Talk:Mark Udall

Protected
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) ]]

Religion
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)


 * 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)

POV
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)

Biased article
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)

Much of the article is a simple statements of fact. Such as how he voted,etc. Those are facts that can be checked. So quit complaining and just check the facts. If they are wrong, then dispute them.

When the article says "he accomplished many important goals, including expanding the program's minority outreach," the article is in direct violation of NPOV. "Accomplishing goals" is a passive statement, in that it ignores the question of whose goals Udall accomplished. Instead, why not just state that he was responsible for expanding Outward Bound's minority outreach program, rather than saying it was one of his personal goals?Cjax (talk) 06:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Senior Senator
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)
 * Only after we get an official announcement that he will be appointed. It should happen soon. -Rrius (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Wiki doesn't predict the future; just encyclopedically chronicle the past.  Newguy34 (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Colorado Senators

 * 1) The U.S. State of Colorado has both United States Senators and Colorado State Senators.
 * 2) Colorado is a geographic region of the United States. The State of Colorado is a political entity represented by two United States Senators.
 * 3) Single redirects are completely acceptable as links. Double redirects must be avoided.
 * 4) 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)

Vandalism in wake of 2014 elections. -- Lock?
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)

Disputed content
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)

Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually a tremendous amount of additional well-sourced content was removed, while unsourced content was added. I'd suggest more discussion on these changes (as described in WP:BRD) before attempting to restore them.CFredkin (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

User:Grammarxxx, There is no consensus for your BOLD edits. You need to make the case for them here per WP:BRD. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, there's a long list of changes to discuss. I'll start from the top.

From the lead (issue: this is entirely unsourced. A lead is the place to summarize the main themes of the article. They are clearly not main themes if there are no sources.

A member of the Democratic Party, throughout his career he had proposed legislation to support renewable energy, expand national parks, and protect natural resources. Udall has been praised for his successful legislation, converting the once Rocky Flats Weapons Facility into the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge.

"Udall has a strong record of supporting environmental causes..." This violates WP:NPOV. The two given sources Environment Colorado and Grist, are probably not reliable.


 * 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)

"Udall has been a fierce opponent of the National Security Agency's (NSA) mass surveillance programs, and has been a consistent supporter of civil liberties." Just no. "Fierce opponent?" C'mon. That is not objective. And nowhere in the given citation does it even say the phrase "civil liberties" so we definitely don't have enough sourcing to make that claim.

The picture of Udall climbing a mountain: why would we put that in the political positions section? If it's in the article, it should go in the personal life section, where his mountaineering is discussed.
 * The section is on environment, it is a picture of him climbing a montain; seems pretty connected to me. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 23:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

These are just a handful of the issues with recent edits, but it's a start. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, removing a reference to the "Employee Free Choice Act" because it's the only sentence in a section is not a valid rationale.

"Mass surveillance" is not an appropriate header for the section with the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act encompasses more than just surveillance.
 * Domestic security is a fine compromise. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 23:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sub-sections in the Political Positions section should be in alpha order.CFredkin (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Argument Center
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)


 * The lead: I wrote "A member of the Democratic Party, throughout his career he had proposed legislation to support renewable energy, expand national parks, and protect natural resources. Udall has been praised for his successful legislation, converting the once Rocky Flats Weapons Facility into the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge."

... What is the issue? He is a Democrat, he has proposed green energy bills throughout his career (sourced in the article), he did proposed legislation to turn a weapons facility into a national park (sourced), and he has attempted to protect natural resources ((fracking and the pine beetle)sourced).
 * "Throughout his career" and "been praised for his successful legislation" sounds like it should be in a resume or PR piece. If you want to mention who praised him, that's a reasonable change.  If you want to change "throughout his career" to the specific years or specific legislation, that'd work too.--v/r - TP 23:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with TP. Another issue is that per WP:LEAD: "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." There's not very much (and hardly any reliably sourced) info in the article about renewable energy, national parks, or protecting natural resources. There's a lot more about other issues like privacy. You can add more information on the environment to the body, and/or add more of his policy record to the lead. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * How does this work for people. The topics touched upon are properly sourced in the article (or once were, and can be again).


 * AGFing that it's all sourced, it looks fine to me. Perhaps "As a member of" because the other way seems stylish and flair-y.--v/r - TP 23:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 00:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 October 2014
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 CO's 2nd congressional district. 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)
 * 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)


 * Although I agree with the edit, let's make sure everyone agrees before we make the edit. That way we'll be sure there will be no edit warring. Proposed edit above.--v/r - TP 00:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Tweaked the "A member of.." sentences a bit per above.--v/r - TP 00:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. Looks good. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me too. Although I would suggest that trying to improve the article in a major fashion might be better done after November 4th. Major attempts to rewrite articles days before an election is far more difficult than afterwards. Dave Dial (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me.CFredkin (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On the right track, but I still see a few issues. "His legislative achievements include...." sounds promotional to me. Let's say something more neutral, like "He worked to pass X bill" or "He sponsored this bill." This suggested new lead mentions Rocky Flats Refuge as an achievement, yet Rocky flats is mentioned nowhere in the body of the article. That's odd. I looked back on past versions of the page, and there used to be a sentence in the article about Rocky Flats, but it was removed (maybe due to sourcing--the sole source was Grist). Here was the sentence: "In 2000, Udall and Republican Senator Wayne Allard proposed transforming Rocky Flats, a former nuclear weapons production site, into a wildlife refuge, setting aside 6,400 acres (25 km²) after cleanup and closure. The Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act passed in 2001." The source was Grist (magazine), an environmental news source. Potentially reliable, but if this is noteworthy enough for the lead, there should be an abundance of reliable sources. Otherwise, why are we putting this one bill among many in the lead? This also occurred in 2000--is there something that's happened since then, perhaps in his Senate career, we can add here? Otherwise it seems a bit dated. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent point.CFredkin (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Can someone please address the point by CS above before including that sentence in the intro as is?CFredkin (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Energy and environment discussion
Ok, lets break this down by section.

What's wrong, it's cited and all.


 * I don't believe either source is reliable.CFredkin (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay... Well one is from a state chapter of the group Environment America which interviewed him. The other is a popular news site. but besides those, there are other sources which list his support for renewable energy and attempts to help curb climate change. Heck, here's another reference. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 18:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't see support for "Udall has a long record...".  Perhaps if the language was changed to "Udall supports environmental issues....".CFredkin (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What's the issue here? Naming group awards is the norm in other articles. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 01:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If they're notable, they'll be mentioned in reliable secondary sources.CFredkin (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ELI award: Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 18:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * LCV rating:


 * Sorry, this page is getting to be a mess. I can't tell what reliable secondary sources you've added for the 2 awards.  Ebsco Host Connection seems to be a data collection service, which is not a reliable source in and of itself.CFredkin (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I get why people think this is POV, but I see it that, since it's in the environment section, it gives a good contrast to his connection to his state which is very connected to it's environment.


 * Source?CFredkin (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, tell me. What's wrong with this? It is properly sourced. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 01:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Source?CFredkin (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's already a statement on this in the section on Colorado House of Reps. It doesn't seem significant enough to be mentioned twice in the same bio.CFredkin (talk)
 * It is significant because work he proposed in chamber failed, so years later he returned while working in Congress to complete it with a successful ballot initiative. What seems insignificant? Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 18:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Both events can be mentioned in a single posting in the Political Positions section. There's no need for redundancy here regarding a single piece of legislation.CFredkin (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Unions section
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)


 * If necessary, it can be moved to the Economy section.CFredkin (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Failed verification
I just removed this because it failed verification:

"In 2004, Udall helped lead a statewide ballot initiative to adopt the Renewable Electricity Standard, a standard he originally introduced in the Colorado House of Representatives. Working with the Republican Colorado House Speaker, the measure mandating 10% of energy consumed be from renewable sources, passed by a wide margin."

The given source is about Tom Udall introducing an RES. It says nothing about a Colorado ballot measure, a 10% renewable mandate, or passage by a wide margin. Champaign Supernova (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you consider using cn instead of deleting? These are not contentious issues or possible BLP violations. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  13:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 30 seconds Google search:"Colorado was the first state in the country to enact a renewable portfolio standard, thanks to the efforts of then Congressman Udall and Republican House Speaker Lola Spradley. Colorado voters decided public utilities serving at least 40,000 customers should be required to generate at least 10 percent of their electrical power from clean, renewable sources. Amendment 37 passed in 2004, three years before Gardner sponsored a bill in the state legislature that he said launched Colorado’s green-energy economy." -   Cwobeel   (talk)  13:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Content restored with the above source and another one that includes Amendment 37 ballot measure details, and the wide margin result (52% in favor to 48% against). -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 52% to 48% is a "wide margin"? Funny you say that, because the only one of the sources that describes the size of the margin describes it as a "close margin", which seems the only accurate way to describe a 52% to 48% split.  If I didn't know better I'd think this is more of the unsourced/source-misrepresenting POV pushing you have been warned about possibly hundreds of times. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You have the same edit power that I have, so you can replace "wide margin" to just "52% to 48%", instead of endlessly complaining about my POV. See also MPOV -   Cwobeel   (talk)  16:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And I would kindly ask (again) to tone down your attacks on me. It is becoming a tedious pattern of yours and it is not useful. Thanks. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * More funny stuff, as soon as I DID replace the source-misrepresenting POV push you inserted with language that actually directly tracks what the source said, you reverted it. What is the point of inviting someone to make a needed change, if you then insist on removing it for inappropriate POV-pushing purposes?
 * Even more ridiculously, your stated rationale for removing what the source actually said was that it was "neither wide nor close" (even though the source explicitly says it was close and this is quite clear from the numbers) — and the enigmatic comment "let's leave the facts as is". So it appears you're quite comfortable saying the opposite of what the source says if it suits your preferred candidate's narrative.  But if the source says something that might not be uniformly positive, it is not a "fact" and therefore should be removed? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If the source describes it as a minor margin, by all means, add it. (Just note below, than another editor deleted the entire sentence) -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did add it, then you immediately removed it. Can I take your comment as a promise that you will not attempt to improperly contradict this source again? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I admit that I did not read that in the source. So yes, I concede you were right and I was wrong. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok just for grins I'd like to understand the sequence of events that led to the edit. You (1) read the source; (2) saw the numbers 52% to 48%; (3) did not see the language less than an inch away describing that as a "close margin"; (4) instead decided for yourself that 52 to 48% was a wide margin, and committed that to prose in WP's voice; (5) did not bother to investigate when another editor also told you that the source didn't call it a "wide margin"; (6) went ahead and reverted that editor anyway; (7) did not bother to even read the source when I pointed out to you what it actually said ("close margin"); (8) went ahead and reverted me anyway; (9) helpfully pointed out at talk that I could simply go ahead and make the edit which you had just reverted; (10) complained that this line of objection amounted to a personal attack; (11) finally appeared to acknowledge for the first time that the source described 52% to 48% as a "close margin", and added (helpfully!) that you would not object to that sourced description being added.; Do I have that about right? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 18:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't. The "wide margin" text was there added long time ago by someone else. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to bring that for discussion on my talk page. Here, let's focus on the article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Failed verification?
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)
 * Yeah, standing without any further explanation, that edit is puzzling. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If no response by NazariyKaminski, I will restore this tomorrow. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Gun (control v. rights)
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Lien on campaign
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)

I mean, seriously?

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

- Do you really believe that this is a relevant issue for this article? Really? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what does BLPREQUESTRESTORE have to do with this material? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * (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 Cwobeel   (talk)  16:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

Sorry, Cwobeel, but I don't see anything worthy of invoking BLP policy here. That being said, I see this as an extremely trivial matter and would omit the lien reference for that reason alone in the absence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Given that this issue has been covered by one or more reliable sources in the context of the 2014 campaign, perhaps it deserves a short sentence or two in the election article, but I don't feel that strongly about including it there, either. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * Forget it. Obviously you just want to raise hackles. Not playing that game thankyouverymuch. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course not. Carry on with the helpful sniping, then. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The Second Paragraph of the Lede remains terrible
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)
 * 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)

I don't give a damn whether or not it says he is a Democrat. I care that it implies Universal positions of the Democratic Party that not every Democrat subscribes to and that is it gives an unbalanced representation of the Senator's time in politics. Senator Mark Udall also has a verified record of raising taxes and opposing gun rights, yet I cannot help but notice that that was left wide out of the Lede... Take that sentence out and let people read up on things for themselves. I'm with the word "Democrat" gone from the Lede if it will make you happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldencanon (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)

Personal life
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

External links modified
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)