Talk:Sam Brownback/Archives/2007

Endorsement of John McCain

Something should be put in that he is now endorsing McCain in the GOP primaries71.167.81.190 18:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, following the endorsement, he was made co-chair of the McCain Campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.241.33 (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

It's a B when it's not vandalized.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 17:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't raised as a "Satanist" as the present biography states. According to the reference (footnote 10), he was raised as a "Methodist." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.44 (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda Wars

A quick look at the edits history for this page shows that people are clearly modifying the content to suit the needs of their particular political ideology. The point of Wikipedia is to provide a complete picture of a subject, and accuracy should be what we all strive for. Putting in additional and unfounded politial attacks simply because of your personal distaste of a person's positions poisons Wikipedia, as does removing factually accurate but potentially negative material or modifying wording to show a person in a more positive or popular light. Wikipedia does not exist for propaganga, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves. Msingerman 14:13, 12 December 2005

Sam Brownback is apparently on a list for possible Republican 2008 presidential canidates, at the very least a Republican to watch for promotion. (http://blogs.ljworld.com/kansas_congress/2004/aug/31/president_brownback/, http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1459&dept_id=155743&newsid=13342055&PAG=461&rfi=9) Geoffduman 01:35, 12 November 2004

Is it apropos to add something along the lines of "Sam Brownback is concerned to be a Republican presidential hopeful in 2008"? I'm new to the pedia. Thanks!

• I would probably word differently, like: "Sam Brownback is considered by some to be a Republican party presidential hopeful in 2008". Unless I'm missing the term "concerned", this sounds less POV. --Toddbloom7 18:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

There were two external links that were removed, both of which pointed to sites disagreeing with Brownback. The sites that remained were positve. I re-added the links that were removed. External links should show both sides.--71.28.89.88 22:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

before his 2002 conversion to Satanism

Corrected back to Catholicism. LwSiX 22:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I hve questions about this text, included in the "Controversy" section:

• Brownback actually started his political career while attending Kansas State University, where he served as student body president. He secured election by promising a parking garage to the student body. Kansas State does not have a parking garage to this day, and the parking situation continues to be a problem.

First off, "He secured election by promising..." is making an unverifiable assumption. He may have made the promise but it is impossible to know if that is what won the election. Second, a quick check of Google indicates that there are two parking garages on campus. Lastly, where is the controversy over this supposedly-broken campaign promise? Is there an uproar in the local newspapers? -Will Beback 23:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC) I have lived in Manhattan, KS for the last eight years and have attended and graduated from Kansas State University. I can tell you without a doubt that there are zero parking garages on campus and zero in the vicinity of campus. Senator Brownback's student body president campaign promise of a parking garage has been repeated by virtually every individual campaigning since.Ksoze03 16:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Opus Dei

It's unbelievable that there's no reference to Brownback's membership in Opus Dei in this article. Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter With Kansas" provides ample evidence of this fact. I've added a sentence about it that I hope is neutral in language. StudierMalMarburg 16:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

An independant confirmation of this membership claim should be provided, otherwise Frank's claim might be simple an attempt slander, especially as his book seems to be quite controversial. Don't forgetWikipedia:Biographies of living_persons#Critics. But, even more important, is there any statement (concerning membership) by Brownback himself available? --Túrelio 12:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This reference in the article was pointed out in an article in the Wichita Eagle (Partisanship skulks into Wikipedia) today. I added in that it was disputed by his staff and a link to the newspaper. Also, I clarified info on Bush bringing in the three children to the While House. If there are some citations that they also appeared with Brownback, that could be added, but I couldn't find anything that said that. BCorr|Брайен 12:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brian! Well, I've clarified even more to the point of well making it nearly unreadable. So here's the chronology:

• Wikipedia for the longest time (middle July) has "Brownback brought three small children to the senate floor" [1]
• Gets corrected to Senate but basically stays
• Wichita Eagle piece comes out [2], where staffer "knows his boss never brought children onto the Senate floor during last month's stem cell debate" [3].
• Brian Corr changes to White House instead Senate and includes AP reference. [4]
• The article doesn't specifically say White House though it is very likely so. But I've instead quoted directly from the article which had:

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., appeared with three children adopted from in vitro fertilization clinics in an effort to humanize the argument that frozen embryos could have a future other than being subjects of stem cell research.

• I've revised and left in the press secretary comments in parens, but it's really messy now since it's not clear if the press secretary is disputing the location (Senate floor vs. White House vs. somewhere else) or if he is disputing that Brownback "brought" any children anywhere or if he questions the existence of these children altogther.

-- Fuzheado | Talk 16:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew -- I appreciate your cleaning up the mess. It seems to be changing moment to moment.... Peace, BCorr|Брайен 16:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would it be slander to say that Brownback is a member of Opus Dei? I have no evidence one way or another, nor any knowledge or opinion about how reliable What's the Matter with Kansas may be, but simply saying that someone is a member of the organization -- as long as one doesn't simultaneously repeat slanders about Opus Dei itself -- would not necessarily be slander even if it were false. --Jim Henry 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this seems way off topic, but let me point out to you the elements of slander and libel. Your statement, "would not necessarily be slander even if it were false" is a correct statment, but not the for the reasons that you believe it to be. It would not be slander because this is Wikipedia and everything is written down, not spoken, so a basic element of slander is not present. But it could be libel. The question becomes has something been (1) written in Wikipedia that (2) is harmful to the reputation and (3) broadcast to a large audience. So, yes, something could be libel on Wikipedia if a reasonable jury were to decide that, for example, being a member of Opus Dei is such a horrible organization that even being identified as a member can hurt one's reputation. At any rate, until someone other than Franks provides evidence that Brownback is a member then I don't think we should include it. It is just Frank's opinion, he does not provide any proof. I know of people that have written down that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian, does that mean that Wikipedia should repeat that?? I don't think so.--Getaway 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not slander. Opus Dei is a legitimate Catholic sect (no matter what The DaVinci Code says), even if they are extremely conservative. If Brownback was indeed Baptized by an Opus Dei priest, putting that into this article is perfectly legitimate, as long as it is cited. Even if Brownback is not currently a member and is embarassed by the affiliation, it is fair to put the information in the article. I will check later to see if I can find citations for this claim and if I do I will put it into the article. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a forum for political candidates or their devotees to make themselves look good. It's a "warts and all" kind of site. There is one user who continually goes through this article and takes out anything that might be remotely embarassing to the subject. That is not NPOV and should not be tolerated.nut-meg 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, of course it is not "slander" because for it to be slander then it would have to be spoken. The real question is whether it is "libel". And of course it is not libel because being a member of Opus Dei is not harmful to the reputation. I'm glad that you found a source on his Baptism. However, until a reliable source emerges (and Franks is not one) we can't state that Brownback is a member of Opus Dei.--Getaway 14:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not right to put in a reference to Opus Dei just because people widely believe it. It should be a known fact that can be verified by official sources or admittance. Since there is not proof of this, and the book "What is wrong with Kansas" is so off base and untrue (try reading it) then it cannot be taken seriously. Mere coincidence does not constitute truth!--livin4dios 00:10 09 January 2007

I put into the article that he was baptized in an Opus Dei chapel, but that he is not a member. If both Brownback AND Opus Dei deny he is a member, none of us can truthfully say that he is.nut-meg 03:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Unless Brownback is lying, he is not a member of Opus Dei. He did, however, convert to Catholicism through a very prominent Opus Dei priest, Fr. John McCloskey, at an Opus Dei chapel on K Street. His religious views, on record, are generally sympathetic to those of Opus Dei, but Opus Dei representatives at the K Street Chapel deny that Brownback is a member. I'm making these statements based on my interviews with Brownback and Opus Dei representatives. -- Jeff Sharlet

• I added a {{cn}} to the "he is not a member of Opus Dei" statement. If you can, please provide a citation that Opus Dei or Brownback confirm or deny his membership. Jerimee 19:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

teacher?

Does anyone know where Brownback is supposed to have taught? And for what time period? I called both his Topeka and his DC office, and neither had any knowledge of his ever teaching. Jerimee 23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

One staffer tells me that perhaps he taught agriculture? Jerimee 19:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Still no info on this. After researching it for two weeks, nobody in Brownback's press office has been able to substantiate the claim. See for yourself: 202.228.3107 Jerimee 20:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have only found one reference to it on his official senate bio [5], and it is only in passing. His 2008 campaign website bio [6] is exactly the same, so it's no help. I also found this [7] on Washington Post's, and many similar websites that mention his previous occupation as being a teacher. However, they all seem to just parrot his senate bio, and I have failed to find an independent source verifying this claim. Jhawk1024 19:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have talked with five different staffers, and emailed the deputy press secretary. Nobody knows the information, and this combined with the inability of Brownback's office to provide it makes me wonder if the teaching claim isn't a little trumped up. I bet when he himself was a grad student he also taught courses, like the majority of grad students. Now I want to verify the broadcaster claim as well. Jerimee 19:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Brownback's press office pretty much refuses to comment on the teaching claim, so I talked a political reporter at the Kansas City Star. He said that he has never heard any details about Brownback's teaching career, that he doubts that it is notable, and the Brownback is a, in his words, "career politician." Given that no wikipedian has been able to substantiate the claim, that Brownback's office itself is unable to substantiate the claim, and that it now seems that the broadcaster claim also is specious, I am removing it from the page. Jerimee 15:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

broadcaster?

The citation provided for Sen. Brownback's career as a broadcaster indicated that Brownback worked in a radio station for a year at most. This is at the age of 22, inbetween exiting Kansas State in 1978, and enrolling at the University of Kansas in 1979. The citation itself is a fluff piece, originally published in the avowedly conservative Weekly Standard, and written by that publication's editor. The citation is hosted on Brownback campaign website.

This is not to say that it isn't a good citation, but rather to the contrary it is a reliable indication that Brownback's career as a broadcaster is insignificant. If a six month summer job at a radio station at the age of 22 is the best the campaign and its allied media can do to promote Brownback as a broadcaster, it seems clear that this is not a notable part of his professional resume. Jerimee 15:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Jerimee: It sounds like you want to use the talk page to espouse your view. See What Wikipedia is Not.--Getaway 20:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of my above comment is to indicate that Sen. Brownback is not, and has not been to any significant degree, a broadcaster, and to give other users a chance to comment before removing the broadcaster claim. Jerimee 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Brownback's official campaign site indicates that his experience in broadcasting is limited to a summer job when the Senator was 22 years old. This is not significant to merit listing him as a "broadcaster." See [8] Jerimee 17:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the New York Times and Congressional Quarterly, where these organizations together refer to Brownback as a former "broadcaster." It is not a Wikipedian's job to decide that you just don't agree with what Brownback calls himself (and the NY Times and Congressional Quarterly) and then just unilaterally remove it. Wikipedia, for example, calls people that have edited Wikipedia for a full five minutes Wikipedians. It is not an issue. I'm going with the Times, CQ and Brownback on this one.--Getaway 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times does not have a reporter on staff named Rachel Kapochunas, and apparently this article was never actually printed. It is a CQ article. See Senator Brownback's own website. Wikipedia's purpose is to document the world as an encyclopedia, not to serve as an echo chamber for newspapers, politicians, or pundits. Jerimee 18:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I confirmed it, the New York Times never published this article: Brownback, Set to Launch GOP White House Bid, Will Fight from the Right By Rachel Kapochunas. Call the New York Times at 212.556.1234 to see for yourself. Jerimee 18:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about one thing. Rachel Kapochunas does not write for the NY Times, she writes for CQPolitics.com. You can review here bio for CQ here: Rachel Kapochunas' Bio at CQ Politics.com. However being right one issue does not settle the discussion. The New York Times reprinted Kapochunas' work concerning Brownback on their website. You can review that fact here: New York Times reprint of Rachel Kapochunas' work on Brownback. But all of this is irrelevant. The Congressional Quarterly, obviously a respected, well-regarded source, has stated that Brownback was a "broadcaster" at one point in his career. You requested a respected, well-regard source for the claim and there is one. I'm leaving it in. Have a good day!--Getaway 00:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Something being posted on a website, even printed in a paper, does not make it true. See Dewey Defeats Truman. The previous source, which I assume you looked at, makes it clear that Brownback does not have broadcaster credentials. Being that it is posted on Brownback's own website, and has details, it trumps Rachel Kapochunas work. You should get in touch with Kapochunas and see if you can find out where she got her info from. Jerimee 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I called Kapochunas. According to her, Brownback "did a radio show" while president of the Future Farmers of America. She cited a Congressional Quarterly resource edited by her collegue, Kim Hallock. I was unable to get Hallock on the phone. The only other info Kapochunas was able to provide was that this was Brownback's first job, and that he was perhaps younger than 22 when he took it. This combined with his educational biography should confirm any doubts that Brownback did not work as a "broadcaster" for either a substantial period of time, or in an involved capacity. I welcome any new information. Jerimee 17:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Getaway that the broadcaster information should stay. It comes from several different sources, from different views, and even from his own website. This information does not in anyway have a POV, and does not hurt anybody. Instead, it is the information that is known as fact. I would encourage maybe an addition to the paragraph indicating the years and time spent as a broadcaster. Maybe this will help end the dispute. Nerdland 02:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, it's just seems a little silly. Jerimee 03:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so as it stands now, Senator Brownback's summer internship at the age of 22 holds the following distinctions:

• It is the second paragraph in the article
• It is the 7th longest paragraph (out of 21)
• It is more detailed than the Senator's presidential ambitions
• It is more detailed than any of the Senator's issue positions

One way to fix this would be to remove the fluff quote, however, doing this would return us to the conclusion that the internship is of no significance. At least it goes to show that even the most successful amoung us pad their resumes. Jerimee 03:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

After looking into the issue further, I find that I would encourage a removal of the quote from this paragraph. I agree with Jerimee that the quote is too long, and does not add to the pages importance. If it is too remain NPOV, then it should be balanced with more information that explains WHY this quote is important in Brownback's history. Nerdland 17:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. On my talk page, you told me you agreed with the quote, but you told me to stop acting "cocky". Anyway, the quote is sourced and appropriate. It is highly inappropriate for anyone to push there POV that "Brownback is padding his resume." That is a POV statement that is being pushed on the article and that violates Wikipedia.--Getaway 18:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, you state that it is "sourced and appropriate" but give no verification. I'll put this in simple terms: just tell us why it is important. All information on the page should add to the importance of it, so tell me why this quote from his time as a broadcaster is important to the issues/history/biography/experience/etc. Nerdland 20:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for "Brownback pads his resume." for inclusion in the article. Instead, I think that the broadcaster claim can be removed from the article, because it is not significant, based on the facts. Also, saying "POV" over and over again doesn't make you right. I don't think anyone whould consider Getaway to be a neutral contributor. Articles should strive for neutralitity in presenting the facts. Jerimee 16:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Jerimee's comment about whether I am a neutral editor is not relevant to the discussion. I don't find Jerimee to be a neutral editor either, but my opinion about whether Jerimee is a neutral editor is not relevant. Now, what is relevant is whether a particular edit violates WP:NPOV or not. And I have stated and I will state again that Jerimee has repeatedly written that he/she believes that "Brownback pads his resume" and that Jerimee is attempting to impose that POV on the article--he/she has stated repeatedly that he/she will be running a campaign to take out as many of Brownback's claims as possible, based upon Jerimee's belief that Brownback pads his resume. Brownback claims to be a broadcaster and several well-qualified sources accept Brownback's claim. There has not been provided by Jerimee a third-party independent reliable source that has stated that they do not accept Brownback's claim. The only support that Jerimee has provided for the attempt to remove the sourced, important information is his/her personal opinion that he/she believes that it should not be in the article because: (1) it is "not significant" and (2) Brownback is just padding his resume. Well, as I have stated before, Jerimee is just a mere Wikipedian and his/her opinion about whether he/she believes that Brownback pads his resume is irrelevant and non-notable. There must an independent third party reliable source provided to support that claim. Jerimee has not provided one. Jerimee refuses to provide a source that does not violate WP:RS Also, as to the question whether it is "significant" or not, well, once again, Brownback makes the claim that he was once a broadcaster (and a source for that claim has been provided) and independent third-party reliable sources have been provided to support Brownback's claim (for example, CQPolitics.com has referred to his work as broadcaster and that article has been reprinted by the New York Times). Now, Jerimee might just have a point, but until he/she provides something, anything, other than his/her personal Wikipedian opinion that: (1) Brownback pads his resume or (2) Brownback's work as a broadcaster is "not significant" (whatever that means) then the broadcaster claim by Brownback will stay in the article. Have a good day! And I look forward to seeing that third-party independent reliable source to back up the Jerimee's claims.--Getaway 17:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just surprized you think it is important. If one of the top twenty most important things about the Senator is his summer break internship at the radio station, don't let me to stand in the way. Jerimee 01:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Kim Hallock, of CQPolitcs.com, said of that she has no info on Brownback having credentials as a broadcaster, and that she suspects that this will be retracted from their Senate bio publication this coming spring. Hallock is who Rachel Kapochunas said she got her info from. Jerimee 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The vanity quote from the broadcaster paragraph should be removed because it is not encyclopedic, it is not central to Sam Brownback biography. Additionally:

• It is POV.
• It is NOT relevant to the Brownback's notability.
• It is unduly self-serving.

Jerimee 20:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you want to remove the fact that Brownback was a broadcaster. You have stated that you are going to rid the article of items that you believe to be resume padding information. You have stated this over and over again. Now, what is standing in your way? Well, the fact that Brownback has stated that he was a broadcaster and two reliable sources (CQ and repeated by the New York Times) that he was a broadcaster. Now, the quote of Brownback is notable because it backs up his claim that he worked as a broadcaster. Now, it is not up to you whether he really worked as a broadcaster or not. Either we have evidence that he did or we have evidence that he didn't. We have a quote directly from him that states that he was a broadcaster. It is in the article. You have not explained how the quote is "POV". You just keep stating that it is "POV". That is a conclusionary statement. What is the substance behind your claim??? You have not provided any. Brownback's notability was never in question so that comment is irrelevant and off point. You have not provided any information on why the quotation is "unduly self-serving". Once again, you have provided a conclusionary statement. You have not provided any reasoning or evidence to back up you conclusion, you just simply state: its "unduly self-serving". Well, I have asked for reasons, not just conclusionary statements. So far, I have not received anything other than you opinion. Your opinion is not a valid reason or evidence to make decisions on for Wikipedia. Brownback claims that he was a broadcaster, the quote backs up the statement. You have not provided any information to contradict that statement other than you repetitive statement that it is "POV" and "self-serving"--simple conclusionary statements based upon your own personal opinion nothing more.--Getaway 20:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You can do these calls yourself. CQPolitics admits that they do not have anything to substantiate that broadcasting was a significant part of Brownback's career, and the New York Times linking to CQPolitic's, now retracted, claim, does not make it a second, or valid, source. But this isn't really what we are talking about, what we are talking about now, is whether the fact that Senator Brownback interned at a radio station for six months merits a full quote. I say that this manufactured platitude is not relevant to Brownback's notability. As for your other edits, you must admit they are POV, as you have trespassed against previous compromises you argued for (the Opus Dei stuff). Jerimee 14:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I don't care about the Opus Dei stuff. I don't care if it is in or if it is not, as long as it is presented in a NPOV manner. I have not attempted to edit Opus Dei stuff. If I did take it out, it was merely by accident. And IF I did that then I apologize. I have attempted to be careful in specifically NOT removing that Opus Dei info because you have expressed a belief that it should be there. That position is totally consistent with my belief that we put in more and let the reader decide if it is important. There is another editor who seems not to want it in and you are assuming that it is I. It isn't. Now, back to the bigger picture. You don't want certain information in the article. I say put it all in, even the statistics about him missing half of the votes in for one month in January 2007, even though it may not meet the requirements of notability because of the very, very, very short time period covered. It is you that is attempting to remove large sections of information just based upon your own personal opinion that it should not be there. Let the reader decide, not you. If a reader does not believe Brownback when he states that he was once a broadcaster then give him/her that option. Don't make that decision for the reader. I'm putting the quote back in because it is sourced and it is relevant and it is notable because he has made a claim that he once was a broadcaster. It is NOT up to you to decide that he wasn't--unless you can provide sourced, third-party reliable sources to back up your opinion. Your personal opinion is not relevant. It is just POV pushing.--Getaway 15:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. In particular, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Jerimee 17:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Opus Dei POV commentary

I edited the following sentence: However, he says he is not a member of Opus Dei.. I edited it to state: However he is not a member of Opus Dei. The second version is not POV. The first version is similar to stating: "Hillary Clinton says she's not a lesbian."--Getaway 15:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting, however, even saying "he is not a member" can be POV. For example, saying "Senator Brownback is not a terrorist" would probably be POV. Jerimee 17:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

True, and the deleted line is something that is relevant to the subject. Brownback himself makes a big issue of his religious beliefs. So as long as he wants to be president, or in any public office, it is valid.

You should check citations before deleting things willy nilly. You don't get to use wiki to make your candidate look good (though I fail to see how his making this statement truly hurts him). Statements he or his office gave to the Washington Post are prefectly valid. Your Hilary Clinton smear is not relevant, comperable, or even logical.nut-meg

That Clinton example is of course not really comparable, but there is a valid point in it. By writing "He says he is not..." you are creating an implicit feeling of the form "Hey, he says he is not, but we all know he is lying". What is wrong in puting the sentence simpler ("He is not", with a reference to his own statement) and including the doubts about the fact only when there is some realiable source of them? Irwing 10:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, you noted that his mind could not be read by wikipedians. This is absurd. The man made a statement to the Washington Post. Where is the mind reading in that? I went to some trouble to find a reliable citation that could be attributed to him or his office, rather than some wacky unverifiable blog. If you have a problem with him denying membership in Opus Dei, perhaps you should give him a call. nut-meg 08:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear nut-meg: Where do I begin to unravel all of the misstatements and misunderstandings that you just laid upon me and other Wikipedians??? Your commentary really went way over the top and as such I need to respond in a like manner. First of all let me state that Irwing's edit fixed the valid problem that I saw. Problem fixed. Unfortunately, I have to now spend time unraveling the personal attacks and smears that you have unleashed. First of all, I did not remove your whole edit. Some other Wikipedian did, not me, check the edit history. I merely removed the phase, "he claims. . ." Someone else came along later and removed the whole thing. I only know this because I checked the edit history before I started this response. In other words, I engaged in a little due diligence before I spouted off my mouth, which you obviously did not. Second, Brownback is NOT my candidate. I'm not particularly wowed by him. I tend to like John McCain and/or Rudy Giuliani, but that you did not know, well, because you don't know me. You have never met me. You know nothing about me. But wait! Wikipedia is not about me. Wikipedia is not about you!!! My opinion of who the next U.S. President should be is, well, irrelevant. And, well, your opinion about me is irrelevant. You have choosen to spout off your mouth on an irrelevant subject--even though you don't know anything about it. Now, we know a lot about you. You are willing to comment on my irrelevant political beliefs even though you don't know me or anything about me. This says a lot about your hubris. You obviously have a lot of it. Hey, I have an idea. Why don't you focus on the article and not me?? How about it, huh? Because if you did then you wouldn't make the glaringly incorrect comments like you did about the irrelevant topic of my political beliefs. Now, let's talk about Hillary Clinton. She claims not to be a lesbian, but can we be sure? Can we even be sure of anything? Well, yes. We can be sure how you got your Wikipedia moniker.--Getaway 12:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What personal attack? Unless my belief that your edits are politically motivated really hurts your feelings, there was none. No smears, nothing (which is more than I can say for you). I've gone through the history and seen you regularly removing anything that might be remotely unfavorable. You have regularly deleted any reference to Opus Dei on this page. Can you see why that makes you look like a vigilante? What he said to the Post is a valid thing to put in the article. If Hilary Clinton told the Post that she was not a lesbian, you'd be justified in running over to her page and quoting it. Im still wondering where the personal attack was. But hey, whatever set you off Im sure you'll survive. nut-meg 03:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a waste of time, but I will not let you repeat one of your lies. I have never removed a reference to Opus Dei. That is a lie on your part. Have a good day!--Getaway 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Opus Dei comment is fine as it is. Why are people still worked up about it? Jerimee 01:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody removed the Opus Dei compromise. I'm restoring it. Jerimee 20:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Given that the article has subjected to what are essentially revert wars for over two months, with little progress toward compromise, I think it is only fair to add the neutrality disputed tag. You can see this talk page for a listing of disputes, those that currently come to my mind are the vanity quote in bio section, the regular removal of the Opus Dei compromise that was agreed to back in January, and the deletion of info about Brownback's vote attendence. Jerimee 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing valid, sourced quote of Brownback concerning his broadcast radio days. I know that you want to remove all items that you believe to be examples of Brownback padding his resume, you have made that comment before, but without proof that: (1) he did not make the comment and (2) that is it simply untrue then the comment must stay in the article. It is notable in that it provides proof of his radio broadcaster days, which you want to deny even though the facts are not on your side, and it provides an understanding of his rural upbringing. You have not provided any reason for its removal other than you simply want it removed and that you consider it "vanity" (whatever that means!). Please stop reversing everyone that you don't agree with and attempt to work on the article in a productive manner. The article does not belong to you or anyone else for that matter and provide substantive reasons why you are making certain changes. I know, for one, that you reasons for reverting the Brownback quote [After college, Brownback spent a year working as a broadcaster; he hosted a weekly half-hour show. He has commented on the experience: "I'd grown up listening to farm broadcasters. Conversation stopped around our table when the broadcaster read the markets. . . .It stirred my interest in international affairs, since what was going on in the Soviet Union or Brazil or Australia affected our markets for wheat and soybeans."] are not based upon anything, so far, other than you want to rid the article of anything that you personally believe to be resume padding by Brownback. Now, I have stated before and I will repeat again. That opinion of yours is your OPINION and in Wikipedia it is not allow to push your personal opinion on the article. Yes, there are POV edits going on and you are engaging in that process. Your constant and unrelenting reversal of sourced, valid, on-point quotes, directly from Brownback (and not some person you may or may not have talked to on the telephone) is an example of a POV being pushed on the article. Please stop. Please find a substantive reason why the quote should not be in the article other than your own personal opinion.--Getaway 16:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag is warrnted. Partisans regualrly remove relevant stuff here to the point where I doubt this aricle will ever be NPOV. nut-meg 17:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

adopted children

If the info about Brownback's adopted children is to remain on the page, it should be part of a short general narrative about Brownback's family. The way it is currently written, "The couple are the parents of five children (three daughters and two sons; two of the children are adopted).", seems to me to imply that adopted children are somehow different from non-adopted children. If their status as adopted is notable, this should be included in the article. Jerimee 16:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The children are only different in that they're adopted. Personally, I find it interesting when candidates for office have adopted children because it gives them a special insight on some issues that they otherwise might not have. I think it's relevant information that should be included, especially in the format you quote, because it does not single out certain children as being adopted. Adopted children are different from biological children in only one way: they are adopted.--Gloriamarie 18:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jerimee's comment on the edit history about 3RR

Dear Jerimee: You left this note in the most recent edit history: (cur) (last) 17:50, 22 February 2007 Jerimee (Talk | contribs) (see what wikipedia is not, or discussion, or 3R rule, or general decency) All I can say is: What gall!!! You violated 3RR first. Now, if you want I will contact an admin right now and I will agree to be blocked for my edits, but of course this will mean that you will get blocked also. Keep in mind that 3RR applies to both you and me. It is not a one-way street where it applies to everyone on Wikipedia, except Jerimee. Look, I know that you want to censor info from the Sam Brownback. But you have to compromise. I have left in a series of your edits, but you have been unwilling to compromise--especially on the Brownback quote as it concerns his work as a broadcaster. We both know why you want that quote out of the article. Once it is out then you will remove Brownback's claim that he was once a broadcaster all together. In the edit history and on the talk for the article there are several comments by you where you have stated that believe that Brownback pads his resume. That is your opinion and you are attempting to push that opinion onto the article, POV pushing. Please stop.--Getaway 18:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please carefully examine the quoted sources as a basis for deciding regarding the disputed material. Fred Bauder 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No Sockpuppets!

Hey Getaway, great job on ferreting out and reverting the edit from that sockpuppet! [9] Nobody likes it when somebody on Wikipedia pretends to be something they’re not, especially when they're just trying to push their own POV, right? [10] Anyway, have a good day! 138.162.5.7 15:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace Discrepancy

The infobox says that he was born in Garnett, but the article says that he was born in Parker. Which is right? StaticElectric 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

His campaign website's biography says Parker, so I'm going to go ahead and change the article to that. [11] StaticElectric 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with decision. I believe that he was born in Parker, but his family's home, at the time of his birth, was in Garnett.--Getaway 17:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• United States Congress. "Sam Brownback/Archives/2007 (id: B000953)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. His official biography states quite clearly that he was born in Garnett but raised in Parker. Right now this article states exactly the opposite. StudierMalMarburg 16:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that is correct. Parker is a very small town. It is doubtful he was actually born there. I don't think it has a hospital. Born in Garnett, raised in Parker is probably accurate. Probably raised near Parker would be more accurate, since his family farmed. I don't think they lived in town. Kslogic 13:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Attack on Character

I removed the word "Homophobe" from the very first sentence under Biography. It previously read "Homophobe Sam Brownback..." I believe the addition of that word was an attempt to vandalize this page and promote a view of Mr. Brownback that is judgemental in nature. 68.211.84.26 15:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there have been a number of similar vandalisms to active politicians lately - I wish the vandals would just give up already. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 13:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Scorecards

There are now many partisan and non-partisan organizations devoted to specific topics that issue scorecards on the actions of legisltors. I think the League of Conservation Voters is one of the oldest, but there are now countless scorecards. The Concerned Women for America, for example, gives Brownback a 100% score.[12] Adding these facts to legislative biographies is like mentioning specifc votes - it's easy to cherry pick issues of interest to WP editors rather than those which best depict the activities of the subject. It'd be best of there was a general resolution on the inclusion of scorecards in bios. Until then, though they're just another relaible source that needs to be handled neutrally. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe they're appropriate or enlightening. It seems the ones currently includes have been cherry-picked to include groups that gave Brownback a 0% or very low rating.--Gloriamarie 18:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I don't think all these positions, are in the appropriate format. They don't all need their own section, refer to Mitt's or Hillary's articles for an example.-DMCer 05:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed this and improved it a bit. However, the two articles you point to are not good examples for this, since they each have their own spinoff articles just on their political positions and the section that appears in their main bio is therefore just a summary.--Gloriamarie 18:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He spent a night in jail twice?

details? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

He said this in the Morgan State debate in Baltimore. He said he did it voluntarily to find out what it was like.--Gloriamarie 18:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Israel-Palestinians

I would encourage anyone who uses Wikipedia regularly to look up what is happening to the Israel-Palestinians section. This used to state that the pro-"transfer" position Mr. Brownback has endorsed is routinely referred to as far-right and racist in Israel, and is considered extremely controversial. Anyone who is even passingly familiar with Israeli politics will recognize this to be the case, whatever their own views on the subject. This has now been removed by someone who has instead inserted nationalist phrasing (eg. "Judea and Samaria" instead of the standard English-language news agency phrase "West Bank"). Also, information taken straight from the sources has been removed, such as that Arabs who do not comply with the application of this proposal are supposed to be expelled. This is crucial, since that is what the plan is essentially about, even if it is illegal to say so openly in Israel due to anti-racism laws. I think this clearly amounts to whitewashing a position chosen by Mr. Brownback, which is in fact considered extremely divisive and inflammatory by the Israeli mainstream, not to mention among American Jews and in the rest of the world. That should be part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.250.33 (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)