Talk:Pat Roberts/Archive 1

The bit about the committeework
It appears to be a LONG quote from his office or something, and then a very long quote from a newspaper?! The first seems too much to be really neutral and the second too much to be fair use. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This article so biased against Roberts it isn't even funny. If Roberts were a Democrat, I can assure you that people would be all over this page, making sure it was "unbiased." Wikipedia is a joke when it comes to liberals and conservatives. I'm a liberal myself, but wikipedia is so biased against conservatives it's insane. Burroughsks88 (talk)

Rewrite
The political positions section of this article reads as if it is a list of political positions with which the author disagrees. Where is information about his positions on economic matters, health care, education? -76.17.236.181 (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote of article exceeds fair use?
I excised the following lengthy quote from a KC Star story. A direct quote of this length, even with attribution, strikes me as copyright violation. A paraphrase, perhaps including shorter quotes, seems indicated; and there should be a footnoted citation rather than an in-line statement of the source. --Ammodramus (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The following is an article on the release from the Kansas City Star published August 4, 2006 and Written by Matt Stearns: The Senate Intelligence Committee approved two reports in its oft-delayed, much-maligned investigation into whether the Bush administration misused intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq, committee chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas said. The two reports focus on Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorism and his weapons of mass destruction program, and how they compare with prewar intelligence assessments. They also examine the use by intelligence agencies of information from the Iraqi National Congress, much of which was later discredited. That leaves unfinished three reports in the so-called Phase II investigation, including the potentially explosive one that compares the prewar public statements of government officials to what the intelligence they had at the time indicated. The committee expects to vote on releasing the two completed reports in September, after Congress returns from its summer break. The Bush administration still must declassify the information in them before they can be released."Taken together, I believe the American people will have a better view of the intelligence which contributed to the decision-making that led us to war," said Roberts, a Republican. "The public won't have to listen to the political 'he said, she said' — which certainly abounds in an election year."Roberts said he would pressure the White House to declassify most of the information in the reports: "I will not tolerate a report which is overly redacted. This committee will not settle for anything less. Neither will the American public."Partisan politics have dogged the investigation virtually since it began in February 2004. Democrats, who had hoped to have it completed before the 2004 presidential election, accused Roberts of dragging his feet and protecting the White House. Roberts has said Democrats are responsible for politicizing the investigation. The committee appeared to overcome partisanship Thursday: It voted 14-1 to approve the report on Hussein's weapons program and terrorist ties, and 11-4 to OK the report on information from the Iraqi National Congress. John Pike, director of the think tank Globalsecurity.org, thought the two reports would be instructive on documenting how U.S. intelligence agencies failed in recent years."I think the first one will show there's enough blame to go around that our Iraq policy had been malpremised for a decade," Pike said. "The second one, it will be interesting to see what they conclude on sources and methods. Talk about gullibles' troubles."Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the Democratic vice chairman of the committee, said all five reports were important "to determine where mistakes were made in the full cycle of intelligence — collection, analysis, dissemination and use. Only then can we begin to fix problems that are critical to our national security."Besides the report on officials' public statements, the others to be completed are on the intelligence role of the Pentagon's controversial Office of Special Plans, which challenged the CIA on Hussein's terrorist ties and other issues; and what intelligence agencies predicted about Iraq's postwar conflagration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammodramus (talk • contribs) 17:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Residence
The infobox currently lists Dodge City, Kansas as Roberts' residence. The source provided says that this "residence" is a spare room in the house of a donor. He spends little time in Kansas. He owns a home in Alexandria, Virginia, which is where his campaign manager meant when he said Roberts had gone back "home". Should we change the infobox from Dodge City to Alexandria? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I would suggest putting it under Dodge City. If he doesn't have a residence in Kansas, then he cannot be a senator from Kansas. He is registered to vote in Kansas, Dodge City specifically. This has been a discussion for a long time. But if the State of Kansas lets him be on the ballot, then he has a residency in Kansas. This article states that the Kansas Election Board rejects claims over Roberts' residence.  Corkythehornetfan   (Talk)  21:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing that article. In that case, Dodge City certainly shouldn't be removed, though perhaps, as you say, Alexandria should be added below it for his "second" residence. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem! I, as a Kansan am even confused about his residency. Every time I hear about this issue in the news, it just comes back to him being a resident. I'd go for the "second" residence in the Infobox.  Corkythehornetfan   (Talk)  14:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit late to this one but since your discussion, this article states that he lists Alexandria as his home on FEC filings. In that case, given what Corky's said, I'd agree with him and Muboshgu about listing VA as a second residence. Tiller54 (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This same topic came up on the Mary Landrieu's page and one of the editors summed up this silliness rather succinctly Original quote on Mary Landrieu's talk page:
 * Do you think we're stupid? Almost every veteran US Senator has a house in DC. That's why these residency political attacks(from both sides) are stupid. You think David Vitter doesn't have a DC residence? His own website states he voted for a pay raise because of the expense of keeping up two residences. Are you going to scamper over there and list his residence as DC now? I'll let you two decide for yourselves. Either it's in this article, and every other Senator with a DC residence, or not in any of the articles. Otherwise this is going to another board. I've had with these POV warrior changes to BLP articles. Dave Dial (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC) (This was originally posted on Mary Landrieu's talk page but it was right on point for this article also).--NK (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And I stand by that assessment here, same as the other page. Every veteran US Senator has a DC residence. You win 2 elections and you are in DC at least 12 years. You know you are spending most of your time in DC. This partisan issue from both sides is ridiculous. I could see if the Senator never went home to the State they represent, that might garner a discussion. But even then if they state they still live there that is where their residence should state. Dave Dial (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they all have DC residences when they're in DC. But many of them live together in apartments, as has inspired Alpha House, and those guys have their primary residences in their home states. Roberts' primary residence is clearly his DC-area home, as opposed to Kansas. This is more than just a "partisan issue", as Dick Lugar can attest that the voters take issue with this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree with that, for various reasons. One, Senators with live near DC can travel 'home' a lot more easily than senators who live in different time zones hundreds or sometimes thousands of miles away. Whereas many could understand that a Senator who lives is let's see, Kansas, spending most of his time in DC, they would have a problem with a Senator that is from Jersey or Boston from living in DC. Let's use common sense, not partisan politics to determine what is and what is not appropriate for this BLP. A politician who has been representing some or all the people of Kansas for at least 33 years(since 1981) is going to have a home in DC. And spend most of their time there. It's common sense. Dave Dial (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is a silly issue that pushed by opponents during campaigns. The vast majority of people know that Ted Kennedy had two homes in Massachusetts and grand home in NW Washington, for forty years.  The vast majority of people know that Senator Ed Markey does not spend all that much time in Massachusetts, but they did not care when they voted him into office to replace John Kerry in the 2012 election. Why Ed Markey’s residency could be an issue in bid to replace Kerry, Washington Post.  The same holds true for Republicans. Unless they get kicked off of the ballot then we should take the address they claim as their home in the district.  They are elected to serve a specific state or district.  If the voters of that state did not find it to be a big deal then why are mere editors of Wikipedia imposing our decision of where we believe they live?  It is not our place.  We should accept their self-identified address and respect what they and the voters decide, not what Wikipedia editors believe on a case by case basis.--NK (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)