Talk:Norm Coleman/Archive 1

message: This article is rather biased against Coleman in places. Mushy qualifiers like "widely considered" are not particularly objective. The quotes on the end are clearly offered without a context to make a point. I disagree with using selective quotes to make someone look bad. This page deserves changing or reverting to an older version.
--Tom Ruen 05:14, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
I couldn't leave it untouched, but found it very easy to remove the trashy statements. It certainly deserves more work, if there's anyone out there without a political agenda for editting. --Tom Ruen 05:24, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
I think that it is fair to place a link to a satirical site about Sen. Coleman since it has his own personal Seante site linked as well. In the past the Bushboy.com link has been removed but without reason.
Micah 00:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mushy Qualifiers" 

message: As mayor of St. Paul, Coleman voted against an effort to repeal the city's anti-discrimination law which prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Parsing . . . "Coleman voted against a repeal of a law that prohibited discrimination."  This sentence seems to indicate that Coleman supported a law that protected gays from discrimination.  Either the sentence is incorrect, or this vote is evidence of Coleman's support of gay rights, rather than evidence of his opposition.  (Incidentally, I wonder whether it is accurate to say that he made this "vote" as mayor.  I don't know anything about the structure of St. Paul's mayor - city council system, but perhaps it was a veto?)
:I also think this is a little poorly worded, but it wouldn't be fully correct to say that Coleman was a champion of the anti-discrimination law for gay and lesbian St. Paul residents. He opposed a repeal of a law that protected their rights, if that makes sense. This vote, seemingly showing that he is in favor of some rights for the gay and lesbian community and opposed to others is the reason why the title should probably be "positions on gay rights issues." -- MicahMN | μ 13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coleman's Record on Gay-Rights Issues 

message: If we're going to get into edit wars with political spin, let me pull this quote out of the AP article with Coleman's chief of staff:
"Norm Coleman was 7-feet-10-inches, with green hair and one eye smack dab in the middle of his head" he said. 
Jcbarr 13:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coleman staff editting article 

message: I've removed the mention to Coleman being the head of SDS as Hofstra. This is something that needs to be cited, I did quite a bit of research and cannot find reference to it. I think it would be irresponsible and potentially libelous to leave in without citation. I've also made a number of changes to flesh out the politics section and tried to keep it as NPOV as possible. If there are any changes in there that you think should be cited, let me know and I'll throw it in there. -- MicahMN | μ 15:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coleman and the [[Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization)|Students for a Democratic Society]] 

message: Yeah, I realized my last edit summary probably doesn't make much sense to non-admins, since there's no protect tab for them to click... anyway, since the article is currently protected, I've restored the tag. Whether or not it ought to be, I will leave to the judgment of others. android79 18:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a result of being listed on ANI, this article is probably on quite a few more watchlists now. (I added it to mine.) So I hope the semi-protection should not be needed much longer. Jonathunder 20:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Query this and tell that needs " ".—Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronRoe  (talk • contribs) 
:Yes, leaving out the quotes plagiarizes the news story in the results. --Ajdz 07:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: I'd like to be able to link "Jim Buckley" from the quote "these conservative kids don't fuck or get high like we do (purity, you know)... Already the cries of motherhood, apple pie, and Jim Buckley reverberate thorough the halls of the Student Center" in  the "Coleman's politics" section, but I have no idea who he is (the only Wikipedia entry with that name is an Australian footballer).  Was he talking about William F. Buckley and got the first name wrong?  Does anyone know?  
Edit: Ah, it's probably James L. Buckley.  Any objections to my linking the name to that article?  He was a conservative New York senator exactly then (or was at least running for Senate in 1970, when it seems Coleman made the statement), when Coleman made the comment at a New York state university.
Moncrief 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Jim Buckley? 

message: Several other articles reference the wikipedia scandal.  (This is not a complete list, and will grow.)  Please add any refernces here.
This begs the question: 
Why are certain wikieditors focusing exclusively on the Norm Coleman article?  
What does this list show? Not only does the news media feel the wikipedia scandal is relevant, 26 news media outlets around the world, including some of the most repspect in the world, but several other wikipedians independently have judged that this scandal is relevant.
Signed:Travb (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other wikipedia articles which reference wikipedia scandal 

message: I deleted an orphaned footnote, which was not referenced in the main article:
:*1993 Letter from Norm Coleman to the Saint Paul City Convention Delegates - addressed: "Dear DFL Ward Convention Attendee."
Please add it back using  tags.  Thanks. Travb (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: I want to remind some users who continue to delete referenced sources (25 referenced sources in all) that this is an encyclopedia.  Wikiusers have referenced 25 news outlets, on three continents, including some of the most prestigous news outlets in the world.  I would like to remind these users of Wikipedia:Verifiability.  Myself and other users have not only met Wikipedia:Verifiability, but surpassed the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability.
I would be interested to see news articles (not web blog articles) that state that the wikipedia scandal involving Norm Coleman's office is not newsworthy.  In otherwords, instead of devolving into peity revert wars, do some research, and defend your opinions, as all wikiusers are required to do.  Those who wish to keep this in the article have exhasitvly researched this subject.  Those who do not wish to keep this in the article, to my knowledge have done none.
If you cannot argue the case of deleting the wikipedia scandal here on the merits, please do not devolve into peity revert wars.  I would argue that this simply shows how weak your position truly is. 
Signed:Travb (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please avoid revert wars 

message: I have created an article to replace the internal redirect at Congressional Staffer Edits. I also moved it to Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia for clarity. I tried to keep it balanced, but I trust others will review and edit it.  I think a link to it from this article would be appropriate. It should put things in perspective and reduce the need for detail here.--agr 12:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave it a bit of a cleanup & linked the internal, though I did find the 25 sources added by Travb to have been excessive, so I've hid them, for now. El_C 23:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and I've written the lead paragraph (although was nonetheless faced with accusations that I've "contributed nothing to this project"). El_C 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional Staffer Edits