Talk:Bruce Braley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Political positions section[edit]

I agree with editor H Acton regarding the removal of content added by an editor pretending to be Mr. Braley. The content in question contains a number of cherry-picked votes, original research and POV language. A good, neutral political positions section would be welcome, but this isn't it. Arbor8 (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see that for some section (Abortion, Budget, Campaign Finance) but not for all of them. BTW, your Twinkled revert also undid a valid edit; your care is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

America Rising video[edit]

I reverted the addition of the tracker video that recorded Braley speculating about Sen. Grassley becoming chair of the Judiciary Committee. Seems like a one-day story that doesn't merit inclusion at this point. If the story persists and becomes a notable part of the campaign, I'd be open to re-adding. Arbor8 (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely more than a one-day story. It's received wide and persistent coverage from reliable sources.CFredkin (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really, it hasn't. Lots of sources covered it once, and that's been it. It's certainly not a defining issue of the campaign. I'm going to re-remove per WP:BRD. If there's a consensus here that Braley's comment is a lasting and notable part of the campaign, we can then re-add. But this is a BLP, and we should err on the side of caution while we work it out. Arbor8 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually sources have covered it multiple times. I'm restoring with at least one example of that from the WP.CFredkin (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two or three or ten Washington Post articles don't prove (or disprove) that this incident is a notable and lasting part of the campaign. Please stop edit warring. I'm reducing the section to one sentence in the interest of [WP:UNDUE]. Arbor8 (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as the editor who originally added this information, I wanted to jump in here to say that I agree with CFredkin that the widespread coverage, in Iowa and nationally, supports this information belonging in the article. Since you mention that you feel it's just a one-day story, Arbor8, I'd like to point out that coverage has continued throughout this week, including multiple pieces in various publications including the Des Moines Register, and there has been a lot of discussion nationally of the potential impact on the Senate campaign. Here's just a few links to show what I mean:

Taking these (and other available sources) into account, the event definitely seems noteworthy to include in this article. Best, Sprinkler Court (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "one-day story" as more of a figure of speech, not that people only wrote about it for literally one day. I appreciate all the cites, and there certainly are many, but a short burst of coverage doesn't necessarily indicate that an event will have lasting implications for a race. So I suppose time will tell, but given that this is a BLP it's important that we err on the side of not including potentially problematic (meaning problematic from an encyclopedic standpoint, not problematic for Braley, which this whole episode certainly is) information. Arbor8 (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a "one-day story" according to any useful meaning of the term, and (actually) it kinda does seem to be shaping up as "a defining issue of the campaign" here a week later (see this). Win or lose on election day, this story will likely be re-told seven months from now in most news reports about the Iowa Senate seat on election night in November. It's mentioned in a post above, but see this ominous little piece by self-described 'libertarian liberal' Nate Silver.--→gab 24dot grab← 05:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Released by[edit]

I changed the wording from "re-posted" to "released," as multiple news sources state that the video footage was released by America Rising. Anonymous209.6, if you can point me to sources that state that the video was re-posted, I would be interested to see them. Thanks, Sprinkler Court (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the video was not CREATED by America Rising, but found on a Braley supporter's website. Since it is a contentious claim, and subject to WP:BLP, it needs better sourcing than I could find.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Level playing field[edit]

The language that was reverted here is comparable to language at Joni Ernst's site regarding her comments on wmd's in Iraq. And I can make a strong argument that Braley's comment received much, much more negative attention that Ernst's. In addition there's a concerted effort underway on Ernst's BLP to add much more inflammatory commentary. I believe the rules should apply to both bios.CFredkin (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is going on on the Ernst bio should be dealt with there. It's not relevant here. Arbor8 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be two different editing standards for politician's BLP's, depending on their political party.CFredkin (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't. But the discussion here (and there) should stick to what is Wikipedia policy, not the current state of other articles. Arbor8 (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But back to the point of THIS article (which is all we should be discussing here), the characterization of the reception of the comments/video is (1) uncited, and (2) a generalization bordering on [WP:OR]. So, reverting to the more factual version. Arbor8 (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free Beacon Poll[edit]

What specifically is the issue with the poll results referenced in this edit?CFredkin (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Free Beacon is a self-confessedly conservative organization, which makes its polling unreliable. Go get a poll from 538. 59.97.32.195 (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Beacon commissioned the poll. It didn't conduct it.CFredkin (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use clearly-partisan polls in candidate biographies. The Free Beacon is a reliable source only for its own opinions - it is an avowedly-partisan outlet just as DailyKos would be for the left. There's no evidence to suggest this poll is worthy of being called out here, when we already discuss polling results thoroughly in the election article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly right. Tiller54 (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken litigation[edit]

This edit was removed without explanation. I believe the significance of the content is indicated by the fact that the Washington Post has indicated that it threatens Braley's Senate bid.CFredkin (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it belongs in the early life and career section of his bio. Plus, there's no corroboration he threatened litigation. Per a Chris Moody article[1] for Yahoo News, the neighbor who owned the chickens has a history of making unsuccessful lawsuits, so it's more possible they feared a lawsuit from her more than Braley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.161.162 (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you representing Coca-Cola in your efforts on Braley's behalf? Or are you just using their resources?CFredkin (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the folks at Coca-Cola will be able to tell us for sure. In any case, I'm open to discussion over where the content should go in the article. Also, we can certainly amend the content to indicate that it was the association's lawyer who claimed that Braley threatened litigation. And finally, do you have any reliable sources that indicate it was the neighbor that threatened litigation in this instance?CFredkin (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but I have no idea what Coca-Cola has to do with anything. Anyway, my purpose is to mention that that story is very he-said, she-said. And although the articles do not say whether or not a lawsuit was actually threatened, the neighbor's history of litigating against her neighbors unsuccessfully indicates the likelihood that she could bring a suit if he asked the HOA to enforce their rules on keeping of pets/animals and she felt infringed as a result. A history of such lawsuits indicates she had such an inclination and that a lawsuit was far from alien to her. You could mention this episode in the section about the 2014 election, but include how it is based around the HOA lawyer's claim, as you said..71.168.161.162 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial one-shot campaign minutia that has gone nowhere, and is not a significant part of Braley's life. It would be massively undue weight to include it in a section about his early life and career that is just a sentence or two long. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way it's written is extremely biased and it leaves out key things(i.e. other neighbors concerned about the chickens, how Braley talked to the local council before ever even mentioning a "litigious situation" and only then saying he wanted to avoid it, his response to the accusations, etc.)NorCal764 (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://news.yahoo.com/the-chickens-that-could-flip-the-senate-221331893.html

Notability of fowl content[edit]

I've deleted the reference to Jimmy Kimmel's bit given Jon Stewart's October 1st ||Daily Show]] lampooning of the inflation of the chicken skirmishes as a picayune detraction from real issues. There's no reason to call those hens "theraputic" any more than to call cobras, dung beetles or cows, "godlike." Provided defining citations for and linked "tort reform." Activist (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His opponent's bio includes at least one reference to being lampooned by late-night comedians. So I guess it's notable.CFredkin (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. In fact I would refer you to this comment which you deleted from the John Kline article on 9/17, with the subject line, (→‎Flip a district: Why is Maher's statement relevant to this WP:BLP?): Bill Maher quipped,

"They're all losers to me." (Kline is) “one of those silent threats,” (he) “doesn’t say kooky things, he just votes like the people who do.”
(Regarding student debt, as the chair of the house education committee) “has done more to keep twentysomethings in their parents’ basements than anyone else alive.”[1][2]

I noted that Jon Stewart last night had lampooned the "chickenshit" issue (for that's literally what the problem is, for the "therapist's" (see "Quackery") neighbors. I speak from experience, having raised flocks of guinea fowl a mile distant from any neighbors. By your presumptively mallardable malleable standards, it appears, Stewart's comments would be just as notable as Kimmel's. I further note that you have made about 3,600 edits since July 31st last year, that I'm guessing about 90% are to articles on candidates (mostly federal) where races are very much in play, and that you have made nearly 150 edits to Ernst's article, 44 to Braley's, and that your edits, when they aren't for innocuous purposes like corrections of spelling errors, are almost entirely made to disparage Democratic or independent candidates, or to delete positive or contextual information about them, and conversely to promote Republican candidates or scrub their pages of any negativity. On the Braley article, for instance, you removed the information that he and other members pay a fee for belong to the House gym, which is very relevant context, regarding what was certainly notable given the amount of coverage his remark on sequestration received.

You've been outed in the past for sockpuppetry in protecting your edits and your zealous defense of what appear to be indefensible edits. It would appear to be time to apply the "duck test" to analyze possible motivations behind your edits. Furthermore, I would note that USER:Sprinkler_Court outed him or herself as being a paid employee of the Republican opposition research attack group America Rising, though he disappeared after objections were raised to his edits in mid-September. Fully a third of all the edits he made were to Braley's page, similar to your own. Buzzflash covered his exposure. Feel free to refer this issue to the noticeboard. Meanwhile, I'll revert your restored Kimmel reference as non-notable. Activist (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Activist Oh, please. I'll conversely note that your contributions to politicians' bios (when they aren't innocuous spelling changes, etc.) are to remove negative content from Democratic bios and add negative content to Republicans. And speaking of malleable standards, I notice that you're not running over to Braley's opponent's bio to remove references to comedic spoofs of her actions. Finally, if you have any evidence of malfeasance on my part, I encourage you to take it to the noticeboards. Otherwise, you know where you can stick your insinuations.CFredkin (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By your using vulgarity, I assume you're hoping I'll go away, like the others who have reproached you for sockpuppetry, etc. Not a chance. After reading your accusations, I did wonder about how many posts I was making about politicians, though, because it's an interest of mine. So I started looking at my edits. There have been 510 total (counting this one) in 2014. I've never posted to Joni Ernst's article. In the first three plus months of that period I think I had made a grand total of about a dozen posts about politicians: Sharon Angle (who will probably never run again), Chris Christie (ditto, due to Sandy, Bridgegate, alienating conservatives and other issues), John Cowdery (only to note his death), and Mark Begich, a grand total of one active candidate. I haven't gone through the entire 509 previous edits, but I note that many are about politicians, such as William A. Clark and John Paul Marat who are also no longer with us. One article is about an alleged crook with whom Harry Reid was associated, bringing his article up to date regarding prosecution. I have also posted material that has been quite critical of Democratic operatives, such as Carmen Ortiz.
You on the other hand have made as many edits in the last seven weeks, 35 working days, 14 a day, if you're getting paid for your edits. Well over 90% of those edits have been made to articles about active candidates. There are a few about current political issues, such as Benghazi and the Trans Atlantic Partnership and the remainder are about your being reported by (mostly) or you reporting, other editors. That's it. I'll be happy to take this as far as you want and if you do, I'm hoping you don't notice how ridiculous the case you're trying to make is, how foolish you'll be looking, and that you possibly be barred from further shenanigans, though I imagine you'll be right back at it under a different user name or names. Activist (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/09/15/bill-maher-targets-rep-john-kline/
  2. ^ http://flipadistrict.com

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bruce Braley. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bruce Braley. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bruce_Braley&oldid=1206413441"