Talk:Mark Udall

message: The page is now protected for seven days days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: There is no source that says that Mark Udall was raised Presbyterian. As his father, Mo Udall, was a Mormon, one would assume he was raised in the same church as his father. However, I don't understand why that is listed, as he currently is unaffiliated (which probably means he's a closeted atheist}.
:I apologize, I had to assume as there was no source. Now that one has been added, I see that I am wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.77.143.150 (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, CQ politics says his religion is now "Christian." However, I am not sure if that is specific enough, and I haven't seen it anywhere else. I would agree with the user above that he is probably a closeted atheist, considering he lives in Boulder County. HUZZAH HANUKKAH (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: This article reads like a campaign ad, especially when compared to his opponent's. Most of the pro-Udall fluff appears to have been recently added by a SPA User:Mister.bryan.kelley.  Any thoughts on how to make this article more balanced?  Newguy34 (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: This reads like it was written by a Udall staffer, or a very biased Wikipedia user who is a staunch Udall supporter. This is far from a NPOV article. It must change. DavidSteinle (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased article 

message: Considering the fact that Colorado Senator Ken Salazar is leaving his post to be in Obama's cabinet, should there be mention that Mark Udall will ultimately become the senior senator from Colorado very soon after taking office?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.57.93 (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only after we get an official announcement that he will be appointed. It should happen soon. -Rrius (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  Wiki doesn't predict the future; just encyclopedically chronicle the past.  Newguy34 (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Plus, it's really not notable or important.  Being a senior or junior really doesn't affect anything.  A senator is a senator.  Newguy34 (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated the BLP to indicate that Udall will be the senior senator from Colorado, once he takes office, given the source that I also referenced re: Sen. Salazar's appointment to Obama's cabinet. Newguy34 (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, assuming Salazar is confirmed, Udall would not be the senior senator until after Salazar leaves the Senate. It should be written to say it is expected he will become the senior senator early in 2009 as Salazar will be Obama's nominee for Secretary of the Interior. Or something like that. -Rrius (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senior Senator 

message: #The U.S. State of Colorado has both United States Senators and Colorado State Senators.
#Colorado is a geographic region of the United States.  The State of Colorado is a political entity represented by two United States Senators.
#Single redirects are completely acceptable as links.  Double redirects must be avoided.
#In the United States, a swearing-in is a mere formality.  An appointed official takes office upon his appointment (and confirmation, if required.)  --Buaidh (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Colorado Senators

message: There is significant vandalism being conducted on this page in wake of Udall's 2014 reelection campaign. A user named CFredkin has repeatedly inserted biased text that violates Wikipedia's POV standards. This included adding an entirely new section titled "Colorado Division of Insurance" that focused exclusively on an incident in which Udall attempted to get the Division of Insurance to change the basis for what was considered a cancelled health insurance plan in Colorado. The text as CFredkin wrote it did not mention that Udall and his office was cleared of wrongdoing in this incident after an investigation. It also did not include the basis for Udall's request, which is that 175,000 of the 250,000 Coloradans who received "cancelled" plans had in fact received alternative plans from their insurer to sign up with. Whether or not Udall was right in his actions is for readers to decide, but not mentioning any of Udall's perspective is downright dishonest. Additionally, some of the primary sources for the section were Daily Caller articles, an extremely biased conservative site that does not meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source. I have since rewritten the section to offer both viewpoints, moved it to be next to Udall's ACA vote, and removed the biased sources. However, other edits seem to be taking place on this page that seem decidedly one-sided, as though a "hit job" of sorts was being done on the page. It may get to the point where it is worth locking to prevent further vandalism. Thoughts? Cat spasms (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism in wake of 2014 elections. -- Lock? 

message: User:Grammarxxx has recently made some changes to the article: . I've taken issue with these changes, and they've been added back. Let's have a discussion here rather than a slow motion edit war.
*I changed: "An avid golfer, Udall won the Arizona State Golf Championship Boy's division in 1968 and has since become known as one of Congress' best players" to "Udall won the Arizona State Golf Championship Boy's division in 1968." For one, this is in the "Family, early life, and education" section. "An avid golfer..." seems a bit ambiguous and fluffy. The boy's golf championship is an actual concrete, factual event we can chronicle here. It is WP:TRIVIA to say he's "become known as one of Congress' best golf players." I don't see a reason to include that here.
**I've edited it and "fluffed-down" the latter statement and moved it to the personal info section, what do you think?
*"While in office he introduced 12 bills, many of which related to conservation and animal abuse." This is not verified by the source provided . There appears to be a list of legislation, but we can only see the formal names of the bills. We can't infer from that what the topics were, or if many or most of the bills related to conservation or animal abuse. That sounds like WP:OR. Why not find a source that says as much rather than inferring/speculating based on the names of bills?
**I couldn't find any sources, it's been removed.
*"In 2004, Udall announced his candidacy for the Senate seat which was being vacated by Ben Nighthorse Campbell. However, the following day Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar announced his candidacy as well, leading Udall to bow out and endorse Salazar the following day." I changed this to: "In 2004, Udall announced his candidacy for the Senate seat which was being vacated by Ben Nighthorse Campbell. However, the following day Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar announced his candidacy as well. Udall bowed out out of the race and endorsed Salazar." We don't know why Udall bowed out. We can't speculate that it was because Salazar entered the race. Maybe it was. Find a source that says so. Otherwise, let's just stick with the factual chronology of events without editorializing about Udall's motives.
**you were right, your revision was more accurate. It's been changed back.
*This was removed, along with a picture of Senator Udall on the campaign trail: "Udall's first cousin, U.S. Representative Tom Udall, ran for and won the U.S. Senate seat in New Mexico left open by the retirement of Pete Domenici. Including their double second cousin, Senator Gordon Smith; there were three Udalls running in Senate elections in 2008. Smith in Oregon was narrowly defeated in his bid for a third term." This is all sourced and seems notable. It's quit extraordinary, actually, and it seems important to the article. No reason was given for this content's removal.
**I added a bit more on his family and their legacy. I still feel his family's accomplishments shouldn't be featured too prominently; this is his article.
*This was added: "Udall has a strong record of championing conservationism, protecting the environment, and supporting renewable energy. Believing his state is especially connected to the environment, Udall has said "there isn’t a Coloradan out there who doesn’t cycle, hunt, hike... We’re an outdoor state. It fits our worldview, and it’s how we define ourselves.” It's not neutral to say he has a "strong record of championing conservationism", etc. It sounds like campaign website language. Let's add specific legislation or accomplishments, but no need to wax eloquent here about Udall's feelings about the Colorado environment.
**I've added concrete accomplishments, and toned down the language. A good compromise.
*"Udall is married to Maggie Fox, a prominent environmental lawyer and indian scholar, she previously served as CEO of The Climate Reality Project." What is an "indian scholar?" This makes no sense to me. Is she a scholar of Native American Studies? Or the country of India? Does she have a PhD in a particular field? Is this notable in Udall's biography? 
**Again, my bad.
*Adding "He is a member of the Udall family, an American political family sometimes referred to the 'Kennedy's of the West'" into the lead seems rather WP:UNDUE. The source is a 2008 article from US News & World Report which says "The Udalls have never relished being called 'the Kennedys of the West.'" Based on that one sentence, we're putting it in the lead? I don't think it belongs there.
**How about now? Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 09:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  BRD did you say? It seems that you have taken the opposite approach. Why don't you slow down with the massive additions and removals? I am tempted to undo all of that, and allow the constructive conversation above to evolve. -  Cwobeel (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, WP:BRD.  The initial bold edits weren't mine.  Also the unsourced paragraph in the intro is contentious and should be removed per WP:BLP.CFredkin (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also the source for this edit does not include any mention of "civil liberties", and the use of "fierce" as a modifier seems to be entirely original.CFredkin (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Believing his state is especially connected to the environment, Udall has said "there isn't a Coloradan out there who doesn't cycle, hunt, hike... We're an outdoor state. It fits our worldview, and it’s how we define ourselves.” This is fluff. This is not encyclopedic. What is this adding? Is it about policy or events that occurred? No. It's just a random quote about how Udall feels about nature in Colorado. It's not notable.
The long quote from Udall via the NSA: work it into the body, or let's not include it. We're giving it special significance by putting it in a quote box--it's WP:UNDUE. Why is this quote particularly notable? 
*Obviously because it provides further insight into his position on the matter. It would seem clunky to have it just in the article. This was an impassioned quote and it deserves a place in the section. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 23:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed content

message: Ok, people have issue with the bold edits I've been making, so let's talk them out here and try to make the article better. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 23:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argument Center 

message: The issue regarding the lede has been resolved. This compromise was reached.
Mark Emery Udall (born July 18, 1950) is an American politician and the senior United States Senator from Colorado, in office since 2009. He served in the United States House of Representatives, representing . Prior to being elected to Congress, he represented parts of Boulder, Colorado in the Colorado House of Representatives.
As a Democrat, Udall has worked to support renewable energy, expand national parks, and protect privacy rights. His legislative achievements include converting the once Rocky Flats Weapons Facility into the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. Born in Tucson, Arizona, he is the son of former U.S. Representative Morris "Mo" Udall. As a part of the Udall family, a western American political family, his relatives include New Mexico's Tom Udall and Utah's Mike Lee.
Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 00:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think this lede is good, but would you consider including the subcommittees that he is a chair of?--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent point.CFredkin (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe the term "legislative achievement" is promotional just because it addresses a positive aspect. I thought wikipedia was meant to bring information "alive," not serve as a boring textbook. Also, here are additional references. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 17:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just thinking this myself.  Legislative achievement is a pretty generic term meaning "this is what I managed to push through congress".  I wouldn't consider those two words themselves to be promotional.  Although, I wouldn't be surprised to find those two words embedded in promotional language.--v/r - TP 17:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Ok, there seems to be consensus for "legislative achievements," and that's fine by me. Still unresolved is the issue of Rocky Flats, and whether that belongs in the lead given that it's not currently in the body of the article in any form, and the only supporting reference presented here is . The only reference to Udall and Rocky Flats in that article is: "The effort to transform Rocky Flats into a wildlife refuge was lead by Colorado Rep. Mark Udall (D) and Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard (R)." I don't see how one sentence in a quasi-reliable source would lend the weight necessary to include this in the lead. Perhaps the body, but why the lead? Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a reasonable concern.  Would anyone be willing to scrap this from the lead in the spirit of collaboration since Champaign Supernova conceded the issue of legislative achievements?--v/r - TP 20:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. I requested from the admin that protected the article to remove protection and he has agreed, so let's behave nicely and continue discussing and finding compromises and consensus for the rest of the deleted material. -  Cwobeel (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

text: T, I actually do agree with scrapping this from the lead, but, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of conceding and trading points to create an article. I realize it's impossible for anyone to be totally neutral, but one of the things we have to admit is that, like with most careers, the most significant standout items are going to be accomplishments. Politicians just happen to have so much emphasis placed on the negative every 1 out of 6 years for obvious reasons. But our goal shouldn't be to make an article equally acceptable to two sides of the spectrum, but rather to neutrally discuss the significant aspects. Unfortunately, we have quite a few editors who (without pointing fingers) have literally no purpose on Wikipedia other than trying to push political views on articles related to upcoming races, so it's hard to have this attitude. But I don't think the best way to deal with that is to approach the process from a partisan attitude of "this side's points versus that sides". Of course, I'm probably just being idealistic and silly here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 28 October 2014 

message: As it is and always has existed, the Unions section on Udall's page is one sentence. This sentence exists only to say he voted against unions, and should be removed or seriously beefed up, as it gives WP:UNDUE weight to the subject. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 18:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If necessary, it can be moved to the Economy section.CFredkin (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unions section 

message: The material above was deleted by  with the edit summary of "Failed verification". The sources provided say otherwise. -  Cwobeel (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, standing without any further explanation, that edit is puzzling. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

text: If no response by NazariyKaminski, I will restore this tomorrow. -  Cwobeel (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed verification? 

message: How about getting into a huge discussion, we settle on naming the section, "Firearms"? Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 22:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Unfortunately, I think discussing which article to link to might be less easily avoided. Gun rights is a redirect to a narrowly focused article with a lot of  WP:COATRACK problems, while gun control is a very broad overview. Either link is going to make implications about Udall's stand, but not linking to anything seems like a cop-out. There must be a better option, right? Grayfell (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A round of applause to Champaign Supernova for the very neutral language. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 18:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun (control v. rights) 

message: Why a lien on Udall campaign is relevant to this biography? That material may be suited to the campaign article, but not here. Please respect WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE-  Cwobeel (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, what does BLPREQUESTRESTORE have to do with this material? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's undue weight, for sure. Have you ever had to deal with unemployment insurance? In any case, a miscommunication that was immediately rectified does not even shake the relevant dial. Dave Dial (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you are right about that.  I was wondering about what the citation to BLPREQUESTRESTORE was supposed to mean? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Well, you got me there. I never even heard of that one. I just saw the text and read the article. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

text:  You can read it at WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE (my highlight): When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. -  Cwobeel (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I have got this clicking-on-links-and-reading-them thing mastered.  But bro, you seem to have left out the language that strongly implies that the policy is meant to apply to BLP articles that were deleted by an admin, rather than simply giving any BLP editor carte blanche to delete material that another editor has deleted before. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Ok, well that's a good policy, I just don't think it applies with this issue. It's definitely undue weight, silly and POV. But I wouldn't think it's a BLP violation, considering it did happen and is sourced. I can understand this is silly season and attempts to put in every negative/positive tidbit into political BLPs on both sides need to be scrutinized, but most people who have had to deal with unemployment insurance(whether they are a small business or independent contractor) understand these things happen all the time. Dave Dial (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  (ce) Nope. You have it wrong, FCAYS. It applies to deleted content and deleted articles as well. It is an accepted policy that material that is challenged requires consensus to be restored in BLPs. And [[WP:UNDUE}} is part of policy -  Cwobeel (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly did not even vaguely imply that the policy is not accepted.  But even if you were right about the supposedly dramatic reach of that policy — which I don't think you are — it would still be obvious that you ought to state a BLP objection in the first place when removing something based on BLP. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

text: My call on a BLP violation was based on the obvious attempt to attack a LP on the basis of a trivial event. In any case, this seems now resolved. -  Cwobeel (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think there is a BLP violation, it is always incumbent on you to say what you think it is.  And, for someone who lectures so indignantly about the need for other people to AGF, you don't seem too concerned with your own conduct. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that is is resolved, can you please tell me (in my talk page, not here) why this comment of yours is anything but unhelpful? -  Cwobeel (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Resolved", you mean now that you have stopped grandstanding over this minor issue?  Sorry, how has your own conduct (spurious argumentation, filing a pointless noticeboard case, accusing me of bad faith) been helpful here? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Forget it. Obviously you just want to raise hackles. Not playing that game thankyouverymuch. -  Cwobeel (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not.  Carry on with the helpful sniping, then. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lien on campaign 

message: First, the sentence "A member of the Democratic Party, ..." implies that these are the Universal positions of the Democratic Party, rather than the Individual positions of the Senator and that he is just toeing the line. Second, that is not a balanced representation of the Senator's time in politics by a long shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldencanon (talk • contribs) 
:I think you just have a problem that the lead doesn't just state "He is a Democrat." And what would you have for the lede, nothing? He has a verified record of supporting renewable energy and natural resources. If you have a problem with that than add more information to properly reflect it. Otherwise, stop complaining and editing the article because you have a beef. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 02:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Grammarxxx, don't forget to assume good faith. I agree with Goldencanon, perhaps for different reasons, that the placement of Udall's membership in the Democratic Party is odd, in the sense that it comes a little late in the lede of a person notable for being an elected official. I think it could look something like this instead: "Mark Emery Udall (born July 18, 1950) is an American politician and the senior United States Senator from Colorado, in office since 2009. A member of the Democratic Party, he previously served in the United States House of Representatives, representing Colorado's 2nd congressional district. Prior to being elected to Congress, he represented parts of Boulder, Colorado in the Colorado House of Representatives." Just one suggestion, I'm open to others. Perhaps Goldencanon can suggest one and we can discuss? Shatterpoint05 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Instead of simply removing the disputed parts, perhaps suggesting, here on the talk page, an alternate way of phrasing it might be more productive. Also, people are going to want to know his party affiliation, and not mentioning that in the lead is preposterous. "Let people read up on things for themselves" seems like an odd position for a Wikipedia editor to have. Political party affiliation is a basic biographical fact for a US politician. If you want to move it around, or change the wording, that's one thing, and it could certainly be phrased in a more neutral way, as Shatterpoint05 says, but deleting it without further discussion is not acceptable. Leads are designed to summarize the body of the article, so if you want to add something about gun policy, it must be neutrally worded and proportionate to the two small paragraphs that discuss it in the body of the article. Quite frankly it seems like trying to prove a political point by even mentioning it there. Likewise, issues of domestic security and health care should also be considered, since they are a larger portion of the body. Since the article doesn't even mention raising taxes, that does not belong in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The Second Paragraph of the Lede remains terrible

message: Might just be increased election cycle activity, but I feel like this page is bloating beyond control. I trimmed a bit from the personal life section. Removed info about a hike in which another hiker died (tragic, but this is Udall's page, not theirs), and mostly lots of fluff sentences that don't do any encyclopedic work: i.e. "In 1986, Udall and wife went on a hike." Removed quote about Coloradans that doesn't seem to pertain to Udall's personal life (it would be great on Colorado's page). Kept info about Udall relative that died, since this whole page highlights the broader Udall clan. The section isn't perfect, but hopefully we can keep working on it. Kept the golf stuff for the time being because I've already cut a lot, but worry that it is just trivia and might have to go. Shatterpoint05 (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have serious issue what you consider "fluff". This is a biography on Mark Udall, and just because he is a politician doesn't mean users have the right to raze information in the name of neutrality. I'm sorry if my words come off as harsh, but I feel that has become a norm on Wikipedia and it needs to be stopped. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 05:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response User:Grammarxxx. I didn't trim in the name of neutrality; I don't think any of the removed info (now restored, for the time being) is even possible of bias. I removed what I did in the name of keeping the personal life section focused on the key elements of Udall's personal life. As already noted, I didn't think a quote from Udall about Colorado belonged there. I also didn't think a few sentences about a hike on which someone else died belonged there either. None of these things are factually contentious or biased, obviously. But where's the line? Do we add info, if well-sourced, about his prom? His first automobile? In an attempt to add everything we can find about Udall, we've grown these sections a little larger, perhaps, then where they should be. Where they should be, I admit, is subjective. But that's why I opened up the discussion myself, so that we can figure that out. The term "fluff" was referring in part to content that didn't add to knowledge of Udall's personal life, (i.e. the quote about Colorado, and nicknames for mountain ranges in that state), as well as unnecessary sentences that I trimmed for readability, (i.e. "An experienced mountaineer, Udall has climbed many peaks during his work as an Outward Bound instructor, and in his personal life.") There are no specific facts in that sentence that add value to the subsequent sentences containing relevant facts that I did leave. That's what I meant by fluff. I think you might have taken it personally because you added them, but please don't be offended. I'm certainly not offended by your response. In fact, I'm not sure what your concerns about neutrality and razing info have to do with my edits here. Shatterpoint05 (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mark Udall. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070115/ap_on_go_co/allard_senate
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101028234525/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-senate to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-senate
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120172055/http://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/senate/raceratings_2008-10-09_12-20-35.php to http://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/senate/raceratings_2008-10-09_12-20-35.php
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) 15:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified