Talk:Tom Emmer/Archive 1

DWI's
Where can we add in his two DWI charges? I think they're significant when looking at political candidates. Stonesour025 (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up the DWI piece, citing the different incidents as per the Star Tribune article. Stonesour025 (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A new Wikipedia user, Sassidolfin, has been repeatedly editing out references to Emmer's DWI convictions. They are well cited and published under Personal Life. What do you think? Relevant or not for a politician's Wikipedia page? Edkohler (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole DWI issue is being used purely for political purposes, he was 20 when he got is DWI, and the second instance was not a DWI. WP is not the place to promote or push political points for election purposes.  Arzel (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Arzel, you raise a good point. However, the information regarding Emmer's DWI charges (twice charged, once convicted, once pled to a lesser charge) is in the public record and has been widely reported by Minnesota press. It seems relevant to the personal history of someone who's running for governor. And, it has been included in his profile without issue until yesterday when someone clearly close to the campaign repeatedly scrubbed the information without explanation. The same user then contributed information that appears to reflect that Emmer may have learned from his errors by proposing (but not passing) DWI legislation. With that in mind, I believe the content is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edkohler (talk • contribs) 05:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur that, like it or not, the DWI issue is part of Tom Emmer's bio. While the incidents occurred long ago and likely should not have bearing on his candidacy or reputation, they are part of the public record of someone who is seeking higher political office. I don't necessarily agree with Edkohler that we should assume the edits were made by "someone clearly close to the campaign," but I do agree with him that the content is relevant. I also combined and reformatted the DWI discussion under one heading without changing talk content, so that the discussion is no longer fragmented under two headings. SWMNPoliSciProject (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed: "The idea was brought to Emmer by municipal prosecutors over concern that revocations do not happen immediately argued that under the current law." I've read this sentence several times and can't understand it. Please add it back if it can be fixed. Jonathunder (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple of specific points about the DWI issue. The sources clearly state that he was given a ticket in 1981 for DWI, I know that DWI was not always as serious of a charge as it is today, and it is very likely that he was simply given a ticket and there was no court case for him to plead his case or to be convicted. The sources also don't make any mention of being covicted of anything, only that he plead guilty in 1991 to the careless driving charge. Secondly, the attempt to phrase him having a DWI as a leading statement prior to his bill offer is a BLP and synthesis violation in an attempt to lead the reader into believing that the bill was a response to his previous DWI. Arzel (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Arzel, you stated that you feel the DWI section was only added by others for "purely political purposes." Let me assure you it was not.  When a legislator (and a father of seven who has featured this children--whom he presumably drives about--in his ads) has been arrested multiple times over a ten year period for alcohol-related driving offenses, it's relevant to his character.  It becomes even more relevant when that same legislator then proposes a bill that reduces and delays revocation periods, in effect proposing lessening of offenses that might have benefited his during his previous legal difficulties.  Problematic linkages come forth of winding stems of association that beg the reader to complete the logic strain if they are at all to parse the statement:  Sen. Jim Bunning pitched for the Phillies; the Phillies from the 1940s through the 1960s were a notoriously racist club; Sen. Bunning says we need to put a wall in between Mexico and the US.  Bad linkage.  However, were one to write, "Sen. Bunning, himself a former pitcher, suggested that physical therapy be tax-deductable for retired athletes" or "Sen. Bill Fritch, still a board-certified cardio-thoracic surgeon, cautioned against Medicare stripping physicians of their livelihood" one would be providing helpful context from whih the reader may infer multiple reading of the event.  As to the continual insertion of Emmer's age at his first arrest, well, that's classic editorializing.  The only reason for an age to be listed there (and at no other juncture in an event in the article) is the hope that his relative youth will mitigate his culpability in the eyes of the reader.  (It's telling, I think, that we don't learn that Emmer is 30 for the second offense.)  The readers have his birthdate and the date of the his offenses--they may quite adequately infer what they will.  The bald editorial implication is, to my mind, too much.  Finaly, Arzel, if you KNOW that tickets functioned in a certain way back in 1981--and they darn well mght have--find citable proof.  Cheers.

ThtrWrtr (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The proof is to you to prove that he plead guilty or was convicted. Drunk Driving laws changed dramaticaly in the years after MADD was estabilished in 1980.  Prior to this they were not nearly as severe as they are now, which is probably why he said that had they been more severe in 1981 he probably wouldn't have taken the second chance in 1991.  His age is important and it is mentioned within the sourcing, and your insistance that it doesn't belong only tells me that your presentation is being done purely for political reasons.  Arzel (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Remember -- Keep Things Balanced
It's not appropriate to trash campaign opponents on Wikipedia. Referring to Emmer's opponents with pejorative terms or referring to the DFL primary as "bitter" is not acceptable. Please remember, these articles are supposed to be neutral reference materials, not campaign lit. Mrfeek (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! My name is David Strom and I am the research director of the Emmer for Governor campaign (full disclosure!). First of all, I have to say that I am impressed that everyone is trying to be fair here, and vigorous discussion about what is and is not relevant is perfectly appropriate. I would appreciate it if some Wikipedia guru would replace the current Emmer photo with his regular portrait. Tom is running for Governor, and while that photo is fine as ONE in the wikipedia page, it is inappropriate that it be the only/official photo. I leave that to a wikipedia guru. I am not even sure how to edit these things. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.92.90 (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Target's $150,000 Donation To Fund Anti-Gay Politics
If not already addressed, this web article should be added to Emmer's wiki-article: http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/targets_150000_donation_to_fund_anti-gay_politics Native94080 (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Jonathunder (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would qualify as a reliable source. The is a BLP so WP:BLP policies need to be followed closely, especially when inserting material that is highly contentious.  Arzel (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, could you explain why you feel the additions I made are in violation of NPOV? Every single statement I made included references to reliable sources, and I did include the official statement made on the subject by Emmer's press secretary.  His 2008 House campaign very clearly did contribute to a group that has actively promoted violence against homosexuals.  This constitutes a link in a very objective sense. Kate6 (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, here are the sources I included, which do honestly seem quite reliable to me: Minnesota Independent: GOP-linked punk rock ministry says executing gays is ‘moral’, Minnesota Independent: Emmer campaign donated to controversial Christian punk-rock ministry . These independently published articles contain a great deal of very specific information about Emmer's link to "You Can Run But You Cannot Hide" and about the exact opinions that group has espoused publicly.  The bit about their belief that homosexuals ought to be "executed" is the worst of it, but is by no means the entirety of the hateful, angry message of that group. Kate6 (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Kate6! Native94080 (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There should be a "controversy" section for Tom Emmer's wiki-article, similar to what's been pointed out here (click here). Native94080 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kate, For starters, the MN Independent is a liberal source. Pretty much anything they put out is going to be biased against Emmer.  Secondly, your connection of two independent articles is the very definition of WP:SYNTH.  Connection of the two implies that Emmer believes that homosexuals "ought to be executed".  This is a biography of a living person WP:BLP.  This is not a place to promote a political view, especially considering that the 2010 elections are less than 100 days from now.  Native, controversy sections are to be avoided.  Information should be included into the appropriate section less the article becomes an attack page.  Obviously, with the upcoming election, emotions are going to be stressed, but please remember that wikipedia is not the place to wage a political battle, there are many places on the internet to express yous personal dislikes with a specific candidate, but wikipedia is not the place.  Arzel (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I think it's worthwhile to point out that almost everything I pulled out of the MN Independent were direct quotes of either the frontman of "You Can Run But You Cannot Hide" or of Emmer's press secretary. As such, I doubt the publication's supposed "liberal bias" could have had too much of an affect.  Secondly, the reason I made a point of including Emmer's official statement on the subject was to make it clear that I did not intend to imply that he believes homosexuals "ought to be executed."  He did, however, lend his support, both financially and through association, to a group that does hold this belief.  Thanks to his support, this group was able to increase their fanbase, book more performances and further advocate for violence against completely innocent Americans.  And to the best of my knowledge Emmer has never attempted to offset the damage he's done through these contributions by, for example, contributing larger amounts to medical funds that help victims of hate crimes (including but not limited to hate crimes against LGBT people), or anything along those lines.  I think it's extremely noteworthy and definitely ought to be included in the article that he hasn't felt the need for any sort of reparations.  Kate6 (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me phrase this more simply... The message I took away, reading those MN Independent articles, is that Emmer may not actively support the view that homosexuals "ought to be executed" but that he doesn't see a problem with it if we are.  He sees a "faith ministry" that advocates that position as a non-profit worthy of his contribution.  If Emmer's support of "You Can Run But You Cannot Hide" was indeed due to some part of their message outside of the fact that they actively advocate hate crimes, I still think it's astonishing that he doesn't seem to think that supposedly positive message is trumped in significance by the fact that the group also advocates large scale violence.  To say that his unapologetic contribution to the group doesn't say anything about his feelings on the subject of hate crimes against homosexuals would be as ridiculous as to say that financial contributions to Planned Parenthood, another non-profit, don't imply support of legalized abortion.  Kate6 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * +1 vote from me for Kate6's findings and analysis! Native94080 (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Emmer's article stating his political position on "Gay Marriage" should be rephrased as "LGBT rights", with your analysis, Kate6. Native94080 (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, constructions of the kind A is linked to B which advocates X are to be avoided in Wikipedia, especially when it involves a living person. Focus on the subject of the article and his actions and views, not those of his acquaintances. Jonathunder (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This goes against Wikipedia policy (A is linked to B which advocates X when discussing a living person. Also, according to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Target OR MN forward can have NO CONTACT with the Emmer Campaign regarding their finances or advertising. This information which I scrubbed would be appropriate on either the MN Forward Wiki page, or the Target wiki page. Not the Emmer page. Let's keep this clean and unbiased. Please note: my edits have nothing to do with Emmer, and everything to do with maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. ThanksLizdarcyfan (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If this information is to be included in this article, it MUST be accurate. The information without the federal case citation makes it appear that the Emmer campaign was somehow monetarily involved in this MN Forward Ad, which it was not. Please maintain the integrity of Wikipedia by not scrubbing accurate information. Lizdarcyfan (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the cause-effect linking again. If editors have a beef with Target I suggest they bring it up on the Target article.  Arzel (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote a new paragraph describing the controversy and sourcing it carefully. My edit summary is "The MN Forward ad is obviously notable, has been widely reported and cited as testing the new Supreme Court decision. WP:COAT does not apply when the secondary sources make the connection." In other words, Emmer is known nationally for this controversy, which makes it a WP:NOTABLE part of his biography, and certainly notable to the section on his 2010 campaign. The actual controversy had been omitted from the paragraph. And the other companies besides Target and Best Buy are not notable, based on the reporting, so I left them out. -Colfer2 (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Colfer2, I agree that the MN Forward issue reached a point of notability mandating its inclusion. Thanks for beginning to explore text around this and for finding some refs.  However, it appears to have grown to undue weight at this point.  Any arguments against a three sentence-ish notation that the race gained national attention after the MNF ad was triangulated with Rep. Emmer and his views on gay rights?  Really feels as if it should be essentialized.  ThtrWrtr (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this fits into his BLP. It would appear that the section is largely a criticism of Target and MN Forward and has very little to do with Emmer himself.  Even if one were to grant that it was notable somehow to Emmer it is really only in the context of his campaign for govener.  Perhaps he should have an article just on the campaign and this stuff that is tangentally related to him personally be left out of his personal BLP.  Arzel (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The reporting my paragraph cites is partly critical and partly shows how people think Emmer stands for something Target & Best Buy did not foresee would affect their national images. It describes the ad, which was about taxes and business. Anyway, negative or positive doesn't matter, it's in the news and notable. As to whether it is relevant in an article about Emmer, and a section about his campaign, well yes it is. It does not matter whether it is a separate article or a section in an article, either way the subject is Emmer's role in the 2010 Minnesota gubernatorial election. This is a notable aspect of the election, and is even the most widely reported aspect of Emmer's campaign, nationally. So I don't think we can call that "tangential." And I don't think "personal BLP" is really the right term for an article about a politician, with a tiny section on his personal life. Maybe "individual BLP". It's going to be mainly about politics, as they are reported in reliable sources. The politician's own position statements and such are less notable than what is in the secondary sources: L.A. Times, etc.
 * The problem with the paragraph I replaced should illustrate the case. By all appearances it had been stripped down of any notability! It described a simple ad funded by a group funded by some companies. Who cares! That kind of trivia probably did not even belong in the article. The paragraph did not say why such a group is novel, which it is. It did not say that the ad became controversial, which it did. It mentioned a bunch of obscure companies, with Target and Best Buy at the end of the list. That is not following notability guidelines, it is just, apparently, the husk left over from some tactical editing based on primary sources.
 * As for summarizing more, I did what I could, but nobody has the final word! -Colfer2 (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And I guess everyone knows this, but BLPs of public figures specifically have pretty clear guidelines at Wikipedia that explain all this stuffy stuff. See: WP:WELLKNOWN. -Colfer2 (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are still missing the point, this is nothing that Emmer did. Target is being criticized for donating to an organization that contributed to Emmer.  WP:COAT  This has nothing to do with wellknown, sorry but all of the extra stuff has to go as a blp violation.  Arzel (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand your objection, but it is inaccurate to say "this is nothing Emmer did". Gay rights activists are convinced he did do something, in his politics, and that's why they want to boycott Target. Their view of Emmer is what started the whole controversy, and the recent Supreme Court case only makes this aspect of Emmer's campaign more notable. The gay activists may be wrong and you may be right, that he did nothing, but that is beside the point. This is the definition of notable. The allegations of "anti-gay" are themselves are sufficient when they rise to this level of public attention, for a public figure. This is the article about his campaign. If it were a separate article, the same BLP policies would apply. If it were in the Target Corporation article, the same BLP policies would apply (we would have to mention Emmer's name). The remaining issue is relevance, which I think I have shown. -Colfer2 (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So what if they think he did something? You can't attack Emmer for something he was not responsible for. Furthermore there is really no way to incorporate it without being a WP:COAT. Basically it reads, Emmer is supported by "A". "B" donated to "A". "C" doesn't like "A" because of "X" and "C" is boycotting "B" because of their donation to "A". The only connection to Emmer is that he is supported by "A" the rest is talking about "A", "B" and "C". Even if it is included onto Target's page it still doesn't have to have anything to do with Emmer. Gay rights activists are boycotting Target because of the foundation that Target donated. Arzel (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Cristian Punk Rock Band
Ok, this subject really does not belong. Emmer donated to this group in 2008, before they made their objectional statements. You CANNOT make the connection that Emmer's donation to them had anything to do with their beliefs because they were made long after his donation. Additionally, he has stated that after their statements were made he didn't agree with them. Futhermore, the MN Independent is a pretty partisan source. Can we PLEASE stop trying to turn this into a big anti-gay page against Emmer? I personally don't agree with their statements either. I have gay friends, relatives, and previous roommates that were gay, and they should have the same rights as everyone else. Emmer obviously doesn't and it is clearly stated. Let's not make it into something more than it is. Arzel (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree - This issue has been discussed in the media, and not just the Independent. The Independent is Emmer-hostile, but the same story has been picked up be MPR and other venues.  The Independent was just the primary source.  It's obvious that Emmer is anti-gay, and this issue has been linked to his policies.  The Same-sex marriage section was aimed at clarifying the issue, that's why I put included the dates as best as I could (sorry for the italics. It took me a while to get the correct dates).  Emmer's last interview with Dean was on May 15th - fairly recently, and Emmer has not repudiated or denounced Dean since then, who is still going off on his anti-gay tangents as of this week.  All that Emmer said was that killing gays is wrong - dugh...  Emmer has not distance himself from Dean, which on to itself can be an issue.  Now his press secretary said that "Tom is not a donor to the You Can Run But You Cannot Hide ministry...", a contradiction to the contribution statement he file with the Secretary of State's Office.  This story could go on, but not by me...
 * Arzel, I too have gay friends and previous roommates, and they should have the same rights. I realize that you are trying to create a good article here and I don't believe that you have an agenda.  I've seen your previous edits and you are sticking to the point and have clear focus on the subject.  However, this issue has to be clarified, since it has been picked up in other venues.  I'm going to put back the section, if you want to include a statement, or further chronology, I think we can work together on it.
 * A side note: I'm not going to include Target's contribution issue, which I believe is off-topic. Dinkytown (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

BPA
'':In 2009, Emmer voted against a ban on Bisphenol A in baby bottles and sippy cups (S.F. 247 ). Emmer declined to provide additional details about his position. ''

I know the above sounds repulsive, but it has been documented as part of his voting record. Since he elected to not to describe why he voted this way, we should not ponder as to why he did. If this is to be included, it would be better if there were more sources as to his reasoning, rather than simply 'killing babies....' Dinky town  talk  16:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Find some secondary sourcing that establishes notability. Per WP:PRIMARY this type of reporting is considered original research since there is no secondary sourcing under which to establish weight or notability.  Without secondary reporting I could go through and list every single bill that he voted on or against and say that this is his position regardless of any reporting on the subject. Arzel (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that this is WP:OR since there is a very strong primary source - the Minnesota Senate Journal website. We are not drawing a stated conclusion as there is none.  The problem that comes up - is this pro-BPA an official position, or simply part of an amended bill? There are plenty of votes that politicians have voted yes/no that was against their formal platform.  That is what make amendments to bills so dangerous. Yet why was he one of the few senators to oppose this Senate bill?  He's not explaining, nor defending his vote.  How/what are we to imply from this vote, that he cares more about corporate profits than babies?  This is very inflammatory.  The problem is that with any other politician, we wouldn't have this discussion because Emmer has made so many similar statements/votes before that this seams almost natural for him.  I'm inclined to have this issue removed because it is so inflammatory *unless* we get a source that explains his vote, or get a quote from him.  But then again, his vote speaks for itself. Dinky town   talk  22:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ADDENDUM - After some thought, and a through search of trying to find a statement from Emmer about his vote (finding none), I've decided to rescind my vote to remove the paragraph and let it remain. His vote was not an ammended bill, but a cross-house vote on a Senate File (he's a Representative).  I did find sources that basically stated his position was that "...we don't need more laws that limit consumer choices..." which was a common thread, but they were in blogs, and not an appropriate source.  Yet this issue is all over the internet and mainstream media, yet no response of defense from Emmer.  The issue has dealt with extensively by reliable media, and the original source is primary (S.F. #247).  I then believe it should stand. Dinky town   talk  00:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)That it is a strong primary source is not really relevant. The problem is that it is a primary source.  We are mostly to rely on secondary sources so that they can establish notability of an event.  This is a somewhat interesting issue.  You may remember a few years ago when this all started with Nalgene water bottles.  Apparently, over time this plastic (debatable whether is it actually toxic) will leach out of the container (don't wash them in the dishwasher).  The Canadian Government was going to label it toxic so Nalgene decided not to use this particual plastic in its bottles and all hell broke loose.  My girlfriend at the time was crazy about her Nalgene's water bottles, so I heard all about it (some here would be suprised to learn that she was very liberal).  I got rid my "inherited" Nalgene because we didn't want our dog to use drink from it and convinced several friends and relatives to not use it.  Shortly after that it was revealed that BPA is not that big of a deal.  The whole thing was overblown and at least in 2008 the FDA declared BPA to be safe.  This article may be of interest.  The current view of the FDA is here.  I'll let you make your own judgement on the issue.  All this withstanding this appears to be politically motivated.  Absent some reliable secondary sources it fails WP:WEIGHT.  At least the title is less inflamatory right now.  Arzel (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You did your research Arzel... This has been a tough call, however I think your WP:WEIGHT argument is the final straw.  All there is is his vote, the political response - and that's it.  It would have been better if there was a defense statement from him.  And I agree that the sources that are hammering Emmer on this issue are politically motivated.  Regarding the FDA stating that BPA is safe, I interpret it as more research is needed, limit exposure, but don't change your world over it.  I'll go ahead and remove the paragraph, and if there is a dispute, we should go to a vote - take care... Dinky town   talk  01:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, and I agree with your interpretation regarding the FDA. Best, Arzel (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have gotten a lot of heat because of this discussion. Here is a response to 147.226.131.111 Which I wrote after he vandalize my talk page:
 * You have a lot to learn about Wikipedia. First, do not vandalize my talk page.  You removed material that was already there from someone else - that is vandalism.  Second, if you have read the Tom Emmer talk page under BPA, you would see the discussion on how this issue evolved.  There was sound reasoning behind it.  Third, I did have there right to change it.  There was no context for his vote, and therefore, no position stated.  There was no quote saying that his position was the he wanted to 'kill babies'.  Maybe he disagreed with the wording of the bill.  We will never know until he explains himself.  Fourth, a primary source (and it was a good one) is not enough.  Wikipedia is not a list of facts.  It is a description of something.  We are not going to go over every single vote that he has made and try to read the tea leaves about what he meant.  You are trying to make him out as an S.S. officer - that is not NPOV.  Read (this) the talk page, if you can find the relevant material, maybe we can discuss it and include it again.  Finally, don't simply change computers to get around edit warring.  Its called sock puppetry, and that's a good way to get banned.

I just wanted to clarify my position on this matter... Dinky town  talk  14:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

First, apologies to all parties involved. You are absolutely correct that I have a lot to learn about Wikipedia, and it is my newness to Wikipedia that led to this incident. I apologize if my edit notes (and my post on your talk page) seemed irrational or inflamed. Unaware that there was a talk page specifically for the Tom Emmer page, I thought my input was simply being disregarded and erased without any reasonable discussion.

My previous comments were made from that perspective. I was only aware of the brief edit notes next to the undos, and, when attempting to participate in the discussion, I was only accessing Dinkytown's individual talk page - where I could find the heading of Tom Emmer, but no discussion going on. (Thank you for adding the link to the Tom Emmer talk page in your last post which put me on the right track. I now realize I can reach the talk page by clicking the discussion tab.)

The vandalism of Dinkytown's individual talk page was not intentional. (I posted once accidentally overwriting a previous post; however, on my last posting I saw the error and left the previous material alone.) Also, the "sockpuppetry" was not intentional. I am using library computers for internet access, and perhaps getting new IP addresses if I logon a different workstation. I see now that signing up for an account would be useful for the purpose of maintaining a consistency.

I still disagree with the removal of the BPA materials from the Tom Emmer article; however, I am thankful to learn that some reasoned discussion was going on behind those edits.

To clear the air, I am not attempting to make Tom Emmer out to be "an S.S. Officer" - which is why I concurred with the less controversial section title. While I am personally concerned about BPA, particularly the use of BPA in children's products, I do not consider the addition to be politically motivated. My intent is to clearly state Emmer's record on the issue.

I disagree that the BPA statement does not meet the WP:WEIGHT requirement, as it should carry as much weight as his political position on abortion - which similarly is simply stated and uses only his voting record for source material (In fact, the BPA statement is better sourced than the abortion issue on Emmer's article.) I see no harm in clearly stating his voting record. The final text is from a NPOV and does not misrepresent or demonize Emmer's motives for the decision to vote a particular way on the bill, it simply states how he voted. I therefore ask that the article be unlocked, and that the text be added back to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.131.111 (talk) 19:35, October 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * WP has some core principles which govern material that is put into articles. These core principles are Verifiability, Weight, and Neutral point of view.  Additionally, there are other policies which govern biographys of living people and sub-policies such as Reliable Sources.  The primary problem with this is that while it is verifiable reliablye sources which show he made the vote, there is nothing that satisfies weight concerns.  There are no secondary sources that give this piece of information notability.  The sourcing you provides is a primary source, however we should use secondary sourcing to establish that something is notable.  Without something to establish weight it would be perfectly reasonable to put into this article how he voted on every single vote he made in the MN statehouse.  By focusing on only this vote, which you think is important, you then violate neutral point of view.  The original heading which garnered my attention was a violation of WP:BLP.  That said take heart.  BPA is not proven to be nearly that bad for you, and is appears to largely removed from food container use due to public opinion anyway.  Arzel (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Abortion - His views on abortion are from a secondary reliable source which is used to establish notability and weight.  Arzel (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am learning more about Wikipedia and I thank you for the helpful links. However, I continue to disagree. with your assertion that the statement violates a neutral point of view or does not meet the Weight requirement.  While you seem personally convinced of BPA's safety, it remains a controversial issue.  I mention this not to begin a debate about BPA, but because public opinion/concern about BPA has made Tom Emmer's vote on S.F. 247 a large issue in MN.  I could provide many links to sources (and in fact, one television commercial) establishing the weight of the subject of Emmer and BPA; however, I think doing so in the article would make the post seem politically motivated and prejudicial to Emmer.  I therefore think linking only to primary source materials on the MN government website containing the text of the bill itself is the fairest way to deal with the subject of Emmer and S.F. 247 and that the text should be returned to the article.


 * If the only sourcing you to the issue is partisan political commercials then you don't have reliable sources. I live in MN and haven't heard his BPA vote brought up at all, I do know that Conservation Minnesota is trying to make something out of it, but the STRIB certainly hasn't been touting this vote, and I can't find any mention about it when the vote was made two years ago.  So it is clear very few people care about this issue other than this attempt to turn it into a political football.  Prove it is a large issue in MN, provide some sources that discuss BPA relative to Emmer.  As for its safety, I just think more research needs to be done, all the existing research is inconclusive. Arzel (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I have no wish to debate BPA in this forum, but I think your posts above and the large number of websites debating the safety of BPA prove the point that the subject has weight. As such, Emmer's vote with regard to BPA is as relevant to the article as his stance on abortion or any other issue.    The section of the article is devoted to his political positions.  Here is a recent secondary reliable source, the Star Tribune's website  this links to the VERY SAME FORUM that you have previously identified as meeting the criteria for secondary  reliable source in the abortion section.  Emmer's vote on the issue, and his comments for having voted the way he did on S.F. 247 and other legislation are also mentioned here.  I am being very reasoned in my arguments here.  I am meeting all of the requirements for verifiability, neutrality, weight, and I now have provided secondary sources (one of which you have previously approved of).  Unless you can offer a new reason why this statement should not appear, please repost the text.  147.226.128.49 (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 147.226.128.49 found a quote (please change your handle) from Emmer for his reasoning to vote against S.F.247, having everything to do with cost. In my opinion, this satisfies any test for this issue, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SOURCE, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV.  I re-instated the BPA paragraph.  Yes, I know...  This is flip-flop IV...  Thanks 147.226.128.49... Dinky town   talk  16:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The 1st link is a Your Voice (readers opinon) from Conservation Minnesota and not an independent voice. Conservation Minnesota is the source making noise about this.  Arzel (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Congressional Photo
Are we not able to get his congressional photo for the infobox? Guyb123321 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Tom Emmer. 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 tag to http://tomemmer.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=53
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100716200339/http://elections.startribune.com/returns/mgovsm.html to http://elections.startribune.com/returns/mgovsm.html
 * Added tag to http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/111500199.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018202107/http://washingtonindependent.com/113704/ron-paul-will-launch-his-minnesota-campaign-in-st-cloud to http://washingtonindependent.com/113704/ron-paul-will-launch-his-minnesota-campaign-in-st-cloud
 * Added tag to http://www.kare11.com/news/article/1027684/14/Large-field-of-Republicans-will-vie-for-Bachmanns-seat
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502013405/https://www.libertyaction.com/candidate/12/Tom_Emmer to https://www.libertyaction.com/candidate/12/Tom_Emmer
 * Added tag to http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20141104/ElecRslts.asp?M=CG&CD=06
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20101021194116/http://www.emmerforgovernor.com/issues/taxes/ to http://www.emmerforgovernor.com/issues/taxes/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818194150/http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9GUVRN80.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9GUVRN80.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323113508/http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/07/robert_erickson_2.php to http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/07/robert_erickson_2.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100926215511/http://emmerforgovernor.com/about/biographies/tomemmer.html to http://emmerforgovernor.com/about/biographies/tomemmer.html

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) 01:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Career/employment between 1988 and 2005?
There is a 17-year stretch of time where the article lacks information about Emmer's career/employment, from 1988 (graduated with a law degree) and 2005 (began his first term in the Minnesota House of Representatives). Yes, he was on two different city councils, but these are very much low-paying, part-time jobs.

And his LinkedIn profile makes no mention of those years.

So what did he do, and can we add text and sources to this article to describe that period of his life? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, I found something, and added it to the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism
Reverted to previous edits on Emmer's antisemitic comments. Subsequent edits appear to be a fairly obvious attempt to whitewash a political figure during an election cycle. The reference to Rabbi Hershel is taken far out of context from an opinion piece highly critical of the Rabbi's role in the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianthippo (talk • contribs) 17:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * That was from me. Not only am I not whitewashing anyone, for the record I'm not a Republican and I personally dislike Emmer. But that section isn't even remotely NPOV, and that's what matters here. As for using material from an opinion piece highly critical of Emmer, that's a good thing: if they are openly against Emmer and can still present Hershel's rebuttal, surely Wikipedia can as well. Anyway, I'd rather have a conversation with you rather than a tedious edit war, so make your case here, please. --Steve Foerster (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The Jewish Billionaires were using Critical Social Theory
These Jewish Billionaires using congress were known to use Habermas Critical Theory hense the word radical and not anti-semtic. It on keywiki.org. renegadeviking — Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Antisemitism allegations...
So I've done a pretty significant NPOV overhaul of the section, which wasn't even remotely in keeping with NPOV!

The previous text read as follows:

"Antisemitism"

"In 2019, Emmer sent a fundraising letter utilizing known antisemitic tropes: 'Emmer's anti-Semitism lies in his use of the trope of a plutocratic Jewish conspiracy'[60] His accusatory letter claimed that 'left-wing radicals essentially BOUGHT control of Congress for the Democrats'. The fundraising letter claimed that three Jewish billionaires (Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer and George Soros) “bought” control of Congress for Democrats.[61]"

It all but directly asserted that the Congressman was in fact antisemitic, leading with quote from an op-ed, which, with the way it was included, could easily appear to the casual reader as an assertion by Wikipedia. Also, no rebuttal was given, even though I easily found significant pushback in one of the sources which was already cited.

It's significantly better now, but more tweaking might still be needed. This page also should be watched by multiple people from now on, to make sure it complies with NPOV & BLP policies! -2003:CA:872B:67E8:9933:2585:CD97:1902 (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"I am not a cat"
Emmer went viral with the faulty teleconference at the House Committee on Finance in mid February 2021. It might do with a mention, considering it did go viral. He was a disembodied head flipped upside down, and later posted to twitter that he was not a cat, referencing a different viral event earlier in February, where a lawyer had a cat filter on while in court on teleconference. 

-- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Tom Emmer
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 Tom Emmer'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 "Generalelection": From Adam Kinzinger:  From Jim Hagedorn: </li> <li>From Erik Paulsen: </li> <li>From Ann Kirkpatrick: </li> <li>From Chrissy Houlahan: </li> <li>From 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota: </li> <li>From Cheri Bustos: </li> <li>From Gwen Moore: </li> <li>From Charlie Crist: </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 ⚡ 10:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)