Talk:Russ Feingold/Archive 1

H.R. 2989 was eventually merged into H.R. 2673, a consolidated appropriations bill which passed the Senate 65-28 on 1/22/2004. Feingold voted Nay. The bill became Pub. L. 108-199 on 1/23/2004.

It's possible the author intended to mention another bill, however the Yahoo News links are expired so I can't tell. sam 03:29, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

"He also supports issues such as health care reform, gay rights, education, AIDS prevention, environmentalism, a stronger foreign policy, senior citizens' issues, preserving Social Security, energy conservation, and abolishing the death penalty."

How stupid! Are there any Senators who claim to support AIDS, a weaker foreign policy, and wasting energy while opposing education?

Referring to the Senator as "maverick" seems out of place in an encyclopedia - isn't that for the reader to decide? (unsigned comment by 128.12.55.151)
 * Yes, but describing his maverick behavior - - he has voted alone or nearly alone, often against his party - - is perfectly acceptable (with cites of course)--Hraefen 18:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that this page is a bit too glowing in its description of the senator? Doesn't seem to have a very neutral POV.--BaronLarf 08:00, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * NPOV smiles on Feingold: any neutral, purely factual recounting of his votes and actions will tend to "glow" no matter what, because most people find them honorable and admirable. The glow inheres in the facts themselves. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 09:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

His controversial votes are mentioned...I can't think of anything which is overly sympathetic to him or overly hostile to his opponents. --JamesB3 10:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disputes over Neutrality
There's been an edit war between 12.217.127.27 and Ollieplatt, with 5 reverts in one hour (well past the 3 in 24 hour rule). I, too, have some problems with this article, but we should really discuss each of them specifically here before making sweeping changes. --BaronLarf 15:30, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Ollieplatt"(/AKA Libertas)'s changes were obviously absurd, and he/she's been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism. The article does have an overall tone which is somewhat fawning. That should be easy to fix. "The nation was stunned" is a bit much, and should probably be replaced with something like "Outside political observers were surprised". Note that we should never state that an individual candidate accepted soft money because it is/was, by definition, not given to individual candidates, who by law have no say over independent expenditures. RadicalSubversiv E 15:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Based on a request, I've protected the page. From reviewing the work of these edit warriors, it looks like neither of the parties is putting much effort into compliance with the Neutral point of view policy. Their writing is more like spin, one designed to cast everything Feingold does in a positive light and the other trying to slam him. They need to work with each other and come to an agreement, or else they need to go away and let other people work on the article who are capable of writing appropriately. --Michael Snow 17:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

...wow, protected. When I saw this article about a week ago, I agreed with one post that said it was somewhat POV in the positive, but that the most it needed was probably some language changes here and there, and possibly the addition of any typical concerns or issues in the negative with Feingold. Is my assessment correct? My gut feeling tells me that one person 'being bold' and making reasoned NPOV edits to the current version could pretty much clean it up. Skybunny 23:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to say, in my own defense, that I didn't actually write most of the stuff which is being discussed for removal. All I did was ad a paragraph about how Americans for Democratic Action has him pegged as the most liberal man in the Senate, but the Concord Coalition is convinced he's a deficit hawk. I also changed the paragraph about "what he stands for," which, with few exceptions, read like something any Democrat might stand for, and I made it a list of the issues he talks about the most. I also rearranged some grammar, just because I tend to be anal about sentence structure, but that's all. --12.217.127.27

This article is very biased, speaks heroically of how Russ:


 * "Stunned the nation" Really?
 * Left his opponent in tears. Good one.
 * Is going to be President some day. Yeah right. Me too.
 * Glosses over how he once denounced soft money then took a truckload of it in 2004. Badness.
 * Refers to his "signature issues", what baloney.
 * Betrayed the Democratic President, incurring the wrath of Senate comrades and the enduring malice of the Hillary.

I don't want to write up the changes but would welcome those not kneeling before Russ or on his payroll to write the article. 12.217.127.27 is from Russ' homestate. I hope he uses mouthwash. Ollieplatt 10:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually I wrote much of what you considered so horrible, and I'm not from Wisconsin. I'm baffled as to how pointing out that many Democrats were angered by his vote on the impeachment articles is being biased. It's a fact. Someone else mentioned that he may run for President. This has also been referenced in articles and there's a website to the effect. Have you also had articles written about you or a website put up to urge you to run for President? I notice that you fail to mention how any of what you criticized is "baloney".

The real question about bias is why do you have such strong hatred for Russ Feingold and anyone who supports him, so much so that you view simple statements of fact as something which belongs in a porn movie? --JamesB3 11:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Here are some of my problems with this article.


 * Several sentences about Kasten are NPOV. It states that he was out of touch with his constituents, something that is obviously an opinion.  His crying in the concession speech should not be there.  Nor should Feingold's celebration.
 * "squeaked by" isn't really an encyclopedic term
 * Feingold's opposition to soft money should indeed be contrasted with the amount of soft money that went to help him in the latest election. It shouldn't say he accepted it, since it was only spent on his behalf, but it is an important point.
 * His "signature issues" should be replaced with statements about what he has done.
 * The 'one man versus the system' theme that runs through-out the article should be toned down. He voted for impeachment though it was unpopular but stood with his convictions; he voted against the Patriot Act but was proven right
 * If you look at the article as a whole, I don't think it gives a real picture of the guy's life, only his record as a senator. There are no headings in the article, no mention of his family or his time as a state assemblyman, etc.  There's more information about his views on issues and his election successes than there is in the Ted Kennedy article.  --BaronLarf 14:46, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

The article does not say Kasten was out of touch, it said Feingold ran ads claiming Kasten was out of touch. How is that NPOV? I guess the language can be slightly altered but I think it stands (I didn't write that part...I'm not sure who did) up well. The part about the crying is a bit much. The "one man versus the system" element is a big part of his career, something he has always emphasized. Shouldn't we encourage unique perspectives for each entry, as long as these perspectives stay close to the facts, instead of having every entry be a lifeless and dull photocopy? I do agree there should be mention of his family and his legislative career, but I guarantee you that if I went and listed his career in the state legislature someone would probably say that was NPOV too. --JamesB3 22:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article has - in tone - been riddled with bias. An anonymous user has repeatedly reverted NPOV changes, with the support of sympathetic administrators. BaronLarf has made some good points and they should be integrated immediately. Ollieplatt 23:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the article did have some bias. I will admit that. I didn't see all of the edits this anonymous person made but looking back, I'm sure that I was a bit excessive at times. I'm sure more neutral voices will make changes. But I still have no idea how some of the things you complained about (like the fact that he's being talked about as a Presidential candidate) is bias. --JamesB3 23:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, BaronLarf, how about this:
 * I concede the point about Kasten. The "out of touch" comment should be altered to read that Feingold attempted to create the impression. The rest should be struck.
 * Again, I agree about the "squeaked by" comment. He "managed to obtain a two-percent victory margin."
 * Since there is no evidence that he accepted soft money (which is, I might add, illegal) or that such was used in support of him, the comment to such an effect is libelous and should be struck. I don't like accusing people of felonies on the word of an anonymous poster.
 * OK, statements of what he has done. Here they are. Please note that he does not necessarily have to accomplished something, but merely "fought for it":
 * On campaign finance reform, he, of course, co-wrote the McCain-Feingold Act. He also was instrumental in securing a ban on members of Congress accepting gifts from lobbyists.
 * On fair trade, he voted against NAFTA, GATT, and just about every other free trade agreement. He is also a co-sponsor of the Job Protection Act and the author of the Buy American Act, both currently in committee. The JPA would repeal tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas and give tax breaks to companies that keep jobs in America. The Buy American Act would force the federal government to buy only goods and services made in America and offered by American companies.
 * On health-care reform, he has written a law that would create a state-based universal health care system that would be partially funded by the federal government. He also is an original cosponsor of the as-yet-unpassed Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act of 2004, which would allow drug reimportation from Canada by the Medicare program. He was also a major contributor to the 1999 Patients' Bill of Rights, which was killed by Congressional Republicans.
 * Where a multilateral foreign policy is concerned, he not only voted against the war in Iraq, he also voted against going to war in Kosovo until the countries of NATO could be brought on board.
 * On preserving Social Security, he is an original cosponsor of the Social Security and Medicare Surpluses Lockbox Bill of 2001, which is intended to prevent the use of said surpluses to offset deficit spending.
 * Finally, on the abolishment of the death penalty, he is the author of the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act, which seeks to put a stop to all executions on both the state and federal level while a blue ribbon commission reviews defects in how the death penalty is administered. This bill followed an attempt to pass different one in 1999 that sought an outright end to executions at the federal level.
 * I agree with the idea about theme going a little overboard, but how do you propose to reign it in? He's built his reputation on being a "maverick" in the Senate. Fighting the system is how he gets re-elected.
 * Well, Ted Kennedy has a rather famous family. One of his brothers was president of the United States and the other was a U.S. Attorney General, senator, presidential candidate, and assassination victim. The only reason that I know for certain that Feingold has even one daughter is that she appeared in one of his campaign commercials. You see a slight difference in the amount of information that might be available? --12.217.127.27

Rhobite's Misuse of Administrator Blocking
And don't forget Rhobite blocked me but not the defender of the POV. If you disagree, you might let him know. Tell Rhobite not to misuse his powers Ollieplatt 10:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Factual error
Sen. Feingold won by 6% in 1992. Scroll down to 'Grueling Race':

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/sep04/259012.asp

To whomever continues to add the passage asserting that Feingold recieved "soft money" support during the 2004 election: get your facts straight. S.27 (The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act), signed into law on 3/27/2002 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:s.00027:) and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in McConnell v FEC on 12/10/2003 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-1674), prohibits soft money. Please remove any references to "soft money" in the post BCRA period, as during this time soft money donations are banned by federal law.

Typo.
Third para from the bottom. "Honor Role". Should be "Honor Roll".

See http://www.concordcoalition.org/congress_outreach/2002scorecard/index.htm

and http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/03/07/2003717408.html

-G. Gregg

NPOV concerns addressed?
These concerned have by now been addressed haven't they? Can we take down the NPOV tag? (Written by 66.36.146.193; originally unsigned)
 * I took down the NPOV tag. I think that the article is now more or less impartial.  --BaronLarf 00:23, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous edits of "Draft Feingold" websites
There have been a series of edits by a number of anonymous IP addresses to a sentence mentioning draft websites for Feingold. I'm tempted to just let this go, but it annoys me that my changes keep getting reverted without explanation, despite my sources. Here is what I can find.
 * Draftruss.com The domain was registered on 8/11/04 according to http://whois.godaddy.com . In addition, edits to this page in December 2004 mention this site, so it was obviously up and running at this point.
 * Russforpresident.com debuted in February 2005, according to http://www.russforpresident.com/fulltext/id00015.htm . According to the data from http://whois.godaddy.com, the domain was registered on 2/15/05.

So I'm going to continue to revert edits to this page that are apparently nothing but an attempt to advertise Russforpresident.com on wikipedia. In an attempt to be neutral, I'm not mentioning either site in the text of the article, only that one appeared and another followed, followed by source links to both. --BaronLarf 02:12, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The draftruss one has been around for quite some time. I dunno what the heck this anon is doing though Nick Catalano (Talk) 23:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He seems to be trying to promote "Russforpresident.com" at the expense of draftruss.com. I'm not associated with either, I just want to protect this article from repeated anonymous vandalism. --BaronLarf 00:37, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

First heading
Neutrality changed the title of the first heading from "Personal background" to "Early life." I don't have an objection to having a heading like that, but in that case the information about Feingold's marriages and divorces don't fit there, since his most recently announced impending divorce was just announced. And this is something notable that should be kept, since many pundits believe it will keep him from running for president in 08. Suggestions? Be bold, if you think of something. --BaronLarf 00:37, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, what pundits? I haven't seen any commentary on the matter anywhere. RadicalSubversiv E 01:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure... here ya go... Milwaukee J-S article carried by Minnesota's Pioneer Press, UPI news brief carried world-wide, et al. The talking heads on CNN aren't talking about it since it's way too early, but those who are interested are starting to count him out.  --BaronLarf 02:16, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

News of the Feingold two-fer divorce should be prominently in the article. Russ is screwed - and I don't just mean with his secretary - what I think is not that relevant though, the main thing is the sourced reference to political commentators who have declared his presidential ambitions Dead Before Departure. Adios Russ. You bad boy. RussMelenchuk 06:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The election is a long way away. What one political commentator says about news that's four days old is unencyclopedic. Also, the cited reference for the divorce states nothing about adultery. Instead, the Feingolds state, "We are separating amicably and intend to remain very good friends.". Amayzes 06:29, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

I'll say this right now: any opponent who goes after Feingold for his marital history risks losing every divorced leaner and undecided in any given jurisdiction, giving the benefit of the doubt for a second and presuming there aren't any larger skeletons. But I think Feingold being Feingold should be able to deflect any critisism about this given his normal glib responsiveness and probably spin it into a positive to boot. It's 2006, and if we still equate divorced as a political poison, we're in a Fantasyland with the rides all operated by PR directors (which is to say it's even worse than I thought) as it relates to how we decide our candidates. Wayman975 16:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputed
The editors &  have decided to add in some speculative and biased comments to this article.


 * First:

In the first paragraph the added "which was passed while Feingold received large amounts of corporate money.", but have yet to proved a source to back up this claim.


 * Second:

While it is true that Mr Feingold and his second wife have decided to divorce, the editors claim that this is because of adultery on the part of Mr. Feingold. This statement is pure speculation and borders on being a libelist statement. In neither of the two articles sourced, which I may mention are practicaly the same article form 2 different newspapers St. Paul Pioneer Press and Milwkuaee Journal Sentinel is the mention of adultery, of an affair or any other related incident. Instead it the editors has put words into real journalists mouths by baiscaly misquoting them. The quote that the editor has posted is "'Public life is a jealous mistress' one commentator remarked, speculating that the rigors of being up in Washington made a climax to his second marriage inevitable." and how it actually reads in the article "Sabato, for his part, underscored how trying it is to hold office and keep the home fires burning. 'Public life is a jealous mistress,' he said. 'And I often wonder how public people make marriage and family work with the kinds of demands they have in their public lives.'", which in no way infers that he had an affair of any kind.

It should also be noted that the edits are from a know vandal, know as the "Oliver North vandal" and his minions of sockpuppett, and that any edits by his socckpuppetts that have been created or have yet to be created should be considered as disputed if not vandalism. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * it should be noted also that the a sockpuppet was created,, and reverted my argument. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed the parts about adultery, and they haven't been put back in the last few days. Does this satisfy the Factually Disputed tag?  If so, we can remove it.  --BaronLarf 15:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Umm no, being that the complete basis of my argument has not been resolved. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 21:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoops, missed the part about the corporate money. That's now been removed, too.  Can the factual tag be removed?  --BaronLarf 21:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Impact of divorce
I think this is actually pretty straightforward, as our policies go (on neutral point of view, soapboxing, weasel words, and citing sources). The largest newspaper in Feingold's state runs a story reporting the opinion of a acknowledged expert (the incredibly frequently quoted Larry Sabato), that Feingold's second divorce completely dooms his presidential chances. Regardless of whether we agree with it (I don't), it's a notable opinion which ought to be reported on here. If someone else notable has expressed a differing opinion, we can report on that. But we cannot serve as a soapbox for anybody who disagrees to make their argument. RadicalSubversiv E 01:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * As long as the opinion is attributed and sourced, I have no problem with including it here. --BaronLarf 01:41, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have links from people who diagree with Larry Sabato:

http://www.spectatornews.com/media/paper218/news/2005/04/18/Editorialopinion/Politics.Should.Not.Be.Personal-927793.shtml http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/12/121034/106 http://www.dogfight04.com/dogfight04/2005/04/senator_russ_fe.html

The only one of those that begins to qualify as notable is Kos, but it's better than nothing. I'm adding an appropriate mention to the article. RadicalSubversiv E 03:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What a legend!
The only one who voted against the USA Patriot Act. The man has integrity. Sorry, I know this is editorializing, but figure that I've just gotta say it. - Ta bu shi da yu 20:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

POV Revisted
How can anyone say that this does not have a POV in it??? All the links and articles down at the bottom paint Feingold with a very favourable brush. I know due to his voting record and maybe some of his liberal views (which may be questioned by some Conservative commentors) have spawned articles that are not so favorable. Maybe the POV tag should go right up until..the massive links and articles that are massively in his favour are either erased or balanced with some more critical articles. This is supposed to be "Neutral" not a political rally for the man. In the future I will be providing some more critical articles from mainstream papers about the man, fair is fair. Ronsin1976


 * welcome! Kevin Baastalk 18:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well to make it at least some semblence of fairness on the Links- I added a critical link on Feingold from a conservative source to at least balance the vast glowing praises from leftist sources. If Hillary Clinton, Trent Lott and others have critical links added in their articles, its only fair Feingold have one also.Ronsin1976


 * Yes it seems 8-bit who is the vandal erased my link, saying it was obvious..duh...so are all of the other links...I balanced the 13 pro-Feingold with 1 that is negative...sue me. It is supposed to be critical. 8-Bit was just angry because I called him on his "impartiality" from other posts. The link will go straight up again. Ronsin1976


 * I think we try to provide links that advance the information on Russ Feingold, not that detract or support. The fact of the matter is, these sources do a good job of reviewing his qualifications even if they are supportive.  The link you posted is highly biased and more NPOV than any links that are on this page right now.  I would suggest that we do not include this link and maybe assess our other links on this page.  --Shawn 01:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

immigration positions
Can anyone find any information about Feingold's position on immigration-related issues? For a presidential aspirant, he seems to have been remarkably silent on the topic. -- Seth Ilys 02:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, he supports the guest work program. But I don't have any sources. --Shawn 21:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of links
BaronLarf deleted a bunch of links from this page because "Wikipedia aint a link repository." I disagree, plenty of articles have plenty of links for further reading and we at Wikipedia are not in the business of deciding which is significant enough to be noted. NPOV. If someone with the power to revert sees this, might be a good time. DougOfDoom  talk  02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The amount of links was excessive. If you want to dispute one link over another, that's another matter.  But having 40 some links or one link for every state trying to draft Feingold is just not necessary. --BaronLarf 03:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would probably agree. --Shawn 21:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Merecat
I am a little concerned about the edits made by Merecat, and while adding the is helpful, deleting a lot of information on this scale is haphazard and unwarranted. --Shawn 21:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I disgree. The deletions I made were to uncited puffery. There were WP:V and WP:POV problems with that material. Merecat 21:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Merecat's sentiments, though I understand why there would be some people miffed by large deletions. This article does indeed read much like a Feingold press release, and Merecat was being bold by doing something about it.--BaronLarf 02:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * He was a bit extreme though. Deletions on that level need to be discussed first. And btw, Merecat, it's not "fluffery". The contract in particular was a real thing. I am about to add the citation. Next time, please discuss deletions of that scale first. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I could have posted an alert about that 1st and waited a day, but I've been following behind User:Dhwani1989 who I am virtually certain is a sock or campaign operative. In fact, just today, I reported User:Dhwani1989 for copyvio and a block resulted. He was warned and warned, but was deleting the warnings from his talk page. Take a look at his contributions list and edits and tell me he's not with the DSCC or DNC. With elections coming up, we have to very vigilant. Merecat 03:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with User:Dhwani1989 in any way, shape, or form? And you're not here to investigate the identity of specific users.  Anyone from Washington would have a distinct Senate or House of Reps or White House IP address.  I don't think we need to worry about the identity, but merely the facts within the articles. --Shawn 04:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by 216.56.11.5
'''The references in the "Possible Election Run" are ridiculous. This is not an advertisement for a blog or a blogger's promotion pae. I'm removing some of blatant advertisement for blogger "zos" and the blogger community in general. Also, if the data is self-proclaimed unscientific, it has no place being here. The data on his polls was conducted in a biased way, and showed extremely biased results (nearly 50% for feingold).'''

I'm going remove the data about Feingold being in opposition to what is referenced as "House Resolution 2989". I'm guessing the writer meant House bill H.R. 2989. However, this didn't pass on 9/11/2003 240-173. It in fact passed the House on 9/9/2003 381-39. It passed the Senate with amendments on 10/23/2003 91-3. Feingold voted Yea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.56.11.5 (talk • contribs)

People from Madison, Wisconsin
The Wikipedia article "People from Madison, Wisconsin" states: "The people listed below were born in or are otherwise closely connected to the city of Madison, Wisconsin." Although Russ Feingold was born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin, he has lived in the Madison area since at least 1992. A person can be associated with more than one city in his lifetime. — Walloon 16:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree that someone can be associated with more than one city in ones lifetime, I don't believe that Feingold is strongly associated with Madison. He was born in Janesville, went to school in Madison, Boston and Oxford, goes to temple in Kenosha, works in Washington, D.C. and has been living for the past several years in Middleton, not Madison.  I'm in favor of limiting the category to Category:People from Janesville, Wisconsin as that is where he was born.  --BaronLarf 13:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A solution for the NPOV issue?
I'd just like to say that it does look slightly POV from where I sit. I dunno, maybe this is just a neutral article, but I can't help but get the feeling from this that he's this really great guy who'd make a great president, and this worries me because I'm not used to any good Wikipedia articles about politicians being so...well, nice. Maybe we should ask for a peer review of this article so that we can figure out ways to improve it? After all, if this guy is potentially a presidential candidate this article will become very high profile, and it might be better to get it up to scratch sooner rather than later. ManicParroT 20:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I can provide something of an explanation of why this article appears POV. These are some of the things you see from Feingold in this article and I grant that this is much of what the media reports on:


 * 1. Three successful elections to Senate, most of which are memorable for Feingold's policy stances or (say, in the case of the 1998 election), holding to campaign spending limits when his opponent did not, which nearly cost him the election. The media tended to view this 1998 stance as principled if dangerous, rather than foolish for nearly costing him the election.


 * 2. Unusual votes - frequently being 'the only senator' or 'the only Senator in the Democratic party' to vote X or Y.


 * 3. So-called "unusual" stances, like Feingold's justification in voting 'for' Ashcroft.


 * All of these points, widely discussed in the article, would tend to support an image which Feingold has not necessarily disavowed, that of being a maverick. Feingold isn't well remembered for voting his party line, mudslinging that may have gone on during his campaigns, or quote snafus that many other politicians have in their articles (though the one about the Deep South is in here). If we want to make the article less...like this, I would suggest that more focus be put on Feingold's overall positions on issues, where he voted with or against them on bills, and if sourcable, why he voted that way. We must however keep in mind, This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The more widely Feingold's policy is known, the more likely that any given person will disagree with something he stands for, which will tend to make the article look more neutral, most probably. Skybunny 17:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Review on hold

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

The article should not have any citation needed tags and needs to be more stable to be a WP:GA. I think it can make it, but it needs some work. Argos&#39;Dad 19:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 17, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: yes
 * 2. Factually accurate?: no; there are unreferenced statements
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: yes
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: yes
 * 5. Article stability? yes
 * 6. Images?: no; there are broken links to images

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Argos&#39;Dad 03:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)