Talk:Joni Ernst/Archive 3

Statement about Ernst trajectory
CFredkin removed this content with an edit summary of this seems WP:undue. How can a statement made by Ernst herself be undue?

Here is the deleted text and source. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On June 16, 2014, in an event organized by Americans for Prosperity, at a panel titled "The Senate: A Window of Policy Opportunity for Principled Leaders", Ernst thanked the group for its help becoming a viable candidate, saying that "the exposure to this group and to this network and the opportunity to meet so many of you, that really started my trajectory."


 * Yes, maybe someone could create a robot to automatically add all of Ernst's public statements to her bio. Then we're done.  No need for judgment at all.CFredkin (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Er... no, you need a better argument than that. As editors, we use editorial judgement, and this statement is 100% useful to her biography as it described in her own words how she sees herself growing from a "little state senator" to a nominee for the Senate thanks to that group. How in the world can you defend not including this statement? I want to hear it. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  20:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry. I thought you said above that a quote from Ernst couldn't possibly be undue.  I guess I mis-interpreted your statement.  In any case, I don't believe the fact that she thanked a group for its efforts on her behalf is notable in her bio at all.  How many groups have contributed to her campaign, endorsed her, worked on her behalf?  Should we mention every instance where she thanks them?  But in this case, since it's mentioned in a reliable source, I guess I'm not going to quibble over a brief statement to that effect. However I think adding a second sentence on the subject is definitely WP:undue.CFredkin (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Removed the additional sentence, keeping her unadulterated words only. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel asks "How can a statement made by Ernst herself be undue?" However, in an RFC discussing the inclusion of a quote made by Neil deGrasse Tyson. in this edit you said "...Don;t include per WP:V and WP:UNDUE"

While the opinion was expressed at a time when some were arguing that it hadn't been verified, Tyson has subsequently apologized for the statement, yet the statement was actually removed form the article by Cwobeel just before protection was reapplied. Why is it when Tyson says something it is undue, but when Ernst says something, it cannot possibly be undue? -- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll answer my own query—a statement by the subject is neither automatically due or undue. It requires more information about the circumstances to determine whether UNDUE applies. However, in neither case did you supply any rationale, you simply, and inexplicably declared one undue and one not; both with certainty, neither with reasons.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Here, Ernst is speaking about herself not a third party, and on something directly related to her career as a politician, the only reason for this article. Now, do you have anything useful to contribute here, or are you just raising hackles? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, context matters, and so does the issue of due weight when deciding whether to include one of tens of thousands of statements that a candidate makes in a major campaign, probably thousands of which are covered by reliable sources. I think that routine thanks extended to endorsing organizations is rarely worthy of mention in a politician's biography. All politicians of all political parties do so, and it is utterly run-of-the-mill. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but this statement is unique, and not run-of-the-mill, as Ernst is describing her trajectory as a politician from humble beginnings to Senate candidate. There are no similar quotes from her thanking other groups in that manner, so this is relevant to understand her background, allegiances, and outlook. Good biographical material, don't you think? -  Cwobeel   (talk)
 * (notwithstanding the fact that what she said is true.) -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are already changing your rationale, which is a step forward, because your original rationale boiled down to an assertion that a self-made statement cannot be undue. However, your argument that a statement is not undue because it is about oneself is not by itself, a convincing argument. Why is it that a statement about oneself deserves more weight than a statement about someone else. Perhaps it is true, but a case must be made it isn't self-evident.I agree the context matters, but that cuts against your argument. The context here is that she is making positive statements about a group she is addressing. Anyone who knows politicians knows this is quite common. It would carry more weight if it were said to another audience.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but please see mine too. If she was just pandering to big pocketed donors, I would agree. But if you look at the history of Ernst as a politician, she indeed owes her trajectory to this group. She was candid because it was a closed meeting, and AfP has spent (and continues) spending millions of dollars on her behalf. (As an aside, an interesting fact I found out yesterday is the role of Donors Capital Fund and DonorsTrust in conservative politics. Amazing.) -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Let's cut through the crap.  Cwobeel wants this particular wording because he wants to portray Ernst as a nobody who was magically transformed into a politician by evil campaign money.  He objects to other wordings that fail to insinuate thusly.  And that's all because his primary purpose in editing this article is to trash the article subject.  Why are we even wasting time taking his obviously insincere posturing seriously?  The AGF horse left the barn months ago. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually believe Ernst is a very shrewd politician, albeit quite extreme in her views according to what I have read. This is an article about a politician, and if we are not allowed to express her own views, what's the point? I could easily call the kettle black. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about presenting "her own views". You are not presenting "her own views" — you're massaging WP prose to try to make her sound bad, which you don't even seem to deny.  All this inane sophistry about "she's a politician so we have to reflect her views" is little more than an excuse that you are giving for the inappropriate, prohibited editorializing that is one of the hallmarks of your bad-faith anti-conservative editing crusade.  And you don't even seem to care whether anyone is buying the excuse.  You represent the very worst of Wikipedia, sir, and every day that you continue editing in this fashion is an abuse of the patience and tolerance of other editors.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WTF? This is the edit, which contains no editorializing. Cool it, WP:TEA, stop with the personal attacks, and try AGF if you could. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. That is not one of the edits I am talking about, as you well know.  Your constant insincerity and "Who, me?" disingenuousness is offensive. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, this is a section named "Statement about Ernst trajectory", and that is what we are discussing here. If you could clarify what edit you are referring to I may be able to respond. And there is no need to be so angry, being civil works better. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  23:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well gosh, good buddy, you might start with the edits I reverted immediately before this little "discussion" began. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion close of 29 September:
 * Rough consensus is against inclusion of the quote. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that trying to undo that consensus at the three day mark sets a new record for IDONTHEARTHAT. Collect (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When you are right, you are right. After silly season we can revisit this edit. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well said, Mr. Cwobeel. We've got a least six years to get the focus right on this article, so there's definitely no rush.  Cheers! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede
It does not read well to say that Ernst is an American politician that serves in the National Guard. Her serving in the National Guard is not related to her politics:
 * Current version:
 * Proposed new version:

Not a big deal, but we can always improve articles. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact, her serving in the Reserves and National Guard predates her role as a politician. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As you stated on your talk page when you discussed with me, you simply want to remove the word "serve" because you believe that "serve" is some kind of editorial comment. As I pointed out over there, the word "serve" is not an editorial comment in any shape form or matter.  I also pointed that "serve" has been the wording for years.  Furthermore, I pointed out that almost every introductory paragraph uses the word "serve" when describing the work of politicians.  I gave 6 examples of use of "serve" in the introduction.  Those examples are 3 Democratic Presidents (Carter, Clinton & Obama) and 3 Republican Presidents (Reagan and two Bush).  Moreover, the the MOS for bios specifically requests that the nationality be listed in that first section.  Moving the military work to a second or third sentence in the intro paragraph does not seem to an objectionable edit but removing word "serve" as a so-called "editorial" does not line up with the MOS or other politician bios.--NK (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Examples of the use of the word "serve" in politician bios: In the Bill Clinton article the opening sentence states, "is an American politician who served from 1993 to 2001 as the 42nd President of the United States." In the Jimmy Carter article the opening sentence states, "is an American politician and member of the Democratic Party who served as the 39th President of the United States from 1977 to 1981".  In the Ronald Reagan article the opening sentence states, "was an American actor and politician. He was the 40th President of the United States (1981–89), and served as the 33rd Governor of California (1967–75) prior to his presidency". In the article about the older President George Bush the opening sentence states, "is an American politician who served as the 41st President of the United States (1989–1993)".  In the article about the younger President George Bush the opening sentence states, "is an American politician and businessman who served as the 43rd President of the United States from 2001 to 2009, and the 46th Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000".  In the article about our President Obama the opening paragraph states, "Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review".--NK (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed, Cwobeel, you attempted to make this proposed edit today and you were reverted by another editor. That's good because you have not, in any way, developed a consensus to support removing wording from the article that has been a stable part of the article for years.  Your edit always ignores the fact that a politician's nationality is supposed to be a part of the introductory sentence or paragraph.  It is clear that you are the other editor that supports your edit so once again the burden is upon you to develop a consensus to remove 2 year old wording.  You have not done that.  Please engage the other editors and get a consensus before you make that edit.  You will have a difficult time getting that consensus until you make a proposal that does not violate the Wikipedia Manual of Style.  Also, you have not provided any reason on why you believe that the word "serve" is an editorial when it has been shown that political bio after political bio, both for Republicans and Democrats, uses the word "serve".  Please attempt to build consensus.  You have not done that.--NK (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. all From the ledes of various other bios. This is an exceptionally common usage. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Obama served as pres of harvard law review and served three terms representing 13th district.
 * Hillary : Serving under Obama.
 * rangel : Served two terms in the NY assembly.
 * bloomberg : served as the 108th mayor.
 * Biden : Served as chairman of SJC.
 * Reid :(Many uses in lede!) Served as SML since 2007 and previously served. Served nevada local and state. one of only to serve at least
 * Feinstein : Served in the Senate. Served as 28th mayor. Served as the board's first female. Oldest currently serving US Senator

If your point is that she is not notable for being in the national guard, and that should not be in the lede, I can see that point, and could support moving that out of the lede (especially the first sentence of the lede) but it is a relavant part of her bio/career and should be included somewhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Natl Grd work could be moved.--NK (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Made an edit that hopefully addresses the concerns expressed above. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Gun Rights Advocate
Mr. X, you added the Gun Rights Advocate category to her page. She does not even have a gun rights section. Is there some evidence that she is known for this? Granted she supports the 2nd amendment, but a look at that page revels 2 people, neither of whom anyone would think of when you mention gun rights advocacy. Why did you add that category? Arzel (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that the category is legitimate, based on her NRA membership and speech. Besides the abundant sources available on this topic, there is this: Joni Ernst Writes Opinion Piece in Des Moines Register on The Importance of Protecting Our 2nd Amendment Rights. - MrX 15:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How does that make her an advocate? By that logic she is an advocate for every single policy position she holds.  Advocates are people like Ted Nugent, Chuck Noris, Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre.  Being a member of the NRA and writing a couple of political policy positions is not an advocate.  She certainly was never thought of during her previous 4 years in the Iowa State Senate and now she is suddenly an advocate?  C'mon, what are you trying to do here?  Also, that category appears to be a top level category.   Arzel (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * She is not primarily known as a gun rights advocate - we do not add such categories to every politician who is even endorsed by the NRS etc. so we should restrict its use to those who are primarily in that category. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * She wrote “As a mother, a soldier and a conservative, I take defense of the Second Amendment very seriously. Those who know me well know that I carry a black purse everywhere I go. What many people don’t know is what’s inside: a Smith and Wesson 9 mm and my concealed carry permit.” But I'm fine leaving her out of the category if you both feel so strongly about it.- MrX 16:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, that does not equal Advocate. It is not about feeling strong about it, it is about proper use of categories.  Arzel (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the criteria for inclusion in that category? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I went through the list and the vast majority have strong links to gun organization or clear activism regarding gun rights. I removed a couple additional ones that had nothing to indicate advocacy and one that had no mention at all of anything about guns in their article.  All you really have to do is look up what it means to be an advocate and it is pretty clear what belongs.  If Ernst were included the list would be hundreds if not thousands of peoples.  Arzel (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead
Mr. X, you have turned the lead into a political policy statement. The article now looks like a campaign ad for her Senate run. Arzel (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * She's a politician and ~50% of the article relates directly to her positions on various issues. I'm not sure I understand your objection to the two short sentences I wrote about her political positions.- MrX 14:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My objection is that it reads like a political pamphlet. You summarized her political positions.  Arzel (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tried to explain why I included her positions in the lead. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview and should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article. If you have suggestions for rewording it, I'm all ears.- MrX 16:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Really, gun rights is her most prominent position? What are you trying to do here?  I realize that many left-wing sources are trying to make this about that in a last ditch effort of grasping at straws, but doesn't mean we have to follow their lead.  Arzel (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I will put everything into alphabetical order as a compromise. Arzel (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with putting her positions in alphabetical order in the lead.- MrX 18:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Arzel (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 October 2014
This persons religious affiliation according to this page is "Evangelical Lutheranism". Which is correct, however, due to the vast differences that different Lutheran denominations have, I believe that it would be good to either change her religion to "Evangelical Lutheran Church in America" or at least put "ELCA" in parentheses next to the current wording, as that is her denominational affiliation.

Yekimyarw (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for that particular denomination? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2014


 * The below link says what church she attends (near the end of paragraph 4)

http://theiowarepublican.com/2010/joni-ernst-announces-bid-for-kim-reynolds-iowa-senate-seat/ The denomination is confirmed by the following, http://www.lutherans.com/find-a-lutheran-church/church_info.php?church_id=4549


 * ✅ I didn't add the references to the infobox just to avoid further clutter. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Errnst comments on guns an NRA
Per WP:BRD, please explain this removal of well sourced content There are numerous sources reporting on this, and the there is nothing UNDUE. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the text -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

(Additional sources: Additional sources, , , ) -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary reads "Gun topic is covered just fine without a POV edit". How can this be a "POV edit" when this is Ernst's own POV? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Also note that there is no secondary commentary. Just her own words. Also, that section is about political positions, not just the 2014 elections. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that the quote is unneeded. She supports the 2nd ammendment, the actual quote is not needed.  The sources being used tell more about this particular situation.  The WaPo takes the reader on a fantasy journey that would have Ernst going Ruby Ridge on the local sherif.  Simple position statements do not need to be linked to attacking partisan opinion pieces.  What message are you trying to convey?  Arzel (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to convey any messages. These are her own words, which are quite incredible coming from a Senate candidate and very relevant, per the sources provided. I don't understand how her own words about using her gun to protect herself and her family against the government is not a notable aspect of her views. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Read The Guardian piece, and the UPI piece  and maybe you will be able to understand why this is highly relevant. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  19:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So, because some think her remarks are controversial then they are highly relevant? I think you showed exactly what message you are trying to convey.  You don't specifically say it, but your opinion sources are quite clear about it.  Arzel (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What I think does not matter. What matter is what sources say. Now, if you want my opinion, here it is: A Senate candidate, which may very well be a Senator in 2015, is saying that she will use her gun against "the government" if her rights are trampled with. The "government" she is is attempting to join for running for the Senate, btw. My understanding is that when rights are trampled with, a US citizen has the law to protect him or her, and guns have nothing to do with it. Controversial? Heck yeah. Why do you want to hide this information for readers exactly?  Because it reveals how extreme her views are? -   Cwobeel   (talk)  03:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is NOT what she said. She said that she has the Right to defend herself against an intruder or a government that would try to take away her rights.  Legal scholars have also stated that defense against a tyrannical government is part of the purpose.  Pretty much standard boiler plate NRA position.  I realize that a bunch of left-wing sources are opining and trying to use this statement against her by coming up with fantasy extrapolations to make her position look fringe.  It is pretty clear what you are trying to do.  Arzel (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If this issue has been widely reported on then it's relevant and carries weight. For neutrality I would change it to "Ernst stated that she carries a handgun and that she believes..." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

If you revert, then you need to engage in a discussion here with other editors. Deleting content and not engaging in discussions is contrary to WP:DR. Look forward to hear you arguments on how this material which is 100% Ernst own words, can be a "POV" edit. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
 * It is completely irrelevant whether they are her words or not. What is the purpose of the quote?  What does the quote add to the article? Nothing. We already know from other sources that she supports the 2nd Amendment right to own a gun.  We already know that she is a member of the NRA.  What does the quote add? I can answer that question:  It adds nothing to the article.  It is a pure case of undue weight.  You admit that it is your opinion that her comments are "extreme".  It is not relevant what your opinion is.  It is a week away from an election and you are putting in clearly POV information in the article.  It is a POV edit.  It does not add any new information.  As Arzel pointed out to you clearly:  "defense against a tyrannical government is part of the purpose" of owning a gun and why the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the exact comments that she stated.  What does the quote add that is not already in the article? Once again, nothing.  You do not have the consensus of the editors to put that information back in the article.  And just because you talked about it on the talk page does not mean that you met your burden to re-insert a controversial edit back in the article.  You need to work to get that consensus and so far you have not done that.  It is unnecessary and it is designed, as you freely admit, to make Ernst look "extreme" (your word) a week before election day.  It undue weight on one topic and it is a POV edit.  You need to work to meet your burden of re-inserting the controversial edit, so far you have not done it.  Please work to meet that burden.--NK (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN has already been met, per the sources provided. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * it is obvious that you also consider this position to be extreme, thus your opposition for inclusion. But this is Ersnt’s position as clearly described by herself, and this is an encyclopedic article about her. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I support including Ernst's comments in this article with appropriate context derived from the multiple sources that have been presented. WP:NPOV requires including such information that, while the subject and her supporters may find regrettable, gives essential insight into the subject's attitudes. She is a candidate for one of the highest political offices in the US. To omit her unvarnished views would be dishonest and a disservice to our readers. Supporting the second amendment and actually carrying a gun almost everywhere are not remotely the same thing. - MrX 12:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I demur - the fact is her position on gun rights issues is already clearly stated in the BLP, and adding more "stuff" to any BLP -  and the claim that one wishes to give "insight" into views which are already clearly stated is UNDUE at the very least.  And as for adding "commentary" - that is not the function of an encyclopedia biographical article.  Collect (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I too support keeping the "already clearly stated" content in the second paragraph under Constitutional and federal issues. There's no need to add commentary to it or to hide it.- MrX 13:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This content is WP:undue and should not be restored until there is consensus to do so per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE.CFredkin (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you please explain why you think it is WP:UNDUE. Are there not enough available sources?- MrX 00:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What amazes me is the sheer hypocrisy, claiming  BLPREQUESTRESTORE here but ignoring the same in other articles. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  04:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When I first came across CFredkin using rigid interpretations of BLP to remove any critical material from articles on Republican politicians, while doing exactly the opposite on articles on Democrats, I assumed good faith and did not push those debates too far. Now, after several blocks and several more edit-wars on their part, I am not so sure that there is no ulterior motive to their editing; a glance at their contributions shows that the entirety of their contributions involves this sort of editing on US politicians. The only reason I have not butted heads with them more is that this is not my core area of interest, and I only have random articles watchlisted.....Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you make of the die-hard lefty editors doing the same thing? No big deal? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 18:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have yet to come across very many "die-hard lefty editors" doing the same thing on the American politics pages, for the simple reason that unless you are a soviet era communist, Wikipedia's policies are harder to digest for a run-of-the-mill American conservative than for an American "liberal;" for instance, Wikipedia goes along with the scientific consensus. Also, on a global scale the American democrats are decidedly conservative, and there is little separation between the two major parties; so if you are referring to democrat supporters (of which there are some, and if they did the same things it would indeed be a problem) as "die-hard lefty," then you have some homework to do. Most communist POV pushers I have come across hate the dems as much as the Republicans. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you're sharing an article with Cwobeel, I suggest to you that you are not even remotely paying attention to your surroundings if you think you have yet to "come across" many die-hard lefties doing the same thing. It's very cute, of course, that you imply perhaps I have a problem with science (just like a conservative, natch!).  And of course I'm thrilled to hear about how conservative American lefties are, on average.  But that really has no implication for lefty editors violating WP policies because of their political biases, of which there are quite an awful lot.  "Homework to do", hahah how quaint. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The content is relevant and it is not a mere repetition of the fact that she "supports the 2nd ammendment": That may be where her comments in the speech under consideration *begin*, but she then moves well beyond the second-ammendment 'right to bear arms'. She is an elected official who has publicly supported the assassination (or at the very least "shooting" - it is reasonalbe to assume that one shoots a person in order to kill them) of unspecified people in the "government". That is now part of her public profile and it is information that is relevant to her *as an elected official*. As such, it certainly belongs in the article.95.113.189.144 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A claim that a person supports assassination is a "contentious claim".  As such, it would require an extremely strong reliable source making that precise claim as a statement of fact, as "assassination" fits the definition of a crime.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. She'd actually have to have supported using guns to shoot people in "the government" herself ... which she did. So, since her own public, recorded statements are a "strong reliable source" for what she has said, that moves the observation from a 'claim' to a 'fact'.95.112.31.42 (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC on a "bold edit"
Is this edit proper?

An article in Yahoo News reported that at a January 2014 GOP forum in Montgomery County, Iowa, Ernst warned that Agenda 21, the U.N.'s 1992 voluntary action plan for sustainable development, could force Iowa farmers off their land, dictate what cities Iowans must live in, and control how Iowa citizens travel from place to place, 'stating that “The United Nations has imposed this upon us, and as a U.S. senator, I would say, ‘No more. No more Agenda 21.’ Community planning — to the effect that it is implementing eminent domain and taking away property rights away from individuals" '   (bolding indicates the edit) 17:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

discussion
This was added sans any discussion on the talk page, and I suggest that it requires WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion. The source used appears to be an opinion column with the title  Will Joni Ernst’s flirtations with the political fringe haunt her in November? which appears to be such from the title on. Collect (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Note Talk:Joni_Ernst reached a clear conclusion above - and this appears to be an on-going refusal to accept that consensus reached way back in September 25, 2014 - or about a week ago. I suggest that fighting where a recent consensus exists is against the letter and spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. Collect (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That RFC was about a totally different disputed edit -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny - I rather think the "Agenda 21" bit is precisely what is involved here once again. calling it "totally different" fails any test of a reasonable cavil here. Collect (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - As the quote was uttered by Join Ernst as reported by sources. We can (and should) quote politicians on their own bios for NPOV. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose as being in direct contravention of a one week old RfC consensus still on this page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As another editor (Elaqueate) noted, the previous RfC was poorly formulated, and I don't think its results clearly endorsed or rejected a discussion of Ernst's comments on Agenda 21, but rather rejected the specific approach taken in previous edits. I think it is reasonable to include 2-3 sentences as this is a topic that attracted significant coverage in reliable sources and is relevant as a minor aspect of a politician's biography. The exact language of our coverage needs to be based on the best available reliable sources. The current wording in Collect's RfC does not appear in the article at present. I would favor the current language, although I'm biased since I wrote it. What are the actual arguments for and against here (noting that "it was added without prior discussion" is not an actual argument on the merits of the content)? MastCell Talk 18:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- if you wish to overturn an RfC, then go to the proper noticeboards. "IDONTLIKETHERESULT" is not exactly a reasonable policy-based claim.   And note that you are here strictly as an editor.   Collect (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems like an ad hominem response devoid of any substantive response to my points. Would you please try again? MastCell Talk 19:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support First, as I read it, the RfC in question was closed due to poor wording, not because of consensus. Second, the source for this is not an opinion column, as claimed, but a news report; albeit one written in a slightly punchy style. Third, as Cwobeel notes, we should quote politicians (provided we're choosing representative quotes). That said, I think the paranthetical expression "the U.N.'s 1992 voluntary action plan for sustainable development" should be stricken - it is an unnecessarily cumbersome mouthful and seems placed there to drive-home the idea that Ernest is a little nutty for the quote that follows, so is a bit POVinty. A wikilink to Agenda 21 is sufficient; if the reader doesn't know it's a voluntary action plan, they can just follow it through. DocumentError (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as WP:Undue.  There's already a paragraph on this subject with a lengthy quote from Ernst in the article.CFredkin (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as WP:Undue.  agree with Fredkin, the quote adds no value, and lacks the broader context.  But is otherwise well sourced, accurate and fair.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment- This is a rather convoluted RFC. I see mention of a previous RFC. Reviewing that RFC I don't see that it applies. I look at the title and see scare quotes on "bold edit". This to me seems to be a suggestion of bad faith. Consensus is not a vote but a vote seems to be what is being asked for here. Why shouldn't this be included? Do you have a policy reason? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not really sure that this quotation adds anything to the article.  It seems to emphasize the conspiratorial aspects, and this should be interpreted by a reliable source instead of insinuated by Wikipedians.  It's not difficult to find reliable sources that characterize it as belief in a conspiracy theory.  Both the Associated Press and Newsweek have done so.  Instead of using primary sources to insinuate, use secondary sources to analyze. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose doesn't add anything to the article and as such is WP:Undue. --Obsidi (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC
Should the statement "On Social Security, which Ernst wants to privatize Ernst said said, "Within 20 years, the system will be broke," which isn't even close to resembling reality." be reflected in this BLP? 12:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

discussion
The conflict is whether an official Social Security Trust Fund report which states "The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund reserves would become depleted between 2033 and 2041 under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report" supports any claim that the trust fund will be "broke" in as soon as twenty years or is the resulting claim elsewhere that SS will only have to be cut by 25% to keep on payments to people sufficiently different from "broke" to allow us in Wikipedia's voice to suggest she is wrong? Collect (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless there are reliable sources that describe that statement by Ernst, and describes social security on those terms. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose particularly the "which isn't even close to resembling reality" part, which is massively POV. Also clear WP:SYNTH unless someone is making the comparison for us. However, it would be acceptable to quote her, and then in a separate sentence (without any comparison/contradiction grammar) say "According to the Truestees report the trust fund will be depleted in X and afterwards will only be able to pay 75% of promised benefits using tax revenues, unless other changes are made" or some such which is easily sourcable. What_SYNTH_is_notGaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding that caveat would be WP:OR, unless the caveat was made in an RS addressing Ernst comments. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This analysis at the Des Moines Register explains the contention quite well: . Silly season indeed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That source supports my proposal completely does it not?Gaijin42 (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can all agree that Ernst said whatever was attributed to her, but what is the source language supporting the claim that she's wrong? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Has anyone actually put such language into the article or pushed to re-insert it? If so, diffs please. If not, then why are we wasting time with an RfC? This is exceptionally WP:POINTy, a waste of editors' time, and a poorly conceived and phrased RfC. I would suggest closing the RfC and trouting Collect. After that, perhaps we could come back with a more serious discussion or RfC about the Social Security material. MastCell Talk 16:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The points raised were from an editor on this talk page:
 * ''Just FYI, if you want to improve this article on your own:
 * ''On climate change, Ernst said, "I don't know the science behind climate change. I can't say one way or another what is the direct impact, whether it's man-made or not." [32]
 * ''On Social Security, which Ernst wants to privatize Ernst said said, "Within 20 years, the system will be broke," which isn't even close to resembling reality.
 * ''On federal regulations, Ernst blamed a federal "cap and trade" law for undermining job creation. There is no federal "cap and trade" law.
 * ''On contraception, Ernst was asked about her efforts to pass a state law that would have banned in-vitro fertilization and forms of birth control. She responded, that her bill didn't pass (????) [33]
 * ''On the minimum wage, Ernst still doesn't seem to understand that the federal minimum is a floor and that states are free to approve higher levels if they choose. [34]
 * So I rather felt that since such material was proposed by another editor, that we well ought discuss them before adding the material. So yes -- someone did most certainly make such proposals. Collect (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And the one who should be "trouted" is likely the person who made these proposals - as I was not the one to do so.  Accusing me of being "pointy" is quite iffy, as it is clearly the person who made the proposals who was being such.  Collect (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Close this bloody wast of time of an RFC, Collect. Blatant WP:POINT. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It was perhaps a roundabout way of rejecting the seemingly inappropriate editorializing that you suggested, but you did suggest it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So, to be clear, no one has suggested incorporating such language directly into the article. We are not going to launch a formal RfC about every opinionated statement someone has made on this talkpage, or else we would do nothing else. This is an abuse of the RfC process, a waste of editors' time and goodwill, and speaks very poorly to Collect's judgement. MastCell Talk 17:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Aren't you splitting hairs a bit? Cwobeel was indeed arguing rather forcefully and at length for inclusion of material that appeared to include inappropriate editorializing.  He ended by essentially disengaging  but there appeared to be a vague threat that he was planning on coming back to pound on the same points at some later time of his choosing.  Nor has anyone other than Collect made note of the inappropriate editorializing suggested.  Asking for fresh pairs of eyes doesn't seem all that crazy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then the RfC should focus on an actual content proposal. RfC's are meant to discuss actual content proposals, not to critique individual editors' talkpage posts. Again, if we condone the latter, then we'll be here all year doing nothing else. Collect knows this, but for whatever reason has persistent trouble formulating RfC's properly. I don't think we should encourage him in wasting everyone's time like this. I would be happy to participate in an RfC which discussed actual proposed content. MastCell Talk 18:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel constantly goes about violating policies that he already knows about, and he's violating content policies, not procedural policies. You are saying Collect used the wrong mechanism to oppose clearly objectionable edits and proposals, which the adding editor knew ran afoul of policy, and it's Collect's conduct that is a really big deal? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 18:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The [person who made the proposal has made edits on the BLP in the same vein:, ,  , ,  , , , , ,   led me to believe that the editor who made those edits and stated his support for the edits in the RfC, would, indeed, make such edits.  In short - I regarded the list as "actual proposed edits" based on the well over one hundred prior edits on this single BLP by that editor.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If Cwobeel has made objectionable edits, then the discussion should be focused on those edits, not on his choice of words in a talkpage post. I'm not sure how to say that in a way that you'll understand, but nonetheless I'm not going to participate further in this improperly formed RfC. In the future, please use the process more responsibly. MastCell Talk 19:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Political positions
We ought to add more material to that section, for example. Source Cwobeel (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Life begins at conception.
 * Marriage is a religious institution, defined as a union between one man and one woman
 * Social Security and Medicare must be preserved and protected
 * Scrap the tax code and start over

Personal life
We ought to add the castrating hog’s quote from her now famous campaign ad “I grew up castrating hogs on an Iowa farm”. Not only an interesting tidbit from her childhood, but also the fact that this add propelled her to win the nomination as widely reported. Cwobeel (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Her bio should include the fact that her B.S. degree from ISU is in Psychology. Also, Stanton High School presently has a graduating class of ~32 and was likely much smaller yet at the time of her graduation -- this fact provides more clarity to her well-reported "Valedictorian" status. Joni's campaign bios leave these facts out; the article at present too closely duplicates the limited information that her campaign released. 173.24.250.255 (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)