Talk:Joni Ernst/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"opposes abortion", "opposes environmental regulation"

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

---

Unsourced POV push was removed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC) You might want to rethink that:

• Ernst has proposed eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency and criticized its interpretation of the Clean Water Act as applied to farms. "Ernst said common sense needs to be applied to regulations and it is time to "start rolling back the things that don’t make sense."[1]
• She opposes tax payer funded abortion and " might support a legal exception to save the life of the mother".[2][3] "In 2013, she backed “personhood” amendment to the Iowa state constitution that would ban all abortions and some contraception and turn miscarriages into murder investigations."[4]

- MrX 15:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I qualified "tax payer funded abortion" for NPOV, and added her support for personhood amendments, per the same - Cwobeel (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE we need to summarize the salient points of the article. As a politician, a summary of her positions in the lede is definitively a good idea, but it seems that some editors are keen in selectively listing in the lede some positions and not including others. Care to explain the rationale for the cherry-picking? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the current summary: Among her policy positions, Ernst supports a balanced budget, free-market health care, gun rights, partial privatization of Social Security accounts and protection of social security for seniors, and federal tax reform. She opposes cap and trade, a federal minimum wage, and same-sex marriage.. Is it not obvious that important positions are missing from the summary? Why hiding the other positions? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We are not supposed to deliberately lie in Wikipedia's voice just for the sake of making a politician look bad. Not sure why you still need such things explained to you after all the kilobytes of corrective wisdom that have been aimed at you. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

FCAYS, please tone down the personal attacks otherwise Collect might have to redact some of your comments.- MrX 18:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if you are able to identify a personal attack and point it out to me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

How many positions are appropriate in a lead which is supposed to be a summary? Should we add that she supports apple pie, opposes euthanasia, dislikes ISIL, and so on? I rather think that such massive "cover every topic" systematology in the lead of a BLP rapidly approaches UNDUE weight for any given issue. Do you think fifty "important positions" are too many? I am sure we could add at least fifty to just about every political BLP. Or ought we stick to the most "major issues" and keep it down to three or four? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Cherry-picking is not the answer. Very convenient indeed, not to include in the summary some of what has been reported as the most extreme positions of a Senate candidate in this election. In any case, I requested a page protection, which was granted, so we can all go and do something more useful with our time. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(btw, "systematology" is the science of systems, and not applicable in this context.) - Cwobeel (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well next time you folks go around "summarizing" the candidate's political positions, make sure you're not publishing completely made-up BS slander, which is not supposed to appear in BLPs. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There was no slander whatsoever in saying that Ernst opposes tax-payer funded abortion and supports personhood amendments. Unless you think that facts are slanderous. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see the title of this section for the language of the redacted slander. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

multiple (edit conflict)Collect, nobody is suggesting every position of hers be covered, we are suggesting that every significant one be covered; and "significant," in this case, being determined by coverage. Her position on abortion has coverage; her position on Apple-pie does not. COMMONSENSE, and all that sort of thing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly Vanamonde! Thank you for making it very clear that Vanamonde, MrX, and Cwobeel want to pick out the ones they find to be the most appalling by their personal standards and omit the ones that seem reasonable by their personal standards. Yes, the editors attempting to put in the lede wording about not supporting "tax-payer funded abortion sic" want to have full control of making Ernst look unreasonable based upon a biased and select set of issues. Vanamonde! you have made that clear with your statement. Thank you.--NK (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh bollocks. That is not what I am saying, and you know that damn well. I am saying significance is based on coverage in reliable sources; selective opposition to abortion has such coverage, and support of Apple-pie does not. This has nothing to do with which editors are involved, it has to do with the RS available. And the clearest evidence of your hypocrisy is that you cannot provide evidence of a reliable source on her positions which I opposed the inclusion of. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

RE: abortion, straight from the horse's mouth: "Ernst tells Nelson that she is antiabortion." Tiller54 (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah... that's not what "straight from the horse's mouth" means since it isn't a quote of Ernst. Moreover, that's a WaPo style editor being dumb with words. It is not good sourcing for the claim that this candidate opposes abortion. What we have good sourcing for is the fact that she is against taxpayer funding for abortion. Your efforts are well appreciated, though. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's actually extraordinarily clear. If a reliable source states that "Ernst tells Nelson that she is antiabortion.", then that meets every threshold of inclusion for Wikipedia purposes. If editors still insist on ignoring such sources, then they are simply being TENDENTIOUS.- MrX 16:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is that a fashion editor is not just a reliable source for political analysis, but such a reliable source that we accept her version even if it conflicts with all the other reliable sources that have been shown to date? That is just plain silly. No, just no. If the claim is accurate, you shall have no trouble finding actual reliable sources to substantiate it.

Please go familiarize yourself with WP policy, especially if you plan on accusing others of TE. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Monica Hesse is a staff writer for the Post Style section. She frequently writes about culture, the Web and the intersection of the two."-source
• "She is also a feature writer for the Washington Post, where she has covered royal weddings, dog shows, political campaigns, Academy Awards ceremonies, White House state dinners, and some events that felt like a mixture of all of the above." - source
• "Iowa Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst said she would support a federal bill that gives legal personhood rights to fetuses from the moment of fertilization, effectively wiping out legal abortion in the United States. ... "I will continue to stand by that. I am a pro-life candidate, and this has been shaped by my religious beliefs through the years,..." " - source

- MrX 16:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Style page writers often write about subjects that have a passing relation to politics ("royal weddings, dog shows, political campaigns, Academy Awards ceremonies, White House state dinners") but that does not make them political analysts whose opinions are notable or usable as a source of political analysis on WP. Under no circumstances should such questionable sourcing be used to contradict, in WP's voice, political positions stated by the candidate herself. All the less so in the lead, which in any event is actually not supposed to read like a campaign brochure (that isn't just something Collect says as a hobby, it turns out).

If you want political commentary in an article, you need a RS making political commentary. And the WP prose will have to track the source and maintain an encyclopedic tone.

Also you want to use caution when using partisan blog sources like HuffPo, since they often give only their "version" of a story. For example, although HuffPo uses the dramatic language "effectively wiping out legal abortion in the United States", it's referring to a federal bill introduced by Paul Ryan. This single HuffPo author seems to be alone in claiming (just barely, and without explanation or substantiation) that this bill is supported by Ernst.

Meanwhile, a state bill that she actually did vote for in 2013 was merely a statement of "principle" that probably would have chilled access to abortion due to raising the possibility new legal challenges, but was without any concrete binding effect — and in any event a state constitution can never legally infringe upon rights conferred by the federal constitution, which is supreme.

We have sourcing that lets us talk about her Iowa personhood amendment vote and notable commentary surrounding it. We have only a single tenuous sentence in an axe-grinding partisan blog source connecting Ernst to the Paul Ryan federal personhood amendment. Ernst herself does not say she supports a federal personhood amendment, nor ending legal abortion. It's a BLP violation to say otherwise — all the more so if we say it in the lead. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"A statement of principle". Indeed, voting for bills are just pony shows and meaningless. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Summary of positions

I would like to request a protected edit, to make the summary of her positions consistent with the coverage it received, per Vanamonde93. Before doing so, we need to establish consensus, so I am requesting here that editors weigh in. I propose that her positions on abortion and personhood are added to the summary in the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Concur - as per my previous comments and sources.- MrX 18:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - These are complicated issues. It's not appropriate to attempt to summarize someone's positions on them in a few words in the lede to their bio.CFredkin (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose On WP:BLP grounds, on WEIGHT grounds, and noting that inclusion of the laundry list requires an affirmative WP:CONSENSUS here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose On WP:BLP grounds, on WEIGHT grounds, and on the fact that next zero of the hundreds politician bios in Wikipedia are there any list of issue positions in the lede, and that the whole inclusion of the highly selective list probably violates not only BLP but also is in direct opposition to the MOS.--NK (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Collect, CFredkin: Would you agree to remove the entire summary from the lede? I would agree to that as a compromise. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I could support substantial trimming of political "stuff" from just about all political BLPs. No matter who they are of. Collect (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You didn't ask me, but I would be firmly opposed to removing her positions from the lead. If the issues are complex, then we just need to summarize them accurately. WP:BLP doesn't apply since her positions are well-documented. WP:UNDUE is being thrown around way too much on this talk page, but we can resolve it in this case by comparing the number of source articles that discuss her military career with those that discuss her political positions. - MrX 19:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support in principle a lot would depend on wording. Every political issue is bloody complicated. Even something like same-sex marriage, which is superficially simple, gets complicated quickly; does she oppose recognition, or does she want a constitutional prohibition? Very different positions, those. Complexity cannot be a reason for exclusion, because for a person whose sole notability is as a politician, her political positions are a necessity in the lede. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Seem this discussion calls for a special reminder that NPOV forbids making up positions and then attributing them to a politician. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I came here from Requests for closure hoping to close this after a second 30 day break. Sadly I don't see a consensus or a discussion leading that way. From what I read on this talk page I couldn't have told you what Joni Ernst's positions were. I'm going to leave this link to [On the Issues] which has a list of quotes and votes relating to her political position. From google news I get about 600 hits for "Joni Ernst" abortion compared with 540 for "Joni Ernst" military Some mention in a summary would be appropriate I feel. However the summary altogether appears to have gone from the lede. Is there any further use for this RFC or should it be closed as no consensus no longer relevant? SPACKlick (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

RfC Pro Life Stance

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

---

Ernst is [[United States pro-life movement|pro-life]], believing that life begins at conception.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.joniforiowa.com/issues/|title=ISSUES - Joni Ernst for Iowa|work=Joni Ernst for Iowa|accessdate=30 September 2014}}</ref> She voted for a [[Personhood#Beginning of personhood|fetal personhood]] amendment in the Iowa Senate in 2013 and has said that she would support a federal personhood bill.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/16/senate-candidate-endorses_n_5997126.html |title=Senate Candidate Joni Ernst Endorses Federal Personhood Bill For Fetuses |work=The Huffington Post |date=October 16, 2014 |accessdate=October 17, 2014}}</ref>

Is currently in this BLP. The first source is simply her personal campaign website, while the other is an article from the Huffington Post. The latter article also has "Democrats have been emphasizing their opponents' support for fetal personhood in the hope that it would turn off Independent voters" as part of its internal balancing commentary for the claim.

Where the only non-campaign source has balancing comments regarding the reasoning for the campaign claim, and is used to back claims in the BLP, ought we elide the other comments in that non-campaign source? 16:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

discussion

I rather feel that where the only actual WP:RS source for a claim includes material related to that claim, that (struck out on the basis that editors say this sentence was not comprehensible) we ought not just use "what we like" but also include the balancing material also in that source. Collect (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of other sources talking about Ernst's position that we could use to create a more nuanced/fleshed out version, but I do not see this as an issue really. Ernst has publicly stated her position multiple times. We shouldn't hinge her bio on it, but its not contentious to say this is what her opinion is. That Her opponents focus on it (or not) is not really an issue for her BLP (but could be an interesting addition to an election article if there is one)

A few other sources (some which do frame this in terms of how her opponents use it) :

• http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ernst-attempts-flip-flop-flip-personhood
• http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bruce-braley-joni-ernst-personhood-ad
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/29/joni-ernst-personhood_n_5902392.html
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/10/03/joni-ernst-tries-to-cover-her-tracks-on-personhood/
• http://www.kcrg.com/subject/news/fact-check-braley-hits-ernst-on-abortion-20140919

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This was exactly my reasoning for removing it, and you've expressed very well my view on why it should not be included. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what is being asked in the RFC. If what is being asked is that if it is OK to report on her positions and her voting record on personhood, of course it needs to be included. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the point of the RFC what should we say about this being played up by her opponents (per the last sentence in the RFC) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes -- in other words, the sentence that doesn't pertain to Ernst per se. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If that is the case, I would oppose. This is not a political pamphlet. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact the HuffPo comment specifically is in the context of the Ernst article. The article is specifically about Ernst, and is not about "politics on general" and the person writing about Ernst says:

Democrats have been emphasizing their opponents' support for fetal personhood in the hope that it would turn off Independent voters. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee released a new ad hitting Ernst on her abortion stance the same day she came out in support of a federal personhood bill.

Which fairly clearly indicates that the sentence is not a random aside, but is on point for an article about Ernst. Collect (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

In describing Ernst personally, its off topic. It describing Ernst's political positions, its too complicated/off topic (IE, we don't in general go through every candidate and describe their position, and then describe the 3rd parties who supported/criticized that position).

In the United_States_Senate_election_in_Iowa,_2014 article however, it certainly much more on topic, or possibly in the WP:SUMMARY section here Joni_Ernst#2014_U.S._Senate_election but that is distinct from its relevance to her Joni_Ernst#Political_positions directly (IE, she has that position regardless of what others say about it). Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

To clarify my previous comment as a !vote, I oppose inclusion in the "positions" area, but could support commentary about how the position was commented on in ads/debates in the election section/article. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose what the Democrats' campaign strategies are in various states has nothing to do with what Ernst's political positions are. Tiller54 (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Alas -- HuffPo specifically found it "relevant", and so ought we. Collect (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we ought not. Her views are her own and what the Democrats do with views like them in various states doesn't belong in the section on her article about her political positions. Tiller54 (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose needs to be modified and relocated in an election section or article. Fraulein451 (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Specifically linked in the sources as relevent. Not sure why it is an contencious issue. Arzel (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I've re-read the RfC question several times and continue to find it confusing and incoherent. "Where the only non-campaign source has balancing comments regarding the reasoning for the campaign claim, and is used to back claims in the BLP, ought we elide the other comments in that non-campaign source?" Can someone rephrase this in English? Are we being asked whether we should mention Ernst's position on personhood? Or Democratic efforts to leverage her position as a campaign strategy? Or both? MastCell ^Talk 21:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I apologize for using what I thought was a neutrally worded request for comment - which sentence causes you difficulty? The sentence at issue appears clearly given in the RfC. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm confused by the sentence I quoted. It reads like it was written by Google Translate and then run through a 19th-century thesaurus. What exactly are we being asked here? Can you rephrase the RfC question more coherently? MastCell ^Talk 03:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Are you seriously suggesting "elide" is a difficult word to comprehend? Else, I find no other word in the sentence which you might be remotely referring to. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Hmm. It's surely not a vocabulary issue. It might be the ridiculously stilted sentence construction, the grammatical errors, the quotes that aren't actually quotes, etc. Even so, I for one have no objection if you want to carry on writing in this fashion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
          • It passes every parsing requirement known - might it be possible you are simply parsing something else? Try using any online grammar checking software. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
            • You sure about that, friend? Never mind -- I'm sure you are sure. So: you have an extraneous "that" in a sentence above: "I rather feel that where the only actual WP:RS source for a claim includes material related to that claim, that we ought not just use..." You start off with "I rather feel that..."; then there's a subordinate clause. Then you pick up the main clause with another "that": "that we ought not just use...". That's the grammatical error. In addition, you're missing the initial comma that ought to set off the subordinate clause. "every parsing requirement known" indeed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
              • The comma is a matter of debate - eliding a comma is not a "grammatical error" and as for your noting that my sentence under the "discussion" section (not in the posing of the RfC query) is "I rather feel that where the only actual WP:RS source for a claim includes material related to that claim, that we ought not just use "what we like" but also include the balancing material also in that source", the use of the second "that" is grammatically acceptable except to Latin teachers. Now are we done with this foolishness? Collect (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
                • Just to be clear: I am not alone in finding the RfC question confusing if not completely incoherent. I have asked you (Collect) to clarify or rephrase it in clear English in order to facilitate meaningful feedback. Thus far you've instead chosen to question my reading comprehension and argue in a way which gives grammatical pedantry a bad name. Let's reboot. Are you willing to try to rephrase your question more clearly? Or at least answer my requests for clarification, above? Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 19:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
                  • The "error" pointed out (duplicate "that") is not even in the RfC query at all, but is in the discussion, so I really wonder just which word escaped your comprehension. So far, you have only said something on the order of "I have no idea what the query is" or the like. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
                    • Wow. Forget it. MastCell ^Talk 01:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
                    • “Elide”, “cavil”, and “en vacances”, sure Collect, we are all widely aware of your erudition, but please consider writing in plain English so responding to RFCs is not a chore. Accept the fact that you have a propensity for affected grammar that makes it hard to comprehend (some examples on the use of plain language vis-a-vis unnecessarily complicated, here Plain_language#Examples). - Cwobeel (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
                      • The concept that one must use super simple language in discussions is neat. I mean, it is really rad. Y'know. I would not diss another editor for using chatspeak even. cya l8r. ("elide" and "cavil" are actually pretty simple and clear words, but I can always pretend I am talking to my 6 year old grandson -- oops, he knows those words already. Collect (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
                        • • You can keep ignoring the very clear feedback in this thread. That's your choice. 18:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Exclude. Like Mastcell, I'm a bit confused by the wording in the RFC, as it's not immediately apparent what we're supposed to discuss. From the diff posted above, it seems like we're discussing whether the additional explanatory note in the HP article should be included. If that's the case – no. It is off-topic for her views on the subject, but it would be on-topic for an article on the political race itself. The actions of an opposing political party have no bearing on a candidate's political views. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Do not elide. Keep them separate to avoid improper synthesis. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

not first woman elected statewide

Patty Judge is sufficient to show that WaPo appears to have quite missed the mark. Collect (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary removal. She was the first woman to be elected statewide to the US Senate in Iowa. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

All Senate elections are "statewide" - WaPo said first woman statewide, not just first woman statewide to Senate. Collect (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Needs updating

I added the {{update}} tag with the reasoning:

The article needs additional information regarding her role in the 115th Congress. It could mislead one to believe that the current Congress is still 114, especially since it says that Congress 114 lasts from "2015 to 2017".

This talk section is the place to discuss the timeliness of the article. You can post support, criticism, comments, questions, etc here. --Mr. Guye (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joni Ernst. 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://archive.is/20140604031755/http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/06/03/joni-ernst-victory/9939911/ to http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/06/03/joni-ernst-victory/9939911/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130711132953/http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2013/07/10/republican-joni-ernst-joins-u-s-senate-race/article to http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2013/07/10/republican-joni-ernst-joins-u-s-senate-race/article
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130918014143/https://www.legis.iowa.gov/Legislators/legislator.aspx?GA=85&PID=11232 to https://www.legis.iowa.gov/Legislators/legislator.aspx?GA=85&PID=11232

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) 01:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Views on Donald Trump

RS content on Ernst's endorsements, condemnations and lack of condemnations regarding Trump have been removed. It is entirely encyclopedic to note whether Republican politicians endorsed or did not endorse Trump in 2016 (as many Republican politicians did not), and whether they've taken combative or tolerant positions to him after he assumed office. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if it needs a section header, but the content of the section seems reasonable to include here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to have sections on "lack of condemnations". Is that something we have in other articles on political fogures? Certainly doesn't seem to fit in the political positions section. Maybe a sentence somewhere summarizing her most germaine views on Trump? Seems like a stretch. Snooganssnoogans is constantly trying to stuff in all kinds of manufactured controversies into articles on fogures he dislikes. Seems like a BLP violation to me. Does she support Trump? Why or why not. Let's leave it at that. we dont need a section on every time she does or doesn't comment on whateber controversy is going on that day. What does she think of Stormy Daniels? Kaepernick? Football players kneeling? Where does it end? are those really worthwhile subjwcts to cover in an article about a u.s. senator? FloridaArmy (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The attitudes that politicians have towards political figures are frequently in political positions sections, see for example the pages of several Democrats (this is not just a Republican thing if you were under that impression), which include Joe Manchin's[5] and Heidi Heitkamp's[6] views on Trump, Heidi Heitkamp's views on Clinton[7] and Dan Lipinski's views on Barack Obama[8]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

And what you state in the article must actually be in the cited sources especially when it's derogatory. This is a BLP. Misrepresenting what the sources say is simply not acceptable Snooganssnoogans. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Please explain what has been misrepresented and what is not in the sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Relationship with Steve King

One editor removed reliably sourced text about Ernst's association with Steve King, a House Rep from Iowa known for racist rhetoric and far-right sympathies. The editor's stated rationale for removing all of the RS content was: "This articlr is about Ernst, not King. Editorials are not reliable indeoendent sources. Undue weight. POV."[9] The edit summary is poorly reasoned: (1) All the content is about Ernst and her relationship with King. (2) The Des Moines Register editorial was reported on by the Washington Post, and the citation is to the Washington Post (which is a RS). Text attributed to the Des Moines Register editorial was clearly attributed to DMR and sourced to a RS, so there should be no problem with it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I've removed that. In general, "Republican elected official endorses Republican elected official from the same state" is so routine as to not justify coverage. Of course, Steve King is not a normal Republican. Regarding the specific addition, starting a statement "Before the 2018 mid-term elections" that is sourced to a March 2017 editorial is misleading. The collection of comments regarding Ernst refusing to comment are also blatantly not relevant content for an encyclopedia article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate to cover Ernst's reaction to King and his white supremacy, given that numerous Republicans have explicitly condemned him, the NRCC stopped funding him, and of course given that she is one of Iowa's high-profile politicians and that it is entirely within her power and responsibility to call out white supremacy in the congressional delegation that she heads (contrast it to Albama Senator Richard Shelby's condemnation of fellow Republican Roy Moore in 2017 or the widespread Republican rebuke of David Duke in 1991). Her relationship with King was certainly subject of RS coverage, so I'm not quite sure on what basis you're arguing that it's trivial, routine or unencyclopedic when politicians fail to call out white supremacy - in this instance, it clearly wasn't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

More RS coverage of Ernst's relationship with King.

• NY Times: "Before this week, Iowa’s senior Republicans often courted Mr. King and his supporters. Ms. Ernst appeared with him at a rally in his district the Monday before Election Day, after he had endorsed a Toronto mayoral candidate with neo-Nazi ties... Mr. King has made racist comments for more than a decade that party leaders have mostly ignored."[10]
• NY Times: " Iowa’s two Republican senators, Mr. Grassley and Joni Ernst, along with Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who had appointed Mr. King a co-chairman of his 2016 presidential campaign, all rebuked Mr. King in recent days.All had eagerly embraced him in the past because of his standing with the state’s most conservative voters... Ms. Ernst, who faces re-election in 2020, appeared with Mr. King at a rally in his district the Monday before Election Day last year, after he had endorsed a Toronto mayoral candidate with neo-Nazi ties."[11]
• NY Mag: "But it’s only now that many of the Republicans who are excoriating King have stopped praising him. Consider Joni Ernst, who in 2016 went out of her way to praise him when he drew a Republican primary opponent."[12]
• Op-ed in the Guardian by the Pulitzer Prize-winning editor of an Iowa newspaper: "The epic hypocrisy of Republicans' sudden distaste for Steve King" (which focuses at length on Ernst)[13]
• Des Moines Register op-ed: "Why did it take national condemnation for Grassley, Ernst, Reynolds to call out King?"[14]

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you believe any of this additional coverage justifies inclusion of the content, power~enwiki? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No comment. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You're right about the dates on the DMR editorial. I mixed it up with the conservative local newspaper in King's district, which condemned him just prior to the 2018 midterms. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Relationship with Steve King

The consensus is to include the proposed text in the article. Several RfC participants noted that the text can be shortened; this can be discussed further.

Cunard (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Should the following text be added to this article?:

• Ernst's relationship with Steve King, a House Representative known for his racially charged rhetoric and support for far-right politicians, has stirred controversy. In 2016 when King faced a primary challenge for his House seat, Ernst endorsed him, saying he "stands strong for life and liberty." When King stirred controversy in 2017 by saying "we can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies" and by supporting European far-right politicians, Ernst said she did not condone King's behavior but she would not ask for his resignation. In 2017, the Des Moines Register wrote a scathing editorial against King, which criticized Ernst for endorsing him in the past and not condemning him. In 2018, she appeared with King at a rally in his district after King had endorsed a Canadian politician with neo-Nazi ties. In 2019, amid extensive criticism of King by Republican politicians after King made controversial remarks about white supremacy, Ernst rebuked him. The New York Times wrote that Ernst's belated distancing to King might harm her 2020 re-election efforts, as she previously "had spent years embracing Mr. King." Art Cullen, editor of The Storm Lake Times, condemned the belated response by Ernst, describing it as "hypocrisy" for her to condemn him only weeks after campaigning with him and when his views had been well-known for a long time. The editorial board of the Des Moines Register questioned why it took national condemnation for Ernst to rebuke King.

References

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. This is a topic that has earned Ernst substantial coverage by RS from both national news outlets and Iowa news outlets. That she has gone to great lengths to defend and help re-elect a man known for a string of racist remarks and associations with white supremacists is notable and gives insight into what kind of politician she is. It is entirely standard for Wikipedia pages on politicians to cover associations with radical figures and organizations, and I don‘t see why that shouldn‘t be the case here. The op-ed by Art Cullen might stand out, but I‘d just like to note that he‘s a Puliter Prize-winning editor of a local Iowa news outlet, so his commentary could be considered notable. I would not mind trimming the text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The content is supported by reliable sources and certainly appears noteworthy. That's not to say that some changes shouldn't be made, but the subject matter should be included. R2 (bleep) 01:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The amount of coverage by WP:RS supports this being included.Casprings (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support in some form. The level of extended coverage, and the Times piece in particular, establishes that this is a significant part of her political biography. --Aquillion (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, possibly trim. Ernst getting flack for supporting King is clearly well covered in RSes and merits some inclusion. I would consider tightening the 8.5 line (on my screen) paragraph to 3-4 lines.Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Support 2 or 3 sentences only anything more would be UNDUE but there's clearly enough sourcing to merit some inclusion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

---

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

RfC on Summary of Views

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus against the inclusion of this passage with the sources provided; general consensus against the phrase "hard-core conservative". Early close per WP:SNOW but if anyone objects I'm willing to reopen the discussion. I suggest it would be more productive to look for better sourcing on Ernst's views. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the following be included in a summary of Ernst’s views?

Commentators have described Ernst as on the right wing of the Republican Party, and as one of the most radical candidates of the 2014 election cycle. On the Issues, which tracks candidates' positions and records, classifies her as a "Hard-Core Conservative".

12:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Survey

• Yes. It’s an accurate summary of three different dedicated pieces in reliable sources which give context to where Ernst falls on the political spectrum and within the Republican Party, and a line from OnTheIssues, which is often used for a neutral overview in these contexts. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• No, and consider the usefulness of this kind of characterization in other articles. I don't doubt reliability but I wonder what value is added to the article. The label "Hard-Core Conservative" seems out of place. A search for the phrase turns up 25 results. Searching for "Hard-Core Liberal" finds 8 results. This table lists results I analyzed from English Wikipedia. Uses of this kind of phrasing seems to consistently either be echoing what's available on OneTheIssues or poorly sourced.

Caption

Article	Term	Source	My Characterization of Intent
Political positions of Donald Trump	Hard-Core Conservative	OnTheIssues	Part of a list
Eric Bolling	Hard-Core Conservative	Politico	Quote of subject's statement
John Boehner	Hard-Core Conservative	OnTheIssues	Section on political views
Gary Johnson	Hard-Core Conservative	Nsfwcorp	Section on governorship
Jesse Hill Ford	Hard-Core Conservative	Unsourced	Unsure (not BLP so I didn't remove)
John Swartzwelder	Hard-Core Conservative	Book	Section on political views
Critical reaction to 24	Hard-Core Conservative	Magazine (The New Yorker)	Section on alleged bias
Robert S. Strauss	Hard-Core Conservative	Unsourced	Unsure (not BLP so I didn't remove)
House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000	Hard-Core Conservative	Book; The Arizona Republic	Section on Keating Five Scandal
List of Grace Under Fire episodes	Hard-Core Conservative	Unsourced	Plot synopsis
Political positions of Hillary Clinton	Hard-Core Liberal	OnTheIssues	Section on political philosophy
John Lewis	Hard-Core Liberal	OnTheIssues	Section on overview of political career
Ron Wyden	Hard-Core Liberal	OnTheIssues	Section on overview of political career
Rubén Hinojosa	Hard-Core Liberal	OnTheIssues	Section on political views

In skimming any of these articles (with exception to List of Grace Under Fire episodes), I question the value that this phrasing adds to any of them. For articles sourcing OnTheIssues, every use is to either (a) list the history of the OnTheIssues rating or (b) echo the current rating. In other cases, each one I have an issue with.

• Gary Johnson - The source seems highly editorial. It even has a depiction of Johnson snorting up a city like cocaine.
• Jesse Hill Ford - This article is almost entirely unsourced.
• John Swartzwelder - I don't have the full book, but a search on Google Books find no mention of the phrase "hard-core conservative", "conservative" (in the context of describing anyone's political views).
• Critical reaction to 24 - Connects the show to "hard-core conservative" through a friend of an producer of the show being characterized as such. The seems a stretch. The premise itself seems sound based on it's sources (the show has a conservative slant).
• House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000 - Neither source has the phrase "hard-core conservative". (Same as the other book; I don't have the full book so I'm depending on Google Books searches).

I thought the phrase "hardcore conservative" was fairly commonplace but I'm not particularly wedded to it – I'd be happy with Snooganssnoogans' alternative below. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Staunch conservative". I think the term "staunch conservative" sounds better and is more consistent with RS[15][16]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• No--strong no on the first sentence. The WaPo source is an opinion blog, and the MSNBC source is from the Rachel Maddow Show--both are unacceptable for statements of fact or unattributed opinions . As for the Slate article, it's written by NY Times opinion writer Jamelle Bouie, and we should always use caution when using Slate, especially for contentious edits to a BLP. As such, the first sentence clearly violates WP:BLP & MOS:LABEL (and possibly MOS:WEASEL too). For the second sentence, 'Hard-Core Conservative' doesn't seem like very encyclopedic language. "Staunch conservative" seems somewhat better. Or we could say "deeply conservative," as per PBS News Hour & The AP. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• No The weakness of the sources has already been discussed, and I agree. I happen to like the Rachel Maddow show and subscribe to the Washington Post. But both these specific sources are opinion pieces which should not be used for factual assertions. I would like to raise another issue. Those sources all go back six years or more to the time when Ernst was first elected to the Senate. If we are going to describe her political positions as a US Senator, we should prefer sources that are much more recent. I also believe that the "hardcore" term is non-standard for evaluating political positions and carries a lot of negative connotations. BLP policy requires that we be very cautious about this type of thing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I was interpreting WP:RSOPINION to allow for collectively attributing a group of opinion pieces as commentary; I'd be happy with naming each source inline instead. The timeframe they refer to is specified and it seems beneficial to me to include characterisations from different points in her career (it distinguishes her, for instance, from politicians who have taken up hard right positions only in the past four years). It's also inevitable that people get more detailed coverage when they're in the spotlight. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: It's very poor sourcing (opinion pieces), dated, and a basically meaningless label. From an encyclopedic standpoint, it's much more useful to actually flesh out her policy views (with reliable sourcing, of course), rather than add what some commentators called her (7 years ago, at that). Marquardtika (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• No The "sourcing" is nothing more than a collection of liberal, left wing opinion pieces.EdJF (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Caption

Shouldn't the caption state the official portrait is from 2020, not 2017? I believe the 2017 portrait is the older one of her in the pink suit. -Mad Mismagius (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Environment

The environment section needs information about how she voted in opposition of the Green New Deal and gave out a speech about it on the Senate Floor in 2019 shortly after its proposal. --96.19.155.13 (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)