Talk:Mike Coffman/Archive 1

Tenure as state treasurer
He left office and then returned to office? I'm trying to make sense of this for the article Political party strength in Colorado. Thanks to anyone who can shed some light here. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added language to the article clarifiying that he was re-appointed as State Treasurer following his Iraq War service. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, TommyBoy. So that I understand: Coffman resigned, Governor Owens appointed Hillman, then Hillman resigned when Coffman once again was able to serve as treasurer, and Owens then appointed Coffman? Qqqqqq (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a response on User:Qqqqqq's Talk page. --TommyBoy (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tenure as state treasurer
He left office and then returned to office? I'm trying to make sense of this for the article Political party strength in Colorado. Thanks to anyone who can shed some light here. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added language to the article clarifiying that he was re-appointed as State Treasurer following his Iraq War service. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, TommyBoy. So that I understand: Coffman resigned, Governor Owens appointed Hillman, then Hillman resigned when Coffman once again was able to serve as treasurer, and Owens then appointed Coffman? Qqqqqq (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a response on User:Qqqqqq's Talk page. --TommyBoy (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversies section
First, please understand that I have no "dog in this hunt" as far as Mr. Coffman and his opponenent for the congressional seat in Colorado. But having said that, this section of the BLP has a very strong POV regarding the subject of the BLP. The controversies section of this BLP clearly violates WP:Coatrack and the prohibitions in BLP:Criticism and Praise. There are unsubstantiated rumors and inclusion of text from sources that are not reliable. As such, I have removed the section, as we all should whenever we see these in a WP:BLP, be the subject a republican or a democrat.

Also, the 'see also' to Mr. Coffman's opponent is unwarrented in this BLP. Appropriate in the article about the upcoming election, but not here. Newguy34 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the details of the Common Cause v. Coffman case were incorrect. The suit was not closed in Oct 2008, and it actually remains open as of Nov 2009, though Coffman has been replaced in the suit by Bernie Buescher, the new Secretary of State.Wallinish (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia seem to be willing to cover up for his staff altering his webpage I tried to post the controversy on the website and they removed it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.145.198 (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Favor
Could someone (from his staff maybe;-) be so kind as to upload an official photograph of Mr. Coffman to Wikimedia Commons? Helps me to illustrate the German version of this article... TIA --K.warterbeck (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC).
 * A photo has been added by another user. --TommyBoy (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mike Coffman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081029214436/http://www.coffmanforcongress.com/news22.htm to http://www.coffmanforcongress.com/news22.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mike Coffman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080724162603/http://www.coffmanforcongress.com/about.htm to http://www.coffmanforcongress.com/about.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mike Coffman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081015162624/http://www.rockymountainnews.com:80/news/2008/oct/14/voting-forms-ruled-incomplete-for-lack-of-check/ to http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/oct/14/voting-forms-ruled-incomplete-for-lack-of-check/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 election contributions from individuals
The article at referenced says "Carroll has dominated in terms of amassing the vast majority of her contributions from individual contributors." so I don't think there is a lack of neutrality to say Carroll has received a "much" greater proportion of her donations from individuals. User:Champaign Supernova can you please explain your removal of the word "much"? Thank you Lena Key (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It seemed gratuitous. Frankly, I'm not sure that Carroll's fundraising information belongs on this page at all. It can go on her page, or here: United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado, 2016. But Coffman's page seems an odd place for information on his opponent's finances. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Election boxes
The election results section is a significant part of the article, and would be made much more legible if the results could be placed in election boxesFrankam12 (talk)

EMILY's List
Should we be including claims made in fundraising emails by groups that have endorsed this guy's opponent? Seems rather politically charged. Why not just cover simple votes and legislation sponsored? Safehaven86 (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * An unverified charge by an opposing organization wouldn't make sense to include. But this is notable and has been covered by Politifact.com. Politifact only covers notable issues at the Congressional level; in fact, it appears that this is the only, or one of the only, things they've covered about Rep. Coffman; see: http://stg.politifact.com/personalities/mike-coffman/statements/ Frankam12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It was important to note that the charge being examined by Politifact was brought by an organization who had endorsed her opponent. And there are quite a few more Politifacts dealing with Coffman, actually. See Is Rep. Mike Coffman with Trump? Coffman says not yet, DCCC ad says Mike Coffman said he would "support' Trump, but he's condemned GOP nominee, DCCC links Mike Pence to Mike Coffman, says both 'oppose equal rights for LGBT Americans', and Rep. Mike Coffman says Hillary Clinton 'breaks the law.' It's complicated, for example. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If we only include true charges made against Coffman, and omit false charges that have been debunked by fact-checking entities, it could make it seem as if only true charges are made against Coffman. That would seem to present a neutrality and impartiality problem. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand that logic. By analogy, if this article only includes true facts about Coffman, and omits any false facts about Coffman, a reasonable reader should assume that no one, ever, has said something inaccurate about Coffman? Frankam12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * My point is that you quickly run into a bias issue if you selectively insert claims made by opponents and criticisms of individuals into encyclopedic articles. Articles start to resemble political brochures or propaganda as opposed to detached overviews. Safehaven86 (talk)


 * I also don't see the value in adding claims that have been debunked. If they've been debunked, why repeat them? It's just giving more air time, as it were, to things that aren't true, which seems illogical. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments about soldier vetting
Coffman's quote, from a WP:RS is

“We need that same mentality today to have that active counter-intelligence effort to make sure that our ranks are not infiltrated by those sympathetic to radical Islam … I think that is very important. And I think that also it would help Muslim Americans who are serving in the military, because then those soldiers, Marines, and airmen, serving alongside of them would understand that they have been vetted and that they can be trusted.”

By writing that it would help "Muslim Americans who are serving in the military", as opposed to "Americans who are serving in the military", it is clear that the 'active counter-intelligence effort applies to "Muslim Americans who are serving in the military'.

Furthermore, Coffman separates out the soldiers into two groups:

1. "Muslim Americans who are serving in the military", who should be "vetted" so that "they can be trusted" and 2. "those soldiers, Marines and airmen, serving alongside them", where 'them' refers to the "Muslim American who are serving in the military".

Nowhere does it suggest that "those soldiers, Marines and airmen, serving alongside them" should be subject to the same kind of vetting. In fact, Coffman indicates that they are two different groups by talking about them separately. It's quite clear that Coffman is supporting additional vetting of Muslim American soldiers, to ensure that they are not sympathetic to 'radical Islam', and to make sure that all the other kinds of soldiers serving understand that those Muslim American soldiers "have been vetted and they can be trusted".

An editor argued that the following is a mischaracterization of that source, and I beg to differ:

"In a 2011 interview, Coffman spoke of his own experience answering questions about potential links to anti-American groups when joining the military, and suggested that American Muslims serving in the military should be 'vetted' so they could be trusted. "

Frankam12 (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You've offered an interpretation of what you think Coffman meant by these comments, but it's just that--an interpretation. One could just as easily interpret the comments as meaning that he wants to vet all soldiers for anti-American sentiment, and that this would benefit Muslim soldiers in particular because their fellow service members would trust them more, knowing they'd also been vetted for sympathy to extremist ideologies. The point is, interpretations aren't going to cut it here. We need verifiable content. The source provided does not align with what you've put in the article. These also just appear to be one-off radio comments, not a proposed bill or sponsored legislation having to do with military loyalties. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I wondered what Mike Coffman's attitude towards global warming was. Is he climate science denier? Sincerely MR Walter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.29.117 (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Coffman. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110424113112/http://www.denverpost.com:80/politics/ci_17896394 to http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_17896394

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) 04:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

flipflop
The article currently makes use of the term flipflop. Could this not be considered a loaded term, violating NPOV?Ordinary Person (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. Unless it's used by a reliable source, Wikipedia shouldn't use it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Coffman. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141205210836/http://coffman.house.gov/about/full-biography to http://coffman.house.gov/about/full-biography
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140822000643/http://coffman.house.gov/about/full-biography to http://coffman.house.gov/about/full-biography

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) 07:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mike Coffman
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mike Coffman's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "results": From 2014 Colorado elections:  From 2008 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado:  From Colorado's 6th congressional district:  

Reference named "coprimary": From 2016 United States Senate election in Colorado: </li> <li>From 2014 Colorado elections: </li> <li>From 2016 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado: </li> </ul>

Reference named "General election results":<ul> <li>From 2012 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado: http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/2012election.pdf</li> <li>From 2010 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)