Talk:Ben Sasse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pre-campaign pronouncements on ACA

An IP editor has found and introduced material related to health-care legislation from two sources pre-dating Sasse's 2014 Senate campaign:

Zavadil, Chris. "Sasse speaks at health care summit". Fremont Tribune. 2010-11-06. Retrieved 2013-11-15.

Sasse, Benjamin E. "Why Medicare Part D Is the Answer to Health Reform". U.S. News & World Report. 2009-12-15. Retrieved 2013-11-15.

These could potentially be useful in the article. If they've been cited by supporters, opponents, or news analysists in the course of the Senate campaign, then it'd be appropriate to incorporate them (with a citation showing their use in the campaign). However, no such citation was produced; and the manner in which the statements were used, beginning with an editorial "However,...", contra WP:EDITORIAL, suggests deliberate or inadvertent POV-pushing. Ammodramus (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:COMMONNAME Tiller54 (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Better use his full formal name? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." That would be Ben Sasse, which returns 1,050,000 results on Google. Benjamin E. Sasse returns 45,500. Sources like The Washington Times, The Washington Post, The Omaha World-Herald, The Weekly Standard, The Miami Herald, The Lincoln Journal Star, Roll Call and Slate all refer to him as "Ben Sasse". Tiller54 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
• Sasse lives and works in Fremont, Nebraska. A search of the Fremont Tribune website for ("ben sasse") produces 234 hits. A search for ("benjamin e. sasse") produces a single hit. At the Midland College president's office website, he's referred to as "Dr. Benjamin E. Sasse" in the heading, but the body text begins "Ben Sasse was announced..." Per this and per Tiller54's findings, I'd support the move. Ammodramus (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Political positions" Section

I am from the Sasse campaign. As noted by a different user in the previous Talk topic (“Pre-campaign pronouncements on ACA”), there are some inaccuracies and potential editorializing in the content of the “Political positions” section that don’t accurately portray Mr. Sasse’s views on the topic based on source material.

I suggest removing the second and third paragraphs currently in the "Political positions" section as they have not been substantial issues in the campaign. In their place, I have provided several paragraphs (with source citations) that more accurately describe Mr. Sasse’s views.

I am posting this content in the Talk section first so that the editors and users can raise any comments or concerns and we can discuss them before putting this content into the Wikipedia article.

---

In announcing his Senate candidacy, Sasse described himself as "the anti-Obamacare candidate" and said that he is “running to repeal the Obamacare worldview." Sasse later declared that "[i]f [Obamacare] lives, America as we know it will die." In his campaign, Sasse has criticized Obamacare for putting government in Americans’ lives from “cradle to grave”. Often described as a healthcare expert, Sasse has given speeches across Nebraska and the country criticizing Obamacare for creating a “dependency culture” that makes America “look less like America and more like Europe”. In an interview in late 2013, Sasse called Obamacare “fundamentally unstable,” “unimplementable,” and “the most complicated piece of legislation” passed in the preceding 28 years. Rather than allowing “bulging entitlements” to saddle “our offspring with unsustainable generational debt,” Sasse has said that “patient-centered health policy solutions” should be the alternative to Obamacare.

In a YouTube video released in November, 2013, Sasse criticized President Obama for offering a “supposed ‘fix’ to Obamacare that would direct the Secretary of HHS to let Americans keep their insurance policy." Sasse claimed that President Obama “cannot legally do what he proposed” and stated the President has provoked “a constitutional crisis." Sasse went on to say that “this debate is no longer about healthcare” but has “morphed into a battle over transforming our constitutional system of separate, co-equal branches of government."

In a YouTube video released in December, 2013, Sasse said that by developing America’s energy resources, three million jobs would be created and America would “reduce our dependence on the unstable Middle East." Sasse called for an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy and laid out three strategies he claimed will bolster the American energy sector: (1) approve the Keystone pipeline; (2) emphasize coal energy; and (3) take advantage of the natural gas revolution in the United States.

---

Sources:

(1) http://journalstar.com/ben-sasse-i-m-running-to-repeal-the-obamacare-worldview/article_0b15125a-1ed0-55b2-a1b1-50224ecea5f0.html (2) http://www.omaha.com/article/20131007/NEWS/131008952/1685 (3) http://omaha.com/article/20131007/NEWS/131008952 (4) Ibid (5) http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/11/01/ben_sasse_the_next_next_next_next_ted_cruz.html (6) http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/sasse-embraces-anti-obamacare-candidate-label/article_dd659e8e-bb16-5b2a-9f91-4a8a2d6aba82.html (7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHo6BNubfPo (8) Ibid (9) Ibid (10) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvF3fwj3kTI (11) Ibid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campaigner22 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, and for forthrightly declaring your connection to the campaign.

I've removed the paragraph concerning the Chronicle of Higher Education piece, after running Google web and news searches for ("ben sasse" "chronicle of higher education") and finding no sign that the subject was picked up by Nebraska media or otherwise affecting the race in any significant way. If a challenger later makes an issue of this, we can restore the passage in some form.

The third paragraph of "Political positions", regarding the 2010 Fremont speech, should probably be kept: a rather lengthy November 25, 2013 article in the World-Herald, "Opponents scour Ben Sasse's old writings for fodder", described the apparent difference between Sasse's current position and what he put forth in the Fremont speech, and noted that his opponents, in particular in the Osborn campaign, were calling attention to this. The paragraph should be modified to make it clear that this is being brought up by Sasse's opponents; I'll take care of that shortly.

The second paragraph, regarding Medicare D, should probably be kept but modified as well. Google searches for ("ben sasse" "medicare part d") bring up a number of news-and-politics sites discussing this; and the World-Herald linked to Sasse's US News piece from their Nov. 25 story, although they didn't refer to it in the story itself. The paragraph should be rewritten for more arm's-length phrasing: I suspect that the editor who inserted it was no fan of Sasse's, and their contribution history suggests that there might be a connection with the Osborn campaign. I'll try to rewrite it for WP:NPOV.

Regarding your suggested insertion, I think it goes into unnecessary detail on the ACA. Most of Sasse's arguments cited therein—that the ACA is a long step in the direction of a welfare state, that it would cause the federal deficit to skyrocket, that it tears up and dances upon the shreds of the Tenth Amendment—are not original with Sasse, but are widely used by opponents of the ACA. If we recounted them as you've suggested, NPOV would require us to include counter-arguments of similar length from supporters of the ACA, and that would transform the article into a proxy debate on the law's merits.

If you're connected with the Sasse campaign, can you point us to a website on which Sasse's positions on various issues are clearly laid out? The "Ben's Philosophy" page on the Sasse for Nebraska website is irritatingly light on specifics: one can glean from it that Sasse is opposed to same-sex marriage and to abortion, but little else. I'd much prefer a text source to a video or collection of videos: I can read a passage in print in a fraction of the time that it takes to hear the same words read on YouTube; and a direct quote can be copied and pasted from a text source with perfect accuracy, whereas transcribing from a video takes time and is subject to questions about accuracy, especially since punctuation can significantly change the meaning of a passage.

Thanks again for your suggestions, and for being straightforward about your connection with the subject. Please do let us know if there's a good online source for Sasse's specific positions; if you've got the candidate's ear, you might suggest that he make such a thing easier for members of the public to find. Ammodramus (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've rewritten the material re. the ACA, citing the World-Herald article to make it clearer that the subject's been brought up by the Osborn campaign.

Google web and news searches for ("ben sasse" "medicare part d") turned up some national coverage, but no evidence that the matter had been picked up by the Nebraska media. Since it doesn't appear to be an issue in the campaign thus far, I've pulled that paragraph. Should it get some serious attention from the Nebraska media, or surface in campaign advertising, it can be restored to the article. Ammodramus (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your detailed response.

I appreciate your removal of the Chronicle of Higher Education paragraph. As you note, this has not been an issue in the campaign. However, it appears it has been added back in since you removed it.

I also appreciate your re-write of the "Political Positions" section to make it adhere to NPOV. I do have several minor suggested edits to this section. These edits provide a little more context to the issues, providing a fuller explanation of the campaign to Wikipedia readers while still adhering to NPOV. I provided source citations for the content I added.

......

In announcing his Senate candidacy, Sasse expressed strong opposition to the Affordable Care Act (ACA, a.k.a. "Obamacare"), describing himself as "the anti-Obamacare candidate",[13] later declaring that "[i]f it lives, America as we know it will die."[8] Sasse has won the endorsements of several conservative groups and individuals that oppose Obamacare, including the Senate Conservatives Fund , Club for Growth , and Congressman Paul Ryan .

Primary opponent Shane Osborn questioned the depth of Sasse's opposition to the ACA, publicizing articles and speeches delivered by Sasse during and after the passage of the measure through Congress; according to the Omaha World-Herald, "Osborn's campaign appears intent on questioning whether Sasse is a true conservative."[14] The Osborn campaign cited, among other pieces, a 2009 Bloomberg Businessweek column stating that "There's an emerging consensus that this [an individual mandate] might be a good idea",[15] and a 2010 speech in which Sasse stated that Republicans would probably lack the votes to repeal the ACA, stating that "a middle class entitlement has never been repealed", and opining that Republicans had failed to offer a useful alternative to the ACA, preferring to stage "symbolic repeal votes".[16] Sasse's response to the Osborn campaign's assertions was that in his articles and speeches, he was describing the political landscape rather than giving his own opinions on the merits of the ACA's provisions; to a World-Herald reporter, he declared "I have never changed my position on thinking Obamacare is a bad idea".[14] Sasse has traveled the country for several years giving speeches on the dangers of Obamacare and debating Obamacare supporters . Sasse has debated former Vermont Governor and DNC Chairman Howard Dean on several occasions. Dean said that “[Ben's] conservatism is not manufactured… He’s a very solid, constructive conservative… Ben and my disagreements are based on facts… Sasse’s biggest concerns — as conveyed in many of his articles and speeches — is the growth of entitlement spending without any thought given on how to pay for those programs in the future."

...

Regarding your questions about sources of information on Mr. Sasse's views, you can find additional information on his YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/sassefornebraska). I am happy to provide transcripts of any of the videos. Additionally, we are working on a roll out of a new website that will be available shortly and will include more in-depth issues pages.

I checked up on the Chronicle of Higher Education business, but it's not there now, and the page history doesn't show any edits in which it was added back. Could you have been looking at a cached version of the page when you found it apparently restored?

Re. endorsements, I think it'd be good to incorporate them into the article, but in their own paragraph or subsection. They should definitely not wear the suggested description "conservative groups and individuals that oppose Obamacare": this would be a case of WP:SYNTHESIS, which is verboten—it's verfiable that they oppose the ACA, and it's verifiable that they endorsed Sasse, but it's not necessarily the case that they endorsed him chiefly because of the strength and purity of his views on the ACA. I'll take care of this shortly.

Incidentally, since some supporters of the ACA regard "Obamacare" as pejorative, we should use the more neutral "ACA". (In a similar fashion, we should avoid describing it as "health-care reform", since "reform" carries a positive connotation.)

I'll comment further on your latest; other business is summoning me away from the keyboard, but I wanted to let you know that your suggestions aren't being ignored. Ammodramus (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Life & Career Update--Need Info re McKinsey

I rewrote the Life & Career section, but I lack information relating to his employment by McKinsey & Company. Sasse's website, at About Ben, states: "He began his business career with the Boston Consulting Group, and subsequently joined McKinsey and Company, advising leaders in times of crisis." But I can find no detail regarding the McKinsey & Company employment in a form similar to the rest of his resume, that is, when, where and in what capacity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebraska100 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd really like to make this section complete by adding identification of the when, where and what of Sasse's employment by McKinsey, as the Nebraska Watchdog blog reports that $24,000 of his campaign contributions came from McKinsey employees. Nebraska100 (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The edits by EscritoVeritas removed a number references to dates and locations, making the biography less clear. Some are necessary because Sasse sometimes worked or attended school in one area, but worked in another. There are numerous changes that make unsupported characterizations: While one position followed the other, there is no citation supporting the statement that he left DOJ to take the position with Representative Fortenberry. There is no citation to support the characterization of the DHS consulting contract as involving "national security issues". There is no citation to support the characterization of his work at HHS as involving advice to "the Secretary on a broad spectrum of health policy issues, from affordable healthcare access to food safety and security." Nebraska100 (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

NPOV and SPAs

I note that a number of edits have recently been made to this article by several WP:SPAs: newly-created accounts that have no history of editing other WP articles. These edits have generally inserted material favorable to Sasse, removed material critical of him, or added editorial statements explaining why criticisms of Sasse were off-base.

I'd like to call these new editors' attention to one of the core principles of Wikipedia: neutral point of view, often abbreviated NPOV. This is not achieved by adversarial editing, whereunder pro-X editors insert the most pro-X material that they can get away with, and anti-X editors fight fervently to drag the article over to their side. Rather, it's something that every editor, regardless of personal views, should be striving for. If we can accurately gauge your personal position from your edits, you're not doing it right. If you feel too strongly about a subject to edit an article neutrally, then you should avoid editing that article.

I'd also like to call attention to WP:SOCK. It's quite possible that three individuals independently decided to start new Wikipedia accounts and edit nothing but the Sasse article. On the other hand, it's possible that a single individual is operating under multiple accounts, or that several distinct individuals have been recruited to make pro-Sasse edits. If so, be advised that you're gaining nothing by it. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and creating the spurious appearance of popular support for your edits will not enable you to disregard WP's core NPOV policy. Ammodramus (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

I've removed a passage quoting complimentary words about Sasse by Glenn Beck. The passage was sourced to a YouTube video; a better source is this page at the Beck website, which provides information in print and doesn't force the reader to sit through the video. The print source states that Beck had interviewed Shane Osborn the week before, and provides a link to this page, in which Beck speaks in complimentary terms of Osborn.

Including Beck's kind words re. Sasse without an acknowledgement that Beck was also favorably impressed by Osborn is lying by omission. I'd suggest that neither Beck statement be used in this article; but if one is, NPOV requires that the other receive equal weight. Ammodramus (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll mention, by the way, that the Shane Osborn article is also on my watchlist, and if an editor tries to insert Beck's compliments re. Osborn without mentioning his positive remarks on Sasse, I'll remove them just as I've done here. Ammodramus (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. Listing endorsements is absolutely fine, but adding flowery quotes is not. Tiller54 (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Medicare D: issue or not?

I've again removed the following paragraph from the "Issues" subsection of the "2014 campaign" section.

In 2009, after leaving government service, Sasse wrote an op-ed in U.S. News & World Report titled "Why Medicare Part D is the Answer to Health Reform." In it, he 2003 expansion of prescription drug benefits under Medicare as "an enormous success" and a "policymaker's dream."[1] His assessment of Part D is at odds with that of the conservative influence group the Club for Growth, which called Part D an "abomination," though the Club later endorsed Sasse in his U.S. Senate bid.[2] In an interview in 2013, Sasse claimed that "I was opposed to [Part D] then and I'm opposed to it now."[3]

I don't find any evidence that this issue has been brought up in Nebraska. An Omaha World-Herald article, cited elsewhere in the article, describes the Osborn campaign's attempts to bring the media's attention to what they represent as Sasse's flip-flopping on the principles of the ACA; but Medicare D isn't brought up at all in the article, although the online version of the OWH piece includes a link, without comment, to Sasse's Medicare D editorial, along with links to four other Sasse opinion pieces. Searching the website of Nebraska's second-largest newspaper, the Lincoln Journal Star, for (sasse "medicare d") turns up no results. Since it doesn't appear that this issue is having any significant effect on the election, it shouldn't be in a section on issues in the election. If it becomes significant in Nebraska later, it can be restored.

If it's restored, however, it needs to be rewritten. The assertion that Sasse's purported pro-Medicare D stance contradicts the Club for Growth's position is sourced to an opinion piece by Aaron Blake; and since it's an opinion rather than a fact, should be presented with appropriate arm's-length phrasing: "has been described...", "according to...", or the like. It should also be noted when and how the issue was brought up: not "Sasse wrote an editorial on Medicare D..." but "In April, shortly before the election, the Osborn campaign ran a series of ads quoting an editorial by Sasse..." or the like. -- Ammodramus (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources for articles on politicians aren't restricted to ones based in their home state, so the fact that none of the sources are Nebraska-based isn't relevant. I have, however, re-written it per your suggestion and moved it. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that sources don't have to be Nebraska-based; but material in the section on Sasse's Senate campaign should be strongly connected to that campaign. I've checked Nebraska sources because, had the Medicare D business been made an issue in the campaign, we'd expect it to get some coverage there. Alternatively, if we've got reliable and unbiased sources showing that Sasse lost major funding largely because of the Medicare D thing, it'd be eligible for inclusion in the campaign section. I don't think we've got either, so I'm again removing the passage.

Tiller54's rewrite, unfortunately, didn't suffice to achieve NPOV. In particular, "...though the Club later endorsed Sasse..." looks like an editorial insertion, with the citation to the Aaron Blake piece appearing to support the assertion that the CfG endorsed him. We'd need to make it very clear that the entire sentence is Blake's analysis, and not editorializing by WP. Ammodramus (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Issues and Endorsements Section

Dear Editor, The "Issues" section is repeatedly being edited to show only out-of-context quotes without consideration for the main thrust of the arguments being made by Sasse. This seems intended to deceive readers, and the fuller context of the article should be included, or the entire reference should be deleted.

The endorsements section is all sourced material and keeps being replaced with a shortened, hidden list of endorsements. These edits are being made by the same editor who has repeatedly made the above referenced changes to issues. Please advise on appropriate way to include all endorsements and a balanced discussion of prior op-eds.

Please read Wikipedia:Summary style; that should make it clear that detailed information about the election belongs in the main article about the election, if anywhere.

Also consider that if Wikipedia articles contained long lists of endorsements for every election that a person was a candidate for, a vast percentage of articles about politicians would consist of such lists - which isn't what an encyclopedia is about. Encyclopedic articles are summaries (overviews); those interested in details should follow the links to news stories and other sources.

See also WP:NOT, about Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Photo

The infobox photo seems distorted (too narrow).--Artaxerxes 20:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Too Long

Dear, Koncurrentkat, you mentioned that the article was too long. I think you were right, so I reduced some sections that had material that was excessively detailed or irrelevant to the heading under which it was placed. Hopefully this reads better, but please take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCRapscallion (talk • contribs) 21:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Endorsements

I went ahead and removed the list of endorsements from this article; these are already listed at United States Senate election in Nebraska, 2014 and only make this article unnecessarily cluttered. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate category

User:184.88.43.62 has added the category "Republicans vowing to leave party if Trump is 2016 presidential nominee". I've deleted the category per WP:OPINIONCAT, and because it includes a statement of fact that hasn't been shown to be true.

According to WP:OPINIONCAT, "Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue..." The policy goes on to state that this does not exclude categorizing activists according to their activism; but the activism must, presumably, be a WP:DEFINING characteristic, which doesn't appear to be the case with Sasse. If it were shown to be defining, the category would have to be something like "Anti-Trump activists".

This Omaha World-Herald story, cited in the article at Ben Sasse#2016 presidential election, quotes a Sasse spokesman: "Sen. Sasse did not say he would leave the party if Donald Trump is the Republican nominee... He said he would not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. He said that if the Republican Party embraces the identity politics of David Duke and Donald Trump, he would leave that party." Unless we have a reliable source that says otherwise, we can't describe Sasse as "vowing to leave [the] party if Trump is 2016 presidential nominee". — Ammodramus (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Ben Sasse's promise to leave the Republican party in the event that Donald Trump wins the primary is a very important aspect of his politics. Sasse is vowing to give up on his political party and its supporters for choosing the candidate that they want most which is the fundamental essence of democracy. This fact certainly belongs under the politics section until he publicly disavows to leave the party no matter who the voters choose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.43.62 (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This discussion turns on my fellow editor's repeated efforts to insert the passage "Sasse has stated that he will leave the Republican party if Donald Trump wins the party’s 2016 presidential nomination.", sourced to this The Hill item.

I've removed it per Wikipedia's policy, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". According to this policy, Wikipedia "considers the enduring notability of persons and events... [M]ost newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". We should be slow to add material on the issue du jour to articles on politicians and political subjects. If Trump secures the nomination and Sasse anounces his resignation from the party, or if Sasse winds up acting as the standard-bearer of a campaign-long anti-Trump movement, then there'll be plenty of time to incorporate that information into the article.

Note also that the passage I'm removing is not an accurate summary of Sasse's statements, either as described in the Hill piece or in his Facebook post on the subject, which has received a certain amount of attention recently. In the former, Sasse said that "if the Republican Party becomes the party of David Duke, Donald Trump, I’m out." In the latter, he wrote that "If our Party is no longer working for the things we believe in... then people of good conscience should stop supporting that party until it is reformed", and that if Trump becomes the nominee, "my expectation is that I will look for some third candidate". He has not expressly stated that he'd leave the party if Trump was nominated, and he's left himself plenty of wiggle-room to stay in the party and promote an anti-Trumpista agenda. If and when we insert a passage on this in the Sasse article, it should accurately describe his statements. Ammodramus (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No. It is not just current News. Leaving your party, or ,merely threatening to do so, is a major political decision. It speaks volumes about integrity. The Trump statement stays. We need to hold politicians accountable for their words and threats to just give up on a party and its constituents are not to be thrown around lightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.43.62 (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see #NPOV and SPAs, above. It's fairly clear from your comments here that you're not pleased with Sasse's position on Trump, and want to communicate this displeasure to Wikipedia's readership. This is not in keeping with Wikipedia's fundamental principle of "Neutral point of view".

We need to subject this material to the test of time to see if it has long-standing significance. If we don't do this, then articles on current politicians will degenerate into collections of context-less paragraphs on ephemeral issues.

If Sasse v. Trump proves to be more than the talk of a few news cycles, we'll have plenty of time to add it to the article; and when we do, we can write it up in view of its long-term significance rather than in the heat of the moment. Ammodramus (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't speculate about my thoughts or feelings. I have no problem with his position. I'm not the one deleting it. If a Politician takes a political position, he should stand behind it. Why would he want it deleted from his encyclopedia page? Unless, of course, it is no longer his position. Once he publicly states as such, I agree that it is no longer relevant. Until then, it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.43.62 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I've inserted two paragraphs concerning this, at Ben Sasse#2016 presidential election. One of these paragraphs covers Sasse's position (including an express statement by a Sasse spokesman that Sasse did not necessarily intend to leave the party if Trump was nominated); the second covers the reaction to the statement by Trump, and by Republican pols who disagree with Sasse's position. In view of this, I trust that you'll stop re-inserting your inaccurate statement that "Sasse has stated that he will leave the Republican party" if Trump is nominated. Ammodramus (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've left a note for User:Tiller54, who did some work on this article during the 2014 elections; I think that an additional editor's input would help greatly here. — Ammodramus (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Leave from UT

I've deleted the sentence "He was often on leave form [sic] this tenure track job", referring to Sasse's position at the University of Texas, 2005–06 (diff). The statement is reliably sourced to this Roll Call article. Unfortunately, it conveys no information about why Sasse was on leave, and the cited source doesn't provide anything on the matter that we can add to the article. A faculty member could take lots of leave for good reasons, for bad ones, or for in-between ones, so we can't draw any useful conclusions about Sasse from this mere fact. In view of this, I don't believe that the sentence adds anything useful to the article. — Ammodramus (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Fifth generation & WP:OWN

Ammodramus, Beware WP:OWN. "I am unwilling to trust" is truly not a valid reason to remove information sourced to a major national daily like the Washington Post.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• the thing to do if you sincerely doubt a fact, is to google, for example, "Ben Sasse" + "fifth generation" and, voila: [4].E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory, I'm afraid I don't see how WP:OWN applies here. Could you explain, please? Thanks. — Ammodramus (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

on Midland University, WP:OWN was on display in your removal of a positive assessment of Sasse's college presidency. I have now brought a national source, and added the article from the local paper back as a source. The point could have been rephrased, but I would argue the local paper probably is in the best position to know when the local college is failing, and who it was who came in and turned it around. And that removing the article form the local paper evaluating Sasse's presidency as a source removed valuable information.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Speculation about Presidential candidacy

I feel that some mention of the widespread "draft Sasse" campaign is appropriate. Ammodramus (WP:OWN) has reverted it twice - without discussion. (Rm Sasse--presidential-candidacy stuff per WP:NOTNEWS, especially since Sasse has expressed unwillingness to run). But the speculation is real, extensive, reliably sourced. I am not defending my phrasing, merely arguing that some discussion of the push to get Sasse to sun in 2016 is appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems the speculation regarding potential presidential run is one of the things Sasse is most notable for, so some mention of it on wiki seems appropriate (and the current wording seems fine). Most people probably never even heard of Sasse before all this. --DynaGirl (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

LOL. Precisely. I came to this page because I had no idea who he was/is. Then, as I often do, as long as I was already googling him, I improved the page. For me, the mystery now is what motivation anyone has for removing info as innocuous as this?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I've removed a paragraph about "[s]peculation about a Sasse candidacy" (diff), per WP:NOTNEWS. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... [M]ost newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Especially since Sasse has declined to run ([5][6]), this speculation doesn't seem to meet the enduring-notability test.

E.M.Gregory, I remain perplexed by your assertions of WP:OWN, unless your understanding of the policy is "Editors who've got a history of working on an article, and who might have acquired a certain amount of knowledge of the subject, should automatically defer to new arrivals who hadn't even known the subject's name two weeks ago". Your assertion that I've reverted without discussion is baseless: in both of the reverts to which you refer ([7],[8]), I've cited WP:NOTNEWS in my edit summary, and explained my position as well as I could within the brief span of an edit summary. Conversely, at least in your first de-reversion ([9]), you did not address NOTNEWS, only saying that you'd add sourcing. This misses the point: the question is not whether the material is verifiable, but whether it has enduring significance. Unless and until it goes beyond speculation, we can't say that; and we should avoid cluttering the article with material that may well be forgotten a year from now. — Ammodramus (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Church membership

I've removed a passage stating that Sasse is "now currently" a member of St. Paul's Lutheran Church, and giving that church's affiliation with Missouri Synod: see diff. The passage cites two sources: a VoteSmart page, stating that Sasse is a member of a St. Paul's Lutheran Church; and a page for a St. Paul's in Arlington, Nebraska, which doesn't mention Sasse and is presumably intended to support the statement of Missouri Synod affiliation.

There are multiple problems with this passage.

• "Sasse is now currently..." is bad English.
• "Currently" constructions are deprecated at WP:REALTIME, as subject to becoming outdated; "as of" constructions should be used instead.
• The material may in fact be outdated: membership at St. Paul's is indicated on this Sarpy County GOP page, which isn't dated but which archives back to March 2014; Sasse may have changed his church upon moving to D.C.
• Neither the VoteSmart page nor the Sarpy Co GOP profile says where St. Paul's is. It's not at all unlikely that it's the one in Arlington, which is near Fremont, but we can't make that assumption. We'd need a source that expressly states which St. Paul's Sasse attends.

I've replaced the statement with one using an as-of construction, that only included material supported by the sources cited: see diff. I've left out the name of the church, which will convey no useful information to most readers, especially since we don't know for certain where it is. — Ammodramus (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I've found articles that show St. Paul's Lutheran Church is an LCMS church located in Arlington and is the church where Sasse's family has gone for generations. The 2014 bio page and the 2016 votesmart page all back up the fact that Sasse has returned to his family church in St. Paul's Lutheran in Arlington. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.172.33.82 (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Westminster Seminary

I've removed a statement about Sasse's trusteeship at Westminster Seminary California from the lead (diff). Per MOS:LEAD, the lead section should be "a summary of [the article's] most important contents". Google searches like ("westminster seminary" sasse trustee) turn up very few hits, and none of these seems to indicate significant coverage by independent media. Note that the WSC's Wikipedia article gives the enrollment as 155, and the number of faculty as 13; a Christ Reformed Church website states that 55 students graduated in 2016, and comprised the largest graduating class in the school's history. The small size of the school, combined with the failure of the major media to include this fact in numerous profiles of Sasse, suggests that the trusteeship isn't important enough to include in the lead.

I'm currently trying to find the dates of Sasse's trusteeship, so that it can be included in its proper chronological place in the article body. I'm also looking for a text source for this information: currently, it's supported by an online video, which is a poor medium for presenting basic factual information. — Ammodramus (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that a video is not a credible source or as credible as an article. The fact that we have live video of someone backing a fact up is actually more credible given that in person testimonies are more credible than written testimonies; a fact seen in our legal systems. I digress though, thank you for finding the PDF source. 104.172.33.82 (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

A video is not necessarily an unreliable source, but a text source is preferable. One can read through a text source much faster than one can listen to the same text spoken on a video. One can often do string searches for keywords on a text source, which isn't possible with a video: one just has to watch the thing until one finds the part that one wants. One can generally copy and paste from a text source with perfect accuracy, whereas transcribing speech from a video source is subject to error, especially if the choice of punctuation affects the meaning or significance of a passage. — Ammodramus (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted a change from "served on the board of trustees" to "serves on the board of trustees"; see my diff. Per Westminster Seminary California Update, Spring 2015, p. 23, "Upon his election to the Senate, Ben resigned from the WSC Board..."

Present-tense constructions should be avoided when possible, since they're likely to become outdated. "Sasse is a member of the board" becomes false if Sasse leaves; a phrasing like "Sasse was named to the board" remains true after his departure. — Ammodramus (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ben Sasse. 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/20140418022348/https://www.sassefornebraska.com/issues/defending-unborn to https://www.sassefornebraska.com/issues/defending-unborn
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140524030958/http://elections.nytimes.com/2014/results/primaries/nebraska to http://elections.nytimes.com/2014/results/primaries/nebraska
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150108223535/http://www.sos.ne.gov/elec/2014/results/2014-General-Canvass-Recount-Final.pdf to http://www.sos.ne.gov/elec/2014/results/2014-General-Canvass-Recount-Final.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202100755/http://www.republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ID=cccbb684-0ead-473b-8f51-2f5dee96acb2 to http://www.republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ID=cccbb684-0ead-473b-8f51-2f5dee96acb2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141216221804/http://sarpycountygop.com/voter-tools/candidate-list/ben-sasse-bio/ to http://sarpycountygop.com/voter-tools/candidate-list/ben-sasse-bio/

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: 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) 18:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Single sentence with so many topics

Currently article has: "A Presbyterian, Sasse earned a doctorate in history from Yale University and taught at the University of Texas before becoming President of Midland University in Fremont, Nebraska in 2010."

His being a Presbyterian is not closely related to his attending Yale and being a University president. The mix of topics wouldn't likely belong in the same paragraph, much less the same sentence. If there is a connection between his Presbyterianism and academic accomplishments it needs more explanation. I'm bring this up on the talk page because I'm not well informed enough about Sasse to start editing. As a reader I'm having problems with this sentence.Tjc (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I think I've fixed it. Sasse's Presbyterianism probably isn't significant enough for a place in the lede; his assistant-secretaryship at HHS, which wasn't included, is. I've broken up some long sentences, too. — Ammodramus (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

COI tag

Removed COI tag placed on page without a discussion here. Page has had a large number of editors. There ought to be something specific to support such an allegation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Speculation about Presidential candidacy belongs on the page

Speculation about Sasse's intentions to run for President go back at least to the 2016 campaign, and it is already being mentioned regarding the 2020 campaign. Stuff like this:"Ben Sasse Explains Why His New Book Is Really, Truly Not About Running for President" [10]. Although the material about his possible entry into the 2016 race was removed from the article, I believe that it is notable and ought to be on the page. Along with the more recent speculation about 2020.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Sasse. 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/20140323031605/https://www.sassefornebraska.com/ to https://www.sassefornebraska.com/

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) 22:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Harvey Fellow

An IP editor has repeatedly inserted the statement that Sasse was named a Harvey Fellow by the Mustard Seed Foundation, sourced to the MSF's own website (e.g. diff). I've repeatedly reverted this, questioning the notability of this incident.

I've conducted a number of Google searches for relevant terms: ("harvey fellow" "ben sasse"), ("harvey fellowship" "ben sasse"), ("mustard seed foundation" "ben sasse"), etc. Most of these yield very few links, and nothing that I've found suggests that the award has been noted by the media, either at the time or in later discussing Senator Sasse's history.

One thing that I did find was a 2001 federal Form 990-PF, "Return of Private Foundation", for Mustard Seed. On pages 32–131 of the PDF, this form lists all the grants made by the foundation in 2001. Sasse is listed on page 40. I didn't count all the recipients, but estimate that about 700 are listed. This suggests that the award to Sasse wasn't particularly noteworthy.

I am again removing the passage; before my fellow editor restores it, we need a citation from an independent source to establish that the award was in fact notable. Ammodramus (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The Harvey Fellowship is a major academic award. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. There is far more information about the noteworthiness of this award than there is about the Theron Rockwell Field prize or that he once wanted to study under Carlos Eire (see previous sentence in the article -- zero support provided). But regardless, please seek consensus before removing valid information on the grounds of significance. This is a subjective category that requires consensus, as we seem to be on the same page that it is documented that Sasse won this award.108.34.234.10 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't really seem notable enough to be included if the only reference we can find for it is a link to the foundation. If a reference from a source not associated with the foundation (such as a newspaper article) mentions that he's received this particular award, it might seem more reasonable to include this. --DynaGirl (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see links above. Several peer-reviewed university press books and university websites that are not associated with fellowship. Again, there is zero documentation applied to other sentences in that very same paragraph. This one, however, is solid. 108.34.234.10 (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

None of the links you've provided above mention Ben Sasse. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi DynaGirl. The original link in the article lists him as a fellow. Ammodramus ha provided additional proof. The question is whether or not the fellowship is significant. And the links above to university press books and articles prove that it is. Again, this is well documented. Compare that with the sentence about Carlos Eire, to which there is precisely zero support provided.108.34.234.10 (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with my IP colleague—may I call you 108?— on a couple of points.

First, as DynaGirl notes, we should have some kind of independent source to confirm that Sasse's receipt of the award was notable. 108 hasn't provided such a source, and his/her response to DynaGirl's point is, basically, WP:OTHERCONTENT. (In fact, I agree with 108 about the unsourced Carlos Eire business; I'd intended to remove it after it was inserted, but it slipped my mind while I was fixing a number of other recent problematic edits. I'll remove it after I've finished this.)

Second, the sources that 108's marshalled don't really establish the notability of the Harvey Fellowship. The Faith in the Halls of Power passage only mentions the program in passing. The Regent University release isn't independent, since it's about one of their own faculty members who received a fellowship; ditto for the J. Nathan Matias piece. The Notre Dame and Emerging Scholars pieces are basically directory entries, intended for potential applicants. Only the el-Faizy passage goes beyond directory entry and seems to satisfy the independence test; while I couldn't read the whole passage on Google, it appears to cover only a fraction of a page in a full-sized book, and doesn't seem to go into enough detail to satisfy the requirement of in-depth coverage for notability. Ammodramus (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with this assesment. These are indepenent sources in university press books. It wasn't mentioned in passing. You need to read the links carefully and find consensus before you remove such material. Moreover, the entire last sentence is from his personal biography (not independent) or Yale University (also not independent). Why are you applying a standard to this that you are not applying to other sentences in the "early life" sentence. Independent sources list the Harvey Fellowship. $48k is a rather huge fellowship for a humanities grad student 108.34.234.10 (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

So this is independent. It is in a formal nomination before the Senate Finance Committee. It further supports that HF is significant and provides independent sourcing that Sasse is a Harvey Fellow. I trust this satisfies all concerns.108.34.234.10 (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

No need to go to Google Books for this; there's a direct link here. It's not an independent source at all: the business on Sasse begins on page 78, "Statement of information requested of nominee". In other words, this is Sasse's own resume, reproduced as part of the Senate Finance Committee document. Going to page 82, the Harvey Fellowship appears as one of 17 items in a list of "all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognitions for outstanding service or achievement". No special attention is paid to it, and there's nothing to make it stand out from the other items on the long list.

Again, the question is not "Can we verify that Sasse was a Harvey Fellow?" but "Is Sasse's Harvey Fellowship notable enough for inclusion in the article?" Judging by the lack of attention that it receives in the media, or at least such media as my Google searches have been able to reach, I think that the answer is no. Ammodramus (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

you need to establish consensus there. It is a far more notable academic fellowship than his dissertation prize.156.223.100.231 (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

When I Google ("ben sasse" "theron rockwell"), I get 392 hits; these include a Lincoln Journal Star article, a Weekly Standard profile, and a "Faith & Liberty Talk Show" profile on Sasse as new president of Midland; the latter, given its Christian focus, might be more likely to mention the Harvey fellowship than a secular source, but doesn't.

When I Google ("ben sasse" "harvey fellowship"), I get 3 hits, one of which is this talk page. Googling ("ben sasse" "harvey fellow") I get 7 hits, of which one is this talk page, four appear to be echoes of old versions of the WP article, and one includes the phrase "...Gwen Harvey, fellow student..." None appears to represent serious media attention to Sasse's receipt of the fellowship. Ammodramus (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Not neutral!

Extremely biased. I referred to an article. I quoted from the article directly 47.203.22.26 (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are euphemisms. Regardless of whether or not they are used in newspapers, we don't use them here per MOS:EUPHEMISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Quotes on Respect for Marriage Act and LGBTQ student questions

@Mikalra: added two recent quotes from Sasse, which were reverted out by myself and @Jfhutson:. It's been a couple of reverts, time to discuss here. Neither of these quotes add anything to our understanding of Sasse's positions.

A) Response to a question about supporting the Respect for Marriage Act, which would preserve the right of same-sex marriage against possible future Supreme Court rulings. Sasse dodged the question, saying there isn't any current case before the Supreme Court. Then he made a derisory comment about the act and insulted the Speaker of the House.

B) Response to a student question about supporting the LGBTQ campus community. Sasse uttered a meaningless generic affirmation about "support and affirm everybody in this community". He even recast the question to remove any mention of LGBTQ rights before answering.

I'm not sure what a reader of this article is supposed to take away from these quotes. They are the responses of a politician refusing to answer questions. Personally, I infer from Sasse's derision toward the Respect for Marriage Act that he hasn't changed his attitude on same sex marriage. But that is my inference, not a reliably sourced fact. Similarly I infer from his refusal to entertain a question about LGBTQ rights that he isn't much of a supporter. There is nothing in these responses which updates Sasse's earlier clearly stated positions. I don't see why they should be added to this article. -- M.boli (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)