Talk:Russ Feingold/Archive 1

message: H.R. 2989 was eventually merged into H.R. 2673, a consolidated appropriations bill which passed the Senate 65-28 on 1/22/2004.  Feingold voted Nay.  The bill became Pub. L. 108-199 on 1/23/2004.
It's possible the author intended to mention another bill, however the Yahoo News links are expired so I can't tell.  sam 03:29, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
"He also supports issues such as health care reform, gay rights, education, AIDS prevention, environmentalism, a stronger foreign policy, senior citizens' issues, preserving Social Security, energy conservation, and abolishing the death penalty."
How stupid! Are there any Senators who claim to support AIDS, a weaker foreign policy, and wasting energy while opposing education?
Referring to the Senator as "maverick" seems out of place in an encyclopedia - isn't that for the reader to decide? (unsigned comment by 128.12.55.151)
*Yes, but describing his maverick behavior - - he has voted alone or nearly alone, often against his party - - is perfectly acceptable (with cites of course)--Hraefen 18:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV smiles on Feingold: any neutral, purely factual recounting of his votes and actions will tend to "glow" no matter what, because most people find them honorable and admirable.  The glow inheres in the facts themselves. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 09:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

message: There's been an edit war between 12.217.127.27 and Ollieplatt, with 5 reverts in one hour (well past the 3 in 24 hour rule).  I, too, have some problems with this article, but we should really discuss each of them specifically here before making sweeping changes. --BaronLarf 15:30, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
:"Ollieplatt"(/AKA Libertas)'s changes were obviously absurd, and he/she's been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism. The article does have an overall tone which is somewhat fawning. That should be easy to fix. "The nation was stunned" is a bit much, and should probably be replaced with something like "Outside political observers were surprised". Note that we should never state that an individual candidate accepted soft money because it is/was, by definition, not given to individual candidates, who by law have no say over independent expenditures. RadicalSubversiv E 15:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some of my problems with this article.
*Several sentences about Kasten are NPOV.  It states that he was out of touch with his constituents, something that is obviously an opinion.  His crying in the concession speech should not be there.  Nor should Feingold's celebration.
*"squeaked by" isn't really an encyclopedic term
*Feingold's opposition to soft money should indeed be contrasted with the amount of soft money that went to help him in the latest election.  It shouldn't say he accepted it, since it was only spent on his behalf, but it is an important point.
*His "signature issues" should be replaced with statements about what he has done.  
*The 'one man versus the system' theme that runs through-out the article should be toned down.  He voted for impeachment though it was unpopular but stood with his convictions; he voted against the Patriot Act but was proven right
*If you look at the article as a whole, I don't think it gives a real picture of the guy's life, only his record as a senator.  There are no headings in the article, no mention of his family or his time as a state assemblyman, etc.  There's more information about his views on issues and his election successes than there is in the Ted Kennedy article.  --BaronLarf 14:46, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
The article does not say Kasten was out of touch, it said Feingold ran ads claiming Kasten was out of touch. How is that NPOV? I guess the language can be slightly altered but I think it stands (I didn't write that part...I'm not sure who did) up well. The part about the crying is a bit much. The "one man versus the system" element is a big part of his career, something he has always emphasized. Shouldn't we encourage unique perspectives for each entry, as long as these perspectives stay close to the facts, instead of having every entry be a lifeless and dull photocopy? I do agree there should be mention of his family and his legislative career, but I guarantee you that if I went and listed his career in the state legislature someone would probably say that was NPOV too. --JamesB3 22:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputes over Neutrality

message: And don't forget Rhobite blocked me but not the defender of the POV. If you disagree, you might let him know. Tell Rhobite not to misuse his powers Ollieplatt 10:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rhobite's Misuse of Administrator Blocking

message: There have been a series of edits by a number of anonymous IP addresses to a sentence mentioning draft websites for Feingold.  I'm tempted to just let this go, but it annoys me that my changes keep getting reverted without explanation, despite my sources. Here is what I can find.
*Draftruss.com The domain was registered on 8/11/04 according to http://whois.godaddy.com . In addition, edits to this page in December 2004 mention this site, so it was obviously up and running at this point.
*Russforpresident.com debuted in February 2005, according to http://www.russforpresident.com/fulltext/id00015.htm .  According to the data from http://whois.godaddy.com , the domain was registered on 2/15/05.  
So I'm going to continue to revert edits to this page that are apparently nothing but an attempt to advertise Russforpresident.com on wikipedia.  In an attempt to be neutral, I'm not mentioning either site in the text of the article, only that one appeared and another followed, followed by source links to both.  --BaronLarf 02:12, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
The draftruss one has been around for quite some time. I dunno what the heck this anon is doing though Nick Catalano (Talk) 23:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous edits of "Draft Feingold" websites

message: Neutrality changed the title of the first heading from "Personal background" to "Early life."  I don't have an objection to having a heading like that, but in that case the information about Feingold's marriages and divorces don't fit there, since his most recently announced impending divorce was just announced.  And this is something notable that should be kept, since many pundits believe it will keep him from running for president in 08.  Suggestions?  Be bold, if you think of something.  --BaronLarf 00:37, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
:Just out of curiosity, what pundits? I haven't seen any commentary on the matter anywhere. RadicalSubversiv E 01:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure... here ya go... Milwaukee J-S article carried by Minnesota's Pioneer Press, UPI news brief carried world-wide, et al.  The talking heads on CNN aren't talking about it since it's way too early, but those who are interested are starting to count him out.  --BaronLarf 02:16, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
News of the Feingold two-fer divorce should be prominently in the article. Russ is screwed - and I don't just mean with his secretary - what I think is not that relevant though, the main thing is the sourced reference to political commentators who have declared his presidential ambitions Dead Before Departure. Adios Russ. You bad boy. RussMelenchuk 06:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First heading

message: The only one who voted against the USA Patriot Act. The man has integrity. Sorry, I know this is editorializing, but figure that I've just gotta say it. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a legend! 

message: Can anyone find any information about Feingold's position on immigration-related issues? For a presidential aspirant, he seems to have been remarkably silent on the topic. -- Seth Ilys 02:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge, he supports the guest work program.  But I don't have any sources. --Shawn 21:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  immigration positions 

message: BaronLarf deleted a bunch of links from this page because "Wikipedia aint a link repository."  I disagree, plenty of articles have plenty of links for further reading and we at Wikipedia are not in the business of deciding which is significant enough to be noted.  NPOV.  If someone with the power to revert sees this, might be a good time. DougOfDoom talk 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The amount of links was excessive.  If you want to dispute one link over another, that's another matter.  But having 40 some links or one link for every state trying to draft Feingold is just not necessary. --BaronLarf 03:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably agree. --Shawn 21:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of links 

message: I am a little concerned about the edits made by Merecat, and while adding the  is helpful, deleting a lot of information on this scale is haphazard and unwarranted. --Shawn 21:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disgree. The deletions I made were to uncited puffery. There were WP:V and WP:POV problems with that material. Merecat 21:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Merecat's sentiments, though I understand why there would be some people miffed by large deletions.  This article does indeed read much like a Feingold press release, and Merecat was being bold by doing something about it.--BaronLarf 02:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was a bit extreme though. Deletions on that level need to be discussed first. And btw, Merecat, it's not "fluffery". The contract in particular was a real thing. I am about to add the citation. Next time, please discuss deletions of that scale first. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What does this have to do with User:Dhwani1989 in any way, shape, or form?  And you're not here to investigate the identity of specific users.  Anyone from Washington would have a distinct Senate or House of Reps or White House IP address.  I don't think we need to worry about the identity, but merely the facts within the articles. --Shawn 04:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User:Merecat|Merecat]] 

message: The Wikipedia article "People from Madison, Wisconsin" states: "The people listed below were born in or are otherwise closely connected to the city of Madison, Wisconsin." Although Russ Feingold was born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin, he has lived in the Madison area since at least 1992. A person can be associated with more than one city in his lifetime. — Walloon 16:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that someone can be associated with more than one city in ones lifetime, I don't believe that Feingold is strongly associated with Madison.  He was born in Janesville, went to school in Madison, Boston and Oxford, goes to temple in Kenosha, works in Washington, D.C. and has been living for the past several years in Middleton, not Madison.  I'm in favor of limiting the category to :Category:People from Janesville, Wisconsin as that is where he was born.  --BaronLarf 13:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: People from Madison, Wisconsin

message: Can we either change the references to 1 column to avoid the pagewidth issue? I'd rather see the page-width look proper than have the references formatted the way they are. --Wolf530 04:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
The article should not have any citation needed tags and needs to be more stable to be a WP:GA.  I think it can make it, but it needs some work. Argos'Dad 19:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article Review on hold

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 17, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: yes
:2. Factually accurate?: no; there are unreferenced statements
:3. Broad in coverage?: yes
:4. Neutral point of view?: yes
:5. Article stability? yes
:6. Images?: no; there are broken links to images
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— Argos'Dad 03:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination