Talk:Glenn Grothman

Edit request

This article currently contains a false statement in the "Equal Pay" section. It states there that Glenn Grothman spoke "in support of Governor Scott Walker's decision to repeal the Wisconsin Equal Pay Act." But Wisconsin never had an "Equal Pay Act," and Scott Walker never repealed any such act. Instead, the recently repealed bill was called the Wisconsin "Equal Pay Enforcement Act," and it actually has nothing to do with the federal "Equal Pay Act."

Also, the article misleadingly states that "Grothman stated that he believes that money is more important to men than to women, and women do not therefore need as much." It would be more correct to say that he speculated that this might be true, since he prefaced his statement with "you could argue." He never made an unambiguous statement of belief, but merely put forth an argument.

I believe corrections are necessary in these two instances to maintain Wikipedia's neutral point of view regarding this controversial living figure.

108.76.69.16 (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Bart Torvik

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

His Kwanzaa quote can be extended to today's gaffe "Of course, almost no black people today care about Kwanzaa -- just white left-wingers who try to shove this down black people's throats in an effort to divide Americans." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.3.4 (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment on Badgercare Extension

State Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, said in the special session the decision to not extend coverage to childless adults was a “philosophical one” hinging on the fact that taxpayers’ dollars would be used for “people not working as hard as they could be.”

Read more: http://host.madison.com/daily-cardinal/news/special-session-legislature-votes-to-extend-badgercare-deadline/article_f8dd0e16-5be7-11e3-b4a3-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz2mPlWQ3K5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB391644 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Residence Update Request

Could somebody please update Glenn Grothman's residence to "Campbellsport, WI"? This would include both in the box with picture on the right and in the "2014 Congressional Campaign" section of the article. I would suggest changing "Grothman's home in West Bend is located in the 5th District, represented by fellow Republican Jim Sensenbrenner." to "Grothman moved to Campbellsport, in the 6th district, after announcing his intent to run for the congressional seat." Grothman's official residence, as listed on the nomination papers submitted to the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, can be found on page 14 of the following link: http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/page/nomination_paper_tracking_08_12_2014_partisan_prim_14421.PDF

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That list might support a simple change, but it couldn't even start to support "....moved...after announcing his intent to run..." This also sounds somewhat controversial, which is good with respect to the likelihood of finding news sources and bad in that edit requests should not be controversial. Once you find a source, please start a conversation with the other editors about how to include this. If no one objects after a day or two, I'll make a well-sourced change. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. A source information on his changing residence can be found at: http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/253734901.html Perhaps the phrase "Grothman's home in West Bend is located in the 5th District, represented by fellow Republican Jim Sensenbrenner." should be changed to "Grothman did not reside in the 6th district when he made his announcement, but had a residence in Campbellsport (in the 6th district) at the time of his filing of nomination with the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board.

Do you think that would be a better way of phrasing the information to be less controversial? I did not think that Grothman moving would be controversial. Members of Congress are not required to live in the district they represent, so he would not have been required to move at all, even if he were elected to the Congressional seat. Seen a Mike (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It is the conflation of moving with the announcement which strikes me as controversial. I have no interest in this guy's candidacy, I don't even know who he is, but when people talk about the reasons a person moved or want to make it clear that his residence was different when he said something than when he filed some document, there is a degree of controversy. Maybe not, but better to discuss this with the other editors before adding it to the article. (A non-controversial version might read: "In 2014, Grothman moved to Campbellsport, from West Bend.") Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Supports Ugandan Anti-Gay Laws?

Some of Grothman's political opponents have acccused him of supporting Uganda's anti-gay laws. Is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.243.148.28 (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Congressional Photo

Are we not able to get his congressional photo for the infobox? Guyb123321 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glenn Grothman. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110320193313/http://elections.state.wi.us:80/docview.asp?docid=15401&locid=47 to http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=15401&locid=47

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glenn Grothman. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://165.189.88.185/docview.asp?docid=1382&locid=47
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810143118/http://165.189.88.185/docview.asp?docid=1438&locid=47 to http://165.189.88.185/docview.asp?docid=1438&locid=47
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=15401&locid=47

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Erroneous deadlink tag

is not a deadlink. Live link is here:

References

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2018

Please add the following template to External links after the first two (official) links:

• Glenn Grothman at Curlie

Also, please remove the last link:

• Column archives at Grothman.org

as it is protected and doesn't allow access.

174.197.17.82 (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

---

 Partly done: Removed the 403 error sire but curlie.org's status as a reliable source is not apparent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_be_considered points 3 and 4, which are why this template has been in wide use in Wikipedia for over a decade. 174.197.17.82 (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

dmoz was widely used. Curlie is new and not widely accepted yet. DMOZ also generated many spam and coi issues over the years, and a new dmoz cannot be considered to be free of those issues. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it's the same directory, same editors, different name without AOL hosting. Please explain why you consider the links in this category to be spam or coi: https://curlie.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Wisconsin/Government/Federal/US_House_of_Representatives/Glenn_Grothman_%5BR-6%5D 174.197.17.82 (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

Much of the article seems to be geared to portray the subject in a negative tone, rather than a neutral one. Packerfansam (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Packerfansam: I'm removing the "neutrality is disputed" template from the article because I've done some copyediting to make the article's language compliant (I believe) with WP:NPOV. If you or anyone else still think that neutrality is still an issue, please feel free to put the template back, as long as you post examples, here, of what you find problematical. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Career and Technical Education

This edit seems iffy to me. It essentially restores content removed by Snooganssnoogans, who noted that the only secondary RS is a politifact piece which is used to bolster a point made in selfsourced text. The only added source is a five-sentence blurb from a local AM radio station which essentially repeats Rep. Grothman's own statements and adds no commentary — self-sourced in all but name, really. There's also a bit of a WP:SYNTH concern, since the Politifact piece doesn't actually say anything about the importance of "career and technical education" in the 6th district. (Aren't "career and technical education" important for everyone, regardless of district? Wouldn't employers in Wisconsin's 6th like to attract the technically educated even if they happened to grow up the next county over? Leaping from the current number of manufacturing jobs to future demand for particular school offerings is political speechmaking that isn't suitable for an encyclopedia article.) In addition, the language is lifted directly from Grothman's website without attribution, which at the very least is plagiarism, and may technically be a copyright violation depending on how the "works of the federal government are in the public domain" idea is interpreted. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

We should not use press releases from politicians. It's very basic, and editors in American politics have generally sought to eradicate this kind of self-serving content. It should be removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

And I see you have done so before I could, in addition to reversing an attempt at whitewashing. Thanks! XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

2011 Wisconsin budget protests

During the protests, Grothman was cornered by almost 200 pro-union protesters yelling "Shame! Shame!" outside the state capitol building. Grothman said he was not concerned about violence at the time, adding that, "They're loud, they'll give you the finger, and they yell at you, but I really think deep down inside they're just mostly college kids having fun, just like they're having fun sleeping with their girlfriends on air mattresses. That's the guts of that crowd." He also described the protesters as "a different breed of person" and "a bunch of slobs taking up the building."[8][9]

The last sentence in this section applies a statement made in the reference video about a specific group of people sleeping in the Capital to the protesters as a whole. I feel that the integrity of a page is compromised when sources are not clearly reported on and details are left out of text input by editors. The way it is portrayed above implies that ALL protesters are slobs. In the video, Lawrence O'Donnell asked Grothman if he thought this was true, to which he replied "no" and that he was talking about his experience with a group within the Capital building. I think this should be changed to the below for accuracy's sake:

During the protests, Grothman was cornered by almost 200 pro-union protesters yelling "Shame! Shame!" outside the state capitol building. Grothman said he was not concerned about violence at the time, adding that, "They're loud, they'll give you the finger, and they yell at you, but I really think deep down inside they're just mostly college kids having fun, just like they're having fun sleeping with their girlfriends on air mattresses. That's the guts of that crowd." He also described a specific group of protesters who were staying overnight in the Capital as "a different breed of person" and "a bunch of slobs taking up the building", but clarified that he was speaking only about the individuals he had seen inside the building and not the protesters as a whole.[8][9]

Please let me know what you think. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.138 (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Grothman said that the "vast majority" of protesters were "college students or hangers-on or unemployed people just looking for somewhere to hang out"; a few moments earlier, he stated "it would be embarrassing to me to take my child through that building today", dismissing the possibility raised by the news anchor that children seeing democracy in action would be educational. If we're going to report at length about that interview, we should represent it fully. XOR'easter (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that the single sentence does not represent the interview as a whole. If we both agree on that, then why is the sentence included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.138 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe the paragraph that is currently there is a better summary than any changes proposed so far, and in my view, further expansion risks giving the matter undue weight. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I see your point about Undue weight. I've added four words here to the original sentence that reflects what he said in the video. What do you think? "He once described some protesters sleeping in the Capital as "a different breed of person" and "a bunch of slobs taking up the building." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.138 (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how that really constitutes an improvement. No doubt improving upon the existing text is possible — random old passages aren't likely to be perfect — but this method isn't suited for finding truly beneficial changes. XOR'easter (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not a method, I'm trying to clarify a statement based on the source. As it is written, it looks like he called all protesters slobs, which was not the case per the source. Surely you can agree that text on Wikipedia should accurately reflect the source material, right? It's beneficial to all readers to have accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.138 (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

By "method", I mean "attempt a whitewash and then scale back". XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Grothman disparaged "the vast majority" of the protesters and said that those who were gainfully and respectably employed constituted "a very small percentage". This edit is, as it was before, an attempt to push a POV. XOR'easter (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

As it is now, it suggests that he thinks all protesters are slobs. How do you propose we remedy that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.138 (talk • contribs)

I disagree with what you think it "suggests". I think a reasonable reading of the current text is accurately reflective of what he said in the interview it summarizes. XOR'easter (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)