Jump to content

Talk:Steve Daines/Archive 1

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

Suggest AFD

I am going to suggest AFD for this article since it reads as a piece of campaign literature. V. Joe (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

The source provided for this edit doesn't even mention Daines. It should not be included in his BLP per wp:original researchCFredkin (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I found a better one and will phrase with a bit less POV. Montanabw(talk) 21:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Steve Daines

Looking back at your edits, I saw that a bit of my posting might have been non-neutral (the part about Daines excelling at debate, which I have changed to a neutral participated). However, in your edit, you removed many sourced facts which were not POV problems at all. First, you removed the fact that Daines was an All-State trumpet player. This is something quite notable which I sourced. If a source were found stating that Daines's audition had been fixed, then that should be included, but none has turned up. Even though this fact says something positive about Daines, it is the truth, and there is nothing wrong with putting it in there. The same goes for the mountain-climbing; if you can prove that is a lie, by all means remove it or prove that Daines lied about it; otherwise, that fact should remain in. Good articles frequently include peoples' hobbies. Also, you removed the statement by the Federal Election Commission about why Daines's case was dismissed. I'm going to assume good faith, but that should remain in there, because there are many different reasons why the case could have been dismissed. These include lack of evidence, disagreement, or a request from the plaintiff, and each of these reasons carries a different meaning. The reason should be explained, whether it looks unfavorably or favorably upon Daines. Next, while you are correct as to who controls the budget, Daines still created that website. If this is not pertinent, you should have removed every mention of the website, instead of merely removing my elaboration on the topic. Finally, in undoing these edits, you removed many reliable sources I had inserted in place of dead links. I'm guessing you overlooked the fact that some of the links you put back were dead, but that could be viewed as vandalism. Again, though, I don't think you intended to vandalize the article and am not accusing you of this at all. I am merely explaining why you were wrong to make the changes you made. If you still feel my edits are not neutral, then start a discussion on the talk page instead of simply reverting them again. Oriolesfan8 (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Stuff from high school and college is really irrelevant to a wikipedia article. The rest is not phrased neutrally, it's self-promotional fluff and needs to be "just the facts, ma'am." to be encyclopedic. I will edit the article accordingly and you can take any further issues to talk. Montanabw(talk) 17:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I still think All-State trumpet is not only relevant but is the type of thing often found on elite articles on Wikipedia (for instance, my good article about Cal Ripken, Jr., mentions that he played soccer in high school even though he was not famous as a soccer player). However, I found your changes this time much better and think you did a great job! Nice going; the article is now neutral, as it should be! Oriolesfan8 (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Stuff people did in high school is not really relevant; in the light of NPOV do you also want to add the keggers and parties common at Bozeman High School in that era? Seriously. Ripkin's athleticism was relevant a bit, someone playing a trumpet has little to do with becoming a politician unless it goes to someone's ability to blow their own horn. Montanabw(talk) 15:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"activist"

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_7 where it was made clear that simply being backed by a group does not make one an "activist" in such a group. A person who is "backed" by the CPUSA does not become a "Communist activist" either. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

As a follow up, yes, I have now read this link and the clarification was useful as far as the category goes. This does not affect the article text issues, though. Montanabw(talk) 22:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC

RESOLVED
(non-admin closure) There is a consensus to not include in Category:Tea Party movement activists. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is Steve Daines a "Tea Party activist" for purposes of categorization? He was endorsed by a Tea Party group, but shows no other connection to the movement. 23:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

discussion

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_7#Category:People_associated_with_the_Tea_Party_movement for discussion as to what the new category is intended to contain. Collect (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Do Not Include: I do not think the "Tea Party activist" category should be included. IMO this category has gotten way out of hand. It is being added to many Republican pages, as if Republican and Tea Party are inherently synonymous. There are folks who are legitimately Tea Party activists, then there are politicians who have been endorsed by Tea Party affiliated groups. Daines appears to be in the second group. Unless he's spoken at Tea Party rallies, self-identified as a Tea Party member, become an official member of a Tea Party group, or consistently been referred to in reliable sources as a Tea Party member or activist, I see no reason to include this category. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Do Not Include. Found two refs after a cursory search (Montana Public Radio, Billings Gazette) that said Daines had run afoul of the Tea Party, several that said Daines had been backed by the Tea Party, but none that said he had aligned himself with the Tea Party. EBY (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • He is endorsed by the Tea Party Express, I noted this with a citation. He has an 88% rating of alignment with their issues. I suppose that means endorsement rather than "activist," though his actions clearly align with their goals, the time he got in "hot water" was back when he cast one vote they didn't approve of - along with most of the rest of congress (I think to end the shutdown) He has not personally said, "I am a tea party" memeber, though, so I'll grant that. But did we really need an RfC about this? Seriously? With no prior discussion? Montanabw(talk) 07:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • If a person was "endorsed" by the Communist Party of the United States in an election, would you say he was a "Communist Party activist" or "affiliated with the Communist Party"? I trust you would not. And yes - calling someone a "Tea Party activist" is a "contentious claim" requiring "strong secondary reliable sources" so yes - the RfC is needed when one editor keeps re-inserting the contentious claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
UM, I am no longer inserting it once someone took five freaking seconds to provide some coherent explanation. The issue was dead before this was started. In spirt of campaign rhetoric on both sides (actually, people are calling Daines' opponent a communist; it's that kind of race), it seemed that the endorsement was worth noting, and what was getting removed along with the category was the in-article text, which looked like whitewashing to me. Montanabw(talk) 07:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I have used exactly the same argument over and over - we do not call someone an "activist" in a group just because they were backed by the group. I am glad you finally understand. [1], [2], [3] inter alia. Also the CfD on "People associated with the Tea Party movement" which I linked to in one edit summary Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_7 "Associated with" is a much vaguer concept than dealing with people who are actively involved in a group, and should be a well-defined category. I would suggest the description include politicians who are affiliated by self-identification with a Tea Party group or Tea Party caucus, and not include people who have merely been "endorsed" by such groups (in fact, many "endorsements" are bestowed on candidates without any action by the candidate). . Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Linking to the CfD was appropriate, the rest of it was just talkpage debate that appeared to be only your POV. But it appears there was a larger consensus across multiple articles, which I can acknowledge is the current consensus. Montanabw(talk) 03:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Do not include - Are we all in agreement that the category does not warrant inclusion? An endorsement does not entail affiliation. Meatsgains (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • If the definition of "activist" means the individual has to self-identify with the group, then yes. Daines cast one vote so as to prove he's not in their back pocked 100%. Which appears to put him at 88%. But if he doesn't want to claim them, OK. Yes, we are done here. We didn't need this waste of bandwidth in the first place. Montanabw(talk) 03:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Do not Include (Again) Montanabw, you just brought it back in despite calling the issue done. The cite you gave specifically says; "Daines said he has no control over endorsements or the commercials by third-party groups..." and that Daines was politically savvy not to align himself with the Tea Party. That's it.here Your other cite is a liberal advocacy group. Your edits appear POV and UNDUE. They certainly stretch good faith.EBY (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not adding the category, that is clear and that is the topic of this discussion. The text is clear: He doesn't want to be linked to the tea party bcause it is unpopular in Montana even though he needs their support to win, hey have endorsed him and he votes with them 88% of the time. Let's just state the facts and not let his campaign staff whitewash the article. Frankly, someone isn't doing their job if two or three sentences are undue weight, surely he has other endorsements, why not add them?. Montanabw(talk) 06:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to conduct political campaigns, and it appears that you wish to tell the "truth" about a political candidate. That you strongly imply that the editors here are his "staff" here to "whitewash" the BLP is exceedingly errant - none of us that I know of are remotely connected to Montana other than you, according to your user page. I suggest you read and abide by WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and likely should read WP:PIECE. Again - please do not thin of Wikipedia as a valid place for campaigning for or against anyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Collect, I've been here about as long as you have, so lay off the preaching. If Daines doesn't have staffers monitoring this article and editing via proxys, then he's an idiot - which I doubt. I'm not campaigning for anyone, I'm just working on some relevant material in the wake of the category issue. Endorsements are fair game, the info is sourced, We (you) could also add that he's probably endorsed by the NRA and a host of other groups (Right to Life, Chamber of Commerce, fossil fuels industry, etc... he presumably is proud of most of those and seeks out many of them). The tea party issue is news and it's relevant. I'd suggest you add more of his endorsements, not preach at an experienced editor about writing articles - I have had two TFAs this year alone, and my FA/GA class articles are numerous. Montanabw(talk) 07:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
You are insisting on repeated personal attacks on editors as being staffers. I am not within thousands of miles of Montana - I assure you that I am not a "staffer" or doing anything other than following Wikipedia policy here, while you appear to be engaged in an edit war to tell the "truth" about someone who you clearly have a political interest in. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is NOT the place for personal attacks, Montanabw. And the spirit of the RfC was that Raines is NOT a member of the Tea Party so he should not be labeled as such. A reliable 3rd party cite that says differently does not exist. All that exists is 1 article that says he is smart not to be aligned with the Tea Party although the Tea Party has attempted to align with him. The cites are what the cites are and that is all Wikipedia can reflect. EBY (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
There are no personal attacks involved here, EBY; and once I understood that the category was indended to only list the self-identified, I moved to the article content itself. With the edits I made, I expanded each one to further explain the nuance. However, it appears that there are people here who only want articles that are hagiographic about their preferred candidates and will not tolerate anything to the contrary, even if sourced. The issue is pretty irrelevant because Daines is so far ahead that he's near-certain to win anyway, so it's not like adding material on his endorsements and positions is going to make the least amount of difference in the polls. If you want to mention his A+ (or whatever it is) from the NRA, then mentioning other endorsements is also appropriate. I'm sure not all Democrats want to be endorsed by the ACLU or Greenpeace (if they do endorsements) but that would also be relevant to their articles. I believe that someone called Daines' opponent a communist because she has said things that were positive about the IWW. Montanabw(talk) 22:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, note the RfC says only "Is Steve Daines a "Tea Party activist" for purposes of categorization?" It appears that the answer to that is no. So why are we still debating that? I'm not even arguing about the category at this point. Montanabw(talk) 22:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Um -- I believe I made clear that I oppose hagiographies, and believe campaign website material is not well-suited for biographies. I would also note "someone called his opponent a Communist" would not belong in any BLP at all - name-calling in political campaigns exists, but that does not make putting it into biographies is encyclopedic. Candidates do not have absolute control over who "endorses" them as a rule. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, tell CFredkin below, then... Montanabw(talk) 06:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Why not deal with what the editor states and not what you wish to assert? Campaign websites, from any candidate, are not great sources - and, in the case at hand, you wish to include statements from an employee of a political group which is supporting one candidate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tea-stained

Accusations by a liberal advocacy group are not notable to Daines's WP:BLP.CFredkin (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Only the people who like him can have their assesssments listed then? Montanabw(talk) 06:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
That is not what he stated - when an employee of a political group backing another candidate makes charges, then we should assess the weight and source. Wikipedia is not a place to simply amplify campaign rhetoric from a source associated with a specific candidate. Nor should we simply print the campaign brochure of a candidate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, so far this article does rather sound like it came from Daines' PR people. Just saying...But we are less than a week to the election, the outcome is pretty much certain, and this isn't really worth my time. Montanabw(talk) 04:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steve Daines. 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}}).

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 11:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Repeating mind-numbingly meaningless politics-talk

The immigration section contains a whole lot of vague nothingness about what essentially boils down to Daines' opposition to DACA and comprehensive immigration reform. We should state where he stands on these issues, and not include some vague buzzwords that Daines wraps around his position. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

New infobox image

We should change the lead image to this photograph. It’s a more formal and bust level portrait, and it keeps in line with other U.S. senators. The current image isn’t even exceptionally clear. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

My proposal
Agree - Proposed image is a better shot. Sundayclose (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree - I think the current one is alright, but this would be an improvement.EliteArcher88 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Looks like we’ve got consensus, I’ll change the image. The Image Editor (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

many news sites have called it for Steve

Many News Outlets have called it for Steve Daines winning the race to keep his seat, NYT, VOX, Fox. I guess whenever its official we can go change all the pertinent information. EliteArcher88 (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Political Positions need a new subsection on drugs

The good senator has a notable view on drugs - I guess someone familiar with this article could write this. [4] Lklundin (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Daines/Archive_1&oldid=1170245999"