Talk:Joni Ernst/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Impeachment

Once the protection is lifted, I would want add the following sentence in the Political positions#Impeachment of Obama section. As we had many disputes already, posting it early will give a chance to editors to comment.

At a Montgomery County, Iowa candidate forum in January 2004, Ernst said that Obama had “become a dictator” and that he needed to be held accountable for his executive actions, “whether that’s removal from office, whether that’s impeachment.”

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Overstates what the source would support, thus opposed here.

Ernst was asked what “punishment” Obama should suffer if the Supreme Court ruled against him in a then-pending case on the constitutionality of his recess appointments, and what she would do as a senator to stop his “blatant abuse of power.”

shows the context of the material.

"If any president oversteps their bounds, there are procedures in place for Congress and the American people to hold him or her accountable. Impeachment is a strong word and should not be thrown around lightly.”

are the words of her spokesperson, which appear to indicate that the context of the question was important. Which supports

When asked at a forum about the Supreme Court case about the constitutionality of Obama's recess appointments, she said that if he acted unconstitutionally, he should face the proper repercussions as determined by Congress, "whether that's removal from office, whether that's impeachment." Her spokeswoman has stated " "If any president oversteps their bounds, there are procedures in place for Congress and the American people to hold him or her accountable. Impeachment is a strong word and should not be thrown around lightly.”"

Anything more from that source would have to include OR and SYNTH as we do not generally use quotes wrenched from their full context. Collect (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If we are to keep the context, which is always really important, then we need to add the entire back story and as reported in the source say the fact that the spokesperson downplayed the impeachment statement AFTER yahoo reported the video they unearthed. Per the report: "On Tuesday, Ernst spokeswoman Gretchen Hamel downplayed the significance of the video and provided Yahoo News with the following statement: "If any president oversteps their bounds, there are procedures in place for Congress and the American people to hold him or her accountable. Impeachment is a strong word and should not be thrown around lightly.” Once the protection is lifted, I will add you text with that addition. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, her statement about impeachment was made in January (during the primary), and the downplaying statement was made in August. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sexual harassment

Ditto, per above, I would like to add this:

In an interview with Time Magazine, Ernst said that she was sexually harassed in the military, stating that “I had comments, passes, things like that” which she was able to stop, and she will support removing sexual assault cases from the chain of command, breaking with the stance of the GOP and the Pentagon on that issue.

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Overstates what the source states: backing the removal of cases of sexual assault from the military chain of command, a position that puts her at odds with much of the GOP. is insufficient to say "stance of the GOP and Pentagon."

Ernst would refer all reports to an independent investigator outside of the chain of command and if criminal charges are warranted, then those cases would be referred to “an independent, experience prosecutor.”

Which was not what the Gillibrand proposal was in any case ("which would refer all sexual harassment cases to the Judge Advocates General Corps" and which failed in the Senate). What you can use from the source is

Ernst says she was sexually harassed in the military, and supports having an investigator outside the chain of command refer cases of sexual harassment to the Judge Advocate General Corps.

Anything more is likely to be a misuse of the source. Collect (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that's a good suggestion. Thank you. But I think we need to add her own words, about the harassment she said she suffered, otherwise we will leave our readers wondering what was the extent of the harassment. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The statement about Judge advocate is SYNTH, I am afraid. This is what the source says (my highlight): "Ernst isn’t endorsing Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s bill, her staff says, which would refer all sexual harassment cases to the Judge Advocates General Corps, but she pledged to work “with Senator Gillibrand and other Senate leaders in seeking bipartisan support for new legislation.” Ernst would refer all reports to an independent investigator outside of the chain of command and if criminal charges are warranted, then those cases would be referred to “an independent, experience prosecutor.” - Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ans lastly, there is no merit in removing the fact that she breaks from the Pentagon and GOP stances, as reported in the RS. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Um -- I stated her exact position as given in the source provided -- it is not SYNTH to use what the source states quite clearly -- SYNTH applies to combining disparate sources. As for your claim that the GOP as a party rejects her position -- which is different from the Gillibrand proposal - that is clearly OR and SYNTH. Sorry -- I fear you misapprehend just what SYNTH refers to. And the "scope of her harassment" has what, precisely, to do with the GOP? Collect (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming quite a conversation. Best would be to to an edit and allow you and others to improve and correct if needed. As for your question about the "scope of the harassment", that has nothing to do with the GOP, of course. But that is needed, otherwise readers may not know what was the extent, per her own words: “I had comments, passes, things like that”, and the fact that she was able to stop them. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

edit trying to insert Koch Brothers into this BLP

Where a very weak link might exist (she praised a PAC which is then gratuitously coat racked with a Koch Wikilink) it is up to the person proposing inclusion of the coat rack to gain consensus on the talk page as a positive requirement. I suggest that praising a PAC might possibly fit in, but the parenthetical coat rack is not valid here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So fix it instead of reverting. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that Ernst knows the Kochs is not notable. It is not even worthy of a mention. That's just a dog whistle.--NK (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. These are good sources and this is biographical, as Ernst is clearly declaring how she was lifted out of anonymity and became a viable candidate by the support of a Koch backed group. I am not making that up, it is her own words. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This from the New York Times, an undeniable reliable source: "The channel released audio of three other Republicans in tough Senate races — Representatives Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Cory Gardner of Colorado, and Joni Ernst, a state senator in Iowa — all of whom also praised Charles G. and David H. Koch and the millions of dollars they have provided to help Republican candidates." - Cwobeel (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Your only real problem is that the quote actually attributed to Ernst does not even mention the Kochs. Find a transcript where she mentions the Kochs as bring her backers, else this looks like a prime coat rack indeed. Praising a person, saying "These people back good guys" is weak, "These guys gave me a lot of money" would be strong. And if she only mentions AFP, then using the parenthetical coat rack for Koch is also against Wikipedia policy. Collect (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So, what the NYT said is not good for this article? How can you say that? That is a secondary and reliable source as you requested when you reverted my edit first. Is this a moving target now?. I will post at BLP/N to seek additional comments for uninvolved editors. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You are catenating several topics -- you wish to claim she praised a specific PAC - which is not supported by the NYT. You then wish to assert that she specifically prosed the Kochs - but that is not precisely supported in connection with your claim she praised the PAC. And since the NYT refers to a tape, find a transcript of that primary source and seek to find out if the NYT was simply overreaching and the quote the NYT actually gives is correct -- in which case the mention of the PAC should go, or that she mentions the PAC in which case the connection to the Kochs must go. Votre choix. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

These are two different sources describing tapes from the same event. WP:BLUE comes to mind. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Quote

Why is the quote not notable? This is a biography of Joni Ernst, and if Ernst describes her ascendance from an little known senator from a rural part of Iowa, this is good material for her biography. Here is the quote:

"I was not known at that time. A little-known state senator from a very rural part of Iowa, known through my National Guard service and some circles in Iowa. But the exposure to this group and to this network and the opportunity to meet so many of you, that really started my trajectory."

- Cwobeel (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Like most people, she has said a lot of things. A Wikipedia article is a place for an encyclopedic overview of a topic, not a place to include scores of recent cherry-picked quotes. Particular notability must be established for everything in the article. Even if an event is notable, that doesn't mean we need to include verbatim quotes from Ernst about it–we can have a nice summary. I'm afraid this article is resembling what is described in this National Journal article [1]. "Meanwhile, Democrats have stocked away some controversial statements Ernst made during her primary—like suggesting impeachment should be an option for President Obama, or her comments about states being able to 'nullify' federal laws—since the general election began..." Sound familiar? Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that LPs can say something about themselves, which contains biographical information, and we are not to quote them in their article in WP because it has political consequences? Is that what you are saying? I think we need an RFC on this subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we can't possibly add everything a candidate has ever said to their article. We must weigh inclusion carefully, with an eye toward long-term notability. Otherwise, we are prone to selection bias. As the National Journal article shows, the information that has been added to this page recently is all from Democratic Party campaign strategy--finding specific "saved" quotes from Ernst's primary run to attack her. It's not encyclopaedic to let a campaign cycle, and more problematically, a candidate's opponent, define what is supposed to be an encyclopedic overview. See Wikipedia:Recentism for a primer on why it's not neutral or desirable to make a biographical article a running commentary on contemporaneous events. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand the context, but this is biographical info, in her owns words. Actually, it is the opposite of recentism, as Ernst said that back in June. I will compose an RFC. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Use of editorials for claims of fact

In general - no. They may be used for opinions cited properly as opinions, but not for claims of fact. Collect (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

These are, again, 'her own words. This is not opinion or editorializing. Why are you so afraid to present in this article Ernst own views on issues? What is going on? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Added another source for that material, there are more if needed. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This woman is an elected official. Surely we can find votes she has made and bills she has sponsored that illuminate her policy positions, rather than adding cherry-picked quotes as if they represent "policy." Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Finding votes" is WP:SYNTH. We report what sources say about a subject, per WP:V and WP:NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Finding votes is synthesis? I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm suggesting that an accurate way of reflecting Ernst's policy views would be to find reliable sources that describe how she has actually voted on bills, and which bills she has sponsored. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ernst is running for Congress. There are no bills she could have passed in the Iowa senate that would guide our readers to understand her positions nationally. That is why what Ernst has said publicly on federal and national issues is being reported in reliable sources, and we do the same here. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No. This is an encyclopedia article that should reflect what has actually happened, not what anyone speculates might happen based on quotes the candidate has made. The goal of this article is not to attempt to determine what might happen if Ernst is elected. She has an actual record that we can report on. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely we can report her positions as she declares them and they get reported. See for example David Brat and other freshman candidates that have no record. With your argument, we should not be having articles about them at all. See WP:NPOV that is crystal clear about this: 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. Can you say that her political positions published in reliable sources are not significant for a politician running for Congress? Please.... - Cwobeel (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

But she has a record. She's an elected official. I'm saying we should include information about what's she actually done as an elected official, rather than speculation about her potential future policy positions based on quotes of hers that are included in editorials. A quote isn't a "policy position" unless it says "if elected, I will vote for X." Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

She has a record as a state senator, and you can add material about that record if not currently in the article. But that does not preclude us from adding information reported in reliable sources about her positions nationally or otherwise. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Aslo note the difference between "policy position" and "political position". Not the same, and the section is "Political positions". - Cwobeel (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

What I have an issue with is that we are happy to leave "positive" editorial comments (see the Time editorial at the end of the "2014 U.S. Senate election", but you are to remove all seemingly negative editorial comments (which BTW, I believe them not to be negative; if I was a strong conservative I would love her for these comments). That seems contradictory to NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Are the ones you wish to add particularly notable in the realm of US political commentary? "Time" is generally considered a notable source. Which neutrally worded negative comments would you like to see added? And why is each one notable enough for inclusion? Collect (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You are asking questions, but never seem to answer mine. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh? You made a statement, and I asked you directly which sources you wished to use and why they are notable, and what their addition would give the article under Wikipedia policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is one, which was deleted: - Cwobeel (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ernst believes that Federal judges should have an "understanding where the Constitution came from and our laws, and they all did come from God."

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The Gazette - editorial commentary. Second part of the "quote" only, and no context given for what preceded the quote. Des Moines Register - editorial commentary. Has your quote. No context. Esquire - editorial commentary. Second part of quote only. No context. In short all three are editorial opinion, and not usable for claims of fact, but only for the opinions of hteir writers properly cited as opinion. Editorial columns are not RS for claims of fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That is completely ridiculous. We are not presenting an editorial view (and even if we did that would be fine per WP:NPOV). We are presenting FACTS: that is Ernst own words. I am finding it extremely difficult to continuing assuming good faith here. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Have it your way: I have removed other material sources to "editorials", and added POV tag - Cwobeel (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing

I know that editing means adding content, editing existing content, and removing content. But if you look at this article's history you can see that some editors are basically deleting content with no attempt to improve or research new content. That is what makes all the discussions above difficult. What is the point of spending time researching material to improve an article, while seemingly all other contributors' interest is to delete content with what I believe to be specious arguments that don't hold any water?. For example, all these arguments above about not being able to include in this article things that Ernts has said simply because the quotes were part of an editorial? Or removing content because the source included some mild criticism, while leaving other content that contains superlatives? Give me a bloody break. I am taking a break from this article for a while. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the Wikipedia policies involved. If you dislike them, you have the ability to change and amend them just like every other page on Wikipedia. Using this page as a soapbox, however, will not change a single one of them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No my friend. This has nothing to do with policies which I can recite as well or better than you. This article is off my watchlist for a week. See ya. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Medicare and Social Security

As stated in my edit summary, I removed a reference to Social Security which is redundant with this statement earlier in the bio: "She has also expressed support for a partial privatization of Social Security accounts for young workers."

The following statement in this edit is not included in the source: "...which includes protecting benefits for current Medicare recipients, while reforming the system so that younger generations take part on a privatized system."

Also, the following general commentary on the status of Medicare is not relevant to her bio: "According to The Gazette, independent studies show that these younger generations will have to pay more.CFredkin (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should this commentary on issues be included in BLP's

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.

---

Should commentary on issues be included in Joni Ernst?CFredkin (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose - References to stances by politicians in BLP's don't include commentary on the issues themselves, even if they're included in the source. For example, 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 reason is that the existence of reliable sources that mention a particular politician in the midst of commentary on an issue can become an excuse to "litigate" the issue in a BLP. BLP's will be filled with commentary on the pros and cons of issues. If readers want to learn more about the issues, they can click the link and read the articles dedicated to those subjects.CFredkin (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Excepting that editorial opinions about the specific living person, used in a NPOV manner and wording, and properly and clearly ascribed as opinions, may be used judiciously. Using opinions not about the person, but about issues where the source does not mention the living person runs afoul of WP:SYNTH and may be viewed as a "coat rack". Collect (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless the reference is a reliable source that is also cited as an opinion and includes opposing citations as well that are clearly stated as such. Fraulein451 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: This article isn't the place to discuss the background or merits of any particular public policy stance. That's a recipe for WP:COATRACK. We should simply be stating the candidate's position on given issues. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So, no criticism of politicians found in reliable sources? How is that compatible with WP:NPOV?

As no one at all has made that claim, you run the risk of being seen as raising a non-issue against good faith. Cheers and have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't follow your argument. My question remains unanswered. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No one has suggested no criticism of politicians found in reliable sources (is allowed . I trust that if no one suggests something that your question is rhetorical at best. Answers to rhetorical questions which have no factual basis are difficult, so I can understand your belief that I did not answer your rhetorical question. Collect (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh man, you are really something. :) Anyway, it seems we are not close to find a solution to this. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as undue weight. Honestly, the whole paragraph smacks of undueism (is this really relevant to her article?) but surely the characterization of the treaty is irrelevant. Red Slash 18:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Responding to notice from feedback request service. As I understand it, the question is whether the material in the diff should be included. I don't see the problem with including the full explanation provided by this person. Obviously there is no BLP issue, as it does not reflect upon the subject of the article. So what else is there? It is her opinion, and explains in fuller fashion why she feels as she does. Coretheapple (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The scope of the subject heading is grossly different than the question below the heading. Are you asking people about all BLPs or just the change to this article referenced in the link provided? There's a major difference in context between "all BLPs" and "this change proposed for Joni Ernst". Please revise the wording of one or the other to make the scope of the question clear. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:56, 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.

RfC: Is this quote by Joni Ernst relevant for her bio?

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.

---

Is this quote from Join Ernst, about how her career trajectory was impacted by the exposure she received through a political group, suitable for inclusion in her biography?

“I was not known at that time. A little-known state senator from a very rural part of Iowa, known through my National Guard service and some circles in Iowa. But the exposure to this group and to this network and the opportunity to meet so many of you, that really started my trajectory." Joni Ernst, June 2014 at an Americans for Prosperity event.

- Cwobeel (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Really? "Trajectory"? It is clear she thanked a group, but adding "It helped my career trajectory" is about as useless as one can imagine. BLPs with useless quotes do not actually help readers. Collect (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

But these are her words, not mine, neither the source's. As a reader, I would be very interested to know how she came to be known as a viable candidate, don't you think? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

And it is our task as editors to separate the wheat from the chaff -- and the "trajectory" quote is clearly chaff. She thanked them for supporting her -- that is the actual gist of what is there. That she somehow viewed herself as being launched on a rocket is totally inane here - it is not a claim with sufficient weight to be used in the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Your words against Ernst's. Guess who has more weight? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Applying your rationale, what do we do with other "innane" quotes in the article? One can make the same argument, no? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The test here isn't "did someone say this one thing or not?" It's "we're building a timeless encyclopedia...has one particular event/quote, etc. risen to the level of prominence and notability that it should be particularly singled out for inclusion?" Again, we can't put everything she's said in this article. We need to summarize events, and collaboratively decide which events have received a level of widespread, timeless coverage that they are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article--not a campaign pamphlet. Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, here is a shot collection of sources. Take your pick. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

National news

* USA Today [2]

* Huffington Post [3]

* CBS News [4]

* NBC News [5]

* MSNBC [6]

Local news

* Des Moines Register [7]

* The Gazette (Iowa) [8]

* The Globe Gazette [9]

* Sioux City Journal [10]

* Waterloo Courier [11]

These are all dated yesterday and today. How is that not WP:RECENTISM? Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The speech was given in June ... only that the tapes only surfaced yesterday. This is the first instance that I found in which Ernst describes her career as a politician in that manner, giving a very useful insight of her views on that subject, and I think it is unique biographical material. In any case, I'll let others weigh in. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The existence of reliable sourcing for content is necessary, but not necessarily sufficient. I think we should also ask whether a quote has long-term significance. In this case, I don't think it does.CFredkin (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It is an editorial matter subject to WP:CONSENSUS and per that policy, without an affirmative consensus, it does not go in. See WP:NEWBLPBAN Standard Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions are authorised for the area of conflict, namely any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in any namespace based on the ArbCom ruling: Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached. Pursuant to that ruling, all editors are here informed that this is a BLP and that any admin may invoke discretionary sanctions on it. Collect (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, really Collect? Was that needed for a direct quote from a living person? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It is applicable to all BLPs per ArbCom -- it has now been invoked on several political BLPs at this point. I did not write it. Collect (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Then make a mention and put a wiki link, rather than scare the shit out of people coming to comment. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yell at ArbCom then and not at me -- they are the ones who made the rule. Berating me is not only silly, it does not change a single word of the rule. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support . No WP:BLP issues as it is a direct quote from Ernst own words, without commentary, analysis, or critique. Meets WP:BURDEN as it is sourced to numerous WP:RS. It is encyclopedic as it illuminates the subject’s own views on how her political career was made successful, and this is the biographical article of a politician. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose We should not be adding a Democratic talking point to the biography of a Republican candidate in the middle of a hotly contested campaign. (Disclosure: I am a Democrat off-Wikipedia. Here, I back the NPOV Party.) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't seem like a quotation from a speech made at a gala or similar event should go here. --Precision123 (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment User:Cullen328, I am open to different views. It just depends on the sources and the context. Could you provide me with the sources that report this quotation (or other ones you propose to cite it with)? Thank you. --Precision123 (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Because it is clearly sourced, in the subjects own words and concise and to the point I see nothing wrong in having her quote. Fraulein451 (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment This is an encyclopedia, not a not a newspaper. We don't cover every little detail that gets covered in the mainstream press. Is there any indication of the lasting significance of this coverage? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. In the article we are saying for example, that Ernst, while in college, took part in an agricultural exchange to the Soviet Union. That is useful biographical info even if not well covered, because it throws some light into her formation as a person and a politician. In the same vein, this comment is biographical as is a direct quote from Ernst about how she views her career, and who helped her achieve her current prominence as a candidate to the U.S. Senate. Makes sense? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:56, 28 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.

Social Security

Plenty of secondary sources confirm Ernt's statement on when the social security fund runs out.

• http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/social-security-its-worse-than-you-think.html
• http://www.cnbc.com/id/100780248#.
• http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/social-security-and-medicare-could-run-out-sooner-than-expected/

In prior years the tax surplus built up the fund, and benefits were paid directly out of the incoming revenue. Now that there is a deficit, we take a dollars worth of bond out of the fund, go to the treasury and ask for a dollar. The treasury turns around and adds a dollars worth of "real" national debt (as if it was not real debt before). When the fund is empty, approximately 2.7 trillion dollars will have been added to the national debt. (~1/6 of the current debt). To be fair, had we really treated the fund like a "lock box" as Gore famously debated, the national debt would be 2.7 trillion dollars higher right now, because the fund was in reality the "Clinton Surplus" and was spent as general revenue. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The greatest Social Security myth of all [12] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I gave the official trust fund report above. Sans any changes, the trust fund will be depleted in as little as 19 years according to the actual report. That you seem to think otherwise as our resident expert is interesting. The cite you specifically give says that we would then have to reduce benefits by 25% in order to keep on going using current taxes to balance current benefits, but I rather think cutting benefits by 25% does count as a "change". Clearly you do not think a 25% cut would be a change. Collect (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Are we really having a discussion on SS? Really? What for? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Seriously, you two. Take this public-policy debate to one of your talkpages. MastCell ^Talk 00:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

BOLD Deletion

I don't think it is appropriate to delete full documented materials just because it is silly season. This is a bio of a politician and politicians viewpoints, positions, and quotes are all relevant to such bios. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

: @Collect: Why on earth Ernst views on nullification have been deleted? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There is already a reference to the Tenth Amendment in the article.CFredkin (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

::: So what? This was deleted without any explanations:

At a forum hosted by the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition in September 2013 Ernst made comments suggesting that she thought states could nullify federal laws. Ernst stated: "Bottom line is, as a U.S. senator, why should we be passing laws that the states are considering nullifying? I mean, that's bottom line, is our legislators at the federal level should not be passing those laws." States cannot nullify federal laws.

- Cwobeel (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec)It makes political arguments in Wikipedia's voice, and the idea that politicians do not get equal treatment under WP:BLP is absurd (would you believe an edit summary claiming this is a politician after all). Neither fluff nor campaign rhetoric belongs in any BLP at all, ever. This applies, in fact, to all articles, though some appear to think that the POV of the person should make the rules differ. Collect (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, if you want to improve this article on your own:

• On climate change, Ernst said, "I don't know the science behind climate change. I can't say one way or another what is the direct impact, whether it's man-made or not." [13]

• On Social Security, which Ernst wants to privatize Ernst said said, "Within 20 years, the system will be broke," which isn't even close to resembling reality.

• On federal regulations, Ernst blamed a federal "cap and trade" law for undermining job creation. There is no federal "cap and trade" law.

• On contraception, Ernst was asked about her efforts to pass a state law that would have banned in-vitro fertilization and forms of birth control. She responded, that her bill didn't pass (????) [14]

• On the minimum wage, Ernst still doesn't seem to understand that the federal minimum is a floor and that states are free to approve higher levels if they choose. [15]

• And more [16]

have fun. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we can cite the claims to Cwobeel then? Very few climate scientists understand everything about the climate, so I doubt Cwobeel does either.

On the solvency of Social Security - it has already seen changes in ages - this is not an especially big issue. As to date when SS ends up being "in the red" - [17] should be a reliable source for anyone ... it states The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund reserves would become depleted between 2033 and 2041 under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report. Contrary to the noted expert who asserts which isn't even close to resembling reality, 2033 is 19 years away. Last I checked, 19 is actually less than 20 but YMMV.

On "cap and trade" - the US most certainly does have that in effect for SO2, NOx, etc. So much for that errant claim by our expert.

WRT claims that Ernst "doesn't seem to understand" the minimum wage laws - I fear you forget that the Federal Minimum wage is not a "universal minimum wage" and thus it is not a "floor" for state laws.

[18] is a reliable source for this. Other programs that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage apply to workers with disabilities, full-time students, and student-learners employed pursuant to sub-minimum wage certificates. These programs are not limited to the employment of young workers. indicates that there are significant exceptions to the Federal minimum wage laws.

The minimum wage law (the FLSA) applies to employees of enterprises that have annual gross volume of sales or business done of at least $500,000. It also applies to employees of smaller firms if the employees are engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, such as employees who work in transportation or communications or who regularly use the mails or telephones for interstate communications. Other persons, such as guards, janitors, and maintenance employees who perform duties which are closely related and directly essential to such interstate activities are also covered by the FLSA. It also applies to employees of federal, state or local government agencies, hospitals and schools, and it generally applies to domestic workers.

Thus the claim from our expert that the federal law is a "floor" is incorrect.

Lastly, Wikipedia is not a campaign venue, and using it as such is a perversion of the project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this opinionated back-and-forth isn't helpful, nor is it an appropriate use of an article talkpage. What is the actual content issue here? According to reliable sources, Ernst supports a "Personhood amendment", privatizing Social Security, abolishing the federal minimum wage, phasing out ethanol subsidies, and eliminating the Department of Education ([19]). If those political positions are not mentioned in the article, then they should be, as part of a comprehensive biography. Separately, Ernst has stated that she does not know whether climate change is man-made, thus putting her significantly at odds with the scientific understanding of the topic ([20]). That position should also be described as part of a comprehensive biography. Right? MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be reading more into the article about the charges made about two candidates than others would deem proper. Ernst did say "So I don’t know the science behind climate change." Which is true of 99% of all Americans, roughly. Most scientists do not know all of climate science either. So you find that an "important" comment to include? Cwobeel said she was completely wrong to suggest SS might be depleted in 20 years - so citing the actual source which says as little as 19 years seems proper on this talk page. And so on for all the views cited to our resident expert on this page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If scientists knew exactly what causes climate change then their climate change models would not be so freaking far off the mark. Ipso facto. Arzel (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore Arzel's comment for the politicized flamebait that it is (noting in passing that this is an ongoing problem with him). Collect, your response doesn't really address my point. We're not talking about knowing "all of climate science", but specifically about whether human activity plays a significant role in it. Ernst said she doesn't know whether human activity plays a role in climate change. That puts her at odds with the scientific view of climate change, in which human activity is understood to be a major driver. If you prefer, we could omit mention of the disconnect between Ernst's view and that of the relevant scientific community; I think you'd be misleading the reader by doing so, but whatever. Either way, her position on the issue should be mentioned in this article, along with her positions on the other issues cataloged above (Social Security, federal minimum wage, fetal personhood, eliminiating the Dept of Education, etc). Do you disagree with that basic premise? MastCell ^Talk 21:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I, moreover, read it as saying she does not have a science background in climatology - which is its meaning in ordinary English. In such a case, policy dictates we not insert any interpretation of our own past what an ordinary person would read into the words. Thus, we ought not make it a bigger deal than the ordinary language meaning would entail. Her position on minimum wage, as near as I can tell, is that it is a matter for individual states to decide. Her position on SS is that, absent any changes at all, the SS trust fund will be depleted in as few as 20 years -- which is exactly what the reliable sources (the official reports, in fact) state. Hardly any news value there. And again - Wikipedia is not a good campaign venue, which is where detailed lists of positions belong. Rather - this is an encyclopedia, and using it for campaign rhetoric is, in my opinion, a disservice to the project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "using [Wikipedia] for campaign rhetoric". I'm talking about summarizing a politician's positions on relevant issues, which is a central part of any comprehensive biography. Sources are numerous regarding her position on climate change; she has stated: "I can't say one way or another what is the direct impact, whether it's man-made or not". (Politico). These sources go on to note:

• "Ernst said she does not know if climate change is man-made" (Politico)
• Pressed on whether she thinks the earth is warming because of humans, she remained vague. 'I do believe that our climate is changing, but again I’m not sure what the impact of man is upon that climate change.' (Bloomberg)
• When Ernst said she was not sure that humans have caused climate change, Braley blasted her. (The Hill, emphasis mine)
• "I don’t know the science behind climate change, I can’t say one way or another what is the direct impact from whether it’s manmade or not," Ernst said. (Iowa Public Radio)

So there are sources detailing her position (that she believes the climate is changing, but is not sure whether human activity is a major cause of that change). You are not actually engaging with anything I'm saying, which is frustrating. Can you respond to the point I'm making, and clarify why we should not include a well-sourced description of position on climate change in the article? MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What is happening here, MastCell, (and in other conservative politician bios) is a shameless attempt to remove any political statements these politicians made during the Republican primary (and in some cases removing the material about their flip-flopping later on when running for the Senate) based on false BLP violations argumentation. It is shameful, not NPOV and highly disruptive. This is a bio of a politician and politicians viewpoints is what makes them notable. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean we should say in Wikipedia's voice that the SS trust fund is not facing depletion in 19 years or so just to show how wrong Ernst is? What an interesting concept - but this is not a campaign brochure for anyone. Nor would this be proper in any political BLP, The "right v. left" accusation is false here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A bio of a scientist includes his research, theories and opinions, and any significant criticism of these theories and opinions per NPOV. A politician is no different. Wikipedia articles on politician are not campaign brochures, but neither they are a resume. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And I remove fluff as rapidly as possible. The claim that an expert of some sort says the SS trust fund is not possibly being depleted in 20 years is, however, something where the official report seems to contradict our resident expert. If we try saying she is "wrong" on that, then the actual report would show the contrary in the case at hand. Do you wish to add yourself as a reliable source on that? I account for a total of 12 edits on this BLP, while the "lead editor" has well over a hundred edits on this BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Red herring again? Should I start eating fish for breakfast as well? What about the content about what Ernst said about nullification, for example? Why is that not included? Why nullification is set in scare quotes? This is a whitewash, plain and simple. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• OK, this is going nowhere fast, since we can't seem to keep from soup-spitting and arguing about editors' personal views. I'm going to go ahead and add sourced content on Ernst's relevant political views, in keeping with our standards for biographical articles of politicians. MastCell ^Talk 00:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The appropriate material requires WP:CONSENSUS, not an admin making themselves editorially involved here. Cheers -- but this is better served by an RfC or set thereof than by acts from above. Collect (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see any source cited for "States cannot nullify federal laws" so it would seem appropriate to remove the claim. Are the other claims complained of here similarly lacking in verifiability?

(I also doubt very much that the claim is true. States got a lot of men with guns; the feds, not so much.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Collect, as you know, admins are permitted to edit Wikipedia articles. They're simply not allowed to act as both an admin and an editor on the same page. I view myself as an involved editor on this page already on the basis of my participation in this content discussion (if one can call this smorgasbord of straw-man arguments and talkpage misuse a "content discussion"). So I would not act in an administrative capacity on this page, but I'm free to edit it. All of this is very basic, and I'm sure you already know this, but apparently it needs to be reiterated. If I insert well-sourced material describing relevant public-policy viewpoints, then I would expect you to have solid policy-based reasons for removing them. MastCell ^Talk 16:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, Collect please explain why my edit, which you reverted here [21] is not acceptable. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ditto about this revert [22] - Cwobeel (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Tentherism

This edit makes the claim that, because Ernts <sp> stated that Congress shouldn't pass laws that the states might nullify, and according to the source "nullification" was used to justify opposition to the abolition of slavery, Ernst's comment is related to "Tentherism". The source does not state that.CFredkin (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin (talk · contribs) says in edit summary: Source doesn't claim her comment is related to "Tentherism” and deletes this edit [23].

Here is what the source says:

"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. More recently, conservatives have resurrected the theory to argue for nullification of federal gun laws, the Affordable Care Act and other federal regulations."

- Cwobeel (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Note that it doesn't say that Ernst's comment is related to "Tentherism".CFredkin (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the last sentence? What UPI is saying is that recently, conservatives have resurrected the theory to argue for nullification of federal gun laws, the Affordable Care Act and other federal regulations, which means exactly that they see her comments as directly related. Otherwise why would they have included that material in the article if it was not related to Enrst? Care to explain? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we can say definitively why it was included. Perhaps they felt it would be an interesting point of interest for their readers....CFredkin (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC) The source doesn't provide the context for her statement (i.e. Was it in response to a query regarding ACA, gun laws, slavery?)

I find your line of argument quite remarkable. Here we have an article by the UPI, in specifically on the subject of Ernst's comments on nullification, in which Thenterism is described and you say that these are unrelated? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No connection whatsoever is made to the article subject, and WP does not insinuate negative, unsourced claims about article subjects, esp. not people. Removed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Ernst, Supreme Court case law has determined the Constitution actually forbids nullification, and interprets the Tenth Amendment as a basic statement, not a prohibition against the federal government from passing additional laws not already enumerated. […] "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. More recently, conservatives have resurrected the theory to argue for nullification of federal gun laws, the Affordable Care Act and other federal regulations.[24] - Cwobeel (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Statements about WMDs in Iraq

Are there any sources out there pointing out that Ernst's statements on WMDs in Iraq were quite obviously true and that you'd have to be an idiot, willfully blind, or politically motivated to claim otherwise? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question or the assertion of your opinion? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)