Talk:Cory Gardner/Archive 1

Untitled
Something is going on with this web page. I have repeatedly added entries noting that Cory Gardner voted to end the CURRENT medicare program for all Americans under 55 when he voted for Paul Ryan's budget plan. I included several sources so the reader could verify this fact. This information is continually removed. Why is this material being removed? I realize Mr. Gardner very likely wishes to conceal this information, but it is factual, and the information is sourced. Whats going on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfolk (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's blatently POV and highly contestable. If you feel it's important enough to include, word it in a NPOV method. For help, see WP:NPOV Kessy628 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that this is POV or contestable. It is simply a fact that the Ryan budget plan, which Gardner voted for, ends the CURRENT Medicare program for everyone under age 55. It is simply a flat out fact. The Ryan plan creates a completely new Medicare program for all Americans under 55. These are simply facts. One may take the perspective that this is good, or that this is bad, but it is a FACT that the Ryan Budget ENDS THE CURRENT MEDICARE PROGRAM FOR ALL UNDER 55. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/ryan_medicare.html http://swampland.time.com/2011/04/06/the-nitty-gritty-details-of-paul-ryan%E2%80%99s-medicare-plan/ http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/07/nation/la-na-gop-budget-20110408 http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-Ryan_Letter.pdf "Under Ryan's proposal, seniors and others on Medicare would begin receiving a set amount of money, starting in 2022, to offset the cost of buying a private insurance plan that would replace the federal government's Medicare plan." From the CBO -"Among other changes, the proposal would convert the current Medicare program to a system under which beneficiaries received premium support payments"

What kind of language do you consider NPOV? I am trying to bend over backwards to make sure this factual information gets out there. How about... Cory Gardner voted for the Paul Ryan budget plan. The Ryan budget plan ends the current Medicare program for all Americans under 55, replacing it with a new program in which seniors receive some money from the government to help purchase private for profit health insurance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfolk (talk • contribs) 13:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely nothing against saying that he voted for Paul Ryan's budget plan. In fact if he did its an important thing to list. What I'm against is saying that the plan ends Medicare for all Americans under 55. That's POV that Paul Ryan and most of the Republicans would contest (though personally I agree with you; it does end Medicare as we know it for anyone under 55). My point is, just say that he voted for Ryan's plan, not that the plan ends Medicare. Or you can even say something like "Gardner voted for the Paul Ryan budget plan, derided by many Democrats as ending 'ending Medicare as we know it'" and cite both him voting for the plan and an article that includes a quote by a Democrat that it ends Medicare. Seem fair? Kessy628 (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Surprised and glad to get your response. Sir, you did not read what I said with care, I must say with respect? I DID NOT SAY the Ryan plan ends Medicare, as you misstated my words-" not that the plan ends Medicare" I DID SAY, 100% correctly, the that the Ryan plan ends the CURRENT Medicare program for all Americans under 55. Sir, could you please address why you have removed WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID. I thought Wikipedia did not edit out accurate information.

Could you please address what you find inaccurate in the following: Cory Gardner voted for the Paul Ryan budget plan. The Ryan budget plan ends the CURRENT Medicare program for all Americans under 55, replacing it with a new program (still to be called Medicare) in which seniors receive some money from the government to help purchase private health insurance. I am supportive of the Wikipedia NPOV policy, but I do not think it should be used as a tool to remove 100% accurate information that some may find uncomfortable.And thank you for your response and attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.145.15 (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the same thing. Saying the plan ends the current Medicare could and would be contested by Paul Ryan and probably most if not all Republicans that voted for the plan. Dem argument: it ends the current Medicare program as we know it for those under 55. Repub argument: puts Medicare on a stronger footing for years to come. Look, like I said above, I agree in principle with what you're saying, it's just the wording that I'm against. Wikipedia has really strict policies on both NPOV and biographies, and to put it in would be a violation of those. As I said above also, I'm fine with the wording I said, which specifically says that dems decry it as ending medicare (the current medicare). Kessy628 (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets try this another way. With regard to the Ryan budget plan, can you tell me what part of the CURRENT MEDICARE PROGRAM will exist for people who are now 55 years old after the year 2022? Answer- The CURRENT Medicare program ENDS IN 2022 for all Americans born after 1956. The CURRENT Medicare program continues after 2022, but only for people born prior to 1957. After 2022, a NEW Medicare program applies to people born after 1956. This is not FACTUALLY contestable, this is what is in the Ryan budget plan. It seems that what you are conveying is that if a party contests something that happens to be factually true, it can't be published under your guidelines because they contest it. I'll let the subject go here. Thanks for your time and effort. I'm guessing you do this editing for the love of it. I can see what you are pointing at in your comments and have appreciation for the general concept, but it seems that the actual application of your wiki rules ends up editing out information which is 100% accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.145.15 (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the more neutral way of saying it as I said I would before. I'm sorry you don't see why saying that the plan ends the current medicare program is pov and biased, but the information is in the article as you originally wanted at least. Kessy628 (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Didn't like those facts either huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfolk (talk • contribs) 00:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Women health
Why is there no indication on Gardner's views on women's health? There is substantial reporting on this given his very recent change of positions on the issue: -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/rep-cory-gardner-calls-for-over-the-counter-access-to-birth-control-pills
 * http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_25995739/women-should-be-able-buy-pill-without-prescription
 * http://kdvr.com/2014/06/17/gop-preempts-new-udall-tv-ad-attacking-gardner-on-personhood/
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/19/cory-gardner-birth-control_n_5512997.html

Pill
If we are to add a sentence about Gardner's views on the pill, we ought to add also material about his views on personhood. Your choice. Keep that sentence and I will add another sentence about Gardner's views on personhood. You choice. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This sentence was deleted: In 2010, Gardner supported the personhood ballot measure, and helped collecting signatures to put it on the ballot, claimimg WP:UNDUE. My question is how is this undue weight? This was Gardner initial work on supporting personhood in 2010, and demonstrates his commitment to this specific social cause. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There's already a definitive statement regarding his earlier support.CFredkin (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there is not from 2010. Why not to add a complete record of his support? Please argue your case. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You haven't made the case for adding this additional content which places an WP:undue weight on contraception in this BLP.CFredkin (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? There is nothing undue about a Congressman record. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add more about other bills he supported or opposed, but do not delete properly sourced material as that is vandalism. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * READ THE POLICY: Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. The policy has nothing to do with your argument. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  03:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course it does. It says:  "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."  The additional content you're trying to add places way too much emphasis on contraception in his BLP.CFredkin (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is it relevant to include Gardner's track record on specific issues?
Should the article about this politician include his track record in supporting or opposing legislation related to contraception? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support As it provides biographical information about the evolution of Gardner's views on contraception. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support But it should be reasonably balanced as per WP:BALASPS: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."CFredkin (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support There's been enough coverage about this in the news. Darx9url (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Gardner's personal and political beliefs on this subject are clearly relevant due to his role as a legislator. I don't have any problem with the inclusion of this content. HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, this content should absolutely be included. Tiller54 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Provided it is written per WP:NPOV and is in balance with other aspects of his legislative activities, a politician's track record on any topic - particularly a topic on which he achieves a substantive degree of his notability - is very appropriate for his article. Vertium '' When all is said and done 00:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Important political topics covered by secondary sources should be included. -Iamozy (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The bot sent me. I don't know this politician, etc. I read the whole article through and the birth control bit and especially the bit about 'flip-flopping' to be more 'palatable' to voters. The research/edits on the birth control, plan b, personhood seems to have been for a POV purpose, to show he's what? anti-woman? And then when he changes his mind about something, it seems the bit about the 'flip-flopping' is there more for a negative than a positive. As if the editor is cynically suggesting he's only changed his mind because he wants to be "more palatable" to voters. So does that mean he's lying just to get reelected? Sorry if that offends, but the POV editing on that is transparent. I'm a totally uninvolved editor and that's how it reads for a first time reader. That's not to say that his position on birth control shouldn't be there, but it shouldn't be the highlight of the article and it shouldn't be presented in such a cynical POV way. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support It's factual and it is public record; thus, easily sourced. There is no reason not to include it.Familygardner (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Sometimes we have to think like citizens rather than Wikipedians. To citizens, issues are supposed to be the primary factor in voting. Why would we, as Wikipedians, ever want to impede that? I have been bashed on Wikipedia for so long because "it's not about democracy" -- yeah, sure, I know that, so bash me again -- it IS about democracy because we all are citizens too! JesseAlanGordon (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I was randomly asked to comment on this RfC. My view is that a well-sourced political stance by an individual notable for his political career merits encyclopedic mention. Factchecker25 (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Nothing is stopping you or other editors to add more material about other aspects, if you have concerns about "too much material about contraception". Gardner's support and opposition to other issues is well known, so do some useful work and research it. Deleting material that took effort to research is not acceptable. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

This is what was deleted:
 * In 2006, Gardner opposed legislation to allow pharmacists to prescribe emergency contraception, and offered an amendment to the budget to prohibit the state Medicaid plan from purchasing Plan B emergency contraception. In 2007, Gardner voted against a bill requiring hospitals to make emergency contraception available to rape victims.

How is that undue weight??? That is Gardner's record. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Cwobeel has already added quite a bit of content recently related to Gardner's stance on contraception and its evolution. The point of Wikipedia is not to document every article on a subject in a particular BLP.  As stated above, the article should remain balanced and reflect the subject's entire life/career.  We must guard against WP:recentism and inflating the importance of a topic because it has been recently in the news.CFredkin (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying, but still don't understand what you arguing. What is the harm in reporting Gardner's views on personhood, and contraception? These are non-disputed facts, and not opinions, and should be included to present the subject in an NPOV manner. What is your objection for including that sentence? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The article already includes content on Gardner's stance on contraception (and its change over time). The goal with Wikipedia is not to include every reference to a subject in available sources (otherwise the project could be developed by robots).  As stated in  WP:BALASPS: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."  This enables us to present the subject in a NPOV manner.CFredkin (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The article now does not include 2006 and 2007 actions taken by Gardner 'specifically in the area of emergency contraception issue, because you have deleted it. This is a BLP, and you have chosen to delete two significant actions by Gardner. That is a disservice. -  Cwobeel   (talk)

As far as I am concerned, if the inclusion of this material is viewed as "undue weight," that is a reflection of the lack of information on his other political opinions, not a reason to remove this content. It may seem unbalanced because there is too little information on his other opinions, not because there is too much on this one. As a member of the House of Representatives, Gardner's views on a very wide variety of topics are important and worth inclusion in his article. I am always in favor of adding more material instead of removing it. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with this completely. Tiller54 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Disputed edits
This rating from the National Journal is not appropriate for inclusion in the intro for this BLP.

Also, this discussion about claims in political ads isn't relevant to a BLP.CFredkin (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree about the political ads. But the National Journal rating is OK in the body of the article, not on the lede. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I made some changes to the language based on the source. It would be nice if we had a secondary source corroborating the significance of National Journal's vote ratings. Is it particularly notable to be tied for 10th (as opposed to say, #1 or #2)? And are the National Journal vote ratings particularly notable in and of themselves (they very well may be, but it would be nice to get some secondary confirmation of their significance, and of the particular significance of Gardner tying for 10th in 2012.) Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum: looking back at this diff from Al Franken, User:DD2K removed Franken being tied for 5th most liberal Senator in the National Journal vote ratings as non-notable . Using that same rationale here, I'm going to remove the National Journal ratings. If they aren't notable elsewhere, why here? Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who this dude is, or really why I was tagged. But as long as I'm here I would say that it looks like OR anyway. Type a name in and see a ranking? Nah. I would say being ranked as 'the most moderate' or some other notable descriptor might be a notable ranking. But a ranking of if a conservative is conservative or a liberal is a liberal is not. Dave Dial (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit not supported by source
I've reverted this edit, as it is not supported by the source provided.CFredkin (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You've read the article? Please explain your editorial reasoning as distinct from whitewashing. Re-adding. Please propose a) the requested distinction, or b) alternate re-wording or I'll request this page locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KBAegis (talk • contribs) 23:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * User:KBAegis There's no mention of hiding CISA in the source. Since this is a WP:BLP, the burden is on you to verify the accuracy of your edit.CFredkin (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Elected members of the senate are public figures: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" I'm afraid that your behavior of removing the citation (as opposed to rewording) violates this policy. A better practice is to clarify or alter the existing line, rather than removing it outright (which is abuse). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KBAegis (talk • contribs) 00:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * From WP:BLP:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.


 * Your edit is not supported by the source you provided. Therefore it can, and should, be removed.CFredkin (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm requesting escalation. Your intent is to remove a cited source rather than clarify. This detracts directly from associated discussions. This is, further, a bad policy because this effectively whitewashes associated issues. What precisely would you suggest, apart from removing any association with CISA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KBAegis (talk • contribs) 00:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting that the content you add be supported by the source(s) provided and written in a neutral tone. These are core tenets of Wikipedia.  This is not a forum for campaigning.CFredkin (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. There will be some text associated with this page, so we'll just have to consider what it will be. What would you say that https://theintercept.com/2015/12/24/cisa-party/ actually supports in terms of text? I refuse to accept no mention on this page. KBAegis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Based on the source, I think we can reasonably say that Gardner voted for the omnibus budget bill, which contained the CISA provision.CFredkin (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on. We could easily take it further and at least say that he was actively associated with lobbying efforts for CISA. Either case is fine, but I've brought someone else in with a formal dispute request. I'll abide by their opinion, whichever way. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KBAegis (talk • contribs) 01:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The source states that he attended a dinner held by the US Chamber of Commerce. That hardly qualifies as noteworthy.  Also, 65 senators voted for the Omnibus bill.  It wasn't exactly a contentious or close vote.CFredkin (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So the straw man first: CISA was rejected overwhelmingly. Then it was conflated with the entire federal budget.  This is simply pork-barreling for campaign funds.  This is entirely beside the point.  The reason I brought this to a formal dispute was because you're removing the text rather than editing it.  I'll try to find additional material to supplement, given your incredibly narrow definition of what constitutes valid material for Wikipedia.  Can we agree that if I can find a direct amendment or committee involvement from Gardner, that will constitute proof-positive of what I had previously written?  KBAegis (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm open to reliable, secondary sources that support your point. I'm not open to WP:original research or blatantly WP:POV edits.CFredkin (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
Moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard has been requested. Since both parties are close to 3RR, I am cautioning them to stop edit-warring, and am advising that moderated discussion would be a reasonable way to resolve this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Image
Why is the old house photo used in this article instead of his senate portrait? They're of similar quality, the house photo just looks older. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)