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)

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)

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)

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)