Talk:Mike Gravel/Archive 1

Untitled

Add and Edit this page

This page's traffic is probably going to increase significantly, especially over the next few days, and as a whole through the 2008 campaign (which this guy is sort of starting). This page should be added to and cleaned up - I'll try to do what I can. [05:30, 14 April 2006 67.168.31.239]

He'll be 78 years old in November 2008. He has about as much chance of being elected as did Dennis Kucinich. John Broughton 19:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does his age prevent a barrier? Ronald Regan was the oldest president during my lifetime, served two terms, leaving office as very popular, at least among Republicans, even though his handlers let him sleep through many of the big decisions THEY made.

I saw Dennis and Mike at the first Democratic Presidential Forum in Carson City, NV today. The only one missing was Obama, since he was candidating in Iowa today. Mike and Dennis were the most anti-war and domestic policy radicals there. I have long been a fan of Joe Biden, since I saw how he conducted himself as Chairman of the Judiciary Committe at the Clarence Thomas hearings. Joe has also acquitted himself well, even before he announced, and today was no exception. He was especially good at NOT criticizing other candidates, even though his plans are at considerable variance with theirs. User:W8IMP 00:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to MP3 should be replaced with a link to a free format such as ogg vorbis. Delirium of disorder 09:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

I have a vague recollection that his name is pronounced with the accent on the second syllable. Does anyone have solid information one way or the other on the pronunciation? JamesMLane t c 05:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a video I saw on his website, he pronounced it Grav-ELL with an accent. --12.217.121.245 16:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he pronounces it "Gruhv-ELL". Sorry if that is what you meant.

I went to high school with his son, Marty, in the late '70's. It was pronounced with the accent on the second syllable. CathyHiett 06/04/07

Barnes Review

We need to state what the Barnes Review is, otherwise it's a pretty banal entry. It's also a non-disputed fact that he did give the speech, it's on the Barnes Review website Makgraf 22:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this citation notable, other than as a guilt-by-association slur on Gravel? He didn't speak about the holocaust at all, and he has "repeatedly" (according to the article) stated that he does not share their views regarding it. This sort of thing seems very troubling in light of WP:BLP. csloat 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are two questions here: 1) should we report that he gave a speech at the conference and 2) should we mention what the conference was? My point above was about 2), there's no point in just mentioning the conference. But I think that 1) should stand as well. It was a very notable occurence, he got a lot of press for it and this was at a time where he wasn't in the news. Makgraf 04:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely absurd to present facts without also presenting the conditions surrounding them. This goes for everything that is ever published if you want whatever's being said to be reputable and respected. Only then can one put facts in context and begin to analyse.

The Senator has been to the Kremlin. The Kremlin is also paid visits by the KGB. Guilt by association.

Secondly, this is not entertainment. Wheather something is banal or otherwise is not the point. Importance takes precedence over banality. [10:38, 30 April 2007 82.26.74.134]

This is not guilt by association. This is documenting a controversy he created for himself by speaking at a disreputable event. This is a standard thing that politicians are liable to be criticized for; there is no reason Gravel should be exempt. Wasted Time R 10:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What was the EVENT(as you say) about ? What was disreputable with the EVENT ?

From http://www.politics1.com/blog-0406a.htm, here's the full account of the event and Gravel's thinking:

THE 2003 SPEECH TO A HOLOCAUST-DENIAL GROUP. In 2003, ultra-right newspaper publisher Willis Carto -- a leading Holocaust "revisionist" who publishes a combination of radical right and neo-nazi newspapers -- contacted Gravel. Carto is vocal in espousing the view that the Holocaust never took place. In fact, Carto founded the Institute for Historical Review to "prove" the Nazi murder of six million Jews was "a hoax" invented "by Zionists" to make people feel sorry for Jews -- and that the famous death camp liberation documentary films were merely "special effects" created by the Jews in Hollywood. Gravel said "I knew his history with the Liberty Lobby" -- the ultra-right group Carto led while Gravel served in the Senate -- "But, here he's trying to support the National Initiative. I wasn't supporting him. He was showing support for it." At one point, Gravel referred to Carto as "a charming guy" but "pretty extreme" in his views. Gravel also said that "kooks" -- like Carto and his followers -- should support the National Initiative because they, just like mainstream citizens, "are disgusted with our government" and feel it doesn't serve their interests. "Kooks feel even more disconnected" with the political process. "With the National Initiative, everyone gets a voice in government," he added.
At first, Carto simply wanted to interview Gravel about the National Initiative for Carto's radical American Free Press newspaper. "He liked the idea of the National Initiative ... I figured it was an opportunity to discuss it. Whether it is the far right, far left, whatever, I'll make my pitch to them," said Gravel. "They gave me a free subscription to American Free Press -- they still send it to me today -- and I flip through it sometimes. It has some extreme views -- and a lot of the ads in it are even more extreme and make me want to upchuck ... Anyways, sometime later, Carto contacted me to speak at that Barnes Review Conference. I had never heard of the Barnes Review, didn't know anything about it or what they stood for. I was just coming to give a presentation about the National Initiative. I was there maybe 30 minutes. I could tell from the people in the room -- mainly some very old men -- that they were pretty extreme. I gave my speech, answered some questions and left. I never saw the agenda for the day or listened to any of the other presentations." The Barnes Review Conference is an annual Holocaust denial gathering. At the 2003 event attended by Gravel, the later sessions included a "Holocaust Revisionism Panel" and a presentation on the glory days of the Nazi Luftwaffe. You can see more about the event here and here (note: both are links to Holocaust denial groups).
"You better believe I know that six million Jews were killed. I've been to the Holocaust Museum. I've seen the footage of General Eisenhower touring one of the camps ... They're nutty as loons if they [Carto's group] don't think it happened ... Anyone who denies the Holocaust is patently off their rocker -- it's a ridiculous position ... and the idea that the [documentary] films were a hoax is just bullshit," insisted Gravel. He said he never renounced the group after he learned of what it stood for simply because "I'm not in the business of denouncing anyone. I'm in the business of promoting the National Initiative." However, he quickly added that if he had to do it again, he doesn't know whether he would skip the event or attend and "speak on the National Initiative and how they're dead wrong on the Holocaust. Their views are just lunacy. But I don't think I'd bother to go."

What can we conclude from this? a) Gravel is not a Holocaust denier. b) Gravel knew he was dealing with Carto and that Carto held vile views. c) Gravel was willing to deal with Carto to get his own pet project, the National Initiative (which has nothing to do with any of this) some added visibility. d) In retrospect, Gravel would do it differently.

Gravel made a judgement call on a politico-moral question - do I dance with the devil to get a chance to do some good elsewhere - that political figures are often asked to make. If this guy thinks he should be President of the United States, it's fair enough that he has to answer to how he makes these calls. Wasted Time R 12:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this is the kind of stuff I like to see !! Statement of the facts and the conditions. Great work. Now, we've got to make sure that the main page reflects this. Really good stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amu1 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Marital Status

The reference in the "Career after leaving the Senate" section states that he divorced from this wife in 1980. Yet he seems to be married. Did he actually divorce in the first place ? Is this his new wife ? How reliable is the reference ? I cannot seem to verify his getting divorced - assumung "lost his marriage" means divorce. [16:48, 30 April 2007 Amu1]

I searched for this too, couldn't find anything further than what's in the article now. Wasted Time R 16:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article at Salon that mentions that he is divorced from his first wife, and that she gets his Senate pension, thus explaining some of his financial problems. [04:00, 2 July 2007 68.219.226.104]

I am curious how she got all his senate pension. In most, if not all, states we live under community property rules. In the case of a divorce the property is split equally, unless other factors are involved. [00:46, 1 August 2007 66.189.203.72]

Ahh. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/05/07/mike_gravel/ is the link. Wasted Time R 10:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated the personal bio material from that article, but there's still basic info that's missing or unsure — year of his first marriage needs to be confirmed, year of his divorce and year of his second marriage are both missing. Wasted Time R 15:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got the date of first marriage, and confirmed that his children are from it. Wasted Time R 10:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Photo

Would a more recent photo be a good idea, since the current one was obviously taken in the 70's or so, and, since he's running for President in 2008, perhaps a current photo should be used?Neal2028 03:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we can use a current photo, if you don't mind violating someone's copyright, since there are no fair use photos of him after 1980. --12.217.121.245 08:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know sarcasm helps everything. But other campaigns, like that of James Webb will gladly release a current photo to use. I don't believe that would be any kind of violation, as I'm sure you also know.Neal2028 03:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody needs to find a source for the current photo as soon as possible, otherwise it will be deleted in 5 days. --Rory096 04:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this picture? Unless it violates a copyright somehow.67.167.93.51 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo on this page looks like the same one on bioguide.congress.gov, which is a how he appeared during his senate years. He has several other recent pictures on his own website.User:W8IMP23:21, 21 Febuary 2007 (UTC)

Presidential Bid Status

I wonder if anyone can verify that he is indeed still a candidate for president as I've tried to ring his campaign office several times today and have not been able to get a reply, plus there are so far no volunteer contacts in any of the 50 states in the United States Harry Hayfield 17:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visit his website and you will clearly see that he is a candidate. I saw him speak, live, (on Cspan, one of the best reasons to own a TV) at the first Democratic Forum in Carson City, Nevada. If you question his sincerity as a candidate, you need to see it. He also stated that he has very limited resources for a well-organized campaign. User:W8IMP, Detroit 23:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

American Free Press

The American Free Press contains nothing on it's website that endorses Holocaust denial. So to paint them and the Barnes Review with the same brush is irresponsible. What evidence is there that this event was at all sponsored by the Barnes Review. It seems to me that it was solely and event sponsored by the AFP. The AFB believes in free speech for everybody, even holocaust deniers, that doesn't mean they endorse there viewpoints. Makgraf if you want to make the case that the Barnes Review is a holocasut denier publication fine, but you need to distinguish between them and the AFP. I personally think this entire sentence should be taken out of the article as it seems to be a fairly transparent attempt to imply guilt by association in regards to Gravel. However, I've learned at wikipedia that's better to be respectful of what other people have written and try and come to some mutual compromise rather than just reverting each other. If you'd be willing to write a more neutral version of this sentence I'd be willing to accept it. annoynmous 07:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a what I feel is a more neutral version of this section. Let me know how you feel about it. annoynmous 08:14, 26 February 2007 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your desire to compromise. I have two points. First, writing that the Barnes Review is "a journal that has published literature that endorses Holocaust denial" is kinda like writing that Time is a "a magazine that has published current affairs news". That's what Time is, it's a current affairs news magazine. Just as the Barnes Review is a Holocaust denial journal. So it seems tha the sentence should be more reflective of this. Second, I guess I am lumping the AFP in with the Barnes Review as they have the same address and the same founders and are very comfortable around Holocaust Denial. So I don't think it's "irresponsible" do this. Still, I'm willing to compromise on this because it seems like their sister publication takes on denying while they mainly expose more garden variety kooky anti-semitic theories. How about this: ""The event was co-sponsored by the Barnes Review, a journal that endorses Holocaust denial". Makgraf 19:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would this be an okay wording? Makgraf 02:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it would be fine. I guess that I was just worried that this was part of the "well he criticizes Israel so he must be anti-semtic" slur that you find. I like Gravel and I was just worried that if by some miracle he gets the Democratic nomination (which at this point is very unlikely) that someone will read this entry on wikipedia and say "Hey, he's a neo-nazi holocaust denier". However, from the research I did I guess it was an incident that got a fair amount of attention when it happened so I guess I'm okay with including it.annoynmous 04:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't really know anything about Gravel's foreign policy positions. Glad we could come to a compromise wording. Makgraf 06:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Given that he's a presidential candidate for the 2008 election, should we give the regular "gravel" a disambiguation that would allow someone who searches "Gravel" to find Mike Gravel? Clearly, "gravel" should be the primary result, much as Cleveland functions. Lifthrasir1 01:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wasted Time R 02:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube stardom

After the debates you can find Senator Gravel on you tube. The top video has over 140,000 views with a mostly positive reaction to his words. This is important because we have seen how youtube in the past have made or broke candidates. Just seeing what you guys thought. http://youtube.com/watch?v=1gMlHv2lDqA

user:Acecool79 11:00, 29 April 2007 (pst)

Filibuster

I'm hearing all about this five-month, one-man filibuster using "various parliamentary techniques." What techniques were used? I'm very interested in finding out and it would make a good addition to the article.--Gloriamarie 07:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it turns out that once you go into the New York Times archives and look at what actually took place in 1971, there's less here than what Gravel's campaign, and some recent accepting press accounts of his career, claim. His filibuster did not stop the draft, nor did it force an earlier end to the draft than already planned by the Nixon administration. Details, cites, and an explanatory footnote are all now in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official Website Edits

I made two edits to the Official Web site list toward the bottom of Mike Gravel's Wikipedia page that I think have been unjustly removed. The first was the removal of a fairly useless link that was inaccurately labeled. This was the Gravel Blogspot link, which is actually as the site's first post states the Unofficial Mike Gravel blog, which does not belong under Official Web sites, and should be considered spam in it's current state. This was removed, but I'm not sure by who. The second edit I made was to add the recently created Official Facebook Profile for Mike Gravel to compliment the Official Myspace Profile already linked, but for some reason a Wikipedia bot removed this link as spam. I don't know how to go about ensuring those edits are reinstated, as I certainly think they were proper edits to make. Could someone please respond or send me a message about how to make sure those edits are reinstated, or if there is good reason as to why those edits shouldn't be made? I'm new to Wikipedia, only made a few minor edits, but when I see room for improvement I like to help out if I can. Thanks for the help in advance! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curtissthompson (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Just wanted to say

I found this whole series of articles very useful with information about Mike Gravel and his campaigns as I'm finding my way around here. Take a bow!

Assumption Prep

I'm not very good at editing Wiki's, but I added that Gravel went to Assumption Prep, which existed as Assumption College. I don't know how to add references so if anybody is looking for it -- http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2007/05/gravel-wants-to-provide-cash-flow-to.html - MichaelBrazell 24.107.233.93 03:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of political positions

It seems as though the political positions of other 2008 presidential canidates are more laid out in their main pages. I thought that they were generally incorporated in but I'm going to delete the merge suggestion I and add an expansion instead 158.59.25.24 15:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of name

Can we please get a "sounds-like" pronunciation on there too? Only about 3% of the world can understand IPA. --Liface 04:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In French

If it's usefull to someone, in French the name is pronunced /mɔʁisʔʁɔbɛʁʔɡʁavɛl/. [06:24, 25 June 2007 82.120.110.74]

Mike Gravel at Campaigns Wikia

For those interested in pro-Gravel wiki editting, you may want to check out Mike Gravel at Campaigns Wikia. Perhaps this can give Gravel supporters a good POV outlet, plus reduce the number of POV edits and sockpuppets here. EPM 18:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF has happened to his pic here?

?!No lead image?!

Linking to Campaigns Wikia

I'm terribly sorry, but I don't understand why Gravel's Campaign Wikia page cannot be included into the external links -or maybe, I suggest entering a little box, similar to the Wikimedia Commons entry on Gravel. I especially found the "Get Local" page on Wikia very informative. I originally came to Wikipedia looking for an external link on grassroots type of things, but there was nothing of the sort. It's very irritating b/c I know the general public will only go so far in searching for local contact information. It'd be nice if it were easily accessable. Please consider adding it.

http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Mike_Gravel/

Thanks!, jbLb

JbLb 21:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You put in about six different entries, all of which link to this site which seems to be void of actual content. If the site gets some content, maybe one link to it would be okay. Wikipedia does not exist as a vehicle for you to get generate that site traffic in the first place. Wasted Time R 21:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend it to just get "traffic". I thought it'd be considerate to have a link to something like that -it only seemed practical. It really is difficult to find local Gravel contacts. I was only trying help -it IS Nat'l Make A Difference Day. Thanks a bunch! JbLb 00:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I propose that all biograph-articles about the candidates in the upcoming US Election will be locked and can only be edited by registered users of Wikipedia.

I don't support this particular candidate, but I think it's vital for Wikipedia that they have this lockdown as a safety procaution to preserve the quality of the articles. Not to mention all the countless hours undoing all this vandalism. 84.202.208.245 14:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP addresses removing material from this article

For a long time, the Senatorial part of this article was largely a paraphrase of "Mike Gravel's Legislative Accomplishments" on his campaign website. Some media reports on his 2008 campaign have also repeated some of this material unquestioningly. I've spent a lot of effort in going back and looking at reliable contemporaneous sources from the 1970s, largely but not solely the New York Times archives, to verify that what Gravel says he did, he actually did, and to give greater detail on dates and other specifics, and to cite accordingly. In many cases, Gravel's account has been verified and cited, such as regarding the Pentagon Papers and the Alaskan pipeline. In other cases, Gravel's attempts to force a change in government policy have been verified and cited, but his claims regarding success of those attempts has not:

While Gravel claims that his actions against the Amchitka nuclear tests "succeeded in halting the program after the second test", there were only two tests planned to begin with; Gravel's protests did not stop anything.
While Gravel claims that his May-September 1971 filibuster against the draft forced a compromise where "the Nixon administration agreed to let the draft expire in 1973 if given a two-year extension in 1971", the Nixon administration's original proposal in February 1971 — which is what the Senate debated during this whole time — only called for a two-year renewal to begin with, after which the draft would end; Gravel's filibuster did not shorten the draft.

The article now reflects both these points, with citations from the time. If anyone has other sources from the 1970s which help support Gravel's claims for success on these matters, or on anything else, please bring them forward. But otherwise, attempts to remove this material will just be reverted. Finally, the IP addresses are also trying to remove the "Barnes review" section. This material has been in the article for a long time, has been discussed in Talk above, and consists almost completely of Gravel's own words; there can be no justification for removing it, and attempts to do so will also be reverted. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gravel Filibuster

[ moved here from User talk:Wasted Time R ]
You've made a lot of changes to the portion of the Filibuster on the Mike Gravel page regarding his filibuster. This is fine and good, but your sources with the New York times require members to be paying subscribers of the Times online section. Reference number 18 is a good example of this. Isn't this outside the realm of Wikipedia, the "free" encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.55.115 (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. The URL links to the NYT archives are provided as a convenience for those who are NYT subscribers; otherwise, you've got the article title and the date, you can go to your local library and find the article on the NYT microfiche. There is no requirement that citations in Wikipedia be to freely available, online resources; indeed, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources states that "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Most of these are not freely available on the web! Journal articles are usually behind JStor or some other pay-for-view service; books are rarely online, textbooks never; and so forth. Some mainstream newspapers are available freely online going back some period of time, and as of recent policy changes the NYT is better than most, going back to 1981; but the citations heavily used in this article are to 1970s stories, and thus not available for free. If I used Washington Post archives it would be the same situation; that's just the way it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For free online access, the best I can suggest is that you go to http://select.nytimes.com, enter the article title, select "All NYT", do a search, come up empty, select "NYT Archive 1851-1980", and do the search again. You should now have a hit, do "View free preview". You should now have the article abstract, which will show you the title, byline, date, and a few lines at the start of the article. To pick a different example citation, for the current reference number 33, by doing the above you should get to http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50C12FD3A55127B93C1A91789D85F458785F9, which will show this:

Stennis Favors 4-Year Draft Extension, but Laird Asks 2 Years

By DAVID E. ROSENBAUMSpecial to The New York Times

February 3, 1971, Wednesday

Page 12, 697 words

WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 -- The most intensive Congressional review of the military draft since World War II began today with the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John C. Stennis, expressing renewed skepticism that the Nixon Administration could meet its goal of ending draft calls by the middle of 1973. [ END OF FIRST PARAGRAPH ]

It's not a lot, but in this case it is enough to verify our article's assertion that three months before Gravel's filibuster started, the Nixon administration was only proposing a two-year extension to the draft, after which it would end. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It surely looks as if Gravel just wants to make himself important, I'm not familiar with political games between the president and the senat, so I'm asking this, could Nixon have send it to the senat with the intention of starting a discussion to extend the two years or to get the two years approved and then making changes to that later on? I'm not completely happy with Wikipedia declaring success or failure on a data basis as thin as some NYT articles. It would be very nice, if someone who remembers the time and had some knowledge about the political situation back then could comment. I mean, Nixon originally also had different ideas about health care, but then Henry Kaiser talked him into the present system. On the other hand, this seems to be the best information that's available on the net about the issue.193.40.33.50 (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've since confirmed the NYT story above with a Washington Post story from the same date (also been an archive wall, but I paid for it) and added it as a cite. The other cites in the article from around this time support the same picture, such as the U.S. Army's Transition to the All-volunteer Force history that's referenced. As for why Gravel says differently now, our article takes no stance; he may honestly remember it differently, he may be exaggerating what he did for political effect, or something else. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's new information about the issue. Gravel recently told in an interview that his key success was to get Nixon to sign a statement that guaranteed the end of the draft and that Nixon later in his biography called that his biggest mistake. I don't exactly understand what it's about, but the interview can be found here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/libertarian/2008/03/29/TBA It's at 8:21. "What I did in 1971 when it was about to expire at the end of June, I started in May a filibuster to force a declaration - and that's of course during the period in which I acquired the Pentagon papers and released them - but I continued the draft until September and then forced Nixon to cut a deal saving face to let it be renewed for two years and then guaranteed that it would expire. And when it did expire in '73 I was still there and had he and John Stennis - and John of course is a man of his word - uh... later on... err... Nixon in his biography wrote that the efelty(?) [at 9:00] was a terrible mistake that he made in cutting the deal to end the draft at that time. I was very happy to bring this about." 80.235.63.26 (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've listened; it's "he felt" that he said there. But this doesn't square with the historical record, which shows the Nixon administration proposing a two-year extension in February 1971, after which there would be a shift to the all-volunteer army. But I'll track down the Nixon biography and see what he says in that. Thanks for bringing this up. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've looked over Nixon's autobiography, RN : The Memoirs of Richard Nixon (Gosset & Dunlap, 1978). There are only two mentions of Gravel in the index, pages 897 and 899. Both are about the 1972 Gravel v. United States Supreme Court case regarding congressional aides immunity in re the Pentagon Papers ... nothing to do with the draft. Nor did I find anything in RN about the process of ending the draft and the 1971 congressional debate (index wasn't very helpful, book is 1100 pages). However, I did look at a bunch of other books on Nixon and that era, and they all confirm the narrative given in this article: Nixon wanted to switch to an all-volunteer army even before he took office, campaigned on ending the draft, and only sought a two-year extension to it as the final draft period before going to all volunteers. See Jonathan Aitken, Nixon: A Life, pp. 396-397; Stephen Ambrose, Nixon, Volume Two: The Triumph of a Politician 1962-1972, pp. 264-266; even Conrad Black (yeah, I know he's serving time), Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full. So whatever Gravel was talking about in this interview, I can't find anything in the historical record to support it. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as I understand it, the proposed bill HR-6531 was amended as a result of debating. More details (including references) here: http://www.gravel2008.us/node/2024 80.235.63.144 (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, this was enacted under the name "Mansfield" in PL 92-129, Section 401: "Called for the termination of military operations in Indochina at “the earliest practicable date,” and for a withdrawal of all forces, subject to the return of all American prisoners of war. Also urged the President to negotiate with North Vietnam a date for the withdrawal of all forces, an immediate cease-fire agreement, and a series of phased and rapid withdrawals of U.S. forces in return for the release of prisoners of war." Source: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33803.pdf 80.235.63.144 (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these sources (Congressional Quarterly excerpt and the Congressional Research Service report, which is quite well done) support what's currently in the article. CQ: "It was the end of January 1971 when Richard Nixon sent Congress a military draft bill conceived as an interim step toward his 1968 campaign goal of building an all-volunteer military force. Nixon wanted a two-year extension of conscription and a substantial pay increase for the men in uniform. The President got what he asked for, and more." Nixon's position of extending the draft for two more years before switching to the AVF was his idea and his proposal and predated Gravel's filibuster by a number of months. Thus, the two-year extension 'compromise' was not forced upon Nixon by Gravel's actions, as Gravel has been claiming. As for CRS, yes a watered-down Mansfield Amendment was adopted as part of HR-6531 (see pages CRS-23 and CRS-25), but as the quote you give above shows, the amendment's provisions had nothing to do with the draft. Instead it was a statement regarding ending the war that didn't cut off funding; as page CRS-5 says, it's not clear whether it had any practical effect. The Sept. 22, 1971 NYT article that is currently footnote 41 in the article talks about this final Mansfield Amendment being watered down as well. In any case, Gravel didn't have much to do with the Mansfield Amendment; as you can see from page CRS-15, the only amendment he offered during all this was to HR-8687, the military appropriations bill; it tried to block funding for all bombing over Southeast Asia and was defeated by a wide margin, 19-64. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a follow-up on all this. Gravel very recently published his memoir, A Political Odyssey: The Rise of American Militarism and One Man's Fight to Stop It (co-author Joe Lauria, Seven Stories Press, 2008, ISBN 1-583-22826-8). Page 180 deals with this issue. Here's what he has to say:

My filibuster delayed extending the draft by a couple of months. In September my debate was cut off. I failed to bring about the immediate end to the draft I wanted. But I believe my filibuster held Nixon to the two-year extension that he had sought in February. I hadn't trusted Nixon's proposal to prolong conscription for only two more years. I believed it was merely a tactic to pull an arrow out of the peace movement's quiver. In 1973 Nixon stuck to his pledge not to revive the draft knowing that he would run into trouble in Congress again with my threat to renew my filibuster.

So, in this text Gravel has conceded what our article has been saying all along: his filibuster didn't end the draft immediately, which had been his goal (it just stopped conscriptions for a couple of months, until they resumed again), and Nixon had gotten what he had originally wanted, a two-year extension until June 1973.

Now Gravel claims he didn't believe Nixon's pledge, and that his filibuster made a difference because it forced Nixon to hold to his pledge in 1973 and not keep the draft going. Certainly a healthy amount of skepticism was warranted about what Dick Nixon said about anything, but there are no biographical or historical accounts that support the notion that Nixon wanted to keep the draft going past 1973. Nixon had become interested in the All-Volunteer Force idea back in his time out of office and he had campaigned on it (cites all given previously). More cynically, he thought ending the draft would undermine the anti-war movement, since well-to-do kids would no longer stage protests once they personally were out of danger (see Ambrose, Nixon, Volume Two: The Triumph of a Politician 1962-1972, pp. 264-266); this is exactly the opposite of Gravel's suspicion. By June 1973, the draft wasn't even active; the last conscriptions had been in December 1972, since U.S. ground participation in the Vietnam War had wound down (Evans, "The All-Volunteer Army After Twenty Years: Recruiting in the Modern Era"). There's just no evidence that the threat of a filibuster played any role at all in 1973.

Anyway, I've expanded the article's existing footnote on all this, to include the memoir's statements, and the historical record regarding them. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-failed GA nomination

Any article that is unstable must be failed immediately and without an in-depth review, according to the GA quick-fail criteria. While usually this means edit wars, political candidates in upcoming/ongoing elections are subject to the stability clause as well. GA-class articles should not be expected to change in major ways based on currently evolving subject matter, and the biography of a political candidate in an election will most definitely be altered significantly in the near future. Technically speaking, the mere presence of the {{Future election candidate}} template is also a quick-fail issue. As otherwise this article largely meets or exceeds the GA criteria, please don't hesitate to renominate it after Gravel is not a part of an ongoing election. If you feel the result of this review was in error, you may request a reassessment. Thank you very much for your work so far, VanTucky ^talk 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Upon appeal at WP:GAR, this quick-fail was deemed inappropriate and renomination was recommended; see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_34#Mike_Gravel. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amchitka tests

User:75.84.254.115 states in an edit summary, "Mr.Gravel claims to have stopped the program after the tests. Not prior to them as was the impression of the author of the section i have removed, as this is misinformation." In fact, "Mike Gravel's Legislative Accomplishments" on his campaign website claims that "the Pentagon was performing five calibration tests ... He [meaning Gravel] succeeded in halting the program after the second test ..." I have not been able to find any cite for five tests being originally planned, just the two that took place, Milrow and Cannikin. (A third, much smaller, test called Long Shot had taken place earlier in 1965, well before Gravel reached the Senate, and is not included in these counts.) If there is a cite for more tests being planned and Gravel's actions stopping them, please bring it forward. As for 75.84.254.115's statement that "Gravel claims to have stopped the program after the tests", from what I see the program was the tests; once the tests were done, there was nothing left to stop. If there is a cite that indicates otherwise, please bring it forward. I've restored the previous material, and have tried to clarify what Gravel's claim is. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Does very well in conforming to the strict citation guidelines of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
I was very happy that this article did not dwell too much on the 2008 campaign. This endeavor seems to be fairly minor relative to the Senator's previous political actions in the 70's, and even his renewed involvement in politics outside of the campaign.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
After examining the Talk Page, it appears to me that the regular editors of this page are all very capable in collaborating with each other, and have been very civil in solving minor content disputes.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
I do find it curious however that the images provided by the campaign differ in their licensing. Perhaps this has to do with the timing of their inclusion.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I'm glad this article was given the opportunity to go GA! It is thorough and well written, certainly displaying some of the best work on Wikipedia. It would not be a FA long shot!

Thanks very much for the review and the kind words! I'm not sure about the campaign-provided image licensing, these have been here for some time. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

08

Is he still running for president? It's not referenced, and his name only came up in the New Hampshire and South Carolina races, but not today (SUPER TUESDAY). Is he still in? Basketball one 10 00:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, still running, see this story today for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q4 Mike Gravel Fundraising (Year-End)

The FEC has just posted Mike Gravel's Year-End filing from Q4 2007. I don't know which number is the official one for candidate fundraising, but if someone would like to locate that number and add it to the appropriate article(s) and image(s), especially the ones on this page, it would be greatly appreciated...Collegebookworm (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helter Skelter

Someone who knows more about the actual origins of this should probably add a mention on the page: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA2LgJviH9w [07:15, 3 April 2008 Personman]

OK for the campaign article, but wait until it becomes as notable as "Rock" before including here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis de Tocqueville Institution

In the article on Alexis de Tocqueville Institution I found reference to Mike Gravel as a member. Considering it is a right-wing so-called think tank, widely known for its attacks on free software (GPL) and support of the tabacco industry, it should be of interest to see his membership mentioned in the article on him. Ben ^T/_C 17:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting the omission, and I've now added Gravel's role at the institute. However his interest there seems to have been mainly in regard to promotion of direct democracy, and not the IP or other issues you mention. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah...

The infobox lists his Alaska Legislative terms as beginning and ending on January 3, just like congressional terms. That is not the case. I'll have to go back and verify the actual starting and ending dates, though. RadioKAOS (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the pending correction. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alaska#Guide to terms of the Alaska Legislature, in case this comes up again with any other bio pages (and I'm sure it will at some point). The table hasn't been 100% checked for accuracy, but hopefully someone is paying attention. RadioKAOS (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the infobox here with the dates from your linked-to table. Thanks again. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life after the Senate

This may be kind of an obscure source, but one of the Anchorage newspapers did a "where are they now?" type of story on Gravel in 1986, during Murkowski's first re-election campaign. I don't recall much about it, but apparently they found him living in Cabin John, Maryland and running some sort of condominium development. I dunno if that's the same condo development which is referenced in the article. I would guess that this ran in the Anchorage Times, since I couldn't find any trace of the article on the Anchorage Daily News search engine.RadioKAOS (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That would be interesting to get ahold of ... there definitely needs to be more detail in the article on Gravel's life during that period. I do see this Anchorage Daily News piece from 1986 that says he was involved in competing for certain Alaskan tax write-off possibilities. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]