notability is not based upon the one opinion of one editor or two editors. You need to provide substantive reasons for the exclusion. If you want to change the way that all politicians' articles are written then you need to take that policy debate elsewhere because this is not correct place for it. You need to provide a reliable source that states that the Chamber of Commerce endorsement is not notable or important to her victory. You have not provided that reliable source because you are basing your reasoning on your own personal preference, which is not a rationale that is the basis for these types of decisions. Also, you keep attempting to deflect from the subject by saying that you are being mistreated or something or other, which of course you aren't. You just need to provide a reliable source that supports your personal opinion. But you have not done that. Please provide a reliable source that supports your personal opinion that the Chamber of Commerce endorsement was not important. Please work toward consensus by providing substantive support for your position. That is how consensus is reached. You need to do your part to reach consensus. I haven't seen it yet.--NK (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. You are an editor that was/is keen on her victory. That explains a lot. I will leave this discussion for now to concentrate on more rewarding editing than this. Cwobeel (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That phrase "her victory" does not explain anything. I have asked you repeatedly to provide a reliable source to support your position and you have not provided one. You have seen that you aren't getting anywhere with your agenda and instead of being forthcoming on why you are leaving you are making up hogwash about me and my editing. I love the fact that you attack others as POV-pushers but if someone points out your behavior you tell them they need to quit. You don't have a reliable source to support your personal opinion that the Chamber of Commerce endorsement was not notable. You also know that making the argument that we should change all politician's article so that there are no endorsements is basically a policy issue for all of Wikipedia and I'm not going to accept that argument as a reason to exclude the Chamber of Commerce endorsement. If you want to change the policies of Wikipedia so that no endorsements for politicians are allowed on their article page then you know you need to take that discussion to the appropriate forum (Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance). So you are leaving the discussion and casting aspersions on me as you go, simply because you cannot or will not provide a reliable source that supports your claim that the Chamber of Commerce endorsement was not important or notable to the election yesterday. If you had a reliable source to support your position then you would have simply provided it and then we could have had a discussion about what significance that reliable source was and how it fits in context with the long, long list of reliable sources that supports my position and the position of the other editors that disagree with you. But you don't have a reliable source so you are leaving and taking pot shots as you go. You don't have a reliable source so there is no need for the pot shots, just accept it and move on.--NK (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. Your verbosity gives it away already. Cwobeel (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Verbosity"!!!! Wow! Big word. Besides you said you were moving on, but I guess that was just another empty, hollow promise. Anyway, I have to verbose to get a point across to the thick.--NK (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the ad hominem, which amply demonstrate you behavior. Cwobeel (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You promised to go away. Why can't you follow up on your promise. You don't have a reliable source to support your personal opinion, as the Disney song advocates, let it go.--NK (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Glenn Beck?

I don't see any mention of Ernst' name on this webpage, currently used as a source in the article http://www.glennbeck.com/agenda21/]. Did you mean to site the book itself? Because that would be a different citation style, I believe. Right now, I'm not really sure what this webpage is supposed to be adding re. Ernst. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Read the source in Yahoo News: [12]

The latest primary comments that could haunt her Senate bid are on the topic of Agenda 21, a community planning provision in a decades-old United Nations treaty that’s become an object of fear and conspiracy theories on the right, and especially in the commentaries and writing of Glenn Beck. and, this as well:

But her positions on the 1992 U.N. recommendations for countries to become more environmentally sustainable — which Beck made the basis of his novel "Agenda 21," about a “violent and tyrannical government” ruling “what was once known as America” — are perhaps her greatest flirtation with the politics of the conspiracy-minded.

- Cwobeel (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's in the Yahoo News article. Again, I ask: why the link to Glenn Beck's website, where there is no mention of Joni Ernst? How is that not WP:COATRACK? Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I can understand that you may not like these comments, but these are her own comments, and as such can be included and in no way or manner can be argued that it is a coatrack. The context provided in the Yahoo News article, a solid WP:RS, about Beck is also important. Remember, we are not here ro pass judgement on sources, we are here to report what reliable sources say about a subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood my concern. I'm wondering why Glenn Beck's website is being used as a reference here. It doesn't mention Joni Ernst, the subject of this article. So this is WP:COATRACK in the sense that this article is now being used as a place to "hang" information that's not really about the subject of the article. I.e. Beck's website, which doesn't mention Joni Ernst. Why would we have that in this article. We don't need it anyway, since the Yahoo News story provides plenty of context. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be neutral. We're not supposed to be stringing references together to create a particular narrative. Based on the fact that you say you find Ernst's comments "idiotic" [13], it sounds like you have a particular point of view about this material that you're trying to promote here. Also, your edit summary stating you "need a break from the stupidity" is interpreted as a personal attack. Please don't do that again. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Said that because I am frustrated with the whitewashing attempts. Yes, of course I have a negative opinion on the subject, same as you may have a positive one, but that does not preclude you or I to edit this article, does it?. Now, to my break. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

To avoid frustration in the future, I'd suggest building consensus on the talk page first prior to posting any material that is likely to be contentious. Also, accusing me of whitewashing is a bit rich given my legitimate concern about WP:COATRACK. Please WP:AGF. You haven't responded to my question about why you think we should be using Glenn Beck's website as a source here when it doesn't mention Ernst. Enjoy your break. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The material is only contentious because these statements by Ernst are contentious on their own merits. My edit, now reverted to oblivion, was an honest attempt to represent the source as close as possible. (The link to the Agenda 21 book page at glennbeck.com was there as a courtesy to readers; It can be deleted, I have no problems with that.) What I have a problem with is the poor state that section is now in, by what I still consider as a blatant attempt at whitewash. Here we have a Senate candidate espousing the one of the most fringe theories ever concocted, and we also have an article in a WP:RS that calls it as it is, mentioning Beck’s novel and other contextual information, and here we are just mentioning her remarks about this fringe, right-wing conspiracy theory as if there is nothing to it? How is that not whitewashing? Can you explain? I will initiate an WP:RFC to address this issue tomorrow, after my break. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The commentary on Agenda 21 is not appropriate because this is a bio. In bio's we indicate politicians' stances on issues. We don't discuss the merits of the issues themselves. If readers want more info on a topic, they can read the corresponding articles.CFredkin (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to thoroughly discussing this issue and achieving community consensus, hopefully with the aid of an RFC. Including a reference that doesn't mention the article's topic is not a courtesy to readers, it's a violation of policy. If you hadn't immediately reverted my edit when I made that minor change, perhaps more of your original edits would have stood. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

First, apologies for my outburst yesterday; that was not fair to both of you. we could avoid the long trip to RFC, if you could agree to the following version:

See also: Agenda 21 opposition

At January 2004 GOP forum in Montgomery County, Iowa, Ernst warned that Agenda 21, the 1992 Agenda 21 U.N. recommendation for countries to be more environmentally friendly, could force Iowa farmers off their land, dictate what cities Iowans must live in, and control how Iowa citizens travel from place to place, stating that “We don’t want to see a further push with Agenda 21, where the Agenda 21 and the government telling us that these are the urban centers that you will live in; these are the ways that you will travel to other urban centers", and argued that Agenda 21 would force “moving people off of their agricultural land and consolidating them into city centers, and then telling them that you don't have property rights anymore.”

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd suggest the following compromise. The quote is her opening statement on the issue:

At a January 2014 GOP forum in Montgomery County, Iowa, Ernst warned that Agenda 21, the U.N.'s 1992 voluntary action plan for sustainable development, could force Iowa farmers off their land, dictate what cities Iowans must live in, and control how Iowa citizens travel from place to place, stating that “The United Nations has imposed this upon us, and as a U.S. senator, I would say, ‘No more. No more Agenda 21.’ Community planning — to the effect that it is implementing eminent domain and taking away property rights away from individuals — I don’t agree with that. And especially in a place such as Iowa, where we rely heavily upon our agricultural community, our rural communities. We don’t want to see things like eminent domain come into play."CFredkin (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with your proposal, if we can link a see also directly to Agenda_21#Opposition where the positions of republican, tea party, and others from the right are presented. This instead of providing context directly in this article about that position. That was the intent of my compromise proposal. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the see also is redundant and inappropriate given the link in the article. Also I think the link should go to the Agenda 21 article itself, instead of some sub-section.CFredkin (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:HAT: "Hatnotes are short notes placed at the top of an article or section of an article (hence the name "hat"). Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking. Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because they were redirected, because the sought article uses a more specific, disambiguated title, or because the sought article and the article with the hatnote have similar names. Hatnotes provide links to the possibly sought article or to a disambiguation page." Your edit does not appear to be appropriate based on this definition.CFredkin (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think there are currently too many sub-sections under "political positions." I would suggest the following sub-headings:

• Economic Issues (to include current sections on Taxes, Federal Budget, and Minimum Wage)
• Environmental Issues (to include current sections on Farm Bill, Clean Water Act, Federal Regulation, and Agenda 21)
• Views on Constitution (to include current sections on Nullification & States Rights and Rights of Gun Owners)
• Foreign Policy
• Social Issues

We're left with one sentence on health care and one blurb on federal involvement with education. We could have an "Other Issues" section, or put health care and education under economic issues.

I think this reorganization would help us avoid excessive subsections per WP:LAYOUT. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That would work. But let's finish the first issue before we do the reorg. In respons to CFredkin, the issue we are trying to find a compromise about, is the fact that the source presents a critique of her position on Agenda 21, as being fringe. I had that in the article, but it was removed. So, my compromise proposal is to not include the critique (that could be included per WP:NPOV), but to instead link to the subsection at Agenda 21 dealing with that issue. if we can't arrive to an agreements that we can live with, we can proceed with the RFC to seek additional feedback. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think what's currently in the article is fine. There's a link to the Agenda 21 page, where a reader can easily scroll down to the opposition section. Putting in a "see also" tabbed to a specific section of the article seems like overkill. Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What is in the article now does not reflect what the source says. I will attempt to use CFredkin proposed text with one addition fully attributed to the source. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Cwobeel, I appreciate the good faith effort toward reaching a compromise. But I still disagree with inclusion of references to conspiracy theories, etc. with respect to Agenda 21. The reason is that references to stances by politicians in BLP's don't include commentary on the issues themselves, even if they're included in the source. There are plenty of reliable sources that reference the fact that specific politicians' voted for PPACA and also include negative commentary on PPACA itself. However references to the fact that the politicians' voted for PPACA in their BLP's don't include the negative commentary on PPACA. The same goes for human-caused climate change, partial birth abortion, etc. If readers want to learn more about the issues, they can click the link and read the articles dedicated to those subjects.CFredkin (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP does not trump NPOV, and per NPOV we need to report what reliable sources say about a subject. Otherwise all our BLPs would be devoid of criticism, and that is at the core of my concern in this instance - Cwobeel (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

We can't give a backgrounder on each issue or policy area that a politician has made a comment about. That's what the articles on those issues are for. It wouldn't make sense to go down the list of issues that are listed and under each sub-section put a "see also: main article." As in "Joni Ernst said something about guns and the 2nd Amendment once....See also: U.S. Constitution," or "Joni Ernst doesn't like ACA....See also: ACA." That's what wikilinks are for. You also wouldn't say "Joni Ernst doesn't like ACA, a health care law that has stirred controversy after the troubled rollout of Healthcare.gov." If that information is relevant, it will be on the appropriate page. It's not our place to give commentary. One Yahoo News story doesn't demand a primer on Agenda 21 be inserted here. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Red herring, my friend. I am not arguing for a "primer" on Agenda 21 or anything close to it. My question remains: Are you arguing that criticism of a politician position can't be included in an article about that politician, in particular when a WP:RS refers to it specifically and when the entire purpose of the article was to highlight that fact? This is the title of the article: "Will Joni Ernst’s flirtations with the political fringe haunt her in November?". Aren't we violating NPOV by cherry-picking from that article just what Ernst said and not commentary from the source? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source, referring also to the tape obtained by Yahoo News:

Yahoo News has also unearthed examples of Ernst commenting on “Agenda 21,” a preoccupation of conspiracy-mongering on the right, in which she suggests Agenda 21 could force farmers from their land and exert vast control over Iowans. She subsequently backed off the idea, but her original dabbling in it prompted Yahoo’s Meredith Shiner to accuse Ernst of “flirtations with the political fringe.” Steve Benen recently observed that Ernst “seems to hold beliefs that put her squarely on the furthest fringes of American political thought.” [14]

- Cwobeel (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned that your stated motive here is to introduce criticism into the article. Certainly sometimes it's appropriate to insert criticism into articles, but that shouldn't be the primary editorial objective. We're supposed to be giving a balanced account that reflects what the body of reliable sources have said about an article's subject. We're not supposed to be going out of our way to look for ways to intentionally add criticism to an article. That would be agenda-pushing. So please make your case for specific inclusion of particular material based on the merits of the material and accompanying sources, and not based on your previously stated desire to add criticism into the article. Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

What happened to AGF? Take a look at my contributions to this page and tell me if I have not added a balanced view. My point is very simple: If we use a source to support material in an article, 'we are not to cherry pick from the material, rather, we have to represent as close as possible and without bias what the source says. That is WP:NPOV 101, and that I exactly what I have done. Have a nice day, busy with another article today. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Reporting what sources say

Re. this edit [15], yes, when we use a source we do report what it says. Of course we can't report every single thing that every single source says, because then we'd be reprinting entire articles right here on Wikipedia. So we summarize what sources say. And that's been amply done with regards to Ernst's views on the 10th Amendment. Including the quote "may wish to brush up on her high school civics" is overkill. Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Obviously we disagree. Can we find consensus, or do we have to go through an RFC? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Social Programs

This edit removes a reference to "social programs" that doesn't exist in the source.CFredkin (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Can material that is critical to the subject be included in the article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a dispute about inclusion of critical information reported in reliable sources. The diffs showing the disputed materials are:

• [16] Yahoo news uncovers a tape about a statement made by Eernst on Agenda 21 and reports it in an article titled Will Joni Ernst’s flirtations with the political fringe haunt her in November? - The disputed material is:

“and described the subject of her remarks as a ”decades-old United Nations treaty that’s become an object of fear and conspiracy theories on the right.”

• [17] An article by the UPI, in which the source makes a critical statement about the lack of understanding by Ernst about nullification. The disputed material is (my highlight):

According to an article published by the UPI, Supreme Court case law has determined that the Constitution forbids nullification, and interprets the Tenth Amendment as a basic statement, and not a prohibition against the federal government from passing additional laws not already enumerated in the Constitution, and stated that Ernst "may wish to brush up on her high school civics.”

These are just two specific cases in the dispute, but the RFC is specifically designed to address the question if material that is critical about the subject can be included in the article, if the material is reported in a reliable source.

Comments

• Support - If we are using sources that are reliable to support material in the article, it is not our role to cherry-pick from the source, and we have to report what the source says per WP:NPOV, and within the context in which the source reports it. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - The reliable source makes a neutral statement about Agenda 21, and we may not take some parts of the source that someone likes while not using other parts of the source that someone doesn't like. There are a wide range of reliable sources discussing the fact that right-wing claims about Agenda 21 are basically conspiracy theories, and it is trivial to demonstrate that the predominant mainstream view is that such claims are, indeed, conspiracy theories. We must not give a fringe theory undue weight and when we mention them, we are more or less obligated to note that they are significantly outside the mainstream POV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is not well-served by inserting campaign rhetoric and opinion of any sort pro or con about any person. Discussions at WP:RS already make clear that headlines are not written by journalists as a rule, and using material which is opinion in nature to make claims about a living person is likely to run afoul of WP:BLP as well. Best to state straight facts, and not insert anything like object of fear and conspiracy theories on the right which appears on its face to connect the person with "conspiracy theories", where such comments are scarcely worded in a neutral manner. Ditto may wish to brush up on her high school civics which is unlikely to be a statement of fact. The UPI piece also includes "Tentherism" was one of the primary justifications used by pro-slavery advocate John Calhoun in the years leading up to the Civil War, and a hundred years later, by segregationists opposing civil rights. We could not include that on a bet -- it implies a connection of Ernst to segregationist thinking. Sorry -- the piece is clearly editorial in nature, and can only be used for the author's opinions expressed as opinion. Collect (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Both of these are attributed to the source and in full compliance with WP:NPOV. By your arguments, no editorial comments would be allowed in articles, which is ridiculous. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Please tell me exactly what you refer to in your comments -- opinions should always be referred to as opinions, and should not be given undue weight. In the case at hand, you seem to say we should say "The UPI compared her stand to that of segregationists and slave owners" as being absolutely equally sourced to the editorial column. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I am not arguing for the inclusion of that material. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I think the article would well served with brief text on what Agenda 21 and nullification are, and why they are controversial. That of course would be different from the reverted text. The reverted text is merely quoted criticism of Ernst and her statements. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the very useful suggestion. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm removing this tag because the RfC as written violates the guidelines specified at WP:RfC. The description is not neutral and (in addition) it completely misrepresents the dispute with respect to the first item below. The Talk discussion above indicates that the issue with the first edit has to do with commentary on an issue (Agenda 21) that multiple editors contend is neither relevant nor appropriate in a BLP.CFredkin (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I've created a separate RfC to address the issues with the first edit below. I won't object to this RfC being created if the first edit below is removed.CFredkin (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC looks great on the Bio page. No bias there at all.CFredkin (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks for the pointers, lesson learned. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)