Talk:Jim Talent

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

Kind of an obvious statement here[edit]

"He identifies with the conservative wing of the Republican party..."

Of course he does. So does nearly each and every one of the 48 Republicans in the Senate. BobCubTAC (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stem cell research and political implications[edit]

What is the argument for changing the stem cell paragraph from

"In July 2006, he voted against expanding federal funds for embryonic stem cell research in cases where the embryos were donated by fertility clinics or were created for purposes of fertility treatment.[20] This bill passed the Senate 63-37, but was vetoed by President Bush, in a move that was said to have significant political implications for Talent.. [21]"

to

"In July 2006, he voted against expanding federal funds for embryonic stem cell research in cases where the embryos were donated by fertility clinics or were created for purposes of fertility treatment.[20] This bill passed the Senate 63-37, but was vetoed by President Bush. [21]"?

I don't really see a POV issue here- the above text doesn't even spell out what the political implications might be, and everyone was talking about what the veto would mean for Talent at the time... To me, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Abundance_and_redundancy rules out exactly the arguments being used by 162.138.176.51/BZuckercorn, but let me know if I am being unfair. Thanks, Paulgaham

Changes to Carnahan Paragraphs[edit]

I removed the following from the article:

Carnahan's death was an event that would greatly affect Talent's political future: firstly it probably contributed to his loss to Holden but secondly it would allow him to be elected Senator.

I did this for several reasons:

  1. "firstly it probably contributed to his loss to Holden" - this is an opinion/conjecture (I agree it's probably true - but it's still opinion)
  2. "secondly it would allow him to be elected Senator" - this doesn't add anything not already clear from the rest of the discussion about Mel/Jean Carnahan, etc.
  3. the deleted section didn't flow very well

I also made the following changes

  1. removed the election percentages, most election articles don't seem to have this. If someone thinks having the actual numbers on the page is, then please add them back. (If you do, please use consistent formatting/rounding)
  2. I clarified the section on the end of his current term

Kenj0418 00:03, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Sections for 'Importance'[edit]

BZuckercorn has been very agressive in deleting information that he/she feels are not important. A reason is always given that the burden of proof is on the person who put the info that they need to show its importance. I think this is totally aburd. If that were the case, we would delete almost the entire entry! Is the fact that talent has two daughters relevant? Prove it! Is the fact that he will debate on Oct. 8? Prove it!

This excuse that 'importance' needs to be established can be used for ANYTHING. When we then have selective deletions, it greatly skews the entry. Given that the entry could currently stand to be quite a bit longer, I believe that the burden of proof is on the person who would delete information, not add it. (This is, of course, in the case that no one doubts the truth of the information.)

You, the person who would choose to DENY information to the reader, YOU have the burden of proof to show that there IS a good reason to delete the information. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information, not advance a political agenda.

BZuckercorn responds as follows: I need to respectfully disagree with you regarding deleting unsubstantiated information. Deleting the blurb about facebook had nothing to do with not feeling like it's not important (nor were my other deletions today). That deletion was because it appeared to be unsubstantiated information that is not common knowledge. This kind of stuff gets deleted every day on every page on wikipedia. If someone puts it in, by all means, go for it, but facebook usage statistics are not something you or I could easily find out. Any editor questions writers on their facts, where they get them from whey they're important, etc. Read the rules when you submit something. I'm paraphrasing, but wiki tells you don't add information if you don't want your information constantly being edited and poked at. Anyway, this particular page is a biography of a person. Any biography you read includes information such as Talent having 2 daughters. Nobody disputes it, you could easily find out on his own web-site and it's information that is relevant to understanding him as a person. If you want to know more about him or hear him speak, tune into the Oct. 8 debate on national television. Anyone can look at their TV listings or candidate websites for a calendar of their upcoming speeches/events and substantiate the fact that there is a debate on that date. It's wikipedia's job to consolidate a lot of information into a summary of what the person is about. I've searched and I can't find anything that substantiates the claim about facebook. In my view unsubstantiated information doesn't belong. It is your right to prove me wrong and point me in the right direction so that I know the writer is not blowing smoke up my.... nose. Further I don't think polling data is particularly relevant unless it's tied to a certain time in space - was McCaskil leading Talent among young facebook voters last week or last year? Was the facebook poll scientific in any way? For these reasons I deleted it and will continue to do so until someone proves to me that it's not completely made up. I'm not denying information to the reader as you imply.

I'm very glad to hear you say that wikipedia is not to advance a political agenda. This is an excellent point and one that all of us should consider carefully. I have repeatedly seen users try to paint Sen. Talent a certain by using the selectivity you accuse me of. If you think I'm just some Republican trying to make Talent look good, why would I care about friggin facebook stats. I would immediately delete the sections referring to his position on stem cell research which make him look like a flip-flopper, but I can't dispute the facts or dispute that it's a significant issue. Everyone has bias, true, and you may not believe me, but I am genuinely trying to make this page as evenhanded and fair as possible in both directions. I think the blurbs about Abramoff or Delay are fair as are blurbs about the Meth Act or flag burning or whatever. I have more thoughts on individual votes below. BZuckercorn 01:16 EST 09/28/06

I would like to throw in my two cents here. First, the facebook blurb would appear to be positive information about Talent, or at least neutral, so BZuckercorn has a point in saying why would he delete that to advance a republican agenda. However, that information is (to me) rather interesting, and the value of Wikipedia is partly that it can provide interesting information like this that is unlikely to be found elsewhere. If the issue is simply that it is unsubstantiated, couldn't we simply put a link to the facebook site? Anyone could check it...

Organization of contributor section[edit]

BZuckercorn is insistent that the contributors not be organized by industry. I see no reason to delete this information. If no reasons are given NOT to organize the contributors by industry, I intend to revert this. Certainly an organized list is more useful than a huge unorganized paragraph.

Here's the issue I have with this one. Every politician gets thousands of campaign contributions. To separate them out by industry is to suggest something or color him in a way that is not true - that he's in the back pocket of big tobacco or big energy companies. If there was something in the news suggesting this, I would have no problem separating it out (for example see where we came out on the Abramoff and Delay thing - there was some press linking Talent to compaign contribs from these guys; therefore, it's relevant to his bio/history). What is probably more true at this point is that Talent has views or has voted during his rep days in a way that pleases those particular industries, but the same can be said of the Dentist and Peanut-Shelling PACs. If you make a point to say big tobacco supports Talent then why is this more relevant than the Peanut-Shellers? - they all contribute approximately the same amount to his campaign. No one can dispute that he actually did accept donations from anyone listed in his campaign disclosures, but to highlight particular industries is mis-leading and tells .01% of the story with regard to who has supported the man by putting their money where their mouth is. BZuckercorn 13:55 09/26/06

I want to respond to one of your points: "If you make a point to say big tobacco supports Talent then why is this more relevant than the Peanut-Shellers?"

I totally agree. All donors are important, and I would suggest we work slowly to organize the entire list, not just cherry picking. I would slowly like to do just that, but you keep reverting the contributions.

If your only objection is to PARTICULAR donors being sorted out, you are certainly free to sort out the others. However, you have not justified deleting the information, so I am generally planning to move back in that direction.

I'm sorry, I don't know who your name (username) is so I feel like I can't refer to you properly. Anyway, I think I've been pretty clear with my objection: someone who contributes $5000 to a campaign that spends $10 million (or whatever ridiculous amounts we're talking about these days) is just not significant enough to stand on it's own, nor is it significant/newsworthy (sorry, I'm a numbers guy, but I think you would agree that .05% is not significant). My point was not to say that the Peanut Shellers PAC contribution is significant, it is to say that their contribution is only AS significant as whatever power co. you choose (i.e. not significant at all). I don't know how else I can say it - I don't even think there should be a campaign contributions section at all unless particular donations cause controversy or news that are significant to the person's career. BZuckercorn 14:57 EST 09/26/06

So your argument is that the contributors section should not exist. I see that the broader community here seems to disagree with you. That is no excuse for deleting organizational information. Your repeatedly deleting the organizational information frankly appears to be attempts to make the information difficult to read. If your argument is that the section should not exist, argue that. If it DOES exist, it should obviously be as well organized as possible.

Yes! That is absolutely my point! I would propose removing that whole first paragraph. BTW, only one user proposed it (I don't think it was you) and he and I had a little back and forth about what it looked like. If you think that the broader community agrees than check out McCaskill's sight or any other candidate and see if they have all their contributors listed by industry or SIC number or tax ID number or however you choose to organize it. I was trying to be a nice guy and let people keep their info in, but you're right, I don't see any point in it. BZuckercorn 15:33 EST 09/26/06

Removed contributor section[edit]

I removed [1] the contributor section that was added by anon user 68.78.131.219.

  1. First, the selection of those listed apparently is based on the POV of the editor -- presumably the message is 'Talent took money from people who later had legal problems - so Talent must be bad too'.
  2. Second, no other Senator article I examined included this information.
  3. Third, the information is not-notable -- no issues have been raised regarding any of Talent's campaign contribution either in the Missouri media or in his re-election campaign. (Numerous politicians received legal contributions from Abramoff, Delay's PAC, and Tobacco companies, there is nothing particularly notable about those received by Talent).

kenj0418 22:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kenj0418, I disagree with your rationale for removal of the contributor section.
  1. First, the article doesn't say Talent must be bad too. Readers are free to conclude for themselves. Also, you seem to suggest the structure is a syllogism; however, this does not mean that it's a logical fallacy. (I'm sure a programmer like you can appreciate what I'm saying.)
  2. Second, I have seen many articles on Politicians detailing political contributions. Please see the article for Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House. It has a long-standing section detailing contributions and nobody has objected. I find this to be a strong validation, as the Hastert article attracts considerable attention and review. Including contributions is valid.
  3. Third, the information is notable. There are scores of publications and web sites dedicated solely to the issue of political contributions and campaign finance. For example, the Center for Responsive Politics reports a great deal of information about the donations Talent has accepted. [2] If the information is not notable, why does the Federal Election Commission go to the effort to report such information?
I have given this careful consideration and intend to revert your deletion of the contributors section. I welcome your feedback. Thanks. Propol 05:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References to Individual Votes[edit]

I have deleted references to individual votes because it is generally not an accurate representation of a senator's/candidate's views and these references are often meant to mislead. I think quotes and co-sponsored legislation are the best evidence of a person's overall view on the subject. I don't think wikipedia should sound like a campaign ad for either candidate (individual votes are almost always referenced in political ads and are almost always meant to mislead whether the ad is by a Repub, Dem, or anyone else), but should capture the essence of what the candidate has championed or is known for. I think as it reads now, the reader has no doubt that Talent leans conservative on most issues. I welcome discussion on this topic. BZuckercorn 08:37AM 09/26/06

The problem with this is that on some issues, the only way to gauge a candidates position is by 'individual votes'. For example, Jim Talent has voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate for a discount on drugs. Yet, he has no quotes on this issue on his website, or seemingly anywhere else. Votes are what matter, and we cannot avoid all discussion of a topic simply because a candidate chooses not to talk about it. So, I strongly disagree.

Given further thought, I think BZuckercorn has a point. If a candidate makes no statements on an issue, but votes on it, perhaps we should limit information on that issue to specifically mention voting behavior, rather than suggesting this gives an overall view. In this way, we still give the important information about the Senator's voting behavior, but avoid more subjective information about what philosophy this behavior is a result of.

Obviously, I would never argue that Talent did not vote against one particular amendment or another if the facts support it. My argument is what the purpose of wikipedia is. I doubt that the bio for John Adams highlights obscure votes during his congressional days - the focus is his career and what he's known for (i.e. what legislation did he offer? - how was his tenure significant?, etc.). I don't think individual votes have any place in wikipedia for any politician unless it's newsworthy or significant in some way. I doubt you would suggest putting every single vote a politician ever cast in a list on wikipedia. It's supportable by the congressional record, isn't it? It's ridiculous because it would totally water down the things he/she did that were actually newsworthy or significant. I think it's wrong to cherry pick votes just because it paints someone one way or another. As I mentioned above, putting a vote under the heading "political views" or whatever implies that how he/she voted that one time represents their entire stance on the issue. BZuckercorn, 14:03 09/26/06

Clearly, it would be unrealistic to put every vote on the page. But it is not fair to compare minor procedural votes to this: a vote on a major amendment that was well publicized in mass media at the time. This issue is of major interest to many people, and this vote had a major impact. In the absence of any other information, votes are what we must use to determine a politician's views. My fundamental concern is this: **If we only put down views on which the candidate publishes quotes, does that not mean that we are allowing the candidate to control the debate**? Regardless of if he has chosen to talk about, Senator Talent made a vote on an important amendment, and I can see no excuse for deleting that.

I'm glad you agree with me that the article should be focused on newsworthy events. Then it should be pretty easy to find an article in the Kansas City Star or St. Louis Times-Dispatch as a better reference than a blogger who used the congressional voting record as his only reference. I agree that significance is not defined by the person himself, but when you're talking about views, who better to define it than the person. I understand that significant newsworthy events are not controlled by the candidate. How about all the news stories (from major outlets) this week about George Allen? - I don't think he is controlling that debate very well. BZuckercorn 14:29 EST 09/26/06

The congressional record is an absolutely trustworthy reference, so I fail to see your point. It was a major vote on a major issue that people care about. Simply because Talent chooses not to talk about it does not mean the issue does not exist.

I think I'm agreeing with you on signficance but you have to prove it - I can't just take your word for it. Your reference fails to indicate why this vote is significant to Talent's career (other than the particular bloggers opinion) nor does it demonstrate that it's newsworthy or that anyone even cared about it. My point is that if it was such a big deal, then you need to demonstrate that it actually was a big deal that news outlets found it important enough to trumpet. I was glad to see you use an extensive interview with Talent as one of your references - I think that makes sense - someone thought an issue/vote was important enough to ask him about it and he responded. BZuckercorn 15:27 09/26/06

User:BZuckercorn wrote: I have deleted references to individual votes because it is generally not an accurate representation of a senator's/candidate's views and these references are often meant to mislead. I think quotes and co-sponsored legislation are the best evidence of a person's overall view on the subject. I think he's right -- but note that he said generally. I think in this particular instance however, this vote is a fair representation of where he stands on the issue. This was not a procedural vote, or a vote that had other alternative measures -- it was a straight "negotiate in bulk or not" vote, and, thus, it's fair to mention it in the article. -- Sholom 19:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input User:Sholom, and I must agree with myself! But please see my point in the paragraph right before yours. If someone is arguing that a particular vote is particularly signficant, and I'm not doubt that the one mentioned is, then there should be plenty of ink in mass media devoted to not only this particular vote, but Talent's involvement in it. I just think there should be more substantial referencing than congressional records, otherwise the reader has no grasp as to the context including how significant it was or why. Someone needs to prove to the reader that a particular bit of information is important to understanding this person's view on a particular issue. It's just classic cheap politics to point to one vote and say "see, Talent doesn't think health care should be accessible or affordable!" BZuckercorn 15:52 EST, 09/26/06

I agree with you in general. But I'm not convinced that applies in this case. In this case, there was plenty of ink in mass media devoted to this issue. But why should there be lots of ink as to his involvement in it? Or, more precisely, why should the amount of ink as to his involvement in it be necessary for inclusion here? Let me give other examples: suppose there was a Constitutional Amendment offered in Congress to ban abortion? (Or, for that matter, consider the Flag Desecration Amendment, or a Ban Gay Marriage Amendment, etc etc.). Suppose a Senator doesn't make speeches about it, and doesn't make a big deal about it, but votes one way or another on it. If the issue is significant, then isn't the vote also significant? -- Sholom 12:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since we all agree this issue is significant, I have put back in this fact. The issue is significant, Senator Talent's actions have had significant impact, and we have no other way to judge his views. A simple statement of his vote does not claim anything other than that this is *our best knowledge* of his views.

I think Sholom makes a good point. What I want to avoid is what I described above repeatedly... selectively including votes to advance a political agenda, which a new friend of mine is accusing me of on this discussion board. I just really want to see a better reference than the congressional record because he voted a certain way for a reason. Out of context many votes appear to be completely unreasonable. I don't think it's fair on wiki to highlight a Democratic Senator's vote against the Medicare Reform Act and say that's their "view" on a particular political issue. If left alone, the entry implies that the Senator opposes providing seniors with drug benefits or reforming Medicare - nearly all Democratic Senators voted against it, but not for the reasons you might think - they and many newspaper articles will tell you that they agreed in principle, but they voted against it because they felt it didn't go far enough and they felt it was flawed and a bunch of other reasons. There's a million reasons to vote one way or another. This is why I would like in the future to ensure that if a key vote is included there is some color around it that allows some insight as to a senator/candidate's view. I will let it stand and see if I can find the color surrounding the bulk drug purchasing vote that I'm talking about. BZuckercorn 01:34 EST 09/28/06

Thank you BZuckercorn for negotiating in good faith here and trying to make the page as informative as possible. You certainly have a point that selectively including votes is dangerous. In general, though, I feel that the best way to proceed is to try to find further contextual information, rather than deleting. The question still remains, though, of what to do about significant ACTIONS a politician has taken with out producing any EXPLAINATION. In these cases, I think we should still include the actions as the best evidence of what the politican's views are, but with out overgeneralizing. (For example, I think it is appropriate to say, 'He voted against this particular amendment', rather than, 'he opposes this is general.)

Canidate[edit]

I've added the current election canidate tag to this article since Claire has such a tag as well.

Lobbying[edit]

Is there any reason that this article does not include a reference to Talent's stint as a lobbyist with Arent Fox? Is that considered irrelevant? Here is the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.66.159.215 (talk • contribs)

I certainly think this is valid for inclusion. If you can find any additional sources that discuss Talent's lobbying that would be helpful. Thanks. Propol 12:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I signed up for an account and added the section. Here is one more link that I did not include because it seemed too biased.Personman2 19:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Poverty Issue Under Political Views Section[edit]

Onecampaigner has been trying to include a statement that Talent does not support fighting hunger and specifically does not support the Millennium Development Goals. Maybe it's true, maybe not, but the sources simply do not support your controversial statement. The only thing the web-link indicates is that Talent has not signed on as a co-sponsor of the legislation. I did some checking and noted that only 5 or 6 senators are co-sponsoring the legislation. It is simply false to say that the other 94 or 95 senators who have not co-sponsored the legislation do not support fighting poverty and global hunger. Below is a blow-by-blow breakdown of problems with this section:

"Sen. Talent does not support the Millennium Development Goals," - It's impossible to determine that he does not support it based on the information you provided, which simply states he has not co-sponsored the bill.

"which would halve the number of people living in extreme poverty by 2015." - This is not a statement of fact as one would expect in an encyclopedia, but a speculative statement.

"In addition to global poverty, Sen. Talent has not supported fighting hunger in the United States by refusing to cosponsor the Hunger Free Communities Act" - Again, no way to support this controversial statement with the source you provided. There are a million reasons why senators choose to co-sponsor a bill or choose not too. For example, co-sponsoring bills requires devoting at least one staff member to a multitude of meetings with other co-sponsors, other senate office and lobbyists. In addition, it eats up a lot of time in reviews, revisions of the legislation. In the case of Talent, the staff member may have already been devoting their time to the meth legislation, or to the legislation to cap payday lending, or the bill to allow trade associations to organize for reduced health-care costs. This is just one example of why a Senator may choose not to co-sponsor a bill for reasons totally separate from whether or not he/she thinks it's a good idea.

"which would help people in living in poverty in the US" - another speculative statement.

Please see the history for many edits made on this page that eliminate speculative statements (including quite a few of my own) and unsupportable positions. I would welcome thoughts on this one. BZuckercorn 10/18/06 10:04a ET

Money from Lobbyists[edit]

Paulgaham seems to not be understanding my point. I have no problem with the content of the bit about the lobbyist "team" donating money in support of Talent's re-election. It is a pure editing point. Where does it better fit? The point is it belongs in the re-election section, not in the section discussing his political career. I keep moving it because no one has made any compelling arguement for these donations being in some way related to Talent's career as a Lobbyist. The referenced article does not discuss any connection between that particular $1 million and Talent's controversial lobbying stint with Arent Fox. The referenced article merely talks about how these lobbyists are supporting a number of GOP candidates using these teams. It is relevant info to his re-election campaign not to his "career" as a lobbyist. If you continue to move it please do so in good faith and tell my why info on re-election donations do not belong in the re-election heading. I also don't understand why Paulgaham keeps moving it so that it is separate from the follow-on quote. I'm just trying to structure this in the way that makes the most sense. Paulgaham referred me to a wiki article about redundancy because I complained the information was in 2 different places in the same article. That particular wiki guidance relates to repetitive information included within more than one ARTICLE, not repetitive information within the same article. Also, apologies to Paulgaham for saying that the washpost article didn't reference Talent. I missed it. 162.138.176.51 17:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant to his lobbying career because of accusations that Talent did not do any real work at Arent Fox, but that his 'job' was a back-door political donation. The information on later donations clearly bears on that. On the other hand, it has no specific connections the re-elecion campaign, and Talent general quote on the ethics of recieving money. So the information is more relevant in the lobbyist section than later on because it has much deeper connections there. As a compromise, we could leave the info in both places. --Paulgaham

Paulgaham, I think you may be missing something. Maybe you think I'm talking about the money Talent received from Arent Fox? I'm not - I agree that that belongs in the section dealing with Talent's political career. But the information on later donations do NOT bear anything out as it is a distinct event from Talent's work with Arent Fox. The information is from completely different news sources. There is NO connection made in the Kansas City Star article to Talent's previous lobbying controversy. To tie his subsequent donations to alleged "back-door" donations is misleading unless you find some sort of verifiable evidence that lobbyists gave because Talent used to be one. The Kansas City Star article is solely focused on fund-raising for the RE-ELECTION campaign. This information flows right into who is endorsing Talent to be re-elected. I don't know how many ways I can explain myself and the logic of the thing. Please explain to me why you are so insistent on tying two distinct events (one of which is a controversy about his lobbying career before the 2002 election, the other related to donations for 2006 election) from two different news sources. If there is some scandal that you are implying, it needs to be verifiable. Finally, with regard to stem-cells. I agree. Significant issue. Newsworthy. But, this article is about Talent and the section is about what he believes. You read wikipedia (an encyclopedia to be sure) for facts, not analysis of what someone thinks about what impact a vote may or may not have. The users and editors of this article have had painful discussions and edits on this topic and have genearally agreed that Talent's views and actions should stand on their own. In the political views section, you will observe that there is a conspicuous absence of any analysis from what anyone thinks about Talent's votes or views or their impact. Each topic was selected because people care about them. A statement that Talent's vote has political implications is silly statement that says nothing. Any vote Talent offers has a political impact. He's a politician. Please understand that all I'm trying to acheive is an article that makes sense, flows well and is factual. Illogical placement of text or words that don't say anything meaningful are not consistent with this goal. 162.138.176.51 18:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting blogpost[edit]

http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/9046 - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Heritage[edit]

Does Talent have Jewish heratige? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.237.240.230 (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

2008 Gubernatorial Bid[edit]

I am changing this information to say that he was considered, but will not be in the general election. umrguy42 15:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fundraising Info[edit]

I'm considering deleting the information about Dick Cheney and Jack Abramoff from the 2006 Campaign section. The Cheney fundraiser doesn't seem notable, and the suggestion that it contributed significantly to Talent's fundraising advantage over McCaskill is unsubstantiated. Plus, the cited web reference has since gone blank. Articles on the numerous other politicians who received contributions from Abramoff--such as Hillary Clinton, and Kit Bond--to pick an example from each party, don't mention him. Overall, it seems like cherry-picking to highlight contributions from the most unpopular people possible. Thoughts on this?0nullbinary0 (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 21 external links on Jim Talent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archived URLs 1, 14, and 15 did not work/were not useful. The rest did work, though. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Jim Talent. 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 05:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of these were useful or worked. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jim Talent. 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archive was not useful at the least. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 19:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second one worked, but the rest did not. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jim Talent. 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: 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) 20:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Links[edit]

There are a lot of links that don't work on this page, could someone go through and fix them?
MrMeAndMrMeContributions 13:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Talent&oldid=1208167316"