Jump to content

Talk:Ted Stevens/Archive 1

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

Quotes from Stevens

There's been a minor edit war recently on whether to include a lengthy list of quotes from Stevens. Do the editors have any consensus? For reference, the quotes are below. I believe the quotes should be moved to Wikiquote; Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. The article makes Stevens' position clear without quotes. DDerby-(talk) 22:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

the quotes

Ted Stevens on CSPAN:

"This is not the way to treat a state. We are a sovereign state."

"The amendment before us now will affect only Alaska...this is something that I think is--every Senator must examine his own conscience."

"This is not the way to meet a disaster need."

"We have the smallest allocation per area of any state in the union."

"We must build bridges so we can bring together areas that are inaccessible otherwise." ( he's yelling now)

"I have never seen this suggested, to single out a state and say, 'You pay! You pay for a disaster 5,000 miles away. You shoulder the burden!'"

"We need bridges so we can get from one private area to anoth private area."

"It's not taxpayer money. It's highway-user money."

"We came here to have the same rights, same priveleges counted to the people in every other state."

"It's wrong to put us into a position where we have to explain why--why!-- this is being done, something that has never been done before-- NEVER!"

"This amendment will not pass. If it does, the bill will not pass. If it does, I'll be taken out of here on a stretcher."

"This has been the saddest day of my life." (After the defeat of a provision Stevens inserted into a defense-spending bill that allowed for drilling in ANWR.)

http://www.townhall.com/blogs/c-log/MaryKatharineHam/story/2005/10/20/172180.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001931.html

Oh yes, some of these quotes should be included. This is information that I want to know as a reader. It's also newsworthy, given that his quotes were reported across the mainstream media. Why would this not be NPOV? Are these quotes from an official transcript? Christianjb 10:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Also- though Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes- some of these quotes are significant enough that they should be worked into the main text- not relegated into a quotes section. Christianjb 10:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


This one too:

"I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday."

"It's a series of tubes!"


Oh please include the series of tubes quote! It just shows how little senators know about the internet. It is a startling and scary fact that is important.

more silly yelling about internets: http://media.publicknowledge.org/stevens-on-nn.mp3

NPOV

I believe that "renowned for pork" and calling shots of him picking his nose "humorous" take this article over the line.--SarekOfVulcan 08:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe he is renowned for pork...it would also be appropriate if this was used in Robert Byrd's article. Maybe renowned isn't the right word. Perhaps "well-known" would work better. I think the nose-picking pictures is a little ridiculous though

How about "often criticized." That's certainly true, particularly after this bridges to nowhere incident. · Katefan0(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 19:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that "often criticized" is acceptably neutral. I think, however, that it should be specified "in recent years", as most of his publicly criticized "pork" projects have been in the past 3 or 4 years, at least that I know of. -Lanoitarus 04:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Ted Stevens was chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee for 8 years prior to last year, and was considered a senior member for many more years prior to that. I think it's fair to say he's been criticized for pork for a long time -- much longer than 3-4 years. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

it's important to note that the "bridge to nowhere" was actually a project by Cong Don Young. Sen Ted Stevens' objection was that formula money was being taken from Alaska as opposed to any other state —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.55.171 (talk • contribs)

That's incorrect. The two of them worked on getting the bridges funded together. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 22:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Katefano is wrong and has failed to substantiate his or her opinion. This article seems neutral enough to remove the tag, so I will. I commented out one sentence:

Subsequently, evidence came to light that they lied about their involvement in a 2001 Energy Task Force meeting with Dick Cheney's staff to the committee. Congress now is investigating this apparent inconsistency.

What is the antecedent of "they"? Also, the article isn't very well laid out at the moment. Is there any way of organizing some of the biographical details a little more coherently? NatusRoma 18:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree that the neutrality tag should have been removed. I think it is unfair to include such a sharp criticism in the introductory paragraph, before even the ToC, particularly for such a long-serving senator. It's definitely important and should be in the article of it but I feel the placement of it creates a clear bias. And I am a liberal and a close spectator of the Senate who is not a fan of Ted Stevens. Trojanpony 10:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarly an issue of bias, as it's certainly true enough ... but for such a long-serving senator it may be, rather, an issue of recentism. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 20:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it is true but I think bias is evidenced by the fact that such a negative aspect of such a long-serving senator's record is featured as prominently as it is. I'm saying it should be moved down to a section like "Stevens' record" or something instead of being in the intro paragraph. I think the intro paragraph should be more general and neutral. Trojanpony 09:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The Hulk

Given that Senator Stevens himself takes so much glee in it, is it appropriate to add something about his famous Hulk tie? He wears it every time he's planning on a tough fight, so it seems a worthy item and appropriately useful, but there has been a decidedly disturbing trend of Wikipedia becoming "Britannica-ized" with an emphasis on sterile and a higher standard of decorum. In my view this is a very bad thing, we turn to Wikipedia for an alternative to the scholastic encyclopedias, not to mimic them, in fact, precisely for the purpose of learning things about the Hulk tie. But in deference to the community I thought I'd discuss before adding.

http://alaskalegislature.com/stories/062203/stevens.shtml

Heh. Works for me.--SarekOfVulcan 20:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Go for it. I've seen him wear it many times and he does, indeed, exult in wearing it, particularly when folks notice. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 20:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I was listening to NPR today on the way into work and happened to hear about Senator Stevens. His Hulk tie was briefly mentioned and I made a mental note to look up the article when I got to work to see what was said about it. I was dissappointed to see that there isn't anything in the article about it. Please, if someone knows a bit about the whys, wheres, and whats of this tie, put it in the article!! Dismas|(talk) 03:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
hear hear user:user

I honestly thought this was some well written vandalism, it amazes me that it turns out to be true. How baffling! TheGreatZorko 09:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch.php?v=5QDmkSTIRX8

Comedy Central piece on Broadcast Indecency hearings in Congress: it has "F*#$ Ted Stevens" as the title, but I didn't watch it long enough to find out why.--SarekOfVulcan 22:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Probably because he's chairman of the Senate committee holding the hearings. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent removal of criticism

Hello -- I reverted AKGhetto's removal of the pork criticism. It's a perfectly accurate, long-time and well-circulated criticism that I think Stevens himself would probably agree with (he's pretty unabashed about doing everything he can to bring money home to Alaska.) Anyway, that aside, I wouldn't object to it being made more specific (who criticized, with some in-line links to news articles), and possibly moving it out of the introduction. As we get some distance from that tempest in a teapot, it's perhaps a matter of recentism that the entire affair is aired in the intro. I'd support moving the details down, but leaving a generic reference to the fact that he is often a lightning rod for criticism over pork barrel spending habits. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

First I want to apologize, I should have not just removed the changes, but probably expanded that section instead. I do think though that it needs to be better balanced. Yes Stevens is unabashed about admitting his doing everything he can to get maximum benefits for his state, but I think the way the article is written is one-sided. For example, to point out of what he's been accused of, I think it's only fair to have a mention as to Steven's usual response to such criticisms. His response is usually along the lines of Alaska needing to play "catch-up" to the rest of the union, that we are still a young state by comparison to much of the rest of the western states and have great need for "big" basic infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges. —akghetto talk 06:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that's totally fair and would support those sorts of additions. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 06:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Stevens is not a Pro-Choice politician

See here: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in-congress/congressional-record-on-choice/state.html?state=AK The lorax 22:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually he is pro-choice. He's gotten low ratings from abortion rights groups lately because he is against late term abortions and he voted for the unborn victims act. At the same time, he supports Roe and voted against the global gag rule. Look at his statement on Alito. http://stevens.senate.gov/pr_detailed.cfm?prid=323
KidAirbag 03:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not very well known (mostly because he doesn't broadcast it), but Stevens is known as "moderately pro-choice," and quietly so. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this, but Stevens is listed as a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership. I checked the website (http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/members.htm) and he's not on the list.

Net Neutrality Criticism

Is it really worth noting Stevens' astonishingly ridiculous explanation of the Internets? Granted, he basically proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has a strong opinion on a matter, and cast his vote on a matter, which he clearly doesn't have the slightest inkling of an understanding of, but this is politics and I don't think most people are really that surprised to find a Senator with a strong opinion on a matter he knows nothing about. I think that unless it becomes a more widespread controversy, we should consider removing it, and if it does become a wider controversy, it should be considered for its own small section in the article rather than a single sentence. --208.41.98.142 18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not at all clear that, as a prior author stated, Stevens was referring to CRTs when he used the word "tubes". I assumed he was attempting to use a colloquialism like "pipe", which is commonly used to refer to an internet connection. Going to edit. Somegeek 21:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Also replaced Crooks and Liars link with one to Wired in the interest of providing a less partisan source. (No disrespect to C&L intended.) Somegeek 21:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've (re-)removed the reference to CRTs as unsourced and the link to Crooks and Liars as redundant. Apparently they crept back in. I also gave a bit of background and removed some weasel terms - if he refers to a e-mail message as "an internet", I think we're quite within our rights in calling it an error. --Kizor 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And on the "internet"/email thing, was this a prepared statement or was he speaking ad lib? Anyone can make a mistake like that, even if he actually knows what he meant to say. —wwoods 22:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, and that's a fair point, but he says so repeatedly and consistently. He demonstrates the same level of understanding throughout his speech. --Kizor 22:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've completely revamped the entire section. The blogging phenomenon is documented with much greater detail and accuracy. Tens of thousands of people who had never heard of Stevens have now heard of him due to his position on network neutrality, and the path from relative obscurity (for a Senator) to explosive internet meme warrants a detailed accounting. --Deejaytalk 05:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

It was on the Daily Show for goodness sakes, it's notable in all ways shapes and forms. Doesn't it fit under WP:TDS which states if it's on the daily show it's notable -- Tawker 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think something about the "series of tubes" speech needs to be included, but I think the section as is needs to be pruned a little bit. For example, I don't see how Jon Stewart's take on the matter is terribly relevant. Thunderbunny 02:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Craigslist and Ebay auction links at the bottom of the section are already invalid, and go to pages with nothing to do with the subject. Slackingest 18:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see more on Steven's actual position on Net Neutrality and some (but not all) of the criticism/responses to his remarks moved to the daughter article. It seems like he only comes into the public's view when there is national media coverage, like on Katrina, Energy, and Net Neutrality. However, as the chair of that committee, his position on this issue is pretty relevant. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Is it really correct to talk about it being a "mainstrean meme"? Mainstream within the blogosphere, perhaps, but I'd guess most of the population have never even heard of the guy... 64.103.37.72

Whilst 'series of tubes' is a decent analogy for the internet, unix IPC is not a good analogy for the internet and that sentence should be removed.123.243.115.45 (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Merging Series of tubes into Ted Stevens?

After around 2 weeks of deliberating, the votes are in: 18 oppose merge, 5 support merge. Thus, the page stays where it is.--The lorax 21:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's give it some time and see how this develops. My guess is that leaving the daughter article would allow us to avoid deleting sourced content while not giving undue weight to these remarks in the main article. Oppose the merger, for now. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Do you think the phrase will be notable in a year? GChriss <always listening><c> 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I think so - with how politicized the network neutrality debate has gotten, and with Stevens at the helm of the committee in charge, I'm certain the phrase will remain relevant. The lorax 22:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Notability does not wax and wane: notable now is notable in a year. Notability does not demand continued resonance. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - the meme has already grown far beyond Stevens himself, popping up on t-shirts, news articles, and discussion boards without any reference to Stevens. It's got a life of its own. Rob T Firefly 02:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge - Jokes have been made about it but in the long run, I hightly doubt this is notable to have its own article. --Phoenix Hacker 04:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support The Internet is not like a Big Truck and the world needs to know about it. thanks Ted! It's a good thing we have people like you running our government and looking out for our best interests. -- Chuck
The substance of this vote seems to indicate disapproval for the merger. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge. The page has subsantial info that doesn't really belong here, and the meme may go on the grow, what with the growing critisism of Stevens. JQF 13:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Merging. The series of tubes thing is now an internet phenomenon in and of itself. There is already a tremendous amount of material out there that is not directly related to Senator Stevens and therefore I do not think it will suffice to have this information included in his article. At the very minimum I would suggest care in merging, as this is still an ongoing issue and there might later be a need for a separate article.--Mstahl 18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would take up too much of the senator's article, and stands best on its own. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support In the grand scheme of things, "series of tubes" is a pretty minor phenomenon and another case of the "Internet myopia" that afflicts Wikipedia editors from time to time. Definitely deserves a mention but needs to be kept to a minimum. Thunderbunny 13:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
If this sentiment (expressed in your vote and the other support votes) is true, then merger would not be a good choice because it would lead to an over-emphasis in this article. Deleting material cited to good sources is not an option. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what I was trying to say. There's definitely room in this article for facts and general commentary on Ted Stevens's ill-advised statements and his position on Net Neutrality. I'm speaking out against having an article that consists largely of "and then a bunch of people wrote about it in their blogs, and then somebody made T-shirts for it on CafePress, and then Fark had a Photoshop contest about it, and then Jon Stewart having some witty remark about it was on Youtube..." Such mundane, unremarkable details are usually of next to no interest to anyone besides the individuals perpetuating the so-called "Internet phenomenon", and will in and of themselves be forgotten after a good week or two when the next "Internet phenomenon of the week" takes shape. Thunderbunny 01:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect, it's important enough to have a mention in Wikipedia but not important enough for its own full-length article. --Rob T 13:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem familiar with the de facto conventions for internet meme. Compare to: Bubb Rubb and others in Category:Internet memes.savidan(talk) (e@) 01:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose the merging. Many of Senator Stevens' ideas have grown a life of their own. His Gravina Island Bridge has become famously know as the "Bridge to Nowhere". There is no doubt that "Series of Tubes" will become sort-of like the phrase "Baba Booey" from the Howard Stern Show. People may not know who Senator Stevens is, they may not even know where the phrase "Series of Tubes" came from, but in time they will hear the expression used over, and over again. --Chris01720 00:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thunderbunny 06:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think it deserves mention on this page, because it is relevant to Mr. Stevens, but it has grown beyond just something he said--I mean there's a techno remix of it.
  • Oppose I support keeping "series of tubes" separate, as it has become its own meme, and many people are aware of the phrase but Ted Stevens' name does not immediately come to mind. The phrase has developed its own meaning much as "snakes on a plane".
  • Strongly Oppose For reasons of undue weight. 'Series of Tubes' is interesting enough in its own right, and if incorporated here it would need to be trimmed heavily to avoid overshadowing the rest of the article. 198.20.40.50 20:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose What is hillarious about this gaff is that it represents the naivete of government leadership in general (even corporate leadership at times). Whether it was Ted Stevens, Ted Kennedy, Ted Williams or Ted Koppel wouldn't matter so much. See my comic strip remix at The Messaging Times
Comment: Naivety of government leadership is right. As far as I know, nobody corrected Stevens when he made the comment, or after, and I don’t think he’s given comment on what he said to any news source to explan himself, so for all we know he still thinks that, and so do other congress people. JQF 00:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed.

I removed the following:

"After june of 2006 Ted Stevens has become the subject of much hillarity due to his speech about "the internets", many sites are created on ytmnd about his speech on the internet and he becomes a popular fad all over "the internets", also being intermixed with other such fads as lex luthor lexvstedremix.ytmnd.com/, the midieval times sexwithboys.ytmnd.com/, medievaltedstevens.ytmnd.com/, or adam sadler tedtodayjr.ytmnd.com/. A list of many ted stevens ytmnds ytmnd.com/list/?search=ted+stevens&user=."

Not because I think it doesn't deserve mention, but it is very poorly written and has no business here. I think YTMND should be mentioned in some fashion, since it was a large part in making this an Internet meme, but someone needs to re-write that and submit it in a better way. 65.30.40.87 16:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


WikiProject Indiana

Why is this part of the Indiana WikiProject? If someone doens't say why, I'm going to remove that tag soon.Slarson 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


An internal link to YTMND is fine, people can follow from there to the YTMND wiki which is the right place to document this stuff. Just zis Guy you know? 16:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues section changed to Criticism section

Because really, Stevens has been involved in all kinds of issues... the ones that are listed here, except for Science, which I removed in its own subsection, are all issues which people are critical of Stevens about. A true issues section should probably point out both sides of the issue, and include commentary on Steven's side of the issue for NPOV. Slarson 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the critical statements from the intro, and moved the references down into the new Criticism section. This page ought to biographical and with those statements in the intro it was pretty one-sided. Slarson 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

After reading WP:LIVING, I'm removing the poorly sourced criticisms.Slarson 17:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Make separate Criticism of Ted Stevens page ?

I'd like to call a vote on the topic of moving the information in the Criticism to a separate page. It currently takes up a large percentage of the article, and given the policy on living biographies WP:LIVING I think we should consider demoting its prominence on the page. Slarson 17:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


Removed link to article on Ben Stevens

User from IP 132.241.246.111 added the following link after Ben Stevens' name:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14608601

I've removed it twice now. The link is irrelevant to the article about Ted Stevens. If you want to add information about Ben Stevens, do it on the page for Ben Stevens. Slarson 06:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

created separate criticism of ted stevens page

As promised, I have moved the criticism to its own page. Please leave commments on the we page. Also removed controversial marking from this page since all the controversy should be concentrated on the other page now.Slarson 17:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism of Ted Stevens" daughter article

Some user has apparently taken the initiative to move all of the info about Ted Steven's policies and stances (except for his support for stem cell research) to a daughter article. This would normally be fine, but I think that information about his public statements and actions can be stated neutrally in this article. The fact that he has been criticized for many of these posistions does not make the statement of his position "criticism". There are also many who support these positions that he has taken. I think these should be moved back in, making sure that they are expressed objectively first and then followed by the (positive or negative) reaction to them. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That was me. I moved it in adherence with the living person's biography policy WP:LIVING and the what wikipedia is not policy WP:NOT. Basically the criticism page are all things that cast Sen. Stevens in a negative light, are mainly stories from the last 2 years only, and there was so much of it that it took up the majority of the page. Would you expect to see so much criticism in an encyclopedia? Or at some point doesn't it start looking like a soapbox for outraged political opponents? The fact that there is a criticism page at all seems a little outside NPOV, but the community does seem to want something about these topics put in, so ok. Note that NPOV is not just about presenting an issue in a balanced way, but also what issues you choose to include and what issues you choose to leave out. He's had 37 years in the senate but his biographical page only talks about critical issues from the last 2 years?? What has he been doing the rest of the time? Doesn't seem appropriate, doesn't seem NPOV. I think in order for wikipedia to be taken seriously, it can't read like a liberal blog, and that's why its appropriate to move these things into their own page and leave the biographical information as neutral as possible.Slarson 17:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Having read this article for the first time since Slarson's move, I'm surprised by how much it has improved. The article is now by far a much more balanced look at the senator's many decades of public service. 131.247.152.4 04:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed vandalizm

Some one wrote that he was an old coot in the first sentance of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbledry (talk • contribs) 14:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the external link to Ted Stevens Soundboard. This is not the first time I am doing this. Apparently the user at IP 210.0.110.65 decided to re-insert this around February 1st, and at the same time deface my personal page. The Ted Stevens Soundboard does not add biographical information, and is instead is aimed at parodying the senator. This page has been carefully cleared of non-biographical information in accordance with Wikipedia's living person's biography policy WP:LIVING. Serious criticisms of the Senator's polcies may be voiced on the criticism page, but advertising for a parody site is not allowed here. Slarson 03:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture

That picture is hilarious. He looks so mad. Maybe we can find a more neutral picture? I'm not a fan, but that picture makes him look unaturally mean as hell.--Zombiema7 12:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Now his picture makes him look way too happy!! Hahaha. Whatever it's fine. heh. It's bigger at least.--Zombiema7 09:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Vocalist/Guitarist?

I'm a foreigner and like many of my kind I'm easily confused. Does Sen. Ted Stevens also play guitar and sing for an obscure rock band? Or vice versa? Perhaps there should be a disambiguation page for all the possible Ted Stevenses that may exist to avoid confusion. If no one has any objection, I'll proceed with the edit. Zambetis 14:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethics Issues on Biography Pages of Politicians

I have a general question about the biography of living person's policy WP:LIVING, regarding the inclusion of ethical issues on the pages of public figures like Senators. I think that the placement of ethical issues on the biography page of a senator is outside of the scope of a standard biography page. If you look at the policy on what wikipedia is not WP:NOT, you'll find the following quotation under "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:"

Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia entry. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to appropriately contextualize events. In many cases it will be impossible to create an acceptably encyclopedic biography, despite the subject having made a brief appearance in the news. Even when events in the news do merit an encyclopedia article, an article on the event rather than a biography of any person(s) involved may be more appropriate. Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews.

It seems to me that if I were a political opponent of a senator, I could list the ethical issues against that senator on their wikipedia page in order to discredit them. While these ethical issues are not false, and could be written from a neutral point of view, their presence on the page alone seems to be not neutral. Ethical issues are increasingly common in the Congress... many Senators and Congressmen come under investigation or inquiry over the course of their careers because lawmaking is highly regulated. I feel that all of these kinds of issues are out of context with a biography unless a politicians career is ended by a particular scandal.

For Ted Stevens, I created a separate page for criticism of the Senator, where I felt it was appropriate to allow the litany of criticisms about the Senator to be placed, so long as they were presented as neutrally as possible. Recently, a user has brought ethical issues from the criticism page back to the main page, and included a new ethical issue. All these are well sourced. I have seen similar practices on the pages of other Congressmen (Speaker Pelosi). I feel that all of these issues should remain on the criticism page.

Is it possible that Wikipedia needs a special policy for political figures? Could an administrator please comment? Slarson 22:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(I'm not an administrator, but Slarson told me of this posting, so I'd like to add my two cents, as someone who has added one "ethical issue" to the article and moved a second issue from the "criticisms" article to the main article.)
First, I've edited dozens of articles about U.S. Senators (not including Pelosi, who is in the House), and many more articles about Representatives, so I'm pretty comfortable saying that a separate "Criticism" page is fairly rare; rather, criticisms are either integrated into the article or are in a separate section. (For further discussion on the theoretical aspects of the matter, see the essay Wikipedia:Criticism.) I left the separate article (Criticisms of Ted Stevens essentially as is, rather than trying to integrate it, because while I have a preference for integration, I don't feel strongly enough about it to spend a lot of time discussing the matter with other editors in order to try to build consensus.
Criticism pages are rare now.. but should they be? Slarson 05:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they should be, in my opinion. If nothing else, the weight of precedence argues against them.
Second, the policy quoted above (from WP:NOT) is, in my opinion, of questionable relevance here. Taken to the extreme, it would mean most things labeled as a "current event" shouldn't even be in Wikipedia, since most current events are things that have occurred over a brief period of time.
Point taken.. we want current events in Wikipedia. But do we want them on biography pages? More on this below Slarson 05:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Third, I agree that charges that were made in the past (say, more than a year or two ago) and that weren't sustained should be given minimal, if any coverage in an article about a politician, in my opinion. This criteria doesn't apply to what I added - information from a newspaper article with a dateline of yesterday that cites an ongoing FBI investigation. For current events, per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball - editors shouldn't be deciding whether or not a particular noteworthy event (very, very, very few Senators ever are investigated by the FBI) is likely or not to lead to something further, and thus to try to decide whether or not to include it.
I agree with you, but I come to a different conclusion. I think that not being a crystal ball and not deciding if an event is likely or not to lead to something further means we should err on the side of not including it. Remember, this is a biography, which is the story of someone's life. If an event is included in the story of someone's life, shouldn't we wait until some time has passed so we are looking *BACK* to determine its relevance, not forward? Slarson 05:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
My basic criteria for what should go into an article is simple - is it useful? When I read an article about someone, I'm not just interested in "what has history confirmed is important about this person", I'm also interested in "what is going on in this person's life that could shape future events?" If there are credible assertions of negative matters, there there is a high likelihood that these things are shaping and will continue to shape that person's life.
Finally, per WP:NPOV, undue weight shouldn't be given to any particular event or aspect. I think an FBI investigation of a Senator merits a couple of sentences, but not, say, an entire section or article, at least until (if ever) there are actual criminal charges.
Agreed Slarson 05:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
-- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
For reference, there is a thread on a Wikipedia discussion list on this topic here Slarson 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. From what I can see, the focus seems mostly on separating criticism from the rest of the article, which most commentators seem to disagree with. (As a larger context, I think those who comment on wikien-l a rather small subset of the Wikipedia community, and policy changes and interpretation are best discussed on the talk pages of those policies, not on wikien-l.)
Also, something I missed the first time through - your questions Is it possible that Wikipedia needs a special policy for political figures? Could an administrator please comment? may indicate a misunderstanding of the role of administrators: they enforce policy, they don't create it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: It's really really confusing to know who's saying what in this conversation when participants interject their comments into the middle of someone else's comment. It works fine in an email conversation, but it doesn't work so well here. A "real" comment is forthcoming. --Yksin 00:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Now for my real comment: I think that inclusion of ethical issues & criticism is absolutely necessary in a bio article where it comes up in the career of a public official or politician.
When imbalance occurs -- e.g., when more of the article is about criticism than it is about other aspects of the politician's career -- it's usually because the editors to that point haven't devoted sufficient attention to noncontroversial aspects of the subject's career. This is certainly so in the case of this article. I would hardly say this is unusual for Wikipedia articles, where bios of living people tend very much to go after the most recent news about a subject, with very little done on earlier material -- especially if the only way to get the earlier material would require research off the Internet. In any case, I think the way to address that imbalance isn't to remove legitimate well-sourced material about a politician's controversies, or to split them into a separate article (a practice with which I disagree), but rather to do the work to fill out the biography more fully. For example, what kind of bio of Ted Stevens says nothing about his part in drafting ANCSA? -- which is arguably the most important piece of federal legislation affecting Alaska after the Alaska Statehood Act itself.
Re: the most recent controversy, involving Stevens' house in Girdwood: another aspect of this is that it appears to be but one tiny part of a very major federal investigation of political corruption in Alaska, in which Stevens' son Ben is already heavily implicated (we expect an indictment any time now), & which may or may not also reach further into Ted Stevens' actions, esp. re: his relationships with VECO Corporation executives like Bill Allen and with the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board. If it does reach up to Uncle Ted, the whole business of criticism & ethics can only be expected to grow; & would be very relevant as well as biographical information.
I personally would favor the "criticism" materical being reintegrated into this article. One possible way to do it without creating too much imbalance would be to integrate it in the context of a chronological account of his life (isn't that what a bio is after all? -- an account of someone's life?), instead of as it's own separate header. --Yksin 01:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yksin - if it isn't apparent from the interwoven comments above, let me be clear here: I agree with essentially everything you said. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yksin, I agree that it would be nice if someone were to come along and provide earlier contextual material to provide balance on this article. But that isn't what is happening. What we have is a page which begins in a state with no criticism and is therefore neutral. Then criticism arrives and throws the page out of balance. The decision is "do we keep the criticism, or do we (re)move it"? The decision is not: "do we add counterbalancing material and keep the criticism, or do we just keep the criticism?" because realistically that takes a lot more work, and people add this kind of material much less frequently.
More importantly, I think that we have to ask ourselves if this biography page is an encyclopedia article or if it is a politician-indexed news repository. Biographies are the stories of peoples lives... news sites tell us about current events. I can't see how you or John can make the case that it makes sense to mix current events with biographies. If I were to ask either of you to tell me who you were, you wouldn't start off by telling me that you almost got run over by a car today (if that were the case). You'd tell me about facts involving your situation in life that had occurred at some time in the past and are broader and categorical. The fact that you almost got run over by a car today is a current event, not a description of who you are. Well, things like this FBI investigation are like telling the story of Ted Stevens by explaining what just happened a week ago in his life. It gives the article a myopic view and at the same time throws it out of a neutral balance by focusing on negative news. Maybe this investigation is some kind of turning point for Ted, and maybe then it merits inclusion just as almost getting run over by a car may be a turning point in your life in terms of your views on jaywalking. But we don't know that yet, and so right now it just makes the article myopic and non-neutral.
John, your criteria of useful material seems straightforward and generally positive. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I think that the consequence of this is low quality articles when it comes to biographies. Note your words: "there there is a high likelihood that these things are shaping and will continue to shape that person's life. ", and Yksin's: "If it does reach up to Uncle Ted, the whole business of criticism & ethics can only be expected to grow; & would be very relevant as well as biographical information." . These statements indicate a kind of speculation on the future noteworthiness of an article, which sounds very much like using Wikipedia as a crystal ball. Is the FBI article noteworthy NOW? Sure. But that's what we have newspapers for, to tell us the news. Wikipedia ought not be a politician-indexed news source. I think that this is the source of the fundamental disagreement between us on what a biography page should tell us about a person.
And what's with "the weight of precedence argues against them", with reference to criticism pages? The weight of precedence would have argued against the Constitution... but that would have been a bad reason to not have one.
I would not be in favor of reintegrating the criticism material back into the article unless there were a massive amount of material counterbalancing it. Slarson 03:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Quoting Slarson: it would be nice if someone were to come along and provide earlier contextual material to provide balance on this article. But that isn't what is happening. No, & you are one of the editors who has chosen not to do the necessary research & writing to make it happen. Not that you or anyone else deserves to be faulted for that: there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that deserve attention, & all of us are spread thin. But even if Stevens had nothing to do with any sort of controversies (an unlikely story for any career politician), the article as it stands now is seriously inadequate as "biography."
As for me, I sat down this evening with the intent of adding further info on Stevens' earlier life & career, thanks to a well-researched non-Internet source that I happen to have at home. Stay tuned.
Re: the ongoing corruption probe in Alaska: I can't speak for other editors, but I have no plans to add much more in that regard until if/when there it seems warranted. What John provided the other day seems sufficient for now.
Would you be willing to take a look at Tom Anderson (politician)? He's one of Alaska politicians already under indictment in the Alaska corruption probe, & I've done a huge amount of the work on that article. Does it seem balanced to you, given the controversial nature of some of Anderson's activities? --Yksin 04:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Doesn't make sense/Needs clarification

"The family later lived in Chicago, where George Stevens was an accountant before the stock market crash of 1929 instigated the Great Depression, ending his job.[2][3] Around this time, when Ted Stevens was six years old, his parents divorced, and Stevens and his three siblings went back to Indianapolis to live with their paternal grandparents, followed shortly thereafter by their father, who developed problems with his eyes and went blind for several years."

He was six and working as an account?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.44.50 (talk • contribs) 16 July 2007 08:33 (UTC

Then sentence referring to accounting refers to George Stevens, Ted Stevens' father: "he family later lived in Chicago, where George Stevens was an accountant before the stock market crash of 1929 instigated the Great Depression, ending his job." Ted Stevens & his age don't show up till the next sentence, which says nothing about accounting. Perfectly clear. --Yksin 16:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing end parenthesis

Hi, I noticed in this section of the article there is an open parenthesis that is never closed, and I'm not sure where it should go so I figured I would post it here. I've bolded the parenthesis that does not get closed.

Home remodeling and Veco

On May 29, 2007, the Anchorage Daily News reported that the FBI and a federal grand jury were investigating an "extensive" remodeling project at Stevens' home in Girdwood. The remodeling work, which more than doubled the size of the modest home (public records show that the home is now 2,471 square feet (230 m²) and valued at about $441,000-which means that it was less than 1,200 square feet (110 m²) before the remodel, occurred in the summer and fall of 2000, was organized by VECO Corporation, an oil-field service company that has long been a strong lobbying presence in Juneau. Earlier in May, two top Veco executives pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy, bribery and tax charges.[42] In June, the Anchorage Daily News reported that a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., heard evidence in May about the expansion of Stevens' Girdwood home and other matters connecting Stevens to Veco.[43] In mid-June, FBI agents questioned several aides who work for Stevens as part of the investigation.[44] In July, Washingtonian magazine reported that Stevens had hired "Washington’s most powerful and expensive lawyer", Brendan Sullivan Jr., in response to the investigation.[45] Stevens' Alaska home was raided by the FBI and IRS on July 30, 2007.[46] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.244.198 (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed

I removed the words "...despite the fact that his first wife died in a 1978 plane crash which he survived." after the trivia point "On December 21, 2005, Senator Stevens said that the vote to block drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge "has been the saddest day of my life," [1]". I believe it's obvious that who ever added this was just attempting to ridicule Senator Steven's commitment to allow drilling in ANWR. - CaptainAmerica (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Indictment

Today Ted Stevens was indicted on criminal charges. I found this on MSNBC.com's front page, so it doesn't have an actual article on it yet. So keep an eye out for a more permanent source. --Rhymingisfun (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Views on ANWR Drilling

I suggest that someone familiar with the topic write an entire section about Stevens' views on drilling in ANWR (with its own subheading). He was been a major proponent of drilling there, and yet hardly any mention is made of this subject in his article at present. --Skb8721 (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

VICO

Why is the VICO corporation not mentioned at all in this article? Badagnani (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's under VECO Corporation. Badagnani (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Serious need of re-write

Although many have worked hard on this, this article is very disjointed. Some things sound funny and need re-write. It sounds like the airport was named after him because of the crash, which was probably not intended. Didn't he have cancer of his penis or testicles? No joke, he is a national chairman or honorary big wig of the American Urological Association (citation needed). I will help in a few weeks after editing other articles. Good luck! 903M (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


Found it. He has had prostate cancer, not penis cancer. 903M (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Stevens' house

The section on VECO and Stevens' house has a lot of WP:Original Research and innuendo. The news is reporting that the prosecution sent VECO witness, Robert "Rocky" Williams, back to Alaska without ever informing the judge or defense. Williams then "contacted them [Stevens' lawyers] over the weekend and provided them with significant evidence that undermines the government's case"[1]. VECO's Bill Allen was obviously trying to create a favorable impression on Stevens[2][3]], which he could not do if his billings were substantially higher than competitive market costs, which Allen's costs apparently were (there are questions about the prosecution's estimates). There have been reports that alcohol[4], neopotism and family related absences were factors with VECO's initial efforts and cost control in 2000. It has been reported that Bill Allen (corporate CEO), VECO's founder and then controlling owner, used his nephew, a welder and Allen's personal gopher, to initially supervise the Stevens job. The veracity of VECO witnesses statements on the record is further clouded by complications and allegations surrounding their liasons with two women, one when under 18[5], then another woman became an Allen family feud, as well as allegations of the nephew's blackmail[6]. The Stevens' rennovation then had to be taken over by a real residential contractor after several months. The Stevens assert that they paid $160k[7]. In 2000, at $100 per sq foot construction, as a rough cost guide for Anchorage, 1250 SF x $100/SF = $125k. The photos of the house suggest that this would be on the high side for a lower level. Bill Allen's VECO was notorious for cost overruns on big, industrial scale and governmental jobs,[8] much less the much more competitive residential construction market. Bill Allen, known for his charisma, creativity, political presence, checkered relationships and various notoriety, now including felony, has been compared to Tony Soprano [9].

"Paone...believes the [Stevens'] remodeling could have cost ― if all the work was done efficiently ― around $130,000 to $150,000, close to the figure Stevens cited last year. That's because Paone contends that, while he was working in Girdwood, VECO workers did not contribute much to the job, and Anderson's [Bill Allen's nephew] presence was mostly to keep Allen informed of progress."[10][11] After the story broke on the prosecution's suppression of the VECO construction witness, the "flabbergasted" judge repremanded the prosecution for serious impropieties but did not declare a mistrial [12].

One other note. The feds wired Bill Allen and several others for several years. The feds nailed a bunch of state legislators this way and provided a lot of incentives to wear a wire and to disclose on the other politicians, see Tom Anderson (politician). It is surprising that in the Feds' prosecution, no such damning wire evidence has been introduced in the Stevens case. Also the Anchorage Daily News is a liberal partisan that has openly fought various non-liberals tooth and nail with some rather tabloid stories, including various Republican publishers of the now defunct Anchorage Times.--EfieldMCMLXII (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

News story about Stevens in wiretap

I found: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/06/stevens.trial/index.html WhisperToMe (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorporated it in the "Home Remodeling and VECO" section[13]--EfieldMCMLXII (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Worries" expressed on calls, 2006

Taking an isolated quote has serious problems with BLP and NPOV. Moved this isolated quote to Talk for Discussion. In the phone conversation, Stevens also states that he thinks he hasn't done anything wrong. Since the phone recordings surfaced in the newspaper during the trial, putting it in the indictment seems to chronologically misplaced from public sources as well as WP:Original Research that they were part of the indictment.

Stevens' private conversation, transcribed in full here, sounds like he is fretting, cynically assessing possible caprices of politics and litigation, considering the worst possible case, trying to be supportive and calm Allen, who was already known to be in trouble at the time of the phone call. The Olympian used "worries". Please try this summary for more NPOV: "In 2006, during wiretapped conversations with Bill Allen, Stevens expressed worries over potential misunderstandings and legal complications arising from the sweeping investigations into Alaskan politics." I've re-cited the sentence with a link to complete transcripts of the calls and moved it to the last paragraph in .--EfieldMCMLXII (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Found guilty on felony charges

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/stevens-guilty-of-felony-charges-2008-10-27.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Already in the article, but thanks! NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Sarah Palin

Stevens had been helpful to Palin, endorsing her run for governor of Alaska. The two filmed a campaign commercial together to highlight Stevens's endorsement of Palin during the 2006 race. Palin's name is listed from 2003 to June 2005 as a director of the "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.," a 527 group that could raise unlimited funds from corporate donors. Board members of Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service were legally allowed to raise as much money as they wanted from corporations or unions or unlimited donations from individuals -- all of which would have been illegal for Stevens to do himself.[2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.152.123 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not done: This seems to violate WP:NPOV in that it puts WP:UNDUE weight on the illegality of it without providing any balancing at all. Please reword or add balancing information from another source before filing another request. Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This guy is guilty of paying $160k for work that reasonably would have cost up to $150k ???

Something I don't understand here.

Am I correct that the crux of the case against Stevens was that he got some work done to his house for a reduced cost as part of some kind of kick-back?

What exactly were the 7 charges against him?

The residential contractor who finished the renovation for VECO, Augie Paone, "believes the [Stevens'] remodeling could have cost ― if all the work was done efficiently ― around $130,000 to $150,000, close to the figure Stevens cited last year."[62] The Stevens paid $160,000 for the rennovations "and assumed that covered everything.

So was there any question Stevens paid the $160k he claimed?

If he did, and if the work is reasonably valued at $150k, then how on earth can the prosecution claim he got some sort of unreported gift or illegal kickback? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.202.245 (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I understand it, the house was only part of it. (This is something the article should be clearer on, probably.) Also, according to the reference, $150K was not an accepted figure, but disputed. So it may be that the true value was much more.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aervasock (talk • contribs)
Disputing Paone's $150k "efficient" cost estimate quote appears to be unsourced WP:OR. The prosecution appears to have represented the entirety of Bill Allen/VECO's costs (overruns) as gifts since there doesn't seem to have been any formal VECO/Allen contract presented. Given the nature of Alaska's recent development and small population of long timers, where a lot of ongoing relationships are direct and personal, a verbal or handshake deal may be acceptable business form to long time Alaskans. I will point out that Paone's contracting firm has a lengthy, good local reputation and does appear to be the most expert assessment involved that I've seen quoted. The point here is that VECO, a favorite of certain companies and the beneficiary of numerous soft contracts with sometimes hidden cost overruns (e.g. additional or rework under a separate, new contract) may not have been capable of a price competitive performance in the then much more competitive residential market. The actual cost of inefficient construction practices to VECO/Bill Allen is not same thing as the actual, arms-length value of the work. Contractors eat the cost of overruns and screwups all the time, some more gracefully than others for a variety of reasons including goodwill.--EfieldMCMLXII (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think my point was that there is no universally-accepted figure for how much the work should have cost. If there were, this case would have been over a lot faster, I think. Either way, though, the small change you've made to the article looks fine, and should have been in there before. Good job. :)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Guilty Verdict

Right now the article reads: "He is one of five sitting senators ever to be convicted in U.S. History, and the first since Harrison A. Williams in 1981." However, the news story here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081028/ap_on_re_us/stevens_trial mentions that David Durenberger was the last to be convicted. Anyone know how to sort this out? Monkey Bounce (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

After a rough scan, I found four other senators that were convicted in office:

Did I miss any? According to this, the AP is correct and we are wrong. (The funny thing is that it appears that Xinhua (the Chinese state news service) is using this article as a source without telling anybody! [14]--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Durenberger plead guilty, while Williams plead not guilty. So Durenberger didn't really have a trial, no jury convicted him. Looking at the definition of conviction, most sources suggest that it refers to a finding of a court, rather than pleading guilty. So I think it is more accurate to say that Williams was the last senator convicted.Slarson (talk) 06:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the wording is ok: if you plead guilty, then the judge still has to convict you (he might not accept the plea; it's rare, but it happens). See this case where a guilty plea was filed but no conviction occurred. So we're solid on the wording. I was hoping for some comment on the numbers: are there any other senators who have been found guilty (by plea or jury) other than the above four and Stevens?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Pending your reply, I've reverted your edit, because the numbering still doesn't make sense. If we don't count Durenberger, then that means that Stevens is only the fourth senator to be convicted by a jury. So we need to find a fifth senator's conviction, otherwise the WSJ source] claiming that he's the fifth conviction is just wrong. Was there another senate conviction before Williams?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The fourth is Truman H. Newberry. They all have in common that they went before a jury, except for Durenberger. The Senate website doesn't consider Durenberger as a conviction:
In the entire course of the Senate's history, only four members have been convicted of crimes. They were: Joseph R. Burton (1905), John Hipple Mitchell (1905), Truman H. Newberry (1920), and Harrison Williams (1981). Newberry's conviction was later overturned. Mitchell died. Burton, Newberry, and Williams resigned before the Senate could act on their expulsion.
I'll make the update with the link to the Senate History Slarson (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC).
Cool. Thanks for finding that out. Nice working with you!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aervasock (talk • contribs)

Is this crime a felony?

It doesn't mention if it is a felony in the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"...was found guilty of all seven charges against him."

Can we please list the seven charges. Kingturtle (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

All charges were "Making false statements".  Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Stevens is a convicted criminal

And he should be categorized into one of the subcategories under Category:Criminals. I'm not sure which one though. Mike R (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be appropriate. I think that category is for people who are notable solely based on their criminality. Stevens was already plenty notable before the indictment. There is also the possibility (however slim you may feel it to be) that the conviction will be overturned on appeal.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a moot point now considering he lost his re-election, but considering that felons aren't eligible to vote in Alaska, wouldn't be have been disqualified as a Senator anyway? After all, don't you have to be a qualified voter to be elected to any office at the federal level? Just an academic curiosity on my part. Thanks! JJ4sad6 (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically, while he is convicted on the felony charges, he can still vote in elections since the disposition of the case is that it is on appeal. Furthermore, there is actually nothing to prevent him from taking office had the election gone the other way, unless the Senate votes to not seat him, which they were apparently going to do if he won. Lestatdelc (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday I added "Category: politicians convicted of crimes" which seems concise and to the point. It lacks the loaded nature of Category: criminals (which is up to personal interpretation., ie., if someone has been charged and convicted of a crime once in their lives, does that imply continuity of criminal activity? I find that highly debatable.) I think the C:PCOC category covers the basics without having NPOV issues. Michaelh2001 (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I saw that. I think you made the right choice. Good job!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that the conviction's been dropped, have the proper steps been taken to rework all of that stuff? --75.93.66.89 (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Election results still not certified

Several times editors have changed the article to state that Stevens is the first felon elected to the US Senate. This is not yet certain. As of 9 November 2008, there were over 9,000 early vote ballots waiting to be counted, and an additional 20,000 challenged ballots. (This information is from the Alaska Division of Elections site, in this PDF file.) Please do not change the article to state that Stevens has been re-elected until it is confirmed. Horologium (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

actually, the new york times just said that Stevens lost in Alaska. Associated Press —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.180.251 (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a distinction between being the first felon "elected" to the U.S. Senate, and the being the first felon to serve in the U.S. Senate, which is what I saw in the article, though it wasn't sourced. Stevens is definitely a felon serving in the Senate, but I don't know if he's the first. User:rpogge —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC).
Well, we really can't call him an outright felon yet, since his case is still on appeal. And, since the appeal probably won't be resolved before he leaves office, we should avoid the issue altogether.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we can call him a felon. He has been convicted of felonies, and the presumption of guilt is done with unless and until he is granted a new trial. Convicted murderers sit on death row appealing their sentences for years and are properly called "convicted murderers" throughout that process. -Rrius (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but he hasn't even finished his initial appeal yet. In fact, he hasn't even been sentenced yet. While I'm not the guy's biggest fan, either, there is no deadline, and therefore no rush on our part to insert something which may yet be overturned on appeal. We have included his conviction in the article. It is not necessary to take the extra step of labeling him a "felon". The very word strikes of bias.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the term "convicted felon" is a perfectly accurate and standard description for these kinds of cases and I don't see a problem with using it. That is in fact how he is usually described in the newsmedia these days. In particular, a googlenews search of recent news for "Ted Stevens" "convicted felon" gives 2946 hits[15]. Nsk92 (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Certainly sounds like I'm in the minority here. I still have a feeling that calling him a "felon", while it may be true, is not necessary or appropriate. Look at the other senators convicted before him, listed in the section above (#Guilty Verdict). Those articles do not say "and he was a convicted felon". There's no need to. It's just petty name calling. "He was convicted of a felony" is the most we need to say. However, since I'm clearly outnumbered, I'll let it die. Someone else can have the WP:LASTWORD.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Stevens concedes to Mark Begich

[16]
"A great career down, let's just say, a series of tubes" -John Stewart. Anarchangel (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Request

Stop removing his incumbent status. He is still the senior senator until January 6.Saberwolf116 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Request As a follow up to my previous statement, i'd like an administrator to protect this article until January 6. Since it is false information that Stevens is not the incumbent and Mark Begich is, I believe this classifies as vandalism. As there are many edit wars going on between users about this, I think it should be protected.Saberwolf116 (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it's "vandalism" to add in his successor's name; I think they are just good-faith edits from users who are a bit mistaken. What I am writing about is to clarify that effective noon January 3, 2009, Stevens is no longer a Senator and his term expires. He will not be "senior senator until January 6". I intend to reflect that fact at noon on January 3. JasonCNJ (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that Saberwolf116 is full of sour grapes that the dems took down the longest serving repub senator! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.19.250 (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually his term ends Jan 3rd at Noon, not Jan 6th. Davidpdx (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

split article: Political positions of Ted Stevens

Ted Stevens had quite the career in the Senate. I would highly suggest making seperate article(s) especially this one!--Levineps (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that all of these political position statements are negative toward Stevens and ignore completely the important work he did on issues like Alaska Native rights, sustainable fisheries development, and infrastructure development in the State of Alaska to name just a couple. This article is completely biased. --Constant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.215.114 (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

April 1, 2009 -- Verdict Set Aside, Indictment Dismissed With Prejudice

However, National Public Radio reported on April 1, 2009 that United States Attorney General Eric Holder, citing serious prosecutorial misconduct during the trial, decided to drop all charges against Stevens—an action that vacated his conviction

Can we have a non-April 1 reference for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.153.96 (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • See the "Motion of The United States to Set Aside The Verdict and Dismiss The Indictment With Prejudice[3]" filed 04/01/2009 by the Attorney General of the United States of America in US v Theodore F. Stevens No 08-231 (EGS) bearing the Judge's signature... it rendered the guilty verdict moot AND dismissed the indictment -- in effect, the charges should never have been filed. A copy can be found at www.c-span.org/pdf/motion_setaside_stevens.pdf //Don K. (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere

The current state of the article has nothing on the Bridge to Nowhere... AnonMoos (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Alaska Legacy

Just a thought, but I think that some sort of section on Steven's impact on Alaska should be included. He is arguably one of the most influential people in the state's history, and it would be informative to see some of his larger contributions discussed. He's essentially a folk hero in a large part of this state. Receptacle (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • You mean a "pork barrel" hero... He brought a lot of money up to AK, sure, and a lot of people liked that at the time, but I don't think "folk hero" is at all an accurate description for a career politician who was skillful at acquiring federal money for his state. Anyway, add the section if you wish, just make sure it is neutrally worded and sourced. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, the sections on his personal life and "other notes" cover a lot of that territory. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know enough about it. I was reading the article for another reason and noticed that it didn't really seem to convey a lot of the sentiment I see in Alaska. I've only been in the state for less than a year, but his mark seems pretty apparent to me. Pork or non, that's fine with me. I wasn't asking for a promo section. Just a suggestion.Receptacle (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Feel free to replace personal political opinion with facts. Stevens impact on Alaska was substantial, despite Beeblebrox's opinion. It's not often major airports are named after living citizens. He significantly improved the Alaskan economy with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. As a result, Unalaska is the 2nd largest fishing port in the U.S. Without his work on the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, there would be no Alyeska Pipeline (TAPS) and the North Slope oilfields would remain untapped until right of way issues were resolved, thereby making pipeline construction permissible. Moreover, Stevens was a key player in the political process that made Alaska the 48th state in the Union. When he arrived, Alaska was a Territory, a possession of the U.S. as Hawaii also was and as Puerto Rico is today. //Don K. (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
To feel the Alaskan pulse on this man, check out three stories from the Anchorage Daily News, our biggest paper. "You'll find his legacy in the lives of Alaskans across the state. Uncle Ted. That's how Alaskans came to know Sen. Ted Stevens. Uncle Ted, we called him, in tones both familiar and reverential.
http://www.adn.com/2010/08/10/1404450/our-view-sen-ted-stevens.html
http://www.adn.com/2010/08/10/1404010/stevens-life-inseparable-from.html
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/152706 --Yopienso (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Death

This page is being locked because the person involved is involved in an event where information may change rapidly so it seems to be jumping the gun to list a death date.Michael Kirschner 14:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelkirschner (talk • contribs)

It's jumping the gun to list this as a death at all at this point. The reference provided is of questionable reliability. All other reports I've seen list 5 fatalities at this point and make no speculation about whether the Senator or former NASA administator Sean O'Keefe who was also on the plane survived. This section needs to be removed or toned down at least.--RadioFan (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The administrator was correct to protect first. The information claiming death was quickly reverted. No need to make the job of cleaning up the article more difficult by allowing continued additional of speculation.--RadioFan (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Associated Press: "Former Alaska Republican Senator Ted Stevens is also believed to have been on board the plane." Skomorokh 15:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of locking pages like this as preemptive measures. As we have seen before (When Michael Jackson died), an admin locked the page, but it was still being edited regularly by other admin, which completely counters the reason for the page protection in the first place.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Death rumors is one of the best reasons I can think of to lock an article. This is an encyclopedia not a news wire. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Being reported on New York Times, BBC andABC News, hardly rumour any more, and certainly doesn't warrant full protection. Little Professor (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Mention of the plane crash should at least be in the article. Could it be added by an admin?--Jojhutton (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Stevens is being reported by FOX NEWS CHANNEL as of 12:48pm EDT as confirmed dead in the crash, FYI.RtB 16:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The NYTimes article you link to doesn't confirm the death, so why do you want to use it to reference the possible death?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

CBS News and Associated Press confirm the death based on statement from a family friend. [4] JTRH (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Alaska News KTUU is reporting that his aide, David Dittman, only reported receiving a phone call the previous night confirming the Senator was killed; story updated close to 1300 EST. Seems a bit much to say the Senator is dead when his aide can only confirm via a phone call. A call from who? Better to wait for more verifiable evidence.--Allstargeneral (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I posted the above before checking other sources. NBC, ABC and CNN are reporting that his status is unknown. JTRH (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


He is dead, look at cnn.com to confirm death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.92.91 (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. CNN.com, as well as the broadcasting channel CNN [17] and Reuters is reporting his death.Sarahknight1973 (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reuters is? Where?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ted Stevens Dead. C-SPAN is also confirming his death. [18] Tktru (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Many sources confirming his death -- wikipedia one of the few incorrect pages on the 'net.

Plane crash article

Has someone already set up an article for the plane crash, which from all early reports looks to be very notable? If so, where? Remember (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The name of the plane should be changed to de Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otter based on the other article for the Nasa administrator. Remember (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
This change should be made by an administrator, until then it's been setup as a redirect. I'd also like to see it noted in here that former NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe was aboard the plan. It appears (though references are sketchy at this point) that Stevens was a guest of O'Keefe on a fishing expedition.--RadioFan (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The article can be found at 2010 de Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otter crash.

Channel 2 out of Anchorage now reporting he is dead: [19]. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Draft section on plane crash

Since the page is locked, I figured we could use this section to draft the information to include in the article as more information is released. Remember (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved the draft insert section to make it separate from this discussion. Remember (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It's an encyclopedia, not a titillating tabloid news source - we should wait for confirmation of facts, not confirmation of speculation. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The AP is now reporting as of 11:27 AM that it "there is no official confirmation on whether Stevens was on the plane." Unofficial reports say he was, but as long as reliable sources won't saying anything definitive about Stevens, other than "we think he was on the plane," then we shouldn't speculate either. It is not imperative that this article be updated minute by minute. I think the short mention in the article currently is sufficient.DCmacnut<> 15:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Former United States Senator Ted Stevens was one of eight people aboard a plane that crashed in southern Alaska on Monday night, a former member of Mr. Stevens’s Congressional staff said on Tuesday. " - NY Times

a link to the article on the crash would be appropriate as well.--RadioFan (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Local radio is pretty clear, [20] the plane went down, eight people on board, five dead, no confirmation about who is dead or alive. How that could be or why Stevens was flying around on GCI's plane are also mysteries. I think this is now worth mentioning in the article, as long as we make it clear that it is not yet known if Stevens is among the fatalities. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to express my extreme disagreement with user "Boing! said Zebede"'s comment above dismissing reports about the crash as being worthy of "a titillating tabloid news source". Considering the Associated Press, CNN, Huffington Post, New York Times, and other major sources are all reporting that Stevens is believed to be on the plane, that disqualifies this from being anything associated to a "tabloid news source". Now if a UK tabloid or Perez Hilton or someone like that were the prime source, then OK. But these are serious news sources. I agree we shouldn't post speculation, I'm not arguing that, but dismissing major, reputable sources is one reason so many people look upon Wikipedia as a joke. Just my 2 cents. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not get all hung up on that. A story like this changes from one moment to the next, and there really isn't any hard information yet. I can't understand why even his staff and family are saying they aren't positive he was on this plane, which was apparently flying some bigwigs to a private lodge owned by the same telecom company that owns the plane. It all seems very weird. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Death reports

Reports that Stevens is among the fatalities are starting to come in. [http://www.ktuu.com/global/Story.asp?s=12952729 An NBC Affiliate in Alaska is among the first to report it based on reports from "a former aide and longtime family friend"--RadioFan (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I've edited through the protection and added a brief mention in the lead using that source, but I have to go to work now. Use {{editprotected}} to request any further edits, or ask User:PeterSymonds to lift the protection, or maybe reduce it to semi, once there is a fleshed out section ready to be added. Seemed kind of silly to stay mute over here while the plane crash article was confirming his death. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, APRN would be a good source to watch in the coming hours. They have reported that the Air National Guard reached the scene at 8:00 am, [21] which was about fourty-five minutes ago now. This calls into question the family friend who told KTUU he was definitely dead, but hopefully this will all be sorted one way or another in another few hours. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Still no other reports confirming the death right now. I'm stalking gNews for the Wikinews story on this right now, but not much new information has come out. —fetch·comms 16:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Wall Street Journal and Reuters are reporting Steven's death now. sourced on the KTUU report. Makes you wonder if they are using Wikipedia for tips.--RadioFan (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
This is saying CBS confirmed it via a friend. KTUU is NBC, not CBS, and I'm not sure if the friend was the same guy. —fetch·comms 17:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed without citing a source. Not sure if this is linked to another friend or an official. —fetch·comms 17:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Now saying "family friend". Still no "official" confirmation. —fetch·comms 17:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
CBS is also reporting Stevens died in the crash.--RadioFan (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Sky News and AFP all following with the KTUU story. —fetch·comms 17:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Reuters saying Dittman makes new statement; death not confirmed. —fetch·comms 17:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the AP "Now Confirmed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.121.75 (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Draft insert

Main article: 2010 de Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otter crash
There were news reports on August 10, 2010, that Stevens along with Sean O'Keefe may have been on aboard a de Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otter seaplane on August 9, 2010, when it crashed near Aleknagik, Alaska. There were reportedly five fatalities of the nine passagers on the plane; neither O'Keefe nor Stevens were immediately known to be among the five fatalities.[5][6] The small DeHavilland DH3T was reportedly registered to Anchorage-based GCI Communication.[113]


  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/politics/22cong.html?ex=1188446400&en=6827cfdd479232b2&ei=5070
  2. ^ http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/palin_was_a_director_of_embatt.html
  3. ^ [www.c-span.org/pdf/motion_setaside_stevens.pdf]
  4. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/10/national/main6760220.shtml?tag=breakingnews
  5. ^ "Ex-NASA Chief Sean O'Keefe, Senator Ted Stevens in Plane Crash". KRIV, Fox Houston. august 10, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ Hinton, Christopher (10 August 2010). "EADS North America CEO in Alaska plane crash". MarketWatch.

Categories

Please edit And take out Category:Living people and replace it with Category:2010 deaths. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not until it's confirmed from more than "a friend of the family".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please unprotect the page to semi protection

Many autoconfirmed editors here know the policies. Don't see any reason to have a nanny protection of the article.--~~~~

The edits between the semi- and full protection indicated there was a reason. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there still a reason, and do we auto confirmed users need nannies?--Jojhutton (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course. To prevent against BLP violations. If you have something to add, request it here with {{editprotected}}. I'm not sure why that is so hard. —fetch·comms 17:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Because edits are still being made by admins without discussion, including by yourself . Admin tools are no excuse to thwart discussion and page protection.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm adding verifiable information. If you have verifiable information, request it here, and it will be added for you. Simple as that. if it were semiprotected, people would also add in material without discussion. —fetch·comms 17:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should refamiliarize youself with WP:Full, and know that admin tools are no excuse to continue editing a fully-protected article without discussion, even if you feel that it is correct to do so. Although you are not the only admin to have doen this.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note the or if the change is uncontroversial part. I have noted the new info on this talk page, and it is not a controversial change (it just clarifies the "conflicting reports" part). Was there anything controversial you found with the Reuters source? I'm not even using FOX News or anything. —fetch·comms 18:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
How can you tell if its not controversial or not, if admins are the only ones who can edit and make changes? The idea is to propose the change first, then make the edit, not the other way around. The same thing happened last year, on a much broader scale, when Michal Jackson died. Please propse changes first, then if its not controversial, the article can be changed.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, I've posted it on the talk page (see above section). No one has complained yet. I'd say it's not controversial. You still haven't called my addition controversial either, so I'm leaning toward it not being controversial. I'm fully aware of what I'm doing, even if it doesn't seem like that always. —fetch·comms 18:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm just pointing out wikipedia policy and making sure that it is adhered to. Sometimes even the best of us forget the policies sometimes. I was at the Michael Jackson page after reports of his death came in, and an admin Nanny Protected the page right away. I remember what a fiasco it was with admins editing the page left and right. Some even edit warring over content, and most without any discussions on the talk page. I want to make sure that history doesn't repeat itself here. Consider me the guy with the camera, watching everything, and we'll be all right. As far as the edit, I don't really think it was controversial, but it wasn't the edit I was concerned with, it was the method.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree, they handled the Michael Jackson incident really poorly. But it looks like in this case, were the page semi-protected, a bunch of people would likely change Stevens' info from living to dead and its correlative information. I think it's good to have full protection for now, even though the initial justification for it (that his being on the plane wasn't confirmed) no longer applies. Shiggity (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Very well :) I agree that the MJ thing was less than ideal, and I just hope that everyone has the sense not to edit war even if someone posts content up without much discussion. —fetch·comms 18:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Several major news sources have confirmed that Stevens is dead, so I've unprotected the article. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

KTUU Alaska confirms death

"ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Dave Dittman, a former aide and longtime family friend of former Sen. Ted Stevens, says Stevens was killed in a plane crash near Dillingham Monday night. Dittman says he received a call overnight Monday that said the former senator was dead. Nine people were on board, including former NASA Chief Sean O'Keefe..."

Again, we need something better than "friend of the family".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Its the news article that is a citation, not the news article's source. You seem to be confusing the two.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
From MSNBC: "David L. Dittman, a longtime friend and former aide to Stevens, told msnbc.com in a telephone statement Tuesday morning that he received a phone call Monday night telling him that Stevens had died, but he stressed that, contrary to multiple news reports citing him as a source, the information was not confirmed. NBC News said it had also not been able to confirm the reports." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Original friend says not confirmed actually. —fetch·comms 17:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Drudge appears to have picked up the original report from KTUU. Doesn't look like any new information, but it's getting legs. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Error

Not sure where to request this, but the crash happened on the 9th. Whoever sourced the article for the crash happening on the 10th clearly didn't read that the crash happened "last night." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.198.7 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Declared Dead

As of 2:20 PM, CNN is declaring the former senator to be dead. The New York Times has yet to make the same declaration. Link aido2002talk·userpage 18:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed, it needs to be added.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. here also... Shark96z (talk · contribs) 18:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

CBS is reporting this as well. WTF? (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, no they aren't. "There were conflicting reports on whether Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator in U.S. history who lost his seat after a corruption conviction that was later dismissed, was killed Tuesday in a small plane crash in Alaska."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
CNN reports: "A source familiar with ongoing rescue efforts confirms to CNN that former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens has died in a plane crash near Dillingham, Alaska." Shark96z (talk · contribs) 18:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

CNN has JUST declared Ted Stevens Dead. "live" breaking news.

MSNBC reports Stevens has died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.235.227.144 (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And that's sourced to a family spokesman. Works for me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I was gonna say a cat has nine lives does Ted Stevens have three ?Masterknighted (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ted Stevens has been declared dead via a spokespreson for the family. All major news stations concur. http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/08/10/former-sen-ted-stevens-dead-in-alaska-plane-crash.html --Morril (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The crash was discovered around 7pm Alaska time. Locals hiked in to help. Acquaintances Mitch Rose and pollster Dittman got unofficial word and their comments went viral. To this Alaskan pilot's knowledge, as of noon Tuesday Alaska time, no Air Guard Search & Rescue, FAA or NTSB report has identified who died and who survived. See http://www.ng.mil/news/archives/2010/08/081010-Crash.aspx //Don K. (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Many hands make … erm …

There are so many eyes on this article. And yet no-one notices that thanks to this edit, the article covers the death twice over. And I've just had eight edit conflicts posting just this. Uncle G (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Date of death

The plane crashed August 9th about 8pm Alaska time. How do we deal with the uncertainty of whether he died on the 9th or 10th? Add a "c." before "August 9, 2010". To my mind, insisting on the 10th as the date is not a good solution. Moncrief (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


You will have to wait for the autopsy did he die on impact?... Was it exposure to the elements? ....Did he stay alive and suffer for a few hours and then expire?.... And then it can be written that so it has been written and still what fools these mortals will be. Masterknighted (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think for that reason that inserting a "c." is appropriate for now, before August 9, 2010. Also, could you please format your post so it's readable? Moncrief (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but he didn't die BEFORE August 9. The 2 death dates in question are Aug. 9 OR Aug. 10. The plane crash occurred on Monday night (8-9-10). If he died on impact from the crash, then his death date would be Aug. 9. However, if he had lingering injuries that he didn't succumb to until after midnight, then his death date would be Aug. 10. We'll have to wait for the results of the autopsy (which hasn't been conducted yet) to determine the exact time of death, but he didn't die any earlier than Aug. 9. So, we sould insert a "c." and state his death as occurring "on or before August 10", NOT "on or before August 9". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.35.18 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say in the article that he died "on or before" either of those dates? That phrase shouldn't be used in any event, as "on or before" is not specific enough. It could be applied to someone who died in 1961, since that is before either of those dates. "c. August 9" covers it, as would "August 9 or August 10", which is a bit clumsier but probably clearer. It's either of those two dates, so I don't get (and don't see) this "on or before" business. Moncrief (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
There have been no reports of any survivors who died after the fact. Sources said that the 4 survivors were air lifted out on the 9th. If Stevens was among one of the 4, the sources don't confirm it.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
So absence of confirmation of one scenario is the same as confirmation of the other? I disagree. We don't know either way at this point. Moncrief (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
There were 5 confirmed dead, and 4 confirmed survivors on the 9th. The 4 survivors are still alive, so the date of death is the 9th.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Link? Proof that he died before midnight? You seem to be making an assumption without visible proof. Moncrief (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The plane crash article says it took the rescue authorities 10 hours to get to them, and sources say the plane crashed at around 7pm. So dont know if there is confirmation about the 4 survivors/5 deaths from last night. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Although the current state of affairs is not optimal, it is as close to the the truth as we can come right now. Probably within the next 24 hours more facts will come to light and we will know for sure if he died last night or this morning. This happened is a very remote area and details are going to be slow to come out, so we'll have to live with a certain degree of uncertainty for now. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
CBS News and the Associated Press are using the phrase "killed in the crash," which seems to indicate that death was immediate, rather than saying he "died of his injuries following a plane crash." However, I would prefer that the article say nothing about the date until it's confirmed, which shouldn't take long. Just my $.02. JTRH (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


Late morning reports in Alaska the day after the crash give no official confirmation about who died or survived in the aftermath of the reported accident. Mitch Rose got word of Stevens' death Monday night before the search & rescue helicopter arrived the next morning. At 11:31 Alaska Daylight Time Tuesday morning, this Alaskan pilot can find nothing more than hearsay about Steven's death. Late Tueaday morning, www.GCI.com shows Ron Duncan's confirmation their plane went down, that's all. //Don K. (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
This story describes that volunteers arrived on Monday night, and also a source states that he had died the night before.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's wait until his death certificate is produced. It might have the date-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
His official U.S. Senate biography says, "died as a result of a plane crash on August 9, 2010." Not saying they couldn't be wrong, but believing they're right. --Yopienso (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course they're right. The plane crash was unequivocally on August 9, 2010. And he unequivocally died as a result of the plane crash that occurred on that date. I think there's enough evidence he died before midnight, so on the 9th, but I also want people to look carefully at the way information is imparted. The link just above does not say he died on the 9th. It says he died as a result of a plane crash that occurred on the 9th. There is by now enough reliable evidence he died on the 9th, just not at that link. Moncrief (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Has the date of death been fully confirmed yet? At the moment Deaths in 2010 still has his death listed on the 10th because it is waiting for confirmation/sources saying he died on the 9th. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The state medical examiner believes that death was immediate or almost so. [22] Multiple media sources have reported the DoD as August 9th; I have not found any reporting giving either the 10th or "9th or 10th". I see no reason not to change it to the 9th. JTRH (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Changed it thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting reports

On August 9, 2010, Stevens was killed in a plane crash,[10] along with former NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe, while en route to a private lodge. After conflicting initial reports as to the condition of the passengers,[11] a family spokesman confirmed in a statement that Stevens had died in the crash.[2] Should definitely be changed as O'keefe wasn't killed. Until minor1 (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The statement about "conflicting initial reports" is not supported by the reference given (although that source may have been changed). But neither is it true: I don't recall seeing a single news report that described an outcome different from the consensus finally reached, a journalistic rarity that itself may be worthy of note. A news source's admission that they do not yet know, for example, whether Stevens was killed or survived does not qualify as a conflict with another source's (correct) report that he died. If there were "conflicting initial reports" it should be possible to cite them directly. Does anyone know of even one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.81.31 (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Good point, I've changed "conflicting" to "uncertain." Any editor may choose an even more accurate word. --Yopienso (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks like it went right back to "conflicting". Where is there any evidence of conflicting reports? If they cannot be found, then CBS was wrong, however briefly, in saying that they existed. "Stevens is alive" conflicts with "Stevens is dead"; "We don't know" does not conflict with "Stevens is dead". If there were conflicting reports, they can be cited, rather than any now-retracted assertion by CBS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I only changed it in the last sentence of the lead. I'm not pursuing this since both CBS and CNN refer to "conflicting" reports. Personally, I think "uncertain" is more accurate, because Dittman was told Stevens had died. Wisely, he reported that, but said he couldn't confirm it as true. Uncertain, not conflicting. But the media said conflicting. --Yopienso (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article isn't saying merely that the news media claimed that there were conflicting reports; Wikipedia itself here is claiming that the reports conflicted. I believe that an encyclopedia should not repeat as fact wrong information from the news media, however prestigious. The best evidence for conflicting reports is the conflicting reports themselves, not what CBS says about them. If they do not exist, then CBS is convicted of an error. Wikipedia should not join them in that error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.81.31 (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I have remove the sentence "Initial reports as to the condition of the passengers aboard the plane were conflicting", since no one seems to have found any of these "conflicting" reports.
Somehow I didn't notice this thread until just now. On the day of the crash, a family friend reported that Stevens was dead, an hour or two later, he said that Stevens was in a plane crash but he didn't actually know if he was dead or alive. An hour or so later came confirmation that Stevens was deceased. It did really go down like that, and I could probably find the diffs, but it seems a rather minor issue either way to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
My point is that reports that he was dead would conflict with reports that he was alive. They would not conflict with reports that decline to say whether he was dead or alive. I have seen no report that said he was alive. Until someone finds such a report, there is no evidence for conflicting reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.36.129 (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Another source

Here you go. I think it has some additional information that hasn't been known yet. Not sure though, this article and the one on the crash have been evolving so fast I can't really keep up. SilverserenC 23:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrt tag: "This article's introduction may be too long."

It's about as long as not much longer than the one on Ted Kennedy. The two were of approximately equal rank and stature, if not pedigree. (Also compare Robert Byrd.) After a few days interest in this article will flag and we can cut out a bit. For now, many comers will read only the lead, and it needs to be this long. I suggest the tag be removed. --Yopienso (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, no need for the tag. Article intro can be trimmed a bit in a few days time. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to boldly remove. I said interest would flag after a few days, but it will be a few weeks. The funeral will renew interest and add yet more to the lead, but a few days (?) after that we can pare it down to the size of Kennedy's and Byrd's. Current events temporarily bulge a standing article. --Yopienso (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, duh--Reywas92 did shortly after I first posted here. Thank you! (An edit summary would have been helpful in my search just now.)--Yopienso (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

@Lars T.: Please do not restore the tag that says the introduction is too long without consensus on this page. Thank you. --Yopienso (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD. Read it. Lars T. (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the talk page, Lars.
From WP:LEAD: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." We're fine on that.
"The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs..." We're one extra right now, but please read the points raised by British Watcher and myself here--this is a developing current event, and we'll pare it down after the funeral. Would that be all right? It seems s/he, Reywas92, and I agree, and no one else has disagreed. There is a tag that basically says the article is in flux for a while due to the death of the person who it's about. --Yopienso (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 Done --Yopienso (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Death and legacy section

A couple different users have removed my addition of quotes from other politicians about Stevens in this section. My intent was not to eulogize or add "cruft" but rather to report on the reaction from his colleagues in the Alaska delegation to congress, and I guess I just sort of threw G.W. Bush on top for some national flavor. Since neither of the users who reverted have commented on it here I guess I'm looking for some comment on this. You can see what was cut here: [23]. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that but am very busy in real life right now. Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_kennedy#Reaction I know there's a rule against using another article as precedent, but if you find that including a reaction is typical in the bios of recently deceased persons, by all means the Stevens article should follow suit. My vote: restore. --Yopienso (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, the Wikipedia:Memorial#MEMORIAL cited in the edit summary of that deletion is not about a small section in a biography, but about a stand-alone memorial. --Yopienso (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Fact check

Who's Who in Alaskan Politics has been a frequent reference over the years. I was looking up something else, and turning the page, I came across the entry on Stevens. Anyway, it lists his mother's maiden name as Yost, not Chancellor. Thought I would throw it out here first before "taking more drastic steps." RadioKAOS (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


"serving from December 24, 1968, until January 3, 2009, and thus the longest-serving Republican senator in history." According to the US Senate website, he is the 2nd longest, after Strom Thurmond (http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.127.156 (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Strom Thurmond switched parties from Democratic to Republican in 1964, about 10 years after he entered the Senate.  Frank  |  talk  02:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Stevens was a Republican senator for just over 40 years, and Thurmond was a Republican senator for a little over 38 years. JTRH (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Coining the term "intertubes"

Has anyone sources on this? The context is interessting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.78.5 (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life section misnamed??

Ted_Stevens#Personal_life seems to be mostly about honors for Stevens. I would like to see the material kept but move it to a section name describing it better. --Javaweb (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Latest addition

The attempts at making this article a political hit piece don't quite reveal the monstrous recentism problems found in Don Young. However, this last edit reminds me that we shouldn't be taking it more in that direction. Stevens faced large volumes of criticism for his efforts in helping to establish the Arctic Region Supercomputer Center. I realize that many of you may be too busy reading and living by your daily talking points memo to grasp this. However, do you really expect me to believe that "Oh, that was 20 years ago. Why should anyone give a shit?" is compatible with encyclopedic content versus rehashing of news items?RadioKAOS (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Change Ted Stevens crash from redir to dab?

Speaking of not giving undue weight to recent events (a lost cause on here sometimes): there was a flurry of talk page activity in the weeks following the plane crash in 2010, and practically nothing since. If anyone is still paying attention, I'm wondering if Ted Stevens crash (or more appropriately-worded title), which was created in the wake of that crash, should be a dab rather than a redirect. To make it real simple, his 1978 plane crash was also notable, perhaps just as notable as the 2010 crash. Ann Stevens wasn't the most notable victim of that crash, either, at least at the time.RadioKAOS (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't realized we had an article on his previous plane crash. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
If I'm following your logic correctly, we should stay the Wikipedia course and pretend that something or someone isn't notable until someone gets around to writing an article about it. That hasn't worked so far. Once again, I go back to undue weight, often caused by editors who understand that certain things are easier to source than others, yet aren't concerned about the significance or encyclopedic value. To use Kodiak as an example: Walter J. Erskine's mercantile business, which he operated out of the Russian-American Magazin, was significant to Kodiak's history. The redirect Erskine House to that article offers a hint, but that article is yet another NRHP article which contains little or no useful content. OTOH, someone added a paragraph on Pitbull's visit to Kodiak. Just because it's in the article, we should treat it as significant? Not buying it. It's there because it was easy to source, not because it was something of lasting historical significance. Same with the Taco Bell hoax being mentioned in Bethel, Alaska.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, the 2010 crash was more notable in that it ended Stevens' life. (Don Young's eventual death is going to be a lot more notable than Lu's was.) "2010 Alaska Turbo Otter crash" doesn't seem like the best title; we don't have an article on every plane crash with fatalities in Alaska. (Do we? I don't really know, but assume we wouldn't.) What made this crash notable was Stevens' death.is not perfect,
Trivia outside the scope of this article or WP at all: Yesterday I sent a note to the Associated Press about the "Multimedia Feature" at the bottom of this page reporting Stevens is under a federal investigation! Do they ever update their little boxes?? Yopienso (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
We certainly do not have an article on every plane crash with fatalities in Alaska, I don't even want to think about how many sub-stubs that would be. The article title was discussed on the talk page and that was a compromise solution. It was originally something like "2010 Alaska plane crash" until I pointed put that there had actually had been another notable plane crash in Alaska just a few weeks earlier. Back to the subject at hand, if we only have two things to disambiguate hatnotes might be a simpler solution. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Just from an offhand glance at one source, I believe there are dozens of aviation accident fatalities every single year. I agree that it would be overkill to go into any great detail. The issue here is that we're treating the first Stevens plane crash as little more than a footnote because it happened in 1978. Sorry to keep harping on Cheryll Heinze, but I didn't plaster her name all over numerous Wikipedia articles in response to an obituary. Joseph Rudd was far more notable. So is Tony Motley (the other survivor besides Uncle Ted).RadioKAOS (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I get your point, but history books--and encyclopedias--are like that. Unless the student is specializing, he gets the first millions of years of human history in a week, and next thousands in a few weeks, and then the last hundreds for the duration of the course. but this is Wikipedia, and you are free to write a whole long article on that first plane crash. (Like I said, we have all the episodes of Deadliest Catch summarized, just because somebody felt like doing it. Good luck on sourcing! Joe Rudd, who I'm sure was a fine fellow, really isn't all that notable. Yes, I believe there are many aviation fatalities every year. Yopienso (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not totally getting the question, but I think you have a good handle on an improvement and should go for it. More trivia, somewhat germane this time: We do have a list of all the Deadliest Catch episodes :P. (I've seen exactly 0.) Yopienso (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
It's a fundamental problem with the way things work on here. Lots of garbage makes its way into articles because the items in question are easy to source. I prefer deeper research than what passes for the norm on here. At the same time, I question the wisdom of expending all of that effort on this, when I'm not getting paid for it while there are others eager to scavenge my volunteer contributions for their own profit. Anyway, getting back to the main topic, I believe the only recent work which offers any insight as to the significance of the 1978 plane crash is Dermot Cole's book North To The Future. The chapter which mentioned it was heavily based upon an article Nicholas Lemann wrote in the Washington Post called "The Great Alaska Feud". I've already pointed out that while Wikipedia has no time limit, free and easy access to quality source material often does have a time limit. This article was previously available via NewsBank, but that's no longer the case. Probably not a good thing, as it speaks volumes about not only Stevens, but Mike Gravel, ANILCA and the major political battles at the time leading up to ANILCA's passage. Wikipedia hasn't even scratched the surface yet of that era in our history, and Gravel's article is a GA. As for Joseph Rudd? I'm sure that most everyone in Alaska has heard of a law firm called Guess & Rudd, which is still called that despite both principals having died in the 1970s. It's not "a bunch of wasted names that don't mean diddly-shit", as Casey Kasem once famously said.RadioKAOS (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I have one of those free Highbeam Research accounts. They have archives of Washington Post stories but I seem to be getting a flood of results from my inquiries, do you recall about what year the article you mention was written? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I had one opportunity to skim through the article when it was available on NewsBank, just enough to use it as a source for including the crash in Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. Looks like it was published on September 30, 1979 on page B1. Most of my other knowledge of the article comes through the synopsis written by Dermot Cole. The period it describes was rather tumultuous, not only because of ANILCA, but the open warfare that Gravel engaged in with most of the rest of Alaska's political establishment (leading to his defeat in 1980), the highly controversial Hammond-Hickel gubernatorial contest, various controversies in the legislature related to the state's newfound oil wealth (culminating in the 12th Legislature with Speaker Duncan being deposed mid-session and George Hohman's bribery conviction and expulsion from the Senate). Certainly a lot more fun than most of what gained attention during the Palin years.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ted Stevens. 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 02:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ted Stevens. 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 22:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Ted Stevens. 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 07:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Ted Stevens. 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 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 01:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ted Stevens. 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 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 21:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ted Stevens. 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) 01:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Article needs a restructure. For example, many editors consider that information about controversies should generally be integrated into the article. The article also contains detailed legal information about Stevens' legal issues, which might be better split into Ted Stevens trial and summarized here. The section about friendship in addition to being poorly sourced also came across as unencyclopedic; perhaps information about personal friendships could be briefly covered in a personal life section. (t · c) buidhe 07:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

True. I'll consider making a Ted Stevens trial page and moving his legal issues there. AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 17:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Stevens/Archive_1&oldid=1160819190"