Talk:Jim Bunning

message: This story, about Bunning no longer being quite so welcome in Michigan since he voted against Detroit, may be worth noting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disinvited

message: Wouldn't it make sense to place the infoboxes in the apropos article sections (i.e. move  into the "Major League Baseball" section, and  into the "Political career" section) and lead off the article with a simpler, less-specific one (e.g. ?
On a separate matter, why is his name in the political infobox "Jim Bunning(R-Ky.)"?  That's not listed as his name in the article proper, nor does the infobox's documentation instruct anybody to do so.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  infoboxes 

message: "If you can't come to a consensus about how to present something of significance, best to leave it out altogether." - Wikipedia Lurkers and Trolls  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.186.52 (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Moral of the Story 

message: *
*
*
*
*
*
Is this enough to get you started, Arzel/Therefor?  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Blaxthos, I never said ANYTHING about sources.  Try to hold back your glee.  Arzel (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec -- I was sold before you added the other 4 ;) ) I agree the Hill is a reliable source -- I was under the impression that this was your own observation in vio of NOR. Given that source, I wouldn't see a problem adding it. I would attribute it to the Hill, with something like, "The Hill reported ...." This wasn't just another vote, but one that, by gaining cloture, pushed one of the most major 21st century legislation forward to pass the Senate. The Republicans wanted a solid front and Bunning, as been his nature since deciding (forced) not to run hasn't exactly been a team player. Since it is one line, I don't think WP:UNDUE is applicable. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, Talking Points Memo isn't a reliable source nor, I believe is nowpublic. But Politico definitely is. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right about nowpublic, but TPM is most certainly a reliable source.  In fact, it is often cited by other reliable sources (most especially cable news channels).  It should be a moot point, though, as there are multiple reliable sources listed (WKMS, Jacksonville Observer, Politico, etc). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? TPM is a blog. Although most credible on the page that discusses (say) the firing of the attorneys in the Bush admins, it is not allowed for a BLP. I rarely see it used there -- I bet you can find it, but that wouldn't be applicable (OTHERSTUFF and all). Nor would RedState, etc. BLP is unambiguous about the use of blogs.∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've re-added the comment with the Hill, the Jax Observer and Politico as sources. That should be enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: FTR, Therefore, I think you may be confusing "blog" with self-published sources; the word "blog"  is not an automatic disqualifier from WP:RS.  I believe the governing language is "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".  Given that other unquestionably reliable sources cite TPM as a reliable source itself, I think it would probably pass scrutiny.  However, this is all discussion in the abstract -- we can just use one of the other available sources in this case.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be darned. I had no idea that the DailyKos, RedState and the Drudge Report are now considered RSs in Wikipedia. All are echoed on cable shows. Actually, none of them are considered reliable sources. If TPM (or TMZ or Drudge or RedState or Kos) break a story, it would never be allowed in a BLP until a published, mainstream source known for fact checking confirms the information. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: PS Sorry for not making it clear on the talk page that I'd used a reliable source in my sentence (the Hill). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to be sorry for -- it was my fault for not checking from the beginning! ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

text: The "why" is that he is showing he doesn't feel an important vote is worth attending. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says?  Where exactly are the sources claiming that he doesn't feel an important vote is worth attending?  Arzel (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Multiple sources wouldn't comment on him skipping a vote if it wasn't important. Senators must skip votes all the time, its usually a non-issue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think consensus is pretty clear here. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Given a member of Congress issues thousands of votes during his career, and given that he is probably going to miss dozens or hundreds of those (in the aggregate), if we're going to mention one specific one in his Wiki biography we must also note why it's significant enough to mention.  However, I don't believe it would be appropriate to dive into any polarized criticisms or pundit pontifications on "what it means" or "why it wasn't important to him".  A simple sentence or two stating the fact that the vote was missed, as well as why the missed vote is significant, should be sufficient. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't think this is that notable considering it is unlikely to be the final vote on the issue.  This was simply a vote to end cloture and send the bill back to the house.  That said I added his reason and the result for clarity and context.  Arzel (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It reads much better with your addition. Strictly speaking, it wasn't to send it back. The Senate passed the measure and now the House will pass it and send it on to the President (possibly, at least, with a reconciliation bill). It was considered the "last vote" and Republicans were upset that they couldn't make it 60-40 to symbolize unity. His absence stood out. I believe it was an important vote, but you may be right that it will be a footnote event that later can be either removed or incorporated with his other votes/positions on health care. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 00:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: The external link from Washpo "WhoRunsGov" is a wiki.  I am not quite sure how to remove it because of the way the external links are setup, but it does not belong.  Arzel (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jim Bunning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110721075614/http://www.aolnews.com/article/senators-slam-bernanke-over-joblessness-but-fed-chiefs-job-see/19265781 to http://www.aolnews.com/article/senators-slam-bernanke-over-joblessness-but-fed-chiefs-job-see/19265781
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100307104134/http://bunning.senate.gov:80/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsCenter.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=21648539-d0e8-4c3b-6078-362af45228d7 to http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsCenter.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=21648539-d0e8-4c3b-6078-362af45228d7
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100304030703/http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsCenter.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=0bb28da1-dbbc-c1a1-52ec-5a441b0041e4&Region_id=&Issue_id= to http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsCenter.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=0bb28da1-dbbc-c1a1-52ec-5a441b0041e4&Region_id=&Issue_id=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100308125519/http://www.wfpl.org:80/2010/03/02/bunning-drops-objection-to-senate-bill/ to http://www.wfpl.org/2010/03/02/bunning-drops-objection-to-senate-bill/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150801213423/http://kywordsmith.com/ to http://kywordsmith.com/#/exclusive-3/4533522960
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090815144010/http://www.publicpolicypolling.com:80/pdf/PPP_Release_KY_408.pdf to http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_KY_408.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150801213423/http://kywordsmith.com/ to http://kywordsmith.com/#/gopdinner/4533687284
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070902033655/http://scribeus.com/news_pr_051216.html to http://www.scribeus.com/news_pr_051216.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jim Bunning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://newsandtribune.com/archive/x518756716/Bunning-says-fund-raising-picking-up-after-lousy-start
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080730201058/http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Baseball status as being exempt from antitrust laws has not really changed.  The owners "voluntarily" removed the reserve clause from contracts as part of collective bargaining with the MLBPA.  The Supreme Court, having ruled on the matter in 1922 in Federal Baseball Club v. National League that the exhibition of "base-ball games" was not "commerce" as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution has not changed subsequently reversed this holding, with the Court stating (on several occasions) that Congress could do this if it chose, but as of 2022 has never adopted any legislation to do so.  2600:1004:B103:28BF:0:13:B56C:F701 (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antitrust exemption