Jump to content

Talk:Ron Johnson/Archive 1

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

Untitled

Johnson is a candidate for U.S. Senate. Most polls show he and Sen. Feingold in a close election in November. He is as noteworthy as anyone running for office and perhaps more so as this race is now drawing national attention in terms of endorsements, donations, and political news stories. We should have a wiki page for every candidate running for the U.S. Senate and U.S House this November of any party that is on the ballot. MaxMercy (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

He is as notable as anyone running for office? You've read WP:POLITICIAN, right? Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've read it and he is a candidate in a closely fought senate election that has recevied a lot of attention. There are already a good number of stories and polls on this race. Anyone that follows U.S. campaigns closely knows who Sen. Feingold is and is aware that he now seems poised for another tight reelection campaign like he had in 1998. Johnson is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxMercy (talk • contribs) 19:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Then show it. If you know the policy, why did you write an article that fails it so conclusively? You've been here for a year or so now. Ironholds (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not an expert like you. I did my best to show it with links to the Politico.com stories, the George Will column, etc. I agree it needs more, but I don't think it should be speedily deleted. You seem pretty triger happy to do that. MaxMercy (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course he's notable. Here's what we did in 2008: 'No-hopers' have their campaign site, Project Vote Smart page listed in-line in the election article, as they aren't notable in their own right, just in connection with the campaign. Notable candidates (lots of coverage because the election is expected to be close, for example) get their own articles. Those in-between get a proportional writeup in the election article. Flatterworld (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ironholds is always trigger happy, and is wrong 99% of the time. He also claims to be "Apolitical" yet always seems to be neck deep in plitics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.147.52.109 (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Jostens

It was founded in Owatonna, Minnesota. I presume the accounting department would be there, but I wouldn't add that to the article. Just pointing it out in case it helps anyone find verifiable information. Flatterworld (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

PACUR LCC needs to be changed to PACUR LLC in the Career section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wreardan (talk • contribs) 17:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.21.99.188, 12 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Footnote #6 does not work 69.21.99.188 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Under Global Warming

"I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change. It's not proven by any stretch of the imagination...It's far more likely that it's just sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time. Excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 'gets sucked down by trees and helps the trees grow.'" —Wisconsin GOP Senate candidate Ron Johnson, Aug. 16, 2010 Johnson has also said, "I'm glad there is global warming." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.76.202 (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the sources for sunspots affect on global warming attributed to the Christian Science Monitor should be taken out as it is not scientific, highly dogmatic and represents a political agenda and not scientific fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorianwilde (talk • contribs) 15:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

96ty as Senate seniority

{{Edit semi-protected}} fix to 96th; if title sources "List of current...", change to Seniority in the United States Senate|, so that redirect is unnecessary. 75.202.14.114 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 chat 17:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Profile Photo

Why the weird, blurry, unflattering photo? Is that really the best you could find? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.24.52 (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If someone could get his official senate photo, that would certainly be preferred. --Gb supernova (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Just contacted his office, I should be able to get it within the next couple weeks. Connormah (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Political positions

Why don't we merge replace the tenure subsection with a Political positions section, it is far and away the standard for most senate members, and it makes for a much easier reference this way as a section in itself.Questionable pulse (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I was about to bring this up. You posted this here around two years ago so I'm going to go ahead and split the section into two. If there is any disagreement, post here. Whitestorm17 (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A thesis for an MBA?

No business school I'm aware of as ever required a thesis for an MBA during Johnson's lifetime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.197.231 (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Health care

This section just uncritically recites Johnson's own factually incorrect narrative that members of Congress are somehow not "subject to the full text of the Affordable Care Act that the rest of the nation must follow." 75.76.213.161 (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 13:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Career in plastics and family connection

The article is quite deficient in the area of his career. Working for his brother in-law, is not exactly an entrepreneur. Accuracy of the article should be important. [1] Needs a section in article http://www.progressive.org/news/2016/05/188740/senate-historian-removes-ron-johnsons-big-lie-official-bio --Wikipietime (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The truth about Ron Johnson and PACUR".

For reference, the current version of biography; "In July of 1979, Ron and Jane moved to Oshkosh to start a business with Jane’s brother. The company -PACUR- began producing plastic sheet for packaging and printing applications. From operating the equipment, to keeping the company books, and selling its products, Ron has been involved in every function of the business. It is this body of experience and private sector perspective that he now brings to the Senate." http://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/biography --Wikipietime (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in the article where he's referred to as an entrepreneur. What specific changes are you suggesting? Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The heated reelection 2016 has him trailing on June 15 2016. More coverage in article would be aprapho. Wikipietime (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. No one hates this idea. (non-admin closure) Natureium (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ron Johnson (American politician) → Ron Johnson (Wisconsin politician) – Given there are two state legislators listed at Ron Johnson, I believe that this should be moved back for it was moved without discussion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 11:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

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

BREAKING: July 6 2018,Tonight on Sirius XM's "The Big Picture" Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, who celebrated July 4th in Moscow, said that it's time to “evaluate” if we should lift sanctions on Russia over their annexation of Crimea. Wikipietime (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I've altered the title of this section to not be promoting a POV. And, no, it's not worth including this based simply on a single radio interview. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

RJ is being underrepresented in Ukrainian role

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-johnson-ally-of-trump-and-ukraine-surfaces-in-crucial-episodes-in-the-saga/2019/10/28/40b9e44c-f684-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html Tinybirdie (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC) [[User:|Tinybirdie]] :Thanks for the post of the article which addresses some of the loony conspiracy theories, and Johnson's enthusiastic central role in "attacking the messengers," to wit:

Sen. Johnson, ally of Trump and Ukraine, surfaces in crucial episodes in the saga Oct. 28, 2019 Sen. Ron Johnson met in July with a former Ukrainian diplomat who has circulated unproven claims that Ukrainian officials assisted Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, a previously unreported contact that underscores the GOP senator’s involvement in the unfolding narrative that triggered the impeachment inquiry of President Trump. In an interview last week, Andrii Telizhenko said he met with Johnson (Wis.) for at least 30 minutes on Capitol Hill and with Senate staff for five additional hours. He said discussions focused in part on “the DNC issue” — a reference to his unsubstantiated claim that the Democratic National Committee worked with the Ukrainian government in 2016 to gather incriminating information about Paul Manafort, then the chairman of Trump’s presidential campaign. Telizhenko said he could not recall the date of the meeting, but a review of his Facebook page revealed a photo of him and Johnson posted on July 11. An individual close to Johnson confirmed that staff members for one of his committees met with Telizhenko as part of an ongoing investigation into the FBI and its probes of the 2016 election. The person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, declined to say whether the senator was involved. The meeting points to Johnson’s emerging role as the member of Congress most heavily involved in the Ukraine saga that has engulfed the White House and threatened Trump with impeachment. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky faced pressure to announce investigations into the family of former vice president Joe Biden and into the debunked conspiracy theory that a hacked DNC server was taken to Ukraine in 2016 to hide evidence that it was that country, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 election. Trump has accused Biden — a potential 2020 rival — of trying to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired to stop an investigation of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company for which his son, Hunter Biden, had served on the board. Johnson has had to strike a delicate balance in recent months between these positions and his support for Trump... and last month wrote a letter that mentioned Telizhenko and his claims while asking Attorney General William P. Barr to investigate any links between Clinton’s 2016 campaign and Ukraine. On Oct. 4, Johnson told the Wall Street Journal that he “winced” when told by a key diplomat in August that Trump would release the hold on military aid for Ukraine if Zelensky launched an investigation into “what happened in 2016.” "My reaction was: Oh, God. I don’t want to see those two things combined." Johnson said Trump adamantly denied a quid pro quo the next day, telling Johnson: “No way. I would never do that. Who told you that?" On Oct. 6, Johnson gave a combative interview during NBC’s “Meet the Press.” As host Chuck Todd pressed him on why he had “winced” on being told that Trump conditioned military aid on investigations, Johnson emphasized that the president “vehemently, angrily denied” that such an arrangement ever existed. Johnson also expressed sympathy for Trump and attacked the media, saying he had “never seen a president’s administration be sabotaged from the day after election.” Telizhenko, with whom Johnson met in July, is a political consultant and former Ukrainian diplomat who has fueled the unsubstantiated theory embraced by Trump that Ukraine assisted Clinton in the 2016 election with help from the Democratic National Committee. The 29-year-old Ukrainian national had a lengthy meeting in May with Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani... Telizhenko said he discussed two unsubstantiated claims with Giuliani that have since become central to Trump’s attitudes toward Ukraine — that the Ukrainian embassy in Washington where Telizhenko once worked aided Clinton’s campaign, and that Joe Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to stop an investigation of the energy company. Telizhenko told The Post that the “DNC issue” was also “one of the top topics” during his meetings with Johnson and Senate staffers, referring to his claim that a Ukrainian American working as a DNC contractor coordinated with the embassy to find compromising material on Trump and Manafort. Embassy staffers, the former contractor and the Biden family have vehemently denied these claims. Trump made Ukraine aid contingent on public pledge to investigate Bidens and 2016 election, U.S. envoy says he was told Johnson attended Zelensky’s inauguration in May with U.S. ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, then-special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker and National Security Council official Alexander Vindman. All but Perry and Johnson have testified or are scheduled to testify before the House probe. Johnson denied Sondland’s version of events last week, saying he had “no recollection of the president mentioning Rudy Giuliani” at the May 23 meeting. Trump had barred Johnson from telling Zelensky that aid was on its way, Johnson told reporters in Sheboygan, Wis., this month. On Oct. 4, Johnson told reporters that he was not in favor of the president using his office to pressure a foreign government to launch investigations that could benefit him politically — but added that he was “not sure that’s what’s happening” with Trump. The previous day, he had said there was nothing wrong with Trump urging China to investigate his potential 2020 rival, Joe Biden. “I want to find out what happened during 2016,” Johnson said in Middleton, Wis., according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “If there’s potential criminal activity, the president of the United States is our chief law enforcement officer. We have proper agreements with countries to investigate potential crimes so I don’t think there’s anything improper about doing that

Vindman

I deleted the following material, which was included in the section on Donald Trump and the Ukraine:

Vindman was brought to the U.S. with his identical twin brother by their widowed father when they were three years old. He is a decorated veteran from the Iraq war, including having received a Purple Heart after being wounded in an IED blast. He is fluent in Russian and Ukranian.[1][2].[3][4]

This material was included in the section on Johnson's suggestion that Vindman may have conspired to undermine Trump's presidency. In my edit summary, I stated that the material was irrelevant. At this time, I would also add that is excessively detailed (given that the article is about Johnson and not Vindman) and smacks of POV, as it seems designed to cast doubt on Johnson's suggestion.

User:Activist reinstated the material without offering a reason. User:Activist, please state your rationale for including this material. Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow (talk · contribs) You've extensively reverted text which I've carefully edited in this article, as you've often done with other articles. I've included background material on the victim of Johnson's attacks which has been mentioned extensively and in copious detail in the House Intelligence Committee hearings, by committee members on both sides, as well as in print and in broadcast for weeks, and in particular for the past few days. I can't imagine that you're not aware of that. There's been round the clock TV coverage and national and international news. The upset with the attacks on Vindman has been extensive, even as exhibited by Republican Intelligence Committeeman Will Hurd. I assume that you're stalking me once again. Please tell me why I shouldn't get that impression. Activist (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hakim, Danny (October 29, 2019). "Army Officer Who Heard Trump's Ukraine Call Reported Concerns". The New York Times.
  2. ^ Kitman, Carol. "The Vindman Twins". Retrieved November 19, 2019.
  3. ^ Rempfer, Kyle (October 29, 2019). "Purple Heart, Ranger tab, FAO: Meet the Army officer testifying about Trump's Ukraine". Army Times. Retrieved November 19, 2019.
  4. ^ Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (2019-11-19). "Who Is Alexander Vindman? A Ukrainian Refugee Turned White House Official Testifies in the Impeachment Inquiry". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-10-29.
I am probably not the only editor or Wikipedia reader, as probably some members of the media have recognized that Johnson's participation in the attacks on Vindman echo that execrable experience during the Army-McCarthy hearings 65 1/2 years ago, when an attorney was personally attacked to distract from the substance of the hearings. I also recall that it was Republican Senator Prescott Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush's father, who rose to condemn this sort of behavior in congress. From the Wikipedia article:

In what played out to be the most dramatic exchange of the hearings, McCarthy responded to aggressive questioning from Army counsel Joseph Welch. On June 9, 1954, day 30 of the hearings, Welch challenged Cohn to give McCarthy's list of 130 subversives in defense plants to the office of the FBI and the Department of Defense "before the sun goes down".[24] In response to Welch's challenge, McCarthy suggested that Welch should check on Fred Fisher, a young lawyer in Welch's own Boston law firm whom Welch had planned to have on his staff for the hearings.[25] McCarthy then mentioned that Fisher had once belonged to the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), a group which Attorney General Brownell had called "the legal bulwark of the Communist Party".[26]

Welch revealed he had confirmed Fisher's former membership in the National Lawyers' Guild approximately six weeks before the hearings started.[27] After Fisher admitted his membership in the National Lawyers' Guild, Welch decided to send Fisher back to Boston.[28] His replacement by another colleague on Welch's staff was also covered by The New York Times.[29][30] Welch then reprimanded McCarthy for his needless attack on Fisher, saying that "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness."[31] McCarthy, accusing Welch of filibustering the hearing and baiting Cohn, dismissed Welch's dissertation and casually resumed his attack on Fisher, at which point Welch angrily cut him short:[25]

Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyer's Guild ... Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator; you've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

Welch excluded himself from the remainder of the hearings with a parting shot to McCarthy:[32] "Mr. McCarthy, I will not discuss this further with you. You have seen fit to bring [the Fisher/NLG affair] out, and if there is a God in heaven, it will do neither you nor your cause any good! I will not discuss it further... You, Mr. Chairman, may as you will, call the next witness!"[33] After Welch deferred to Chairman Mundt to call the next witness, the gallery burst into applause.[34]
User:Activist: First of all, this page is on my watchlist, as are many pages relating to American political figures. I am not stalking you. Second of all, we are talking about two sentences of text here, which is hardly an example of me "extensively reverting" anything; if you consider other edits I have made on this page to be problematic, you can raise those issues separately. Third of all, nothing in the disputed text said anything about the "upset with the attacks on Vindman". If you believe that such "upset" is notable, please feel free to add text and sources that describe it. Including a two-sentence bio of Vindman with no explanation is just awkward. Fourth of all, contrary to your assumption, I pay as little attention to Trump-related controversies as possible and have no awareness of Vindman beyond having seen his face on TV a few times. SunCrow (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
SunCrow I don't need your permission to "raise issues separately," nor your okay to "feel free to add" edits. Whatever you might somehow imagine, you don't have such authority to order me or any other Wikipedia editor around. Neither you nor I determine what is "notable." The concerted reckless and unwarranted attacks on Vindman, in particular, have gone hugely viral, and widespread international opinion decries these "kill the messenger" tactics. The reckless assaults on the integrity and character of Vindman have given the U.S. Army such concerns for the safety of the colonel and his family that it has moved them to a secure location. Johnson has consciously and deliberately made himself the most prominent actor in leveling these attacks, and he's been joined by the likes of Devin Nunes who just put "bomb-thrower" https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jim-jordan-bows-out-of-running-for-top-gop-judiciary-post Jim Jordan on the Committee, not to ask pertinent questions, but rather for the express purpose to unleash unrestrained streams of vitriol at witnesses to elements of prospective articles of impeachment. If Johnson was concerned about the consequences of his self-appointed role in the campaign against Vindman and other witnesses, he might think about taking the advice of another prominent historical midwestern politician, HST: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Lastly, you have a penchant and affinity for peddling conspiratorial nonsense on Wikipedia, like your recent cut-and-paste posting of swaths of text to articles regarding the inconsequential "voter suppression" by those two nutcases in Philadephia back in 2008, where there was zero evidence that even a single vote was actually prevented from being cast. Activist (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Activist, that is a load of crap. SunCrow (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Aww, that is so sweet. I didn't know you could be so nice! Activist (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Johnson's vote against a bipartisan coronavirus bill is clearly WP:DUE

It's due, as shown by substantial RS coverage, both by Wisconsin and national newspapers. There is little doubt whatsoever that the content has long-term encyclopedic value and meets any level of WP:DUE criteria: few can doubt that the legislation is both important and aberrational (in the sense that it has overwhelming bipartisan support in the House, Senate and from Trump). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for a "Political positions of Ron Johnson" page

At the moment the political positions section makes up the bulk of Johnson's Wikipedia article, and the subsections chosen range from minute to of lasting significance, it'd be beneficial if we were to create a new page for the vast majority of what is written here so we may keep the more important articles, whatever we may decide that to be, here for the reader to more easily see. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

We need a few more uses of the word staunch

It currently only has 4.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2022

Where's the citation for this statement?

"fringe theories about COVID-19, and spread misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations."

2604:2D80:E506:8F00:C59A:78A7:D271:6233 (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

In Ron Johnson (Wisconsin politician)#COVID-19 pandemic, further down in the article. We don't always give in-line citations for everything in the lede as everything there is meant to be the highlights of things that are going to be discussed in greater detail in the main body of the article. Cannolis (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

POV concerns

This page is blatantly rhetorical and partisan. Supporters of Ron Johnson will think the content is selective and inaccurate. This reads like a political hit piece from his opponent. This editorializing slams the idea that Wikipedia is neutral. Hey wikipedia, take off the lock or write both sides, supporters and opponents! 2601:191:8303:820:8059:3F6:9A90:4BE2 (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Please provide examples of each so we can judge. 71.93.234.234 (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

A whole lot of stuff without sources here. Political agenda??? 46.9.75.213 (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

please provide the examples of "stuff" 71.93.234.234 (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I font think that the DNC itself could have written such a slanted entry. I would have love to correct some of the misinformation in the piece, but it is locked. I think Senator Johnson should sue for libel. 173.66.88.134 (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

That's because you haven't made an account yet, IP. That's why it's locked. Usually, in high-traffic articles editors are required to have an account to edit. I agree that this article isn't exactly neutral, but immediately jumping the shark to a lawsuit is preposterous. Cheers, The man from Gianyar (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The page is a dishonest political hit piece on Senator Ron Johnson, starting with the online Wikipedia image. After seeing that, it's clear to all that the article will be political and not informational, and it's unfortunate that Wikipedia is being reduced to that.
Mrice601 (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Too general. Could you please provide examples? Libel? Hmm. Examples would make your opinion seem based on evidence. 71.93.234.234 (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree that there are quite a lot of issues with this article (particularly the "Political positions" section), and some of those issues are related to a non-neutral POV. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I submitted this version as a more neutral compromise for the lead https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Johnson_(Wisconsin_politician)&diff=1059490561&oldid=1059489831. What do you think, User:力 (powera, π, ν)? Davefelmer (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Your version omits that Johnson has used his position in the Senate to spread baseless conspiracy theories about Trump's opponents (including the FBI and whistleblowers), which is something that RS flag as a prominent feature about him. It also whitewashes his extremist rhetoric regarding the January 6th insurrection. It also highlights some meaningless nonsense regarding Johnson's regarding the COVID-19 pandemic (some nonsense about how he acknowledged the severity of the situation) while downplaying how Johnson has used his powers as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee to push crackpot conspiracy theories and lies about the pandemic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
First of all, I wasn’t speaking to you. Second of all, it literally says “launched investigations into his (Trump’s) political opponents”. The thing about FBI conspiracies in relation to the Trump-Ukraine scandal was in two lines of a monstrously long, multi paragraph section, so it in no way warrants lead preference since it isn’t a major part of the article body. No idea what “flagged as prominent about him in RS” means at all here. Like, what? Just because sources denote it doesn’t mean it deserves lead prominence. For your statement to make sense, sources that merely document who he is would have to include that as part of their brief overview, which they don’t, hence it can’t be included. Also, you give the game away when you get tonally much more aggressive and refer to January 6th as an “insurrection” while the project position is to refer to it as an attack or storming https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_attack. Combined with “crackpot” conspiracies and it’s clear you are not able to be calm and objective here based on your own personal views and beliefs so I’m suggesting you take a step back otherwise you risk being reported for an inability to edit neutrally, in good faith and avoid WP:ACTIVISM on these types of articles. Davefelmer (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
@Davefelmer:

First of all, I wasn’t speaking to you.

You seem to be confused about the nature of this project. This is Wikipedia, a collaborate international project. Everyone can chime in, not just people "you're speaking to". BirdValiant (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I noticed these issues too. Also, I don't think that including his denial of climate change is automatically undue. On the one hand, the Republican party officially denies anthropogenic climate change, so any individual member espousing these beliefs isn't extraordinary within that group. On the other hand, the Republican party is virtually alone in the developed world as a major political party which officially holds such a stance. I would say that if a particular politician, such as Johnson, has developed an extensive history of commentary and has voted for policies which effectively deny the reality of climate change, and if this is regularly mentioned in reliable sources, then I think that it probably is WP:DUE to mention such a stance in the lede. After all, what makes COVID misinformation more worthy for inclusion than climate misinformation? BirdValiant (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
The issue isn’t one of sources, it’s one of notability for the lead. Ultimately the lead is still supposed to be limited to just who someone is and a summary of the most notable parts of their life, and this doesn’t fall into either category. It’s just one of many political positions he holds that are given a few lines in the body and there’s no basis for spotlighting one over others beyond user personal preference. Plus, he walked back his denial of climate change in 2016, so any comment on it would have had to have been that he did not initially acknowledge the scientific consensus but later accepted climate change as an existing issue although he hasn’t walked back his comments on not believing it’s caused by humans. COVID is given lead prominence because the project previously had discussions affirming that it’s a lead-worthy issue, whereas no such consensus exists for climate change and it’s not something that’s applied to article leads as any kind of standard in other articles. Davefelmer (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no violation of NPOV in the article. There is nothing substantive in the comments above. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The Davefelmer version is slightly better, but it is easy to see why Snoogans calls it a whitewash. Regardless, it's a problem if this article has a lede section more negative than that of Joseph McCarthy or Theodore Bilbo, and also a problem how much of the article comes up with new ways to say Johnson supported something bad that Trump did. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, I find During the COVID-19 pandemic, Johnson acknowledged the severity of the disease to "somewhere between 1 and 3.4 percent of the population" and voted for the CARES Act unacceptable; the rest is a better starting-place to improve the lede. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah so re your point about the negativity of the article, I looked back and the lead was essentially just your regular politician's article as recently as February 11 of this year https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Johnson_(Wisconsin_politician)&diff=1006137668&oldid=1005219148 until - wouldn't you know it!- Snoogans himself made this ghastly edit on February 13 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Johnson_(Wisconsin_politician)&diff=1006604927&oldid=1006603685 and that's where it all began. So essentially, the guy is coming on here to defend his own work, but regardless, we should do our best to sift through this and find something that actually works. So how about this?
"A staunch ally of President Donald Trump, Johnson voted for Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, supported Trump's decision to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), launched investigations into his political opponents and promoted false claims of fraud in relation to Trump's defeat in the 2020 presidential election. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Johnson voted for the CARES Act, resisted stay at home orders, used his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee to invite witnesses to push fringe theories about COVID-19, and spread misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations.
As of 2021, Johnson is the only statewide elected Republican in Wisconsin."
We could also add:
"Johnson has rejected the scientific consensus on climate change; although he later accepted climate change as an existing issue, he has not walked back his view that attributing it to human activity is "crazy"."
But re the climate, I've articulated my concerns above about why that shouldn't be included in the lead. But if it is, it absolutely must be covered fairly with all sources revolving around the evolution of his views noted, rather than it just phrased as some WP:ACTIVIST hit-piece. For the rest of the changes, I say we cut the 2011 debt ceiling fiscal hawk stuff out completely since that amounts to random trivia and doesn't seem to serve any larger purpose other than to contrast his vote on the TCJA to create an WP:NPOV violating WP:OR narrative about him being a hypocrite/flip-flop, especially since it's unnaturally placed in the Trump paragraph at present simply TO serve as nothing but a preceding sentence foil for the TCJA vote. His view in opposition to the ACA is pretty irrelevant since it didn't amount to anything and isn't a critical point or period in his personal or political life to be lead worthy, and if we're going to give a full and impartial overview of his history with COVID, his vote for the CARES Act, arguably the signature piece of legislation to combat it in the United States, is a crucial note to have. I accept your view and others' on not including the additional line about his views on the severity of the disease. Davefelmer (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
The scientific consensus on climate change is that human activity is a primary contributor to the warming of the planet. There's nothing noteworthy whatsoever about some mealy-mouthed vague statement ("The climate has always changed, and it always will") that climate change is occurring (which is the position that all the climate change deniers have shifted to anyway). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
When it comes to the lede, I think that "Johnson has rejected the scientific consensus on climate change" alone would be sufficient, as the remaining part "although he later accepted climate change as an existing issue, he has not walked back his view that attributing it to human activity is "crazy"." means that he still rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, so it's just redundant. It's like saying "he rejects it, although he now rejects it in a different way". BirdValiant (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
It seems as though the last paragraph of the lead is misplaced. Snooganssnoogans is correct that there is nothing particularly notable about Johnson’s comments about climate change, certainly not to the degree that they belong on the lead of the bio of a U.S. Senator. And BirdValiant is correct that there is too much and redundant detail on this topic in the lead. To better capture the general tone of the last paragraph of the lead could it be condensed to say something like “Johnson has earned a reputation for politically dubious comments related to a number of out-of-the-mainstream views.”?? Go4thProsper (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
@Go4thProsper: You said "And BirdValiant is correct that there is too much and redundant detail on this topic in the lead." I did not say that at all. I specifically said that, of the suggested climate-change-denial phrasing by Davefelmer, that the "Johnson hasn't walked it back [on anthropogenic climate change denial]" was redundant because it's basically just saying "he denied it before, and now he denies it in a different way". I additionally believe that you have mischaracterized Snooganssnoogans view by suggesting "Snooganssnoogans is correct that there is nothing particularly notable about Johnson’s comments about climate change". I do not believe that @Snooganssnoogans: would say that at all; it seems that they were saying that Johnson's "walking back" was not noteworthy seeing as how that's what climate-change deniers have been doing anyway. Hopefully Snooganssnoogans will be able to clarify. BirdValiant (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I would agree with that. Could fit it in something like:

""A staunch ally of President Donald Trump, Johnson voted for Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, supported Trump's decision to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), launched investigations into his political opponents and promoted false claims of fraud in relation to Trump's defeat in the 2020 presidential election. He has earned a reputation for politically dubious comments related to a number of out-of-mainstream views. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Johnson voted for the CARES Act, resisted stay at home orders, used his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee to invite witnesses to push fringe theories about COVID-19, and spread misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations.

As of 2021, Johnson is the only statewide elected Republican in Wisconsin."

Does that work Go4thProsper (talk), BirdValiant (talk), User:力 (powera, π, ν)? Davefelmer (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
@Davefelmer: Where's the climate-change denial detail? I'm not seeing it. Both his COVID-19 misinformation and climate-change denialism is not "politically dubious", it's just plain factually wrong. BirdValiant (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Thinking about it, I'm inclined to accept the climate change denial line in order to just get this done. I take your point about the 'politically dubious' phrasing and there's not a lot of reason to hold everything else up just for saying he's made dubious comments related to a number of out of mainstream views when we specifically denote those other views on COVID clearly in the very next line. So happy to compromise there. Just gonna check in with Go4thProsper now. Davefelmer (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Others may disagree but I think that suggested change is inappropriate for the lead. Those points are included in the article but they are too much specific detail for a lead paragraph, which is supposed to summarize the article. If this material is mentioned in the lead at all, I think it should be a summary reference to Johnson’s reputation for controversial statements on polarizing issues, often based on dubious or inaccurate information. Go4thProsper (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I sympathise with your perspective and share your view, but ultimately there isn't much difference between:

"A staunch ally of President Donald Trump, Johnson voted for Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, supported Trump's decision to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), launched investigations into his political opponents and promoted false claims of fraud in relation to Trump's defeat in the 2020 presidential election. He has rejected the scientific consensus on climate change. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Johnson voted for the CARES Act, resisted stay at home orders, used his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee to invite witnesses to push fringe theories about COVID-19, and spread misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations.

As of 2021, Johnson is the only statewide elected Republican in Wisconsin."

and:

"A staunch ally of President Donald Trump, Johnson voted for Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, supported Trump's decision to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), launched investigations into his political opponents and promoted false claims of fraud in relation to Trump's defeat in the 2020 presidential election. He has earned a reputation for politically dubious comments related to a number of out-of-mainstream views. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Johnson voted for the CARES Act, resisted stay at home orders, used his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee to invite witnesses to push fringe theories about COVID-19, and spread misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations.

As of 2021, Johnson is the only statewide elected Republican in Wisconsin."

Certainly not one, I don't think, worth haggling endlessly over and leaving a far less WP:NPOV version up now. So I'm willing to compromise on the line, as I expressed to BirdValiant above. Could you? Davefelmer (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I also want to register my shock and disappointment at the inexcusably biased and slanderous rhetoric of this entry for Ron Johnson. I expect much better from Wikipedia. This is not how a reputable “encyclopedia” is done. What would it take to get Just the Facts, instead of a prolonged hit piece masquerading as legitimate biography. Better to have no entry for Mr. Johnson than this unwarranted, partisan, out-and-out smear of a fine person who deserves much much better. Wissota (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Wissota Please cite an example of what you mean. soibangla (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Wissota Which part to you take exception to? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ron_Johnson/Archive_1&oldid=1137163026"