Jump to content

Talk:Richard Burr/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The external link contains some interesting propaganda. The page on MediaMonitors is a blatant attack on Bill Frist (which has little relevance to this article). Burr's exploitation of the autistic community is mentioned in the MediaMonitors page in passing, but Burr isn't the main topic of that page and his involvement in mercury-related drugs and political fallout thereof isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article at all. Someone needs to find a more neutral POV article to be used as background about the drug law (and perhaps incorporate some of his views on the topic into the wikipedia article).--24.211.160.85 01:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)d

Miscellaneous

Mentioning the subpoena of Trump, jr. in the introduction is embarrassing to the entire Wikipedia project. It belongs under his Intel Committee Service, but this looks like something an eighth grader read in the news and decided to put there. Maybe, if something comes of the subpoena in future years it will belong as the most consequential thing Burr has ever done. Right now, it is like writing "Gandhi ended his hunger strike by eating curry," instead of waiting a few days to see whether the particular meal was important.

Supposedly, at Reynolds, Burr was known as "the Flying Cheetah" by his classmates. Burr denies this statement. His spokesman, Doug Heye, told the Raleigh News & Observer, "He has no idea where that nickname came from in the bio."

This information was contributed by an internet user with the IP 67.151.54.133, possibly someone at the United Talent Agency. [1] 

 Search results for: 67.151.54.133

   PaeTec Communications, Inc. PAETECCOMM (NET-67-151-0-0-1) 
                                     67.151.0.0 - 67.151.255.255
   UNITED TALENT AGENCY PAET-AN-UNITE-1 (NET-67-151-54-128-1) 
                                     67.151.54.128 - 67.151.54.159

   # ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2006-02-02 19:10
   # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanimum (talk • contribs) 15:04, 3 February 2006

Why this error, that Richard Burr is said to be descended from Aaron Burr, when he is descended from the brother of Aaron Burr is included in both this bio and the bio of Aaron Burr is of little concern. The real concern is the fact that such false information could stay for long online. Here is a source: http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200409220840.asp Isn't it time for Wikipedia to clean up its mistakes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.82.116 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 7 July 2006

Environment

I've excised the recent addition:

"By voting against the environmental position on every vote tracked by Environment America, Burr and 25 other senators were characterized as "natural disasters" by that federation of environmental groups. Among those was a vote against a bill to provide legal protections to two million acres of federal lands in nine states, which passed.[1] "

This strikes me as POV, even if it's based on a cited source; the "natural disasters" phrase particularly so. Moreover, since one-quarter of the Senate is given that epithet, it doesn't seem to indicate that Burr's positions on environmental issues are particularly extreme relative to the body as a whole.

--Ammodramus (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like it might have been more diplomatic to improve it rather than excise it, and the reference, but no sweat. The edit wasn't POV; that was the way the source described those who voted entirely against the environmental positions, "natural disasters." Those who voted entirely for the environmental positions were deemed "champions." It may seem like sharp language to you, but sources don't need to be POV, only the text inserted by Wikipedia editors, and the above text is an accurate, non-handpicked, NPOV description of Environment America's report. Since you find the tone too sharp though, I've no problem with working together and rephrasing the section. DanielM (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my edit was undiplomatic. Had I but world enough and time, I'd have set to work improving the article. However, this would've entailed rewriting the whole "Political positions" section.
It's true that we can quote a cited source without violating NPOV, even if that source uses inflammatory language. However, using a single such source and no other is a violation of the NPOV spirit, if not of the letter.
I think this is especially true in this case. Environment America's metric doesn't seem very sensitive to nuance. When I looked at their 2008 ratings posted at Project Vote Smart, I found that of the 84 senators whom they rated, 19 received grades of zero and 31 received grades of 100. They divide Congress into sheep and goats, but they don't make much of an effort to measure degrees of sheep- and goathood. If we're going to describe Burr's position on the environment, I think it'd be much better to give a more general summary of his ratings by a number of groups (available through Vote Smart).
I question, however, whether it's desirable to describe Burr's environmental record in the article. I don't get the impression that the environment is one of his signature issues; and I think his position could be predicted with some accuracy from the simple knowledge that he's a conservative Republican.
This, I think, is a problem with a lot of WP articles on politicians. The sections on their positions and voting records are assembled a bit at a time by many editors, each of whom comes in and inserts a sentence or a section about an issue of particular concern to him. There's no structure and no attempt to give a coherent overall picture of the pol's positions.
I'd like to suggest the approach I took in rewriting Bill_Nelson#Political_actions_and_positions. (Admittedly, Nelson was easy: he hasn't been the most active or controversial of senators.) Describe the guy's stand in general terms, using his own literature, the general liberal/conservative ratings from Vote Smart (e.g. National Journal, ADA, Eagle Forum, Club For Growth), and his record of voting with his party's majority (available through a WaPo website). Describe his signature issues (e.g. tobacco for Burr), and the ways in which he deviates from the positions you'd expect him to hold given his left-right position and party affiliation. There's no real need to say that a liberal Democrat voted for the Ledbetter law, or that a conservative Republican voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act: it's what you'd expect them to do from the general description.
I go into this proposed structure in considerable more detail at Talk:Bill_Nelson#Major_rewrite_of_section; but I've been verbose enough already, and won't lengthen this diatribe even more by pasting it in here.
--Ammodramus (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean about absence of coherence among articles in a like group such as senators, Ammodramus, but I don't see it as a problem. There's a chaotic element to any Wikipedia article because any editor can come in and add what he or she chooses, as long as it comports with the rules. Absent some overarching effort by a group of editors, one is unlikely to find standardization among all articles about U.S. Senators, or any other like group. As well, I for one don't think standardization would be desirable. The diverse character and uniqueness among entries is a strength. Though it may offend some individuals' sense of order, I don't think it's a problem. It's the nature of Wikipedia. As for your other comments... I disagree that a conservative can be expected to vote against the environmental position every time or most of the time, and thus it's not worth mentioning in the article. There are conservatives with strong environmental credentials, such as Gov. Douglas of Vermont. I did not know that Sen. Burr's record was what it is until I viewed the EA report. The environment is an important matter, and coverage of a voting record on the environment is warranted, though perhaps not mandated, in the article for any senator or congressperson. DanielM (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Indisputably, environmental issues are important, and there are situations in which a politician's positions on them should be described. However, I don't regard this as such a situation.
Project Vote Smart, in their section on interest-group ratings for congressmen, divides them into 37 categories, of which "Environmental Issues" is one. It seems reasonable to assume that every one of these 37 issue categories is considered important by a large number of people. By the "X is an important issue" argument, then, we should have at least 37 paragraphs in the political-positions section of every congressman's article. This would be cumbersome, to say the least.
Our duty to the readers is to convey lots of information in an economical way. We can't do that by presenting them with an immense heap of data containing every fact that every editor considers important.
The logical approach is a genus-et-differentia one. If we describe the pol's position in a general right-left liberal-conservative Republican-Democrat way, that gives the reader a set of default assumptions; we can then refine the description by describing where those default assumptions fail or fall short.
A reasonable default assumption is that a Republican generally described as conservative will receive low ratings from environmental-advocacy groups. Think of it in probabilistic terms. Suppose you had to give me a dollar for every conservative Republican who got poor ratings from LCV, Sierra Club, et al.; and I had to give you N dollars for every conservative Republican who got good ratings from them. What would N have to be in order to keep you from losing money? I'd hazard that 5 would be too low, and even 10 would be risky.
We should describe the pol's environmental position when the default assumption is untrue (as DanielM says is the case with Gov. Douglas), or when it's not strong enough-- for example, in the case of Jim Inhofe, who's one of the more outspoken AGW skeptics. However, for someone like Burr, the default assumption is close to correct, and providing more details adds little to the reader's understanding.
--Ammodramus (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Structuring the article based on "default assumptions" sounds to me like relying on stereotypes. I disagree with that approach. DanielM (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC) If the article becomes so bogged down with minutae such as a majority of the 37 issues you refer to, editors can prioritize and has it out at that point. I do not think it has reached that point. DanielM (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the "Environment" section. Before my edit, it read:
"Burr has generally received low ratings from environmental-protection organizations such as the League of Conservation Voters and Republicans for Environmental Protection. He voted against the environmental position on each of seven bills tracked by Environment America, a federation of environmental groups. Among those was a vote against a bill to provide legal protections to two million acres of federal lands in nine states, which passed. 25 other senators similarly voted against each of the seven bills.[2] He has received favorable ratings from the American Land Rights Association, a land-owner rights action group.[3]"
There were a number of problems with this paragraph.
  • It places undue weight on Environment America's rating. As I discuss a few posts up, EA's rating system is not a subtle one: over half of senators rated receive either perfect scores or zeros. Other groups use rating systems that are more sensitive to intra-wing differences.
  • EA also has a short history: it was founded in 2007. It seems more appropriate to cite ratings from groups that've been around longer and had time to establish reputations. (Beside, how important can an issue orgnaization be if there's no WP article about it?)
  • The description of EA as "a federation of environmental groups" is a bit disingenuous. According to their website, the groups are Environment Arizona, Environment California, Environment Colorado,...
  • The description of the bill in the third sentence is unsourced, and seems biased to me. The fact of its passage seems irrelevant to the article.
  • The description of ALRA is incomplete: they also concern themselves with restrictions on the use of federal lands.
I've reluctantly included EA in the list of environmental-protection organizations in the paragraph. Any more emphasis on that particular group seems misplaced. I've also added a (referenced, of course) description of ALRA from their website.
--Ammodramus (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Environment America text is not unduly weighted at all. It's short and to the point, provides a single example to give some detail to the section and make it more informative to read. I picked the example more or less at random. More questionable is your insertion of ALRA and wrapping it up as "Wise Use" movement, a somewhat Orwellian naming convention, without telling the reader that it's a group known for opposition to environmental protections. DanielM (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Using the phrase "federation of environmental groups" seems entirely straightforward and balanced to me. Perhaps you're engaging in some conspiracy theory development, Ammodramus, but I don't think you've researched it enough. Bloomberg.com news refers to them as a "coalition."[2] You're welcome to suggest some other appropriate word, but I find this word micromanagement a bit nitpicky. DanielM (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to take my fellow editor at his word about his semi-random selection of Environment America. I'm removing their numerical rating of Burr and replacing it with the ratings from the League of Conservation Voters and Republicans for Environmental Protection.; I'm also inserting the numerical rating for Burr from the American Land Rights Association. I trust that this will answer both his call for an "example to give some detail to the section", and my objections to the use of EA's ratings.
I've restored the description of ALRA as "a Wise Use organization". "Wise Use" is a well-known term on both sides of the environmental debate, although writers on one side often put ironic quotes around it. However, environmentalist writers also use it without the quotes.[3][4][5] By capitalizing the term and supplying an internal link, I think I made it fairly clear that it was not necessarily intended to convey its literal meaning. Describing ALRA as "a private property rights group" understates their position: the organization also has a strong agenda concerning federal lands, including support of the extraction industries and of "access" (read: snowmobiles and ORV's). I've also fixed my citation for ALRA's Wise Use status: the old one was probably a cut-and-paste error, for which I blush.
I assume that "a bill to provide legal protections to two million acres of federal lands in nine states, which passed" refers to the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. I've replaced that not-altogether-unbiased description with the bill's name and an internal link, and a brief statement of some of the arguments for and against it. I continue to believe that this is a level of detail unnecessary for this article; but if we must have such details, they should be NPOV.
--Ammodramus (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Ammodramus, to get your last comment first. I think the sentence about legal protections to the two million acres is unbiased. That's what it did. As begins to seem habitual for you, you just make an assertion about bias and don't explain why. The statement is NPOV and innocuous and accurate; the only thing I see that the description can be fairly faulted on is it is an incomplete description of the bill which had other non-central measures like some money for paralysis research. The central part of the bill was the environmental protection part though and the sentence is not biased at all. Nor was the fact of its passage unsourced, it was in the PDF at the reference that you keep deleting. If your objection was that it's incomplete, it could be addressed simply by inserting the word "mainly," not writing some mini-essay.

"Wise Use" is not as widely understood as you suggest. The fact that you capitalize and wikilink it doesn't diminish its suggestive and potentially misleading quality, plus it really has no place here at all, because the article is about Sen. Burr, not the ALRA. If you insist on "Wise Use" we should insert the words "so-called" in front of it. DanielM (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It is biased for you, Ammodramus, to insert a Republican party group as a reference for Burr's environmental credentials. DanielM (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll address DanielM's comments in reverse order.
Republicans for Environmental Protection gave Burr a rating of 29%. This does not suggest that the group gives high grades to all Republicans. To me, a 29% from an organization that might be inclined to overlook the environmental sins of a fellow Republican is a stronger indictment than a much lower numerical rating from a group whose members might share a broad-spectrum Green philosohy, and who might therefore be inclined to condemn a conservative Republican for reasons beside his environmental positions.
Wise Use: We need to characterize ALRA in some way; otherwise, coming as it does after a list of environmental-protection groups, it might be taken as yet another one of them. As I've argued above, calling them a "property-rights organization" fails to describe a major aspect of their position. Using "so-called" would be blatant editorializing: see WP:ALLEGED. Capitalizing the phrase signals that it has a meaning apart from its literal one; the internal link allows the reader to find out what that meaning is. By analogy with "pro-life" (used uncapitalized and with an internal link two paragraphs above the one under discussion), we should use "Wise Use" or "wise use"; I'm inclined toward the former, since the term isn't as well-known to the general public as "pro-life".
Description of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009: There are two issues here. First, "protection" has strong positive connotations: it implies that harm or evil is being averted. I'm not au courant with Wise Use literature, but I suspect that their description of the bill would speak of "restrictions" or of "withholding from productive use" or the like. A genuinely neutral description of that aspect of the bill would be something like "added two million acres to the National Wilderness Preservation System" or "conferred National Wilderness status on two milliion acres".
Second issue: That description only covers one aspect of the bill. As the "Omnibus" in the name suggests, this bill contained lots of material. That the environmental-protection aspect was central and that all the other features were peripheral is a subjective judgement. As an analogy, let me suggest the current health-care bill. By some quantitative measures, abortion is a very minor aspect: abortion-related language is a tiny fraction of the bill's total verbiage; abortions would probably represent less than one percent of the medical procedures financed under the bill; and spending on abortion would probably represent less than one percent of the federal funds spent by the bill's provisions. Nevertheless, the issue was a deciding one for many people. So with this bill: an aspect of it that might seem trifling to one person might seem critical indeed to another.
Since it wasn't possible to describe every aspect of this large and complex bill, I tried a second-best approach: briefly describing arguments by its supporters and opponents. Ideally, of course, I'd have used a well-referenced statement of Burr's reasoning behind his vote for the latter; but I couldn't find such a statement. I therefore listed three arguments from the supporters of the measure and three arguments from the opponents, with three references each. I tried to choose the three strongest and most frequently used arguments on each side.
--Ammodramus (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You've written quite a lot of verbiage here, and I'm not going to try to match it. I don't think a Wikipedia editor has to write discussion in large quantities to make a case for his or her edit. Reliable sources such as the AP refer to the ALRA as a property-rights group. We don't have to get into descriptive detail of the ALRA in the Burr article because you think that doesn't fully capture what the ALRA does. Reliable sources briefly categorize it as a property rights group, so can and should we. I'd suggest you edit the ALRA article if you want to get into all the detail you think is necessary for people to fully understand the ALRA. Also, you've continually deleted the text I put in and my reference for the rating an environmental group gave to Burr. Even though you've inserted a Republican party-affiliated group, I have left that in. Please stop deleting this sourced, NPOV, informative, appropriate text from the Burr article. I'm prepared to defend my edits should you revert again.DanielM (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the description of American Land Rights Association as a "Wise Use organization". The group itself uses "wise-use" in its mission statement, which is the citation I'm using.
I don't understand DanielM's objection to the use of the term. As I've documented above, it's in general use by both environmentalists and their opposites. There's a WP article on it, to which I link when I use the phrase. His preferred description of ALRA as "a property-rights organization" misses an important aspect of the group's position, which is support for resource extraction on and motor-vehicle access to federal lands. A property-rights organization would have little to say about the management of federal lands, except insofar as it affected access to private property; a Wise Use organization would probably have a very strong position on the matter, as ALRA in fact does.
I've also restored the structure of the second paragraph, concerning the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act. In the original version, I sought to achieve NPOV by using closely parallel sentences to describe the positions of the measure's supporters and opponents: "Supporters argued that (three things). Opponents contended that (three things)." Recent edits have eliminated the parallel structure, leaving only the opponents associated with the defensive verb "contend". This appears contrary to the guidelines laid down in WP:SAY.
A recent edit to the phrase "energy development" added the parenthetical note "(drilling etc.)" This note seems unnecessary: the term "energy development" is in common use. However, I've changed "energy development" to "oil and gas production".
I've removed a paragraph concerning Burr's rating by Environment America. In the first paragraph of this section, we have ratings by three groups concerned with environmental matters: League of Conservation Voters, which is a mainstream environmental organization with a large membership and a long history; Republicans for Environmental Protection, which also supports environmental-protection measures but might be inclined to cut Republican Burr some slack; and ALRA, which tends to oppose the environmentalist position. The three groups' ratings are in general agreement, and combine to create a picture of Burr as someone whose positions and votes tend to be opposed by environmentalist groups and supported by their opposites.
The EA rating adds nothing to this picture. Moreover, giving EA a paragraph of its own seems contrary to the principles in WP:DUE. EA is not as well-known as other environmental organizations—I wasn't being facetious when I pointed out previously that it has no WP article. It has only been in existence since 2007, so it doesn't have a long-standing reputation like LCV or Sierra Club. Its rating system is not at all nuanced: of the senators it rated, over half received either perfect scores or zeros.
The rest of the excised paragraph is concerned largely with the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act, which has already been described in more detail in the preceding paragraph.
--Ammodramus (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly not accurate to claim that "property-rights group" is my "personal preference" right after I cited the phrase to a reliable source (the AP) and called your attention to it in my comment. Your position, Ammodramus, that we go by the ALRA's own short description of itself as "Wise Use" is undercut by Wikipedia policy WP:V (Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves) because it is self-serving and we have a more reliable source; please don't delete it again. Your use of "closely parallel structure" to achieve NPOV doesn't really do anything of the sort, unless the words are also NPOV. The statement that a group supports an environmental law because it "protects" the land is simply accurate; you diminish it by portraying it as an "argument." To be fair to the other side, we should point out its position that there are countervailing interests of extracting energy resources and the sanctity of property rights etc. but this doesn't transform the goal of protection into a mere "argument." I don't think "contend" is really a "defensive verb" such that it warps the NPOV tone of the text, but if you don't like it, you shouldn't have put it in there. Pick another verb! We should, again, go to reliable sources if you can't concede these obvious and reasonable micro-points that I don't think I'd be debating with 97% of other Wikipedia editors. I want to be fair and accurate with respect to Senator Burr, but I don't want the article spun in his favor either. DanielM (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

DanielM has found and cited a source in which an AP writer refers to the American Land Rights Association as a property-rights group; I've found and cited a source in which an AP writer calls them a Wise Use group. The situation seems to be one that calls for editorial judgement.
I've stated my reasons for preferring "Wise Use" to "property-rights", and am reluctant to repeat them lest I seem, well, repetitive. However, I'd be glad to restate them upon request.
I'm not sure if I understand DanielM's reasons for preferring "property rights" to "Wise Use". Could I ask him to elaborate on them, please?
--Ammodramus (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already discussed it above. The average Wikipedia reader is not naturally going to understand "Wise Use." You're wrong to draw an equivalency between your reference and mine on the short description for the ALRA, because your reference (which you had to go back 14 years for, that's quite a stretch) is not a short description but an exploration of the suggestively-named "Wise Use" movement which has little to do with the point at hand and less to do with Sen. Burr. I've also cited the Wikipedia policy warning about self-serving self-descriptions, and you didn't respond at all to that. DanielM (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Respond I shall, since this seems to get to the heart of our disagreement.
Our differences seem to revolve around an adverb. The relevant standard in WP:SELFPUB for excluding a group's self-description is that it is "unduly self-serving".
DanielM believes that ALRA's use of "wise-use" to describe itself is unduly self-serving. I agree that it is self-serving, but not that it is unduly so. Rather, it's comparable to an anti-abortion group's describing itself as "pro-life", or an abortion-rights group's characterizing itself as "pro-choice".
In all three cases, the term was coined to give the movement a positive sound; and in all three cases, the literal meaning of the term would fail to give a naive reader a picture of the group's philosophy and positions. In all three cases, the term is used by the mainstream media (as I've documented above for "Wise Use"); and in all three cases, some of the group's more vehement opponents have rejected the term as obscuring the less palatable aspects of the group's philosophy.
So, here, with "Wise Use". DanielM has described the term as "suggestive", "potentially misleading", and "Orwellian"; and he has urged that we qualify it with "so-called". It's become fairly clear in the course of this discussion that he disagrees rather strongly with the Wise Use movement. While I don't think he's intentionally trying to bias the article, I think that these views are affecting his editorial decisions.
If "Wise Use" is potentially misleading, there's no "potentially" about describing ALRA as a "property-rights group": the description is a misleading one. If I encountered that description, I would assume that it was a group that was up in arms about the Kelo case; in an environmental context, that it was opposed to things like habitat-protection regulations enforced on privately-held land. ALRA's position goes far beyond this; their interpretation of "property rights" includes such things as the right drive to drive ORV's across federal lands and the right to establish new mineral claims on them.
That said, I am going to try to cut this particular Gordian knot by removing all description of ALRA. Since the group's rating is now in a different paragraph from those of the pro-environmentalist groups, the likelihood that a reader will mistake it for another of them is greatly reduced. We still have an internal link for them, which will enable readers to find out what ALRA says and does.
I am moving that paragraph up so that it immediately follows the one with the numerical ratings for LCV, etc. I think that it's more evenhanded to keep the ratings together. I'd done this once before, but the paragraph was moved back to follow the one about the Omnibus Act. I don't know if this was intentional, or if my repositioning was the casualty of a hasty revert. If the former is the case, I'd like to see some justification for it.
--Ammodramus (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Really, I am right here. I guess you are playing to the gallery or something else by carrying on the discussion referring to me in third-person. No, I reject your assertion that I base my edits on disagreement with the "Wise Use" movement. My edits are made to make the article better and more informative to Wikipedia readers, and I ground them in WP policy. I might as well say you just love the Wise Use movement and that's why you want to put it in the Burr article where it doesn't belong at all, but I don't see the need to draw conclusions about your motivation; it's your edits that I've found wanting, not personally but for the reasons I've said above. It's not misleading at all to refer to the ALRA as a property rights group, not one bit, in fact reliable sources do so. That's what it is. This interminable polemic of yours, paraphrasing, "oh, but ALRA does so much more than that" doesn't make "property-rights group" any less valid at all, IMO. It's a short description. We can't describe every aspect of it. By analogy, Elvis Presley was a rock-and-roll singer. By saying that I don't imply that he wasn't an actor or a guitarist or a great or bad dad or whatever. I'm not denying he was the King. It's a short description, and it's appropriate to describe him that way. The other stuff you're saying... adverb tonalities, evenhandedness of *positioning* the text... <sigh>. I think you're parsing things way too finely. It's better to put the ALRA sentence at the end, so it's not confused with the environmental protection groups, but we made some progress and I'm not going to muck with that right now. DanielM (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Short description for ALRA

The text has less problems than it did, but we still need a short description for the ALRA so that it not be confused with the environmental protection groups. Ammodramus, you've quarreled with "property-rights group" which is the short description used by several reliable sources, on the basis that it is incomplete. Since we can't very well fit an entire catalog of ALRA's positions within a short description, why don't you identify the next most important thing that ALRA does, and maybe then something like "ALRA, a property-rights group that also ____________" could be inserted. Driving ORVs, mineral extraction on federal lands, whatever big number 2 speaks plainly and is short. DanielM (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.environmentwashington.org/reports/other-issues/more-issues/congressional-scorecard-2009
  2. ^ http://www.environmentwashington.org/reports/other-issues/more-issues/congressional-scorecard-2009
  3. ^ "Interest Group Ratings: Senator Richard M. Burr (NC): Environmental Issues". Project Vote Smart. Retrieved 2010-01-07.

Second intro paragraph

The second paragraph seems to be mostly opinion, "strikingly" doesn't seem an appropriate word here. Should be rephrased to be more biographical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.41.16 (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Content in Intro

I removed the references to specific votes in the intro because it's not clear why any of them are significant enough to warrant mention there. This is particularly true regarding the references to support for Bush in Iraq and his stance on abortion. Both of those should have secondary sources to indicate their significance.CFredkin (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ranking member of Committee on Veterans' Affairs attacks several vets groups

And this is not notable (despite great deals of press coverage) why exactly? Hcobb (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits don't say anything about this.CFredkin (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/richard-burr-vietnam-veterans-veterans-affairs-scandal-va-107147.html Several other veterans’ organizations have responded angrily to Burr’s letter. Top officials at the Veterans of Foreign Wars called his comments a “monumental cheap shot.” The Paralyzed Veterans of America said the senator “clearly represent[s] the worst of politics in this country.”

So what's the fair and balanced way to cover Burr's war on vets? Hcobb (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This and this ain't it.CFredkin (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
This was an explosive issue in 2014. PBS News has a detailed article here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/president-obamas-post-iraq-afghanistan-world/ --Smilo Don (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Content not supported by source

There's no reference to "praise", "fearless", or "debt" in the source provided for this edit.CFredkin (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If you are looking for a word-for-word reproduction of everything from the article in the source, that is plain tendentiousness, and I suggest you leave off edit-warring over it. 59.97.32.195 (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

"Express the Sense" amendments about Climate Change

I inserted the actual text of the amendments, which define what sense is being expressed. "Express the Sense" is commonly used by the US Senate, but one has to read below, to find out how such sense is being defined. Thus I've included it. http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=8a1a3532-bcb1-447c-b384-03b50c6a36c9 The amendment is an affirmation of human caused climate change. Burr voted against the amendment. (This is corroborated, BTW, in his public statements on climate change in which he questions whether it is happening and whether or not the science is valid. --Smilo Don (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)



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) 22:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 21:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Richard Burr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 13:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Associated Press interview

An editor is suppressing content regarding the subject's current opinion regarding the alleged "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections". Per WP:BRD this reversion should be reviewed, as the opinion of the subject should IMHO be included.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring content policies (two were identified in the edit summary) and focusing on other editors is not the way to resolve a content dispute. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
We have a disagreement on the alleged use of the policy to deny content which is clearly verifiable to a reliable source. Just cause another editor alleges a guideline applies, does not make it so.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
NOTNEWS is a poor excuse for excluding content about the subject and what the subject stated in the interview, which falls within the scope of this article, and covered in the Washington Examiner, and the The Hill.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you.
I'm finding the parallels with the discussions at Talk:PragerU#Shadow_banning concerning.
Time will tell if this bit of information will be an indication of outcomes, or just giving journalists something to run with. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Emerging Coronavirus Controversy

In recent news, it has been suspected that Sen. Richard Burr used his private knowledge of COVID-19 to his financial self-benefit and the benefit of a few constituents according to this report by NPR. When more information about this comes out, should this be added to the Wikipedia page? --Milkael Shakestein (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It is already there. Agricolae (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Intro: Businessman

Why does it say he is a businessman? He worked as a sales employee for a lawnmower company and has a B.A. in Communications. I have not been able to find a single business that he founded. This is wide of the mark. It should be left out ("Burr is the senior United States Senator from North Carolina, serving since 2005"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46831893513a (talk • contribs) 06:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a valid criticism, but we generally do like to indicate what a politico's 'original career' was (if anything) in the introductory sentence. What would be the better way to briefly describe a lawn equipment sales manager? Maybe just 'salesman', if we know that he did that rather than just managing salesmen. Or maybe after 20+ years we conclude that what he did before no longer represents a significant aspect of his identify and just call him a 'politician and senator'. Agricolae (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft status?

Although being of the right age, this gentleman did not serve in the military. Is there any way of determining his draft status? --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The short answer is that to avoid WP:NOR, you would have to find a reliable source that reported it, rather than digging it out yourself. The long answer is that though you can find tables online that give the draft number for his birth date (e.g. [6], reporting the number for his birth date as 104), it is moot. Those born in 1955, such as Burr, were subject to the 1974 draft lottery but actual conscription had already ceased by then. The really long answer would involve a serious archive dive in the records of mandatory physicals and applications for college deferments, but these records are not open to the public, and are somewhat meaningless since legislative authority to carry out the draft itself had expired the year before. The really short answer, then, is that he was too young for the draft. Agricolae (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I shall have to spend the afternoon looking at your wonderful cite. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Insider trading lawsuit

@Omegatron: I see you added back in the longer quote from the lawsuit. That isn't appropriate because it's from a primary source, and Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. More generally, it's a very weak source - people can allege anything they like in filing a lawsuit, including things that aren't true at all, and which would be WP:BLP violations. If the lawsuit is resolved some day, Wikipedia can report on the results, but it's disproportionate to just take a plaintiff's filing at face value and include a long quote without reliable sources backing it. SnowFire (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@SnowFire: No, secondary sources are only preferred for interpretation of primary sources. There's no interpretation here. The primary source of the quote is the strongest, most reliable source you could get. The lawsuit is notable and verifiable, please stop removing information about it. — Omegatron (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm with SnowFire on this. There are two separate questions that are being blurred in your response. The lawsuit is clearly both noteworthy and verifiable, but the existence of the lawsuit has never been questioned here and the text indicating that the lawsuit exists was never removed, and now you have gone and pointlessly referenced-bombed that never-disputed sentence with six references: overkill - one, two at most are needed, not six. That the existence of the suit is noteworthy, though, doesn't mean that every minute detail found in the primary source is itself noteworthy, and the only thing SnowFire has challenged is whether these details exclusively derived from the primary source are noteworthy enough to be included. I would suggest that if none of your six secondary sources for the suit find these precise details noteworthy for their own coverage, we should follow their lead and leave them out, while if any of them does include these details then we should cite that secondary reference for the more detailed sentence rather than just throwing it in with five others to document the undisputed sentence, while leaving the more detailed one hanging on the primary source alone. Agricolae (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Agricolae has it exactly. Yes, it's fine to mention the lawsuit. No, a long primary source quote is not relevant, and your ref-bomb if anything proves the point - the NPR story doesn't include such a long quote either. I'm sorry, but please read WP:PRIMARY if you're going to link it - it does not say that "primary sources are the strongest, most reliable source you can get", it says the reverse that such sources are not preferred on Wikipedia because they tend to inherently introduce editor bias & interpretation even when well-meaning. SnowFire (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Gas Prices

Why can we not use American oil? If gas prices don’t come down the average person will not survive. We are retired and on fixed incomes. We need your help in Washington. 174.111.233.203 (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.burr.senate.gov/email-me soibangla (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Burr/Archive_1&oldid=1094608001"