Talk:John Kline (politician)

ARMPAC

A paragraph about campaign contributions from ARMPAC was deleted with this edit. It seems verifiable to me, although perhaps unflattering. Is there some particular reason it should not mentioned? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think its OK to mention it, but if it is going to be mentioned than both sides of the facts must be included, to not do so would be unbalanced and grossly unfair. This way it is best to have true neutrality so the reader has both sides. Bachs

Delay

If the unproven allegations from Ronnie Earle against Tom Delay are going to be included in Kohn Kline's bio, thus causing guilt by association than both sides of the unproven allegation must be presented. By definition an indictment is an unproven allegation, and considering the history of Ronnie Earle, its credibility is suspect. You cannot post one side of an allegation and have guilt by association and not include the other side. Bachs 23:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Also the article critisized Kline for not returning the PAC money without saying why, the rest of the information explains why Kline did not return the PAC money.

None of the allegations against DeLay have been proven. Ronnie Earle, the Tom Delay prosecutor, has a history of indictments against Democrat and Republican political enemies that have failed (see Kay Bailey Hutchison) and it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to several grand juries because some refused to indict. [1] One of the charges filed by Earle was summarily dismissed by trial judge Pat Priest. Earle has partnered up with producers making a movie, called The Big Buy, about his pursuit of DeLay that has been filming since before DeLay was notified of the charges. [2] [3] [4]

This was added because the added statement about Tom Delay is an unproven allegation that is used to make the member of congress guilty by association. Especially when there is much evidence that Ronnie Earle's indictments are politically motivated. You cannot include one side of an unproven allegation and not include the other, to do so would be unfair and biased.

High school

I am trying to update high school affiliations for Allentown people. Does anyone know where he went to high school? PAWiki 18:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Corpus Christi caller article listed in footnotes of main article, Kline graduated from Ray High School in Corpus Christi Texas. Mismolly0 — Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Editorial

• Along with fellow Minnesota Republican, Michele Bachmann, Kline supported President Bush's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq in January, 2007, against legislation that would allow Medicare to negotiate for lower pharmaceutical prices, and they voted against "legislation that would restore budget discipline to the government." He also voted against a bill to raise the minimum wages, saying a wage hike "will leave recent economic growth dead in its tracks."

The information is taken from an editorial, and as such is grossly POV in its wording. I am going to restor a more neutral presentation of the material. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

References

Wukai

Wukai, What specifically is the issue with my edits?CFredkin (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC) I'll even make it easy for you and enumerate them:

1) Removed reference to Kline being "one of the most conservative...". This phrase does not appear in the source provided. Also, this statement would not belong in the lead.

2) Removed statement regarding campaign contributions from DeLay, which is sourced to a progressive advocacy site. This is not a reliable source.

3) Removed statement regarding putting Reagan on the $50 bill, which is not sourced.

4) Formatting change

5) Formatting changes

6) Move content to more appropriate section

7) Remove reference to "100 Hour Plan" which is not mentioned in source.

8) Corrected following statement: " voted against a bill prohibiting employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation", which is false.

9-11) Removed interest group ratings. As I mentioned on my Talk page, Votesmart has at least 30 categories of ratings, and each category has ~20 ratings. A Wikipedia article for a national politician in the US can easily become a coat hanger for ratings. Please provide a reliable secondary source for any ratings that you add to articles, in order to demonstrate their significance.CFredkin (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything on your Talk page.Wukai (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

CFredkin, Wukai is right; your talk page is blank. Wukai can you please respond to points 1 through 8? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I reverted CFredkin's edits because he didn't heed Vanamonde93's justified request to "self-revert the questionable edits" (a request made on CFredkin's talk page before he blanked it, something he continually and pointlessly does). I have no opinion on the merits of points 1 through 8.Wukai (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You have no opinion regarding my edits, but believe Vanamonde93's request for me to self-revert was justified. Yes, that makes perfect sense. According to WP:BLANKING, I'm perfectly entitled to blank my User Talk page. However, I've decided to reverse the blank, because I think it's informative for others to see your contribution there.CFredkin (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does make sense to agree with Vanamonde93 while having no opinion on your points 1 through 8, because his request had to do with points 9 through 11. Thanks for restoring your talk page.Wukai (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

And yet you repeatedly reverted Edits 1-8. It looks like you need to read WP:disruptive_editing, as well as WP:blanking.CFredkin (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I reverted all your edits because you didn't respond to Vanamonde93's request (pulling your blanking maneuver instead), and I didn't feel it was my job to figure out which were the disputed ones and which innocuous. I'm glad to see you're now engaging with Vanamonde93 below.Wukai (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As Wukai mentioned, I had brought up my issues on CFredkin's talk page, but he blanked it.

Yes, and as you know, I responded to your issue there.CFredkin (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I have specifically two issues;

1) He removed a source claiming it doesn't support the statement in the article. If he had actually read the source, he would have seen that it quoted a National Journal primary study that did actually support the statement. Here's the source, and the statement in question;

"National Journal rated Kline more conservative than 89.7 percent of lawmakers, and at No. 60 on its conservative ranking — higher than Bachmann, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)."

Why, exactly, would it be inappropriate to the lead? It's not a criticism; "conservative" is a description of policy positions, not a moral judgement, though CFredkin seems to think it is.

First, as I indicated above, the source does NOT say "one of the most conservative...", which is what you wrote. Second, it's not appropriate to include a subjective characterization of a living politician in their intro.CFredkin (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

2) While I agree that the article should not contain every rating possible, there were two syntheses of ratings, one from gun control groups and the other from a human rights organization, that have much more weight (because they come from multiple ratings, rather than just one). These are useful because they do actually indicate something about policy stances, and they seem well sourced. At the very least, they should not be treated in the cavalier manner that CFredkin did.Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

As I indicated in my response on my Talk page and above, if these ratings are significant, you should be able to find references to them in secondary sources.CFredkin (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

First off, please add your comments at the end so as to make the page comprehensible. Second, yes, you responded to my first comment on your page, but when I posted a second, more specific response, you blanked the page. Finally, the source says "more conservative than 89% of lawmakers" which fits any reasonable definition of "most".Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

First off, here's how you ended your second comment on my Talk page: "Look, I'm not suggesting you revert all your edits, by any means; just be careful that in your enthusiasm, you're not deleting sources without actually looking them up. Particularly that first one, but a couple of others, too (NRA and Human Rights Watch)." That to me sounds like you were dropping the issue.

Second, you don't get to define "most conservative". Being the 60th most conservative lawmaker does not necessarily make someone "one of the most conservative". If it did, the source would have referred to him that way. If you want to call him "one of the most conservative members", then find a reliable source that does that.CFredkin (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Real Time

John Kline's Real Time nomination is cited in numerous sources including Real Time's own page, local newspapers, and the student organization running the campaign (all of which were cited but then called unreliable sources by CFredkin which is not an accurate characterization by anyone's standards since they are primary sources and reputable news sources). Like every other edit that might place John Kline in a less than positive light even if there is no value judgment in the statement and it is heavily backed by data, CFredkin seems absolutely intent on censoring it. At what point do we get this article locked from editing? John Kline is becoming an increasingly national character and his wiki page should be accurate and present factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mismolly0 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not that the primary sources aren't reliable per se, but that they aren't an indication of notability for Kline's BLP. If this is really a significant event, you should be able to provide reliable secondary sources that reference it. "Real Time" and an editorial by the head of "studentdebtcrisis" aren't reliable secondary sources.CFredkin (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

If that's your motivation for removing; buzzfeed, huffpo, minnpost, politico, etc. have all picked up this story. HBO has 32,445,000 according to recent reports. Bill Maher has 2.7 million followers on twitter. John Kline has been featured prominently and the video is plastered on the sites mentioned and others. How many sources do you require and confirmed viewers before you stop censoring information? Both primary and secondary sources confirm that he is being targeted by this campaign. This is the most notable thing to happen in the MN2 district congressional races in recent history. Please give some indication that nobody is aware of Real Time's campaign and there is no viewership of HBO Real Time, a nationally run show, before you delete this. Mismolly0 (talk)

ACA

And CFredkin: in regards to John Kline's stance on the Affordable Care Act, are you seriously suggesting that his political stance on the most dramatic and one of the most divisive changes in healthcare in this country's history isn't an important thing to note? He has voted to repeal ACA multiple times and states on his campaign website that he doesn't not support "Obamacare." This is confirmed by the candidate and his voting record. Please justify why you think this isn't relevant before deleting again. Mismolly0 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

First Wife?

This edit does not appear to be reliably sourced. Ancestry.com is not a WP:reliable source. (There's no editorial control, for one thing.) Also the citation to Corpus Christi Caller-Times does not appear to exist. According to WP:BLP, the burden of evidence for demonstrating verifiability of sources lies with the editor adding or restoring content. Consequently, I'm removing this content until the editor can demonstrate verifiability in this case.CFredkin (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The information is VERIFIED through PUBLIC RECORDS available via Ancestry.com. The marriage is verified through the Texas Marriage records and there is an article in the Corpus Christi newspaper. Stop removing VERIFIED FACTS. --Hlodynn (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple threads on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard indicating that Ancestry.com is NOT a reliable source. Here's just one. Also, as already indicated above the Corpus Christi Caller-Times article does not appear to exist. Please stop restoring this content, until the sources are verified. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The Corpus Christi Caller is a newspaper archive. It is a hardcopy newspaper. You will have to pull the source to verify. There is no requirement on wikipedia that things cannot be sourced from hard copies. Pull the article cited and you will see exactly where the marriage announcement. Furthermore, their daughter Kathy was born 7 months after his first marriage which is a good indicator that John Kline is not a pious man. If you would like to open THAT can of worms, continue deleting this factual post without looking at the newspaper article. Mismolly0 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

All indications are that the article you're citing does not exist. Once again, per WP:BLP the burden of evidence is on you to demonstrate verifiability. There are ways you can do this... for example, by scanning and uploading the article (if it exists).CFredkin (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Dispute THIS: Texas, Marriage Collection, 1814-1909 and 1966-2011 about Christine Eleanore Lewis

Name:	Christine Eleanore Lewis	

Gender: Female Birth Year: abt 1948 Age: 18 Marriage Date: 27 Aug 1966 Marriage Place: Nueces, Texas, USA Spouse: John Paul Kline Jr Spouse Gender: Male Spouse Age: 18 Source: Texas Marriage Index, 1966-2002

Hlodynn (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Dispute THIS. If you do not have access, that is not my problem. I have access. I have seen the PRINTED PAGE with the VERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMATION. http://interactive.ancestry.com/51211/News-TE-CO_CH_CA_2.1966_08_28-0052/506753076?backurl=http%3a%2f%2ftrees.ancestry.com%2ftree%2f71650929%2fperson%2f48245548358&ssrc=pt_t71650929_p48245548358_kpidz0q3d48245548358z0q26pgz0q3d32768z0q26pgplz0q3dpid&backlabel=ReturnToTree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlodynn (talk • contribs) 22:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again, Ancestry.com is NOT a WP:reliable source. This has been demonstrated above.CFredkin (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Added a link to the scanned newspaper article, not on ancestry.com. Mismolly0 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources for information on what is a valid source. Newspaper articles are considered valid, there is no requirement to provide a digital copy. If you delete hard copy citations again simply because there is no scan of the source (which may have a copyright that prohibits posting), then you are not following the rules. Mismolly0 (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Flip A District

This edit changed the statement to refer to the actual name of the program, which is also referenced in the source provided.CFredkin (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

However, the subjective descriptor added here is not mentioned in any of the other sources.CFredkin (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It most certainly is, in the minnpost source, near the bottom of the page. "ponder the worst US representative" is the phrase used. 59.97.33.91 (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

For those interested - BLP/N Discussion  NQ  talk 16:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Inappropriate revision by CFredkin

Reversing well documented facts by the Center for Investigative Reporting, based largely on a report it aggressively extracted from the government, is a extreme violation of NPOV. CIR stories have received numerous journalism awards including the Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Silver Baton, George Polk Award, Emmy Award, Scripps Howard Award and numerous Investigative Reporters and Editors Awards. Additionally, it received a Peabody Award in 2013 for the Reveal show "The VA's Opiate Overload".[22] In 2012, its “On Shaky Ground” investigation was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. (Text from CIP Wikipedia article) At the same time, CFredkin has claimed that the hyperpartisan Weekly Standard features "fact based" reporting. Please do not undo without submitting this edit to and gaining consensus. CFredkin has a documented history of using sockpuppets to manufacture "consensus," so editors should consider that before coming to conclusions about CFredkin's edits. Activist (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I note that CFredkin has made 27 edits to the John Kline article since August 1, 2014, and made 11 more in four days last November. It would certainly raise suspicion that CFredkin may be a paid editor. Numerous other editors of the article have contested the validity of CFredkin's edits including reverts to this article. Activist (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that you made me look, here's some sock puppet history on CFredkin Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CFredkin/Archive, this one in regards to this article, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#CFredkin removing referenced content and making political edits, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#CFredkin again, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive221#User:CFredkin reported by User:J (Result: ), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive227#User:CFredkin reported by User:Grammarxxx (Result: 24h), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive245#User:CFredkin reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: Protected) . . . there's a lot more, but why bother copying all those links. The point is obvious. Trackinfo (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John Kline (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110406154527/http://kline.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=175 to http://kline.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=175&sectiontree=23,24,175&itemid=1702
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110406154527/http://kline.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=175 to http://kline.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=175&parentid=24&sectiontree=23,24,175&itemid=1677

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Kline (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140902050516/http://kline.house.gov/biography/ to https://kline.house.gov/biography/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021110608/http://www.startribune.com/587/story/923881.html to http://www.startribune.com/587/story/923881.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)