Talk:Norm Coleman/Archive 1

"Mushy Qualifiers"

This article is rather biased against Coleman in places. Mushy qualifiers like "widely considered" are not particularly objective. The quotes on the end are clearly offered without a context to make a point. I disagree with using selective quotes to make someone look bad. This page deserves changing or reverting to an older version.

--Tom Ruen 05:14, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't leave it untouched, but found it very easy to remove the trashy statements. It certainly deserves more work, if there's anyone out there without a political agenda for editting. --Tom Ruen 05:24, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

I think that it is fair to place a link to a satirical site about Sen. Coleman since it has his own personal Seante site linked as well. In the past the Bushboy.com link has been removed but without reason. Micah 00:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Micah. NormC 00:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Absulutely agree with NormC and Micah. Edwin 08:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Irrelevant Info About Blog Rumor

The article includes an irrelevant statement about a blog rumor: "A rumor, circulated widely on political blogs, suggested that the subcommittee censored Mr. Galloway by removing his testimony from their website... The rumor was false."

I do vaguely recall that a political website observed that some testimony or document relating to Galloway was not present on the Senate website, and so it wasn't, but I don't recall any particularly loud accusations of foul play nor do I recall that the issue received wide circulation. There was no specific accusation against Coleman on this point that I'm aware of. The person who wrote this bit said "the rumor suggested..." How does a rumor "suggest" something? Any decent rumor will come out and accuse, won't it? The phrasing is deliberately formulated to make it appear that Coleman was vindicated of some heinous leftwing charge, but this is simply not true. And really, a lot of noise will occur in blogs, why should this matter be relevant for the Wikipedia entry?

I think it sidesteps the really salient point of the Galloway matter, which was that Coleman and his committee made cheap, amateurish, poorly researched, and demonstrably false charges against the anti-war Brit MP, and Galloway showed up to refute them all in a forceful, clear, remarkable way that made a minor dent on the American consciousness. Among the problem charges was the accusation that Galloway met with Saddam Hussein "many times" when he had met with him just twice. And Galloway's overall point, besides refuting the individual charges in a way that was almost universally seen as effective, was that Coleman and co.'s entire enterprise chasing down supposed accounting irregularities in the years-old Oil-for-Food program was really in fact a "smokescreen" designed to divert attention from the atrocious state of the war in Iraq today.

I think that the bit (that is not even sourced) about the supposed blog rumor should be removed and replaced with a factual summary of what actually occured during the Galloway testimony. -Daniel M. (PS: I did not mean to clip anybody's else's comments from this screen, sorry if I did, I'm new at this.)

Al Franken As Likely Opponent

I reverted back to include Franken as Coleman's likely opponent because he has recently said he would like to run in 2008 to take back Wellstone's seat. Franken said he would not run for Mark Dayton's seat which will be an open election (Dayton is not seeking re-election). I know there was some confusion, but I'd be happy to provide a link to a news story about it if you'd like.
MicahMN | Talk 00:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how Franken being a "likely opponent" is relavent biographical information. This is article is about Norm Coleman, not about a Senate seat from Minnesota. I am sure there are many "likely opponents" that Coleman may have in 2008. There is no need to list them here. — Linnwood 15:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed: The Franken idea is just wild speculation at this point. At this point, it would be questionable even on a page about "Minnesota 2008 Senatorial Election." Coleman has many likely opponents; singling out Franken is just weird. !melquiades 00:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Can somebody type in that Franken will kick Coleman's butt in 2008? -Amit

Claims of biased report

I removed the following sentance: "There have been claims, however, that Coleman's staunch Republican views have biased the report, and some claim that the report was little more than an attempt by the Bush administration to discredit prominent anti-war politicians."

First this is not NOPV. Secondly, if you are going to say there have been claims you must state and cite them, otherwise they are rumors and hearsay.

Coleman's Deceased Children

During his televisived debate with Vice President Walter Mondale in 2002, Mondale bashed Coleman for his abortion position. Norm Coleman retorted, and included that he and his wife personally knew the tragedy that comes with the death of children, as he and his wife lost two children through miscarriage. The transcripts of the debate are readily availible on any number of websites. Please look it up and alter the page back to what I had before you so carelessly altered it. Your remark about Freemasonry was a really careless thing to add. I think now that you realize there is absolutely no credible source on that, you made the right decision by deleting it.

I actually went out and checked the transcript, and I believe you are incorrect. "COLEMAN: Let me just finish off on that issue, if I may, Mr. Vice President. And I would take exception, I'll use a kind word, to the description of an arbitrary. My wife and I have had two children who were born, first son and the last daughter. They died at very young ages. I have a deep and profound respect for the value of life; it's not arbitrary. But even on that issue, I think we can and should look to find common ground, but please, don't describe it as arbitrary." You can confirm this because the excerpt was on the National Review Online. I can also provide you a copy of the complete transcript if you'd like. Please stop reverting this as it is considered vandalism and you will be blocked. As I said on your talk page, the reason why I did not revert the Freemason reference is because it is hard to prove that Coleman is or is not a member of a secret society, although, to my credit, the NNDB has him listed as one [1]. MicahMN | Talk 03:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

To your credit? Or is it to the credit of whatever website you found that on?

No, to my credit, it was something I read somewhere else, not something that I just made up. I have no idea where the NNDB gets their info, but much of their other information seems to be correct. MicahMN | Talk 04:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

NNDB is published by the same people that run the perverse "rotten.com" and their information is typically frivolous and specious. --TJive 05:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Coleman's Record on Gay-Rights Issues

As mayor of St. Paul, Coleman voted against an effort to repeal the city's anti-discrimination law which prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Parsing . . . "Coleman voted against a repeal of a law that prohibited discrimination." This sentence seems to indicate that Coleman supported a law that protected gays from discrimination. Either the sentence is incorrect, or this vote is evidence of Coleman's support of gay rights, rather than evidence of his opposition. (Incidentally, I wonder whether it is accurate to say that he made this "vote" as mayor. I don't know anything about the structure of St. Paul's mayor - city council system, but perhaps it was a veto?)

I also think this is a little poorly worded, but it wouldn't be fully correct to say that Coleman was a champion of the anti-discrimination law for gay and lesbian St. Paul residents. He opposed a repeal of a law that protected their rights, if that makes sense. This vote, seemingly showing that he is in favor of some rights for the gay and lesbian community and opposed to others is the reason why the title should probably be "positions on gay rights issues." -- MicahMN | μ 13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Segment on Subcommittee, Etc.

02 AUG 05: I'm going to essentially restore the text that was recently deleted wholesale by TJive. Some of the phrasing I think could function either way, for example "claimed to have found evidence that" vs. "release a report that accused." But other of the changes disrupt the coherence of the article pushing it towards some sort of minimalist style, and others actually leave an erroneous impression. He deleted the portion that said the subcommittee included others including American corporations in the investigation, and left it appearing to state that solely Galloway, Zhironovsky, and Pasquale were the targets. I wasn't the author of this part of the text, but the fact that the subcommittee looked at corporations as well was a relevant part of the section. It was pointed out specifically by Sen. Levin IIRC.

Among the other parts TJive chopped were the description of Galloway's testimony as intense and articulate. This is descriptive, not a compliment or some normative appraisal. To call Galloway articulate is not to praise him, it is simply factual. There are other problems with his edit. The previous one was superior, I will largely restore it. I encourage others to use the discussion tab and talk about it before brusquely engaging in substantial deletions. -DanielM

This material is superfluous for Coleman's page and the passage was written in a hostile, non-NPOV tone which presumed rightness and superior ability in Galloway's words.

For instance, the specific report and hearing pertaining to Galloway's appearance related to the alleged actions of the three named individuals and not to "American corporations", though this was one of Galloway's favored diversionary tactics to stray from the substance of the topic. It was said that this amounts to him having "rebutted" the charge when in fact all it amounts to is a red herring, which was in fact the implication of Levin's own words on the topic in response.

There is no reason to have a lengthy section on this matter which is best described on other topics and, in fact, has been. There is a sentence that describes as a grievous "error" that Galloway is said to have had "many" meetings with Saddam when it is instead "merely" two (as opposed to, say, his close friendship with unimportant regime figures like Tariq Aziz). How important is this, really, to an article about Norm Coleman himself, and why is this "mistake" more important than Galloway's own deception regarding how he advertised his relationship with Zureikat? Do we then have reciprocal digressions as to who is telling more truth or making more mistakes? No. It's unnecessary and inappropriate here, as was the entire narrative of the hearing. --TJive 00:02, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I hate to be the one to tell you that your characterization of the passage as hostile and superfluous is in fact not NPOV. The passage is factual and not distorted in tone. There is nothing written there that presumes "rightness and superior ability" of Galloway. Here could have been text calling him "masterful" or "righteous" but all it says for example (you cut this) is "articulate and intense." Only a fool or non-English speaker would deny that Galloway is articulate and intense. We can quarrel over the tone but you should provide some better examples of clear hostility and presumption of Galloway's superiority if you are going to get out your chopping knife again. I'd also say that if you witnessed the testimony and a good amount of the media coverage on both sides of the Atlantic that followed, you will recall that there was borderline consensus that Galloway had something of a victory, at least in rhetoric.

The term rebuttal (you also chopped this) is also neutral. There are successful rebuttals and rebuttals that fail, they are nevertheless rebuttals. I disagree that the passage is superfluous or lengthy. It may appear so because of the relative compactness of the rest of the Wikipedia entry, but this is a case I think where the other sections haven't caught up. The segment consists of two medium-length, paragraphs. It's not excessive. The issue of the mistakes in the report have something of a direct relationship to the committee that is not found in Galloway's relationship with Zureikat. I've responded to about as much as I can but, lastly, you just quoted the word "merely" in referring to two meetings with Saddam Hussein as indicating tonal problems with the passage, however in reviewing the edits I don't see that "merely" was in there ever, and neither really was any of the distorting you claim. -DanielM

I agree with TJive's points. — Linnwood ^(talk) 00:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Characterizing my comments in talk as "not NPOV" is not particularly pertinent in establishing the same merit of what is actually put in the article. I am fine to have my own opinions, as you yours, but not to edit an article with a mere reflection of those opinions. That is the main problem here. The statement inserted regarding Galloway's "rebuttal" comes not merely as an assertion or supply of evidence in response to a charge but in the explicit context of the claim that it "left Senator Coleman struggling to substantiate the charges his subcommittee had made." All enlisted in support of this is a quibble over the merit of the term "many" in the context of meeting with Saddam where it is held as only being two (which hardly counts as a spectacular verbal lambasting), as well as Galloway's diversions into polemics on US foreign policy rather than direct responses to the questions posed him. You seem to be under the impression that the hearing was some sort of trial where there are expected to be arguments and counter-arguments and a decision is made on the matter. It was not. It was for the purpose of providing statements on the record, allowing Galloway to provide direct contradictory testimony against the effect of the evidence against him. In my opinion to this it should be added that public hearings provide officials with time to bluster in furtherance of their own career, but this is largely irrelevant; what it most certainly was not was an attempt by Coleman to "substantiate the charges his subcommittee had made". That various media (particularly ones not native to this country) believe rhetoric to triumph over establishing facts is not new or surprising but it is hardly conducive, and I said as much the first time I viewed the hearing. --TJive 01:04, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Any response to my observation that you pulled the quote "merely" out of thin air to help justify your allegations of distortion? I think it's pretty telling. -DanielM

My response is that I was culling the quotations from memory, not then looking directly at the changes, and made a simple mistake that doesn't amount to much, similar to the contention itself. --TJive 01:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree generally that this segment should probably be in the Oil-for-Food article. I'm not getting into the debate over how it should be worded, but I think most of it does not belong on the Coleman page. MicahMN | Talk 01:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the segment is generally fine as it is, but should not be expanded and reduced to in-kind snippets. The material is better dealt with elsewhere. --TJive 01:25, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Holy cow, Micah, a lot of information has been lost, not much of it slanted. You did make the segment mesh with the overall article. Maybe this is better than me and TJive duking it out, but I think some informative and relevant stuff has been lost to Wikipedia readers. -DanielM

I assure you that none of the information was lost. That segement, which talked about Galloway (and not at all about Coleman) was moved to the Oil for Food page. I added a link for readers that wanted to see more about it. I just don't think that the paragraph about Galloway's testimony belongs on the Coleman article. The information is still on Wikipedia but in a better place. Let me know what you think. MicahMN | Talk 13:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

It was actually TJive who did the wholesale deletions and then you moved the segment. The fact that there were others besides Galloway (including corporations) who were accused should be put in there, although a list of all the personalities like Pasquale and Zhironovsky is probably not needed. The sentence regarding similarities between this "spectacular" (as TJive put it) Senate confrontation and previous ones this century should be restored. We had an okay counterfire quote from Galloway, it should be possible to locate a representative accusing quote from Coleman. All of these should be and can succinctly be located in the Coleman entry in my view. I think the affair was a seminal moment in the public's awareness of Coleman and the story should be told, however briefly. -DanielM

I have to disagree, while Coleman did hold the hearings, talking about Galloway's testimony in detail like that is too much of a tangent for the article about Coleman. I would suggest going to the Oil-for-Food page, where the section is now, and make changes there. Obviously I am not the dictator of this article, and you can move things back if you want. The fact was that it was not discussed elsewhere, and I think that it has a better home on the Oil for food page. I'm not trying to silence the story or the amazing job that Galloway did, it is just that the segment really does not fit too well with the rest of the article. Let me know what you think. MicahMN | Talk 04:06, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the latest additions on the Galloway matter. Seems like this belongs on a separate page. --Jimdscottesq 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Coleman staff editting article

If we're going to get into edit wars with political spin, let me pull this quote out of the AP article with Coleman's chief of staff:

"Norm Coleman was 7-feet-10-inches, with green hair and one eye smack dab in the middle of his head" he said.

Jcbarr 13:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that Norm Coleman was directly involved in The Kennedy Assassination. (I'm kidding)

Seriously though, we should have boilerplate statements that we can add to pages involved in edits by congressional staffers. NiftyDude 13:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty impressed, not only do we get to counter-edit Coleman's volunteer spinners, we get to match up against the pros as well. DanielM 10:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but you're not doing even a half decent job.. Where are the Hofstra pictures of Norm with hippie hair. Where is the constant vigilance? --143.231.249.138 (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Points on edits and reversions

It seems DanielM is content with a wholesale reversion on the Galloway material, which is already too long for this particular article and contains problematic phrasing similar to his original contribution on the topic.

Galloway pointed out a few apparent mistakes in the subcommittee's dossier, some rudimentary, for example the charge that he had met with Hussein "many times" when the number of meetings was two.

The only externally verifiable (e.g. non-Galloway vs. committee) factual "mistakes" "pointed out" are the number of his meetings with Saddam and the attribution of events in the Telegraph proceedings to those of the CSN. In other cases we are simply presented with Galloway's verbal contradiction to evidence and charges placed in front of him (which I believe it is fair to say is summated by "distortions", as well as a diatribe on war politics. I am inclined toward a view of "many" as less a rudimentary "mistake" than the apparent deception of Galloway in his characterization of his charity's relationship to Zureikat, particularly in regards to his web site, but, you see, these quid pro quo argumentations are neither here nor there because the prose in either case is lacking in neutrality and the relevance to a biographical entry becomes slimmer by the character.

In its confrontational nature, the Galloway-Coleman exchange harkened back to historical Senate encounters such as Hughes-Brewster in the Senate_War_Investigating_Committee (1947) and Welch-McCarthy in the Army-McCarthy_Hearings (1954).

I'm having trouble discovering whose analysis this is, if not that of a Wikipedia editor. I'm being sardonic of course; all that is requisite is a trip through the page history, but I hope my meaning is taken.

Happily, however, I find that DanielM has now rejected "Update" as a suitable introduction to material, a la Unsolved Mysteries.

Now, as for Coleman's voting record, a point on which there seems to be broader contention:

Although Coleman tried to position himself as a moderate Republican candidate who would reach across party lines, his votes during his first year in office in 2003 lined up 98% of the time with President Bush, according to Congressional Quarterly.

This is unacceptable. Let's highlight a number of the explicit and implicit arguments contained in this passage (and in doing so, I'm afraid, I will have to skip the inanities involved in formally deducing this):

1. Coleman portrayed himself as a moderate Republican who would reach across party lines
2. Coleman was unsuccessful in portraying himself as a moderate Republican who would reach across party lines
3. President Bush is not a moderate Republican who will reach across party lines
4. Vote alignment with Bush determines one's status as a moderate who will reach across party lines [in indeterminate proportion]
5. [Therefore] Coleman is not a moderate who will reach across party lines

All arguable and argued propositions in varying degrees but mere side assumptions by the author of this very polemical passage. --TJive 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Micahmn, I appreciate your attempt to include this information in a neutral manner but some problems still stand out:

Critics say

What critics? Attribute the argument.

but in his first year in office he voted with President Bush's position on bills 98 percent of the time (according to Congressional Quarterly statistics).

"[B]ut...." therefore, what? Who cites or argues this to be evidence that Coleman is not moderate and falsely portrayed himself thusly? Satisfaction for this should be beyond the editor's inclusion. --TJive 13:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Guh, TJive lumped a lot of stuff in his at-times sneering criticism above, and it looks at first or even second glance that it all refers to my edits, but it doesn't at all. To respond to the portion of it that does: I think columnist Molly Ivins (at least) likened the Coleman-Galloway thing to Hughes-Brewster, and several articles at the time referred to the memorable McCarthy confrontation, which wasn't exactly a stretch given Galloway's comment "I am not now, nor have a I ever been an oil trader." Additionally it's the same darn committee it was then, so that's another similarity, and honestly are you going to look at those confrontations and say they have nothing in common at all? No, of course not, so I don't think it was my personal novel analysis or going out on a limb at all. Anyhow that comparison is gone now, a casualty of back-and-forth edits that left the section in its current okay state, so it's not really at issue now, I just wanted to get my response to the above in the record, so people aren't mislead. DanielM 13:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC) PS: As a rule I don't do wholesale reverting and even in this case I think I would attempt minor improvements when copying back stuff 'Jive deleted, but he is an aggressive and extremely active revert warrior and sometime you just have to say darn it I'm changing that back.

The Galloway Edit War

I am growing concerned with the back-and-forth edit conflict over the Galloway section. Edit wars are not only bad for Wikipedia, they are a violation of policy, so we should avoid them.

My biggest concern is not over the accuracy of what may or may not have happened with Galloway, it is over the relevance to the Coleman article. As it stands now, the section is 20 percent about Coleman and 80 percent about Galloway and the Oil-for-food scandal, etc. I believe the biggest problems with this section stem from POV conflicts over parts of the section that have no relevance to Coleman, rather with Galloway.

So I have a few proposals, and I'd like to see what other people think:

1. We move/merge/delete information that rightfully belongs in the George Galloway article or the Oil-for-food article and take it off of the Coleman article. My reasoning for this is that the Henry Hyde article does not contain the facts of the case and arguments of the Clinton impeachment hearings, and Hyde chaired those hearings (and that was a pretty big deal and Hyde played a sizable role in it, which is explained in the impeachment article).

1. Someone creates a tidy and concise neutral-POV paragraph explaining the role of Coleman in the hearings. That paragraph would then replace everything on there now.

1. We keep the links directing people to the articles about Galloway and Oil for Food.

Please let me know what you think about my proposals because this really should be resolved instead of the status quo. Do you guys generally agree or disagree with my assessment of the problem here? -- MicahMN | μ 14:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not disagree, and had believed this matter to have been settled months ago, but material keeps creeping back in. I don't think it likely to be an easy matter to establish a "neutral-POV paragraph", considering. --TJive 14:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MicahMN. This information belongs on an Oil For Food entry, not Coleman.

--Jimdscottesq 16:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with MicahM, the information is relevant to Coleman. This essential information in the section was fine for months. Given that Coleman's staff themselves were recently editing this article for spin effect, it's going to look bad if someone tries to displace the text off somewhere now. DanielM 18:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We had this same discussion and a resolution several months ago, but it has gotten out of hand again. I fear we will end up with another edit war, that's why I'm trying to preempt one. -- MicahMN | μ 18:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Micah, here's what you said when I complained you were mass-deleting compromise text without discussion: "I apologize, I thought it was the same content. I will not revert the article anymore." You position yourself as gallantly concerned about edit wars being bad for Wikipedia, let's not forget you yourself were involved in such, and on this very section. DanielM 18:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars are not a one-time accident, they are intentionally reverting changes back and forth (and more than three times is unacceptable). My point now is that there clearly is a disagreement about the content of the section, and there has been for some time. Instead of two or more parties perpetually reverting it to the way they both think is best, maybe new common ground could be found. That's why I started this dialogue again, so we don't have confusion and futile back and forth.

I happen to disagree with your opinion that everything in the Galloway portion of the article is essential to this article. Lest we forget, there are several articles on the subject already, and the beauty of wikipedia is that we needn't put all of the facts to the Galloway situation in an article about a Senator that played a relatively small role in the grand scheme of things. This is why I proposed above to move/merge/remove information that isn’t germane to the Norm Coleman article and put it in the places that it belongs (mainly the articles where they belong). This article is called Norm Coleman not The U.S. Senate hearings on George Galloway and the Oil-for-Food Scandal. I restate my point above, the Henry Hyde article does not go in-depth about the Clinton Impeachment Trial because there is an entire article about it and the Hyde article links to that information.

I’d like to see this become a quality article at some point in the future, and I believe this is a major obstacle, and I think that a lot of other people agree with me. Please understand I am trying to build a consensus here if possible.-- MicahMN | μ 19:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been looking at this article for a while, and did quite a bit of cleanup on it a while back. I have to agree with Micah that this Galloway section is way too long for this article. There are other articles on the subject, and that information should be there. Reading this article, the impression I get is that the Galloway Hearings are the single defining event in Senator Coleman's career. I think that's ridiculous. Doesn't anyone remember the Minnesota Wild? Anyways, in the same vein, I think it would be inappropriate to include this information entirely in MP Galloway's page either, for the same reason. Therefore, both pages should link to the Oil For Food page and we can be done with it. And can't we get some good stuff about Coleman getting elected to the Senate because he brought hockey back to Minnesota. --Nscheibel 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This essential information in the section was fine for months.

Do you mean the two months following the first dispute over the section, or the two after this period of expansion?

it's going to look bad....

I'm sure there's some "Wiki is not" jargon that could be thrown here rather appropriately. It looks much worse for the article to have legitimate points to attack, particularly as an ostensible biographical entry rather than one relatively lengthy summation of many for the same topic.

Let me be clear. I will revert and "NPOV-ize" the section as it stands. However, I maintain that the section should be shortened. I won't shorten the section myself as it appears it would simply be summarily reverted, but I would support (and edit) an effort towards doing so. --TJive 21:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for common ground. I see NScheibel's point that the section got to the point where it was long and too prominent in the context of the article. This was a side effect of edits over time, where there's a back and forth and the point get belabored and long. I went ahead and abridged the text. IMO the section is clearly relevant to the Coleman article. MicahM says here that his previous summary deletions and displacement of this text (not a "one-time accident"), that he did along with TJive's frenetic reverting and deleting, shouldn't be counted as participating in an edit war. I disagree. If NScheibel wants information added about Sen. Coleman's role in getting hockey to the state, he should do so. DanielM 09:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

hi, i may have stepped into a sensitive topic here. i modified many vs two to become many vs the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein, because many vs two is a fairly weak defence of Galloway - it can sound like just being pedantic rather than focussing on essentials, while reminding the committee that at least one notable US politician also met SH. i'm unlikely to work on this in detail, and i agree it makes sense that most of the discussion should be in the Galloway article, though if Coleman was involved in attacking Galloway, then IMHO there needs to be a fair summary of Galloway's defence in the Coleman article. Of course, it needs to be condensed - but condensing it to something which can be interpreted as nitpicking (concentrating on what might just be trivial grammatical mistakes, many vs two) is rather non-NPOV summarising IMHO. Anyway, good luck to people working on this... :) Boud 01:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm calling into question the relevance to the number of times either man has met Saddam because this is an article about Norm Coleman, who I believe has never met Saddam. -- MicahMN | μ 04:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman never met Saddam, but he was involved in a Subcommittee Investigation which made various claims. One aspect of these claims was the contacts that one British MP had with Saddam, while POV ignoring the contacts that one Nixon/Ford/Reagan/Bush-II senior administration official had with Saddam. The evidence is that the Subcommittee in which Coleman was active made an allegedly POV criticism (unintentionally or intentionally, we don't know) of Galloway - we need to show the fairly uncontroversial arguments showing that it was POV. Boud 13:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is not about Saddam per se, it is about providing an example of the quality, accuracy, political bias, and alleged hidden agenda of the the report over which Coleman presided. Coleman's role in this should not be diminished, and certainly his role in the second report that evidently was prepared without minority participation is important to speak to. People deserve to know. I'm not against rolling back the sentence in question to its previous form that doesn't mention Rumsfeld though. DanielM 10:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Coleman and the Students for a Democratic Society

I've removed the mention to Coleman being the head of SDS as Hofstra. This is something that needs to be cited, I did quite a bit of research and cannot find reference to it. I think it would be irresponsible and potentially libelous to leave in without citation. I've also made a number of changes to flesh out the politics section and tried to keep it as NPOV as possible. If there are any changes in there that you think should be cited, let me know and I'll throw it in there. -- MicahMN | μ 15:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

EnderW paragraph

This is a copy of what I inserted into the appropriate section in the article, hopefully to stop the problems originating from this blog post and give them a reason or two about why; feel free to edit the version in the article.

To new visitors and editors:

Please do not repeatedly re-insert the paragraph by EnderW of democrats.com, since, as is, it violates several of Wikipedia's policies, such as Verifiability ( WP:V - no sources) and Neutral Point of View ( WP:NPOV ). Doing so without discussion may be considered vandalism.

If you would like to suggest ways of eliminating POV from this article, please put your suggestions at the talk page (top of page -> "discussion" tab). If you would like to know more about Wikipedia's policies, please see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

(To visit any of the links in square brackets, put them in the search box to the left and press "Go".)

Thank you. --AySz88^-^ 08:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal: The local CBS affailiate did a story on the biases of letting the Senator use Senate Computers to edit this entry to their own liking. Please see WCCO-TV.

It is illegal to give a Senator free campaign advertising - unless it is reported as a campaign donation to that senator in an official donation filing to the Federal Elections Commission. It is also evidence of such to actively prevent negative entries from being posted.

I have a problem with the Senator's office using Senate computers to do this as well.

This entry, with the exception of the contribution written by me reflects a non-neutral POV: THAT OF THE SENATOR'S STAFF! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.158.204.155 (talk • contribs) 09:15, February 9, 2006 (UTC). (moved from article)

All this is already in the article, and I think that, since this was a fairly big deal when it was revealed, everything that was POV has already been cleaned up. Please stop making legal threats, as you may be blocked for that. You should also watch out for the Three revert rule. It also appears you were already blocked once on another IP; you really should appeal that decision first, since you can be blocked again for evading it.

I'm going to sleep, so any other replies will probably be from other users. --AySz88^-^ 09:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate Request for Comments is here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress. --AySz88^-^ 09:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Yeah, I realized my last edit summary probably doesn't make much sense to non-admins, since there's no protect tab for them to click... anyway, since the article is currently protected, I've restored the tag. Whether or not it ought to be, I will leave to the judgment of others. android79 18:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As a result of being listed on ANI, this article is probably on quite a few more watchlists now. (I added it to mine.) So I hope the semi-protection should not be needed much longer. Jonathunder 20:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Appropriateness of First Paragraph Placement of Deceased Children?

The phrasing now is better than it was, it used to say something like "he has two living children and two who died." But it is still inappropriate IMO to place this info about his deceased children in the first paragraph. It seems like the intent is to generate sympathy, like it is some fuzzy emotional lead-in to a piece in Parade magazine in the Sunday newspaper about the struggles and challenges the Colemans overcame in coming to terms with the tragic disease and the deaths of their children. It is also redundant. The information is covered in the subsection on Coleman's abortion position. And it is awkward and somewhat invasive for such prominent placement. When is the last time you were introduced to somebody and among the first things you find out is they had infant children who dies from a genetic disease? I really think it is inappropriate as is, and that the information should be captured in the article body where it is meaningful in interpreting his abortion position. Would like to hear some other opinions. DanielM 23:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with DanielM. Frankly, I think in general intros should give the information about why we should care about the person, and then more specific details in subsequent sections, such as a short bio section. In this particular case I would take out all mention of his wife and kids in the introductory paragraph, and simply talk about the highest of highlights in his career. Sometimes family is the main part of why a person deserves a WP article, for instance Chelsea Clinton, but if it isn't, it shouldn't be mentioned in their intro. Makemi 23:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be totally fine to take the information about his family out of the intro paragraph and moving it to a secondary paragraph (I think the proposed intro below is fantastic). However, I strongly disagree with DanielM's notion that mentioning the children is intended to create sympathy for him (this is an encyclopedia, not a political tool to try to shape public opinion). Children are children, and I think that it is very insensitive to say that the ones that are living should be named and counted and the ones that died in infancy should only be mentioned when talking about his politics. I don't care how you feel about Coleman's politics, let's try to show some respect here on this matter please. -- MicahMN | μ 03:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with MicahMN that it's showing disrespect to cover the deceased children only in the subsection on abortion and stem-cell research, because evidently Coleman has said that the deaths influenced his abortion views. I think it's a tragic thing that happened and it no doubt really tested the Colemans' faith and ability to be a family. However it doesn't need to be in the first paragraph of the entry. I think MicahMN is a little personally vested in this text, he is the one who authored it and who places it and returns it to the front paragraph without giving any reason. Maybe he's overly involved in it emotionally too. Although it's a terrible sad story, the article here is about Norm Coleman the senator, not the personal trials of the Coleman family. DanielM 11:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I will say it again since it seems to have been missed, but I agree that it shouldn't necessarily be in the introductory paragraph. I do, however, think that the information should be with the information about Coleman's family (wherever that should be in the article), and not just the section about his position on abortion. And to clarify; this article is about Coleman the man, not just as a U.S. Senator, so information about Coleman's family is completely relevant.

I am personally vested in this article, as is anyone who regularly edits it, and I take offense at the implication that I have any motive in my actions other than creating a quality article. I always try to give a reason when I make edits that some may disagree with (as you can see that this talk page is peppered with my discussion as well as my edit summaries). -- MicahMN | μ 17:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, no offense intended, really. I think the text was inappropriate where it was, and the partial *effect* of it was to generate sympathy, but I can see that it doesn't necessarily follow that the *intent* of it was to generate sympathy. DanielM 23:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the proposed new intro is good. The only thing I might add is that Coleman is the chair of the Senate's permanent subcommittee on investigations. --Jimdscottesq 15:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent Developments

This text was added recently.

On March 14, 2006 Sen. Coleman criticized the White House for inadequate "political sensitivity," stating that the staff didn't sufficiently have their "ears to the ground" on matters like Katrina, Harriet Miers' failed Supreme Court nomination, and most recently the Dubai Ports World controversy. He implied that the President should replace some of his staff. [34]

Two things. (1) I don't think Coleman implied anything. He either said it or he didn't. (2) The link goes to NewsMax, a dubious source with somewhat offensive advertising. I suggest this section be removed unless a better source is offered. --Nscheibel 00:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That section isn't even encyclopedic. This is his biographical article, not a record of every statement that ever comes out of his office. --Ajdz 06:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A Senator criticizes White House staff of his own party on poor communication and planning on several major recent issues--that is noteworthy. Jonathunder 06:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? You haven't addressed anything that's been said here. His website includes at least 10 statements in the last 5 days that are not in this article. Get working! --Ajdz 07:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nscheibel, I think you're leery of the word "imply" which is understandable, but Coleman's meaning here was so intentionally transparent, such a clear implication, that it is IMO okay to describe it that way. "I have some concerns about the team that's around the president. I think you need to take a look at it," I mean c'mon. I wasn't aware that Newsmax was a dubious source. Looking at their Wikipedia entry, it says they are self-described "conservative news source." It says they do some questionable things to target Democrats. When I go to their page I do not immediately get offensive advertising. They want to sell me coins, lower my cholesterol, and teach me karate. Is there a clear Wikipedia policy that tells what is a valid reference? Forbes also carried it. The specific information here is noteworthy because Coleman is critical of the White House. The information might be abbreviated and captured in the section earlier in the Coleman article that talks about his close ties and 98% voting conformity. I'm not particularly attached to this specific info. I think the recent developments sections in general is a good reference for people and is appropriate for an online encyclopedia article. DanielM 10:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The ad I was referring to says "Get the gear that liberals fear" and then flashes to a well endowed woman in a tight tee-shirt that says "ACLU" with the C replaced by a hammer and sickle. I don't personally have a problem with this, but I think it looks bad to have a citation in an encyclopedic article link to such a tacky web site. I prefer the KSTP site we now link to. I agree with Micah that "implied" is a word with no place in this type of article. --Nscheibel 16:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to weigh in, I believe the "news" in Newsmax is supposed to be ironic. :)

It isn't our job to interpret what Coleman means, even if it does seem obvious to some. Coleman is someone who carefully chooses his words (he's a politician's politician), and it could be detrimental to Wikipedia and the article in general if we perform political exegesis on statements that politicians make. I suggest just including what he said, the facts surrounding it, and if a notable person (like Norm Ornstein or Al Franken, for example) says that Coleman is implying that, then we can say that it's what he implied with a source to back it up. I'm sorry, but "He implied that the President should replace some of his staff." is a statement that weakens the article and it should probably be removed or rephrased in a way where Wikipedia is not putting words in his mouth. -- MicahMN | μ 13:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks to EdwinHJ, we have a second source. Local TV news KSTP reports Coleman described administration as having a "tin ear" and called on President Bush to replace or reorganize his staff. Jonathunder 15:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Spurious vote-counting

User:60.49.239.37 seems to be working on attack ads for the 2008 campaign.[2][3][4] I don't think that this kind of material is appropriate for a biography for reasons I outlined in my previous edits.[5] This is reminiscent of the B-S ads we all see where "candidate voted against children 47 times" or "candidate voted to raise your taxes 88,345 times." Simply counting selective votes without looking at the context is unencyclopedic. Discussion might be appreciated instead of simply reverting removals of this POV garbage. --Ajdz 07:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

During the Dubai ports controversy Norm Coleman responded to public opinion by proposing one of the most drastic bills offered in response to the United Arab Emirates buying U.S. ports. Al Franken, who will be Norm's opponent in 2008 is accusing him of ignoring port security in the past. If you have a link that shows that Norm didn't oppose increasing port security before the public was worrying about the ports, post it. --User:60.49.239.37

Section on Wikipedia

Please see corresponding discussion at Talk:Marty Meehan#Staff controversy: Linking to Wikipedia history link, self-reference argument

I think it's time we discussed the section on Wikipedia, and if it should remain or stay. (Also be aware of a similar section in Marty Meehan.) As Wikipedians, we do have somewhat of a pro-Wikipedia POV, but we must be sure to follow Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. In some cases, a mention of Wikipedia should be made, but we should avoid overindulgence. Personally, looking at the big picture, this occurence was of a relatively minor importance to Norm. Perhaps the section about Wikipedia is too long, and should be shortened, but I still think a short mention is fine for now. — TheKMan^talk 13:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The section should clearly be there IMO. I don't think it amounts to Wikipedian navel-gazing at all. I think you're misapplying the "avoid self-references" guideline, that's not really what is occurring. It was something that was reported in the state and national news that had a connection to Wikipedia, it was not some inter-Wikipedia thing. No, the paragraph should not be shortened, good grief it is already short. However I think the little box towards the top that says "Wikinews has news related to this" or whatever could be done away with. DanielM 20:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC) PS: The prayer breakfast with Bono and King Abdullah text could stand to get axed.

In relation to your postscript there, I agree that we could axe this. I think in a month or two we can axe the ports thing too. It seems to me that old Norm is always trying to get his name in the news by coming up with some silly viewpoint on whatever the hot issue is at the moment. I can't remember hearing too much out of him regarding the Oil-for-Food thing lately. Norm Coleman is an opportunist politician and a party shill who will say things that Bush/Cheney/Rove can't get away with saying so party faithful will know what the Republicans really think. In any case, I think this recent developments section is always rather unencyclopedic, and will be a constant source of contreversy. --Nscheibel 21:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

These sections all suffer from the same problem. When you take the person's career as a whole, they are small blip. However, here on Wikipedia and to those who read Slashdot or whatever, they seem to be much more important to the story of the person than they probably are. Politicians do a lot of newsworthy things, and it just doesn't make sense to include every single thing in the article. The biggest problem is that there isn't much else to a lot of these articles. If the article were bulked up with more other interesting information about the person and their career, etc., then it would become obvious how trivial the Wikipedia or Dubai Ports stories are. Peyna 04:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that ideally, an article on a member of Congress should contain background personal info, (education, etc.), highlight key achievements and failures, and try to adequately set forth that person's overall political viewpoint and if/how it has changed over time. This doesn't mean taking the hot-button issues of today and pigeon-holeing the person, however. Voting records are already linked on the pages. I would try to look forward 30 years and determine whether when this politican retires what things that they did in the past will be remembered. No one outside of Wikipedia is going to care or know that someone in their staff edited a few pages on Wikipedia. Anything they do that isn't any different than what their party said they should do isn't very noteworthy either. Peyna 04:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty trivial, especially since the complaint is about Coleman's staff, not Coleman himself. I doubt that anything under "Recent developments" really deserves to stay there for long. --Ajdz 04:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Many reasons for removing the Wikipedia section have already been stated: (1) Wikipedia:Avoid self-references (2) the "occurrence was of a relatively minor importance to [Coleman]" (3) "When you take the person's career as a whole, [the Wikipedia incident is] a small blip." (4) "No one outside of Wikipedia is going to care or know that someone in their staff edited a few pages on Wikipedia." DanielM's objection to the removal (...good grief it is already short .... PS: The prayer breakfast with Bono and King Abdullah text could stand to get axed.) is very weak. While the story about Wikipedia is verifiable, that's neither here nor there. Just because information is verifiable does not mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedias are not collections of any random information anyone can dig up on any given subject. Encyclopedias make judgments about the relevance of information. They distinguish the significant from the significant, summarize the relevant data, and offer readers general overviews. 172 | Talk 04:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you want to discuss this in two places, I'll do the same:::While I might disagree [with User:Yeago] about the worth of this bit of information to the article, I think that User:172 needs to refrain from reverting until the issue is settled. That means we keep the status quo (what it was before you changed it), until the problem is resolved. That does not mean that each time you post a comment arguing your position you change the content of the article to reflect your position. Discuss first, then change. This is the most sensible way to deal with problem edits. Peyna 20:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion was still underway and it does seem to have been a bit premature to delete the section. 172 overlooked my objection that "avoid self-references" guideline doesn't clearly fit here. Check out the rule for yourself. I don't think it was violated in this instance. We're not forbidden from even mentioning the word Wikipedia. Also, 172 throws up a straw man that someone is claiming that the text should be here "just because it's verifiable." Who has said this? Nobody that I can see. I think the information in question here is non-trivial, it goes to credibility and cynicism and Orwellianism and the ability of the public to trust their leaders to play it straight. DanielM 21:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: I think the information in question here is non-trivial, it goes to credibility and cynicism and Orwellianism and the ability of the public to trust their leaders to play it straight. That's a terribly unfair argument. Not everyone holds such a view of politicians. (I would not make such a cynical attack on Sen. Coleman myself, and I'm someone who hasn't considering voting Republican since the days of John Lindsey and Jacob Javits!) For the sake of argument, let's pretend that I'm the parent of a child who was a patient at Twin Cities Hospital who received one of the hospital's two Rainbow of Hope awards in 2001. On hand for the occasion was St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman, who made the presentations of the award and a $1,000 check. [6] Let's say that since that occasion, I view public servants as people who for the most part care deeply about their communities and work hard to provide essential constituent services. Now, is it appropriate for me to stop by Wikipedia and insert a paragraph on Coleman's work on behalf of Rainbow of Hope, arguing that 'the information in question here is non-trivial, as it goes to the credibility of Sen. Coleman and the ability of the public to trust Sen. Coleman to care about his constituents' (the opposite of your line of reasoning)? The answer is clearly no. When a politician does some constituent service, the service may be non-trivial to the recipient of the service, but it is irrelevant to an encyclopedia writing a broad overview of his political career. On the same token, if a politician's staff edits Wikipedia, the action may be non-trivial to some Wikipeida users, but it is irrelevant in the politician's encyclopedia article. 172 | Talk 02:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If avoid self references meant what 172 concludes it means, Wikipedia would not have an article on Wikipedia. Yet it does. The info isn't the most critical thing about the guy, and it doesn't deserve mention in the lead, but I think the already brief mention we have in the body is justified, sourced, and should stay. Jonathunder 22:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

]]

No, the page says to "avoid" self-references; it does not say never make self-references. Cleary Wikipedia must be mentioned in an article such as Jimbo Wales. In Norm Coleman, it's irrelvant. Let's be reasonable here. Are we going to include a list of every campaign stop he has ever made? Every public building he has ever visted? Every bill he has introduced or voted on? Verifiable information can be found on what a member of the Senate does just about every single day. We have to be reasonable about keeping out trivia that may be interesting to some people, but not at all relevant for a bio in an encyclopedia. 172 | Talk 02:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The above paragraph illustrates that the axis to this entire debate is your misunderstanding of WP:SELF. More specifically: your mistaken definition of "reference". WP:SELF seeks to avoid encyclopediac references. This means that all the facts of all articles come from the source and never from another article. The reason for this is clear.

You, however, choose to define "reference" very liberally, and take it to mean that Wikipedia should never include anything about Wikipedia, which of course is silly.

Somehow you've come to believe you are the last word on what is and is not relevant, despite press coverage and vast consensus to the contrary. McCarthyism is alive and well on Wikipedia. What's funny is these little witch hunts for irrelevance are so restricted in scope, and totally arbitrary in their focus. Do us a favor and go take your fervor over to Christina Aguilera.

Yeago 18:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In this case, it isn't even something that he did. --Ajdz 02:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:SELF really shouldn't be the issue here, since the sections in Marty Meehan and Norm Coleman do not violate this guideline. I think the real issue here is importance. Yes, this made the news, but are we overstating the significance of what happened through disproportionate coverage? — TheKMan^talk 03:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. This is the reasonable argument. Thank you for stating it honestly instead of trying to go the legalese route like McCarthy up there.Yeago 18:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes we are, that's why the one or two users reverting my removal of the paragraph need to give it a rest. 172 | Talk 07:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeago, please refrain from the legalistic interpretations of WP:SELF. The KMAN put it best, WP:SELF really shouldn't be the issue here, since the sections in Marty Meehan and Norm Coleman do not violate this guideline. I think the real issue here is importance. Yes, this made the news, but are we overstating the significance of what happened through disproportionate coverage? — TheKMan^talk 03:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 172 | Talk 07:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you can view this as disproportionate coverage when we are discussing one tight paragraph of four lines. DanielM 16:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

We are overstating the importance of the incident by even mentioning it in the article. The incident is trivial in a biography of a member of the U.S. Senate. A biography in an encyclopedia inherently excludes information on the basis of relevance. By mentioning something, we are suggesting that it is more relevant than what we are not mentioning, which indeed is disproportionate, as any member of the U.S. Senate does stuff on a day-to-day basis far more noteworthy than a few edits to Wikipedia by a staff member. If we were to include the bit on Wikipedia, what's next? Details on every press release he sent out? Every bill on which he voted? Details on every comment he ever made at committee hearings or on the Senate floor? Anything any political commentator ever said about him? Every public appearance he ever made? Any organization with which he ever participated? All that information is public and verifiable as well. We could literally make this page thousands of pages long. But we don't, as we're trying to make Wikipedia a usable encyclopedia. 172 | Talk 18:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Who decides that a negative story about a politician, especially a story that made national news, is unimportant? Articles on other political figures, e.g. Karl Rove contain every verifiable negative story opponents can dig up. Do we suppress negative stories only about people we like? And we are not just any encyclopedia—we are an experiment in openness. As we increasingly become the general public's first stop for information, the public relations industry will likely descend on us in force, polishing up articles on their clients. The one deterrent we have is that verifiable incidents of improper tampering will be kept in the record. --agr 11:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Who decides? Editors. That's the one thing that should keep biographical articles from turning into giant compilations of trash (something wikipedia routinely failes at). This particular section isn't even about the subject of the article! --Ajdz 19:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, but what happens when editors disagree? The standard on most Wikipedia articles about living politicians is to respect and include conflicting viewpoints. Why should this article be different?--agr 20:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That right there is one of wikipedia's greatest problems. All it takes is one editor who thinks something is important and balance and even relevance become irrelevant. I for one don't have time to keep constant watch over "most Wikipedia articles about living politicians" but no doubt many have exactly the same problem. --Ajdz 23:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You're a jackass. =)Yeago 18:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ajdz 19:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

As someone who disagrees with Ajdz on this topic, I find the remark by Yeago highly offensive. Ajdz has a legitimate position that deserves respect.--agr 19:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that Yeago did include a smiley after his remark, thereby implying that it was not meant seriously. Peyna 20:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO it is self-evident that the actions of a Senator's staff, especially when up to and including his or her Chief of Staff, are relevant to the Senator. DanielM 21:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion... Well, your opinion doesn't cut it. The story is hardly more relevant than including information on (say) what color tie he wore from day to day. There is an infinate array of factual material that can be included in the article. Perspective must be maintained with respect to what is relevant and what is irrelevant. 172 | Talk 03:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

New Photos

I've (AaronRoe) added some photos that are in the public domain of Norm Coleman while he was attending Hofstra University. These are certainly not out of place as User:Ajdz asserted when he attempted to remove them. These are clearly relevant to the article.

The photos are quite remarkable, of value to Wikipedia readers in learning about Coleman, and I think editorial discussion is needed before any of them are removed. It may well be though that the article ends up with less than all three of the images still in place. DanielM 20:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed two of the three photos because they were located in irrelevant sections of the article and will do so again. There is absolutely no reason to have a photo with the caption "Norm Coleman (on the left) hanging an anti-war flag at an anti-Vietnam rally" in the section titled "Ties to the George W. Bush administration" or "Norm Coleman campaigning at Hostra University for Student Senate President" under "Investigations Subcommittee and Galloway Testimony." They're off by almost 40 years.

Here are the links for all three for further discussion.[7][8][9]

I'm removing the last two because of their placement, but I also think the first one is the best. It currently takes up all of the space to the right of the only section any of these are relevant to. The people in the second are unidentifiable. --Ajdz 01:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Coleman in the close up at the microphone and the peace banner hanger on the left each appear to wear a white armband on the left arm. There's also hair length, attire, and I'd go so far as to say build similarities. Anybody spot anything else? These are all frickin' great, three cheers for the person who unearthed them. The banner hanging picture conveys the most about the people in it. DanielM 23:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No, this IS NORM in all three photos. Absolutely certain. BTW, Hey thanks for the kudos. They're from the yearbook that year and YES it is all Norm. He was quite a radical. Personally, I tend to think these photos present him in a more positive light. In fact, I was reticent to post them because of this, being that my opinion of the man (flip-flopper and all) is so darn low and I wondered if this would help him. Anyhow, I'm certain that more content will be added to fill out that section about his radical past. I've put all the photos back, as this section grows these photos will be warranted. AaronRoe 05:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if they were more verifiable, but at least pick one. Right now it looks like WP:POINT. The last one is opposite content from 1996-2002, so it's at least 20 years off. Thank you for being honest about your bias though. --Ajdz 05:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how more verifiable they can be. They are him. These were actually carried in the local Newspapers back when he was running for Mayor of Saint Paul. Ask Norm yourself. AaronRoe 05:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so I pulled one photo. I'm convinced that the first relates perfectly with the adjacent content about his anti-war background and the second is perfectly relevent because it shows him campaigning for office. Personally, I think these two are the most appropriate. AaronRoe 05:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There aren't a lot of people with Hofstra yearbooks. That was only meant as a comment though. I think the formatting is fine now. --Ajdz 06:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Query this and tell that needs " ".—Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronRoe (talk • contribs)

Yes, leaving out the quotes plagiarizes the news story in the results. --Ajdz 07:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Philandering

I'm surprised that there is no mention of Norm's defining characteristic among Minnesotans: his wayward commitment to marital fidelity. If I were a schoolchild fifty years in the future doing a paper on Norm Coleman, I would be most saddened to learn that Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, ommited one of the most notable points of his regional fame. Earwig 05:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is some evidence, even anecdotal, then a reference would be warranted; otherwise, I'm not sure it's appropriate. But a I'm pretty WP-Naive. AaronRoe 01:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a piece written by Garrison Keillor where he alludes to this: "Everyone knows that his family situation is, shall we say, very interesting, but nobody bothered to ask about it, least of all the religious people in the Republican Party." [10]

And here's a list of twenty questions for Norm Coleman written by a Duluth newspaperman [11], one of which is "Do you and your wife have a "open marriage", where you are open to having sexual relationships with others? The impeachment of Bill Clinton and the Gary Condit scandal have made personal lives of politicians a matter of public concern. According to multiple sources, you and your wife appear to have an "open marriage" in which you live separate lives, where she spends most of her time in California pursuing her career as an actress and model, while you date many women in Minneapolis and St. Paul. I have been told that it is common knowledge in St. Paul and that television stations even have footage of your comings and goings. Is this appropriate conduct for a US Senator? Earwig 02:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is Jim Buckley?

I'd like to be able to link "Jim Buckley" from the quote "these conservative kids don't fuck or get high like we do (purity, you know)... Already the cries of motherhood, apple pie, and Jim Buckley reverberate thorough the halls of the Student Center" in the "Coleman's politics" section, but I have no idea who he is (the only Wikipedia entry with that name is an Australian footballer). Was he talking about William F. Buckley and got the first name wrong? Does anyone know?

Edit: Ah, it's probably James L. Buckley. Any objections to my linking the name to that article? He was a conservative New York senator exactly then (or was at least running for Senate in 1970, when it seems Coleman made the statement), when Coleman made the comment at a New York state university.

Moncrief 04:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to edit it to link there. It seems pretty clear to me that's who Coleman meant. Moncrief 16:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Section on Wikipedia

The section on Wikipedia is an irrelevant self-reference. As I stated earlier:

We are overstating the importance of the incident by even mentioning it in the article. The incident is trivial in a biography of a member of the U.S. Senate. A biography in an encyclopedia inherently excludes information on the basis of relevance. By mentioning something, we are suggesting that it is more relevant than what we are not mentioning, which indeed is disproportionate, as any member of the U.S. Senate does stuff on a day-to-day basis far more noteworthy than a few edits to Wikipedia by a staff member. If we were to include the bit on Wikipedia, what's next? Details on every press release he sent out? Every bill on which he voted? Details on every comment he ever made at committee hearings or on the Senate floor? Anything any political commentator ever said about him? Every public appearance he ever made? Any organization with which he ever participated? All that information is public and verifiable as well. We could literally make this page thousands of pages long. But we don't, as we're trying to make Wikipedia a usable encyclopedia. 172 | Talk 18:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

172 | Talk 05:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

172. Your interpretation of WP:SELF is misguided. As your logic goes, Wiipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia is in violation.Yeago 18:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no comparison between the text about Coleman's staff spinning the entry and details on his press releases or his day-to-day committee statements and Senate floor statements. The spin job made state and national news and many people find it to be relevant. When combined with the statements by his chief of staff, it's telling and informative about the kind of operation Coleman is running there. As the text says, they deleted factual references to Coleman's voting record and substituted "activist" for "liberal" and so on. Your argument about the risk of the article become thousands of pages long is severely undercut by the fact that the text in question is quite short, even when someone added to it recently it was still pretty short. You keep saying how insignificant the affair is, some time ago (above) you even advanced a detailed argument in which three of four line items were different formulations of your claim that it is insignificant. However others disagree with this. There surely is no consensus to delete the text. I'd ask that you comment your edits if you persist in deleting the text. DanielM 11:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Werd. I've already destroyed this 172 guy a hundred times and, like a zombie, here he is again repeating the same old crap.Yeago 18:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeago, I will try for now not to respond in kind to your attacks. In the meantime, I suggest you review our civility guidelines. 172 | Talk 03:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I would point out that the section in question is titled "Coleman in the media" and there is no dispute that this story was widely covered at the time. It think it can easily be distinguished from the "Senator Opens Shopping Center" type of story. Wikipedia is now a major cultural phenomenon. The introduction of the semi-protection policy made the front page (top of column one) in the New York Times this Saturday. It is a common truism that the best test of ethics is what you do when you think no one is watching. I wouldn't vote against the guy in a general election over this, but in a primary where there were two candidates I liked, it might well sway my vote. This deserves to be part of the record.--agr 11:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is now a major cultural phenomenon. The Colman edits are still much more relevant in the Wikipeida article than the Coleman article. The incident was a much bigger deal for Wikipedia than it was for Coleman, unless, of course Wikipedia decides to go on a campaign against the senator. Still, we must be careful not to go into the realm of making the news as opposed to reporting the news. 172 | Talk 03:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the section is irrelevant, trivial, and unencyclopedic. So long as it's there, however, we should include Coleman's response, so I've added it. I also removed a couple of links to inappropriate sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If there were a news story or three that discussed Coleman's staff's efforts to downplay the senator's previous progressivism (if he was ever a progressive...I've never thought so), then that could be reported, and the edits to Wikipedia, if they were discussed in a 2ndary source exactly as part of that effort, could be mentioned. Otherwise, it's amazingly obviously out of place. This is exacerbated by the placement of the section in the "on the media" section, which isn't about Coleman and the media at all, but rather about a single hearing. It's quite out of place and really looks like a clear attack. Whether the Wikipedia section is motivated by a conservative or progressive agenda, I don't care: the guy is disliked by both, but the amount of vitriol directed at him after the Brown hearings suggests that he's targeted more by the right than the left. Again, it's irrelevant who or why. The subject is whether it's appropriate. At this point, a passing reference is all that would be justified, and that only if there is some other reason for it. Know how many politicians have their staffs working on the Wikipedia article? No? Right. Know how many commentators have staffers working on the Wikipedia article? No? Right. I know of a few, as it would be pretty naive if they didn't have their staffs watching Wikipedia. Is that relevant to the politician's or pundit's article? Not really. Is it relevant to our article on Wikipedia itself? Probably. Geogre 15:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Rather than continue an edit war, I've added a POV tag to the article and propose we conduct a poll on whether the material in dispute should be included in this article under the heading "Coleman in the media." The material in question reads:

"On January 30, 2006, it was reported that Norm Coleman's staff had been actively editing his (this) entry on Wikipedia, removing critical references to his voting record and revising the description of his former political leanings. [12] [13][14] Similar instances of edits to several senators' pages originating from Congressional IP addresses have occurred. [15] Coleman's chief of staff said the editing was done to correct inaccuracies,[16] but Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said "it appears to be a major rewrite of the article to make it more favorable." [17]" --agr 13:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support As I stated above, this material is well sourced and relevant.--agr 13:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Its not an edit war. Its one person (172) pushing his unpopular, proactive naivity about the intent of WP:SELF. He will not respond to clarificatations of his misinterpretation and I see no reason why a poll will fix this sneaky behavoir. He sneaks around the articles every few months, when he thinks nobody is looking, and removes sections against all efforts to reason with him. That's simply that. If he's anything, he's a vandal without a cause or a nuisance without a clue.Yeago 17:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeago, I will try for now not to respond in kind to your attacks. In the meantime, I suggest you review our civility guidelines. 172 | Talk 03:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You will try "for now"? You've refused to reply all along. Big suprise, you get destroyed every time and its embarassing to watch you beg for reverters and keep jabbering your tired old bag about how something that gained the attention of DOZENS of major media outlets is "irrelevant" just because you decree. Go quote guidelines to someone who doesn't see through you.Yeago 09:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, a thing can be significant enough to generate news stories and yet not be significant enough in retrospect for an encyclopedia article. We're not going to try to put "horrid crime in Cheapside" into an article on Matthew Arnold because Arnold wrote a letter to the editor about it. News is news, and it has a different set of standards from encyclopedias. This is especially true in the Internet age, as newspapers carry and create identical stories on a weekly basis to be sure that they get to say that they did. Our job is to be beyond the newspapers and not to be journalists. Our job is to read the news accounts after the fact and determine whether or not they're significant to a life, to a career, as presented in a retrospective narrative like an encyclopedia. Blogs and WikNews handle the rest. Geogre 13:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh my god, this is none other than "breathtaking." Someone has actually explained their stance cogently instead of vaguely linking to WP:Law without any explanation as to how that page reinforces their own standpoint *cough* revert war. Its like I've called the phone company and finally a human being has picked up the line.

I definitely get what you're saying and appreciate your very valid viewpoint. It seems to me that relevancy is something that must "arise" and not something that can be handed down by Wikipedia Policy (as 172 and others would have you believe). Obviously Wikipedians get giddy everytime they see WP mentioned in the paper and so I can see understand the need to correct for that. Having read this I certainly have something to think about.Yeago 05:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeago, please, that isn't helpful. 172 has certain views about the kind of material encyclopedias should contain. I share those views. That doesn't make us vandals. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not just handing out the name "vandal" because he disagrees. I'm handing it out because he refuses to reply to any disagreement. His mind is made; to hell with everyone else.Yeago 08:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please maintain precise language and a dispassionate tone. The term vandal is reserved for actual vandalism. El_C 09:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the recent history of this page and Marty Meehan, I'm afraid it has become an edit war. There is another individual removing the material. I'm not sure how to proceed without first establishing that there is a consensus on whether the material should be included or not. So a vote would be helpful.--agr 17:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support ditto to agr. -Ravedave 20:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support with the comment that this is not an official vote and is likely to be disregarded by certain of the people "Wikipedia is not a democracy" in question. All the same it will show an absence of good faith if they persist in deleting the text when people are going on record in support of it. DanielM 02:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy and polls are not binding. I will not rest until irrelevant, trivial, and POV is gone from this article per the content guidelines. 172 | Talk 02:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

i.e. What you are basically saying is this: wikipedia is a democracy when it supports my own POV, when it doesn't I will quote guidlines to mask my own POV. If I had a dime for everytime I heard this argument....TSDY had this similar argument about fair use. Democracy is okay as long as the results favor my outcome. I bet if I dug deep enough, I could find cases were you defended the "democracy results" which supported your POV. Travb (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If a reputable source like the BBC found it relevant enough to report, why do we we have to go by your opinion? See Wikipedia: Reliable Sources. DanielM 03:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I already explained why not all verifiable information is not necessarily encyclopedic. By the way, I called dozens of Wikipedia's best contributors to this article. You guys are no longer going to be able to bully me off the article. As I stated earlier: While the story about Wikipedia is verifiable, that's neither here nor there. Just because information is verifiable does not mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedias are not collections of any random information anyone can dig up on any given subject. Encyclopedias make judgments about the relevance of information. They distinguish the significant from the significant, summarize the relevant data, and offer readers general overviews. 172 | Talk 04:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 172 | Talk 03:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I called dozens of Wikipedia's best contributors to this article.

This is an appeal to authority. It has no relevance, especially when, in your own words, wikipedia is not a democracy. Therefore, if wikipedia is not a democracy, the opinions of dozens of Wikipedia's "best" contributors has no relevance. Unless, in your view, wikipedia is some other form of government/organization, where only a select few of Wikipedia's best contributors decide what is allowable and what is not. Which begs the question: Who decides who is Wikipedia's "best" contributors? You can't have it both ways.

Encyclopedias make judgments about the relevance of information. They distinguish the significant from the significant, summarize the relevant data, and offer readers general overviews. So who decides who makes the judgement about relevant information? Travb (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support Relevant and well sourced. Scribner 04:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. It's unencyclopedic and makes us look silly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remove or Shorten. I don't take WP:SELF in the absolutist way that some editors do. Wikipedia really is a thing in the world, and we shouldn't deny it exists as some sort of principle. But this particular mention really does look like navel-gazing to me. It wouldn't be sufficiently notable for inclusion if it were about changes to some other website than WP; and it doesn't become notable just because WP is involved. There's a certain context here, of course: if some otherwise minimally notable person had gained notoriety because of WP-related actions, the same degree of action might be notable. But this is an article on a US Senator, which is inherently a very notable title, and Coleman has done many more notable things, even himself... not just indirectly and without his specific intent via some staff members. Later: I like Homeonetherange's suggestion OK; a concise neutral sentence wouldn't be belaboring the matter, just no more than that. LotLE×talk 04:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the single "concise neutral sentence" should be a footnote. Perhaps a link to Wikipedia can be included under the "see also" heading, with a footnote stating that members of Coleman's staff edited this article. I still think it's excessive to include even a short sentence in the "media coverage" section. 172 | Talk 05:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Shorten Keep "On January 30, 2006, it was reported that Coleman's staff had been editing his entry on Wikipedia, removing critical references to his voting record and revising the description of his former political leanings." and ditch the rest. It was notable enough to make BBC News and a number of large US newspapers but I don't think we should make more than a brief reference. Homey 05:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Preferably remove, else shorten. Rebecca 07:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Not poll-related, without bolded text, and with all due wikihumility: how is BBC: Congress 'made Wikipedia changes' trivial? El_C 08:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

El_C what are you refering too? What is poll related, what is without bolded text? Travb (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

WOT? When everyone bolds their text, the lack of bold emboldens, yes? El_C 11:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remove. I don't know about this exact case in detail, but I think the precedent is important to maintain. If we start writing articles about subjects' writing their articles then this place will turn into a hall of mirrors. I'll grant that this case may be verifiable by reliable sources, so shorten if it is sufficiently notable. (PS for any other editors interested in Congressional articles: should there be a standard of notability for votes? I see that in some articles editors add as much as a paragraph about a single vote, one which isn't even mentioned in the articles of other legislators. If a position on "Bill X" is important, isn't it important across the board? Assuming national issues, of course.) -Will Beback 08:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In answer to El C's question - my opinion is that a detailed discussion of the event would be more appropriate in an article about Wikipedia. -23:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Shorten per above. ackoz 09:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Shorten but keep all of the links for further reading. I just read over WP:SELF. This policy says nothing about this case. Please correct me specifically how I am wrong. I think arguing WP:SELF here at Norm Coleman is simply knowledgeable veteran editors masking their own POV in wikipolicy. I was persuaded to vote shorten because of LotLE's compeling argument. Shorten is a good comprimise. I will change my vote if someone can convince me otherwise.Travb (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support, Strong keep How many media articles would wikiusers have to present before this reaches the level of being "relevant"? This disupted section is in Norm_Coleman#Coleman_in_the_media section. Coleman's scandal with wikipedia made international news being reported in 27 news outlets. (see below) The two other subjects in the Norm_Coleman#Coleman_in_the_media section are about a bill which Coleman might have introduced, and a attack on Brownie during Hurricane Katrina. Why do these two subjects merit full paragraphs and the Wikipedia changes don't? In addition, there are several articles which cite wikipedia scandals (see below). Should all of those sections be deleted too? If so, on what grounds? Users have quoted WP:SELF which is irrelevant to this case. Travb (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The question here is whether the material included is relevant to the life and career of Senator Coleman. The references are not in question; we can verify that the event happened and that Coleman responded to the actions of his staff. My concern is that the information, much like the rest of "In the media," does not fit within the article nor does it make sense within any narrative of Coleman's life or career. Much like a trivia section, it contains little factoids without asserting how they relate to the rest of the article. I would argue that this tidbit doesn't have any relevance to the article, as it does not pertain to Coleman. He didn't edit the article, and there's no proof cited that he ordered his staff to do so. He has not been involved in any sustained controversy with Wikipedia, nor has he become a public critic. The obvious counter-cases are Siegenthaler, Brandt, and Orlowski. His comments on Wikipedia do not shed light on his policy positions nor, in themselves, aid in understanding the senator. While the issue of politicians manipulating Wikipedia remains important for Wikipedia and raises questions about the proper role of elected officials, the issue as it pertains to Coleman is effectively dead. Its inclusion suggests a significance for the senator which it simply doesn't have. Mackensen (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your position seems more consistent than others: Let me repeat what you are arguing, so I am not misquoting you: You are arguing that we should delete all of the in the media sections? The problem is that your argument, albiet it is more consistent than others arugments, rests on the assumption that none of the material in the media section is relevant: The question here is whether the material included is relevant to the life and career of Senator Coleman. I first argue that this assumption is wrong, it is relevant. But this assumption is based on my personal opinion, as your assumption is. There is no way to "prove" that one of is right. To bolster your personal opinion, you state: like a trivia section, it contains little factoids without asserting how they relate to the rest of the article. First of all, many wikipages have trivia sections. would renaming this section as "Trivia" be acceptable to you? If not why? Second, if wikipedia editors edited this section to be relate (more) to the rest of the article would this be acceptable? If not why? He didn't edit the article, and there's no proof cited that he ordered his staff to do so. This is incorrect, and should be retracted by you Mackensen: "Staffers from Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Marty Meehan and Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman admit deleting unflattering but accurate details from items on their bosses." --Fox News Network, January 31, 2006 Tuesday. (Link to full transcript posted shortly) Lets say that conservative Fox News is wrong about Norm Coleman, wikipedia traced the address back to Colemans office. You ignored this fact. You should retract your statment, or explain how Fox News is wrong, and you are right. His comments on Wikipedia do not shed light on his policy positions nor, in themselves, aid in understanding the senator...Its inclusion suggests a significance for the senator which it simply doesn't have. I respectfully disagree with your opinion. When a senator's office manipulates facts anonymously, that gives the public a right to know. The NYT felt like this was relevant enough to put in their paper, along with at least 26 other news organizations.Travb (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I dislike trivia sections and would rather see them deleted. Your quotation does not refute my statement: I argued that Coleman didn't order it. You've said nothing which addresses that claim. Wikipedia is not a media organization and should not be confused with one. The public found out through normal media channels. We're an encyclopedia, not a news agency. Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I quote: He didn't edit the article, and there's no proof cited that he ordered his staff to do so. True or false User:Mackensen did or did Norm Coleman's staff, change the edit? Simple, one sentence answer.

Ever heard of Plausible deniability?

Your statment is technically correct, but wolefully misleading. People like myself read this to mean Norm Coleman's staff was not involved. This is facutally untrue. The chief of staff of Erich Mische admited to the Associated Press that his office had done this. This fact, along with 25 other referenced sources was just deleted by user:172.

Signed: Travb (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you read that to mean that Coleman's staff was uninvolved, particularly in light of my comments involved, then you've got a real problem with context. Of course his staff did it; we've the IP addresses to prove it. Nowhere did I dispute this. The question is whether the Senator ordered it or did it himself. You've yet to provide proof of either. I'm still waiting. Mackensen (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Eliminate or rename & shorten to 2-3 sentences: 1: the heading is wholly inappropriate, as the words don't match. It isn't about Coleman and the media. It's about Coleman and Brown. 2: the discussion is journalism, and Wikipedia is not WikiNews. 3: the quotes are cherry picked and obviously designed to attack Coleman. 4: entirely irrelevant things are inserted (Michael Brown "reveals" that he'd contacted the White House? seems to me that he claims it, and e-mails from him argue contrary to it) to try to justify "Brownie" and attack Coleman, and it's done quite poorly. 5: the writing there is clumsy. 6: the heading is the most subtle thing in the paragraph, as what's implied is that Coleman's questions were a media stunt. It's horse poop from start to finish. Below, I show the 2-3 sentences that could go in, but only if there is a discussion of the whole of Coleman's career with the press. I doubt the selectively quoting editors are interested in a "fair and balanced" presentation of the senator's entire career and, let's say, the hate wave directed specifically at him from the right wing shout radio after that hearing. Geogre 12:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support per agr --Guinnog 15:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Remove It has no relevance to biography of Coleman. The event is blown out of proportions. Many people edit articles all the time and we are not going to fill wikipedia articles by nitpicks about how people are doing this. `'mikka (t) 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - if it were in another Encyclopedia they wouldn't have even bothered mentioning such a trivial incident. It's merely self-referential, as 172 said. Graft 17:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, great. Will you be VfD flagging Wikipedia now? The self-references contained in that article are simply attrocious. Its really disgusting its been allowed to go on so long.Yeago 17:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• The material should be removed; it is not important to this article as the event is not a significant happening in the life of Sen. Coleman. This is borne out by the fact that the event is presented in a way that makes clear that it had no consequences of interest for the senator. Like a trivial campaign stop or press conference, it has been mentioned in the news and is well supported by news sources -- that doesn't imply it should be in the article by any means. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Note that Wikipedia:Avoid self-references emphatically does not apply here. The item under discussion is a fact that happens to involve Wikipedia, not an illustration that uses Wikipedia gratuitously. If there is no way to formulate a statement so that it does not mention Wikipedia, then the self-reference is appropriate and necessary. The question is only whether the item is sufficiently important and relevant to the article. It's not gratuitously self-referential to mention that someone made the news editing Wikipedia; no more than it is to mention Wikipedia in Jimmy Wales. Of course, the relevance of Wikipedia in Jimmy Wales is unquestioned, whereas this is not, but the intent and purpose of WP:SELF is not to excise all mention of Wikipedia in Wikipedia, nor to induce a bias against facts that happen to involve Wikipedia. WP:SELF is a technical guide on an aspect of good prose style and should have nothing to do with factual coverage.
  As far as keeping or removing goes, I'm inclined to agree with Mackensen; the factual coverage of the article wouldn't be hurt by omitting it. Compare John Byrne, who made a much bigger nuisance of himself by editing his article to basically remove anything negative about him; we don't mention that he did so because it's of very little relevance to John Byrne's life and career (the article is by no means stable as far as negative facts about him are concerned, but his editing of Wikipedia is just not relevant enough to insert regardless).
  On the other hand, the shenanigans that went on with Coleman's article received much wider coverage in the media, and manipulation of publicly available information on a politician is more relevant than the same exercise with a comic book artist, since the former's reputation is more pertinent to his career than the latter's. The golden mean to me is Geogre's suggestion of mentioning it, but briefly. In no way does this deserve one third of an entire section, and it's much more relevant to Wikipedia itself than it is to Norm Coleman. The paragraph seems out of place. JRM · Talk 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but shorten. It was widely reported, as is well-documented, and so deserves a brief mention. Jonathunder 19:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

TABULATION OF INFORMAL STRAW POLL RESULTS: I counted up the above. The choices were Keep, Remove, or Shorten ("support" was read as keep, "oppose" as remove, and so on). If a person voted "remove or shorten" or even "keep or shorten" I put a half vote in each of the respective two columns. The results are: Remove (6), Shorten (4 1/2), and Keep (6 1/2). This is remarkable, especially given 172's unorthodox and Wikipedia guideline-breaking campaigning on the talk pages of various editors he selected (the guideline says "if you are posting on talk pages... make sure not to use language that may suggest bias," 172 campaigned with a claim that the text was irrelevant). I'm not infallible, feel free to count for yourself. But it appears the winner and still champeen is "Keep." DanielM 00:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy and cannot be a democracy when we are writing an encyclopedia, as all opinions are not equal. "Polls" are irrelevant, especially is one side of a despute cannot address the concerns of the other side in a coherent, reasonable manner. By the way, your post is also against the spirt of the norms of civility on Wikipedia. This site is not a battleground. We must be concerned only with the quality of articles on this site, not "winning" against other editors. 172 | Talk 08:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Stating that you busted a Wikipedia guideline is uncivil? What do you call your comment "I usually give in to POV pushers and idiots. But I'm going to draw a line in the sand on the Coleman article" then? DanielM 21:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

25 articles on Norm Coleman changing his bio on wikipedia

Plus the BBC article and the Twincities article, on the main page.

BBC, CNN, FoxNews, Washington Post, NYT. The most respected newspapers and media outlets in the world reported on this story. Yet a small handful of wikipedians claim this is not relevant, and is not really "news". Which source is more legitamate, 25 newsarticles or a handful of wikipedians?

"Montana; Wiki-When Will They Ever Learn?". The Hotline. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"Wikipedia's Help From the Hill". TechNews. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"On The Hill; Five Senators' Aides Reportedly Alter Online Bios". Technology Daily. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"Quirks in the News: Wikipedia suffers political edits". UPI. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"An 'Adequate' Euphemism". The Washington Post. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"President Bush Delivers Message in Nashville; Cindy Sheehan Arrested over T-Shirt; Nagin Testifies At Senate Hearing; Alito Sworn In; Rating White House Strategy; McCain Endorses Shadegg; Bush Takes State Of The Union Outside". CNN. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"Wikipedia entries altered for several senators, representatives". Great Falls Tribune. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"A Collection of Bizarre Stories from the World of Politics Including Senatorial Slips of the Tongue, Doctored Political Photos and Bios and Drastic Measures to Balance the Budget in New Jersey". Fox News Network. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"Coleman; Guess What Online Encyclopedia Is Close To Being "Wiki-Served"?". The Hotline. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"Congress caught making false entries in Wikipedia". CNET.com. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"A new era of Wiki attacks belittle political process". The Macon Telegraph. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"Britannica 'still rules' over web rival". The Times (London). {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"Revered reference beyond compare". The Australian. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia facing scrutiny". Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee). {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"Bias, sabotage haunt Wikipedia's free world". Boston Globe. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"On the stump". The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN). {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"Out of America: Those oversized egos on Capitol Hill, and why I was rooting for George Galloway; What Washington really needs is a racy, gossipy tabloid or a local". Independent (London). {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"Public sector, private lives". The Post-Standard (Syracuse, New York). {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"Define Wikipedia: Wicked media or work in progress?; Reports of Senate staffers altering their bosses' bios raise debate over the user-edited online encyclopedia". Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN). {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"Political Skeletons, Cut and Pasted". The New York Times. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"Column five: Doctoring the past - Wiki style: Doctoring the past - Wiki style Web firm accused of helping to convict dissident; Yahoo! again criticised as political blogger is jailed". The Guardian (London). {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"Web firm accused of helping to convict dissident; Yahoo! again criticised as political blogger is jailed". The Herald (Glasgow). {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

"Biden staffers take Web bio entry into own hands; Several Senate computers caught changing Wikipedia". The News Journal (Wilmington, Delaware). {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

Signed:Travb (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I added some wikilinks for kicks, many of which accurate. El_C 11:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: El_C is refering to an early edit of this list. Travb (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of these are the usual "Wikipedia can be changed by anybody, and it often is" things. At most, it's the same story reported in the news over and over (see, most recently, Mark Taylor (politician), which, incidentally, explains the Macon Telegraph's article). There is nothing really there. The big point is that it's not by any means a proper section in the article. A single sentence in the "Coleman and the media" would be sufficient. The entire section at present looks like an attack. Since Wikipedia is not WikiNews, going blow by blow, quote by quote, all cherry-picked is unencyclopedic. This is not journalism, and it is not a report. It is supposed to be an encyclopedic summary of the major portions of the senator's life and career. Focusing on the Michael Brown bit is inappropriate. "Senator Coleman was one of the most aggressive questioners of Michael Brown" would do it. The present section looks like an attack. "Additionally, Senator Coleman's article on Wikipedia has been contested, with some [and let's not speculate who the some are] pointing out that Coleman's staff have edited the article and Coleman himself pointing out that the article requires oversight to be fair." See? 2-3 sentences, and no surreptitious arguing for Michael Brown. 2-3 sentences, and no "shocked" claims that Coleman's staff edited. (And I think we should be quite pleased if his staff is editing. Is there some reason to believe that they're going to edit falsely? Is there some reason to believe that they're less knowledgeable?) Geogre 12:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait till the articles are compiled to decide, but that is a persuasive point. El_C 13:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As Geogre points out, anything connecting Coleman and Wikipedia is basically a single story being repeated in multiple sources, so the number of citations is pretty irrelevant. So far the incident is not really significant in his political career, so this isn't the right place to discuss it. Nobody seems to have started a Wikipedia article on the congressional staff edits controversy that I can find, which frankly surprises me. That is where the incident should be discussed, and here it should be relegated to a See also. Same goes for Marty Meehan. --Michael Snow 16:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course its a single story. The significance of the 25 citations is that 25 mainstream publications, many quite distant from the state Coleman represents, thought the story was important enough to publish. There are many contentious statements in articles about political figures with far less support. If we are to maintain a neutral point of view, there must be room for adverse material about political figures, and material from the mainstream news media would seem as good a source as we are likely to find. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known." I agree that this incident is of limited import and should not be overblown, but it may well be the most widely carried story about Sen. Coleman this year and it deserves a mention.--agr 19:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of those stories are about Wikipedia, not about Coleman. This being the point - it's purported relevance here is based only on the fact that this happens to BE wikipedia, not because this is an especially significant Coleman incident. Graft 20:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the story titles, they are all about senate staffers altering Wikipedia articles about their bosses. No doubt the articles spend a lot of time explaining to their readers what Wikipedia is. That doesn't mean the subject of the articles is Wikipedia. If the incident involved Google, which has in the past cited web site owners for what it considers improper efforts to influence page rankings, the bulk of any newspaper article would be about how the Google page ranking system works. That would not make Google the subject of the article. It seems to much of the opposition to the inclusion of this item appears to stem from it being about Wikipedia (e.g references to WP:SELF or statements it makes us look silly). This is a story that got wide play. That it happened to involve us is no reason to exclude it.--agr 20:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If nobody was really interested in it, it would be a See Also by means of De facto. De facto this content has appeared and reappeared despite the best efforts of a small vocal minority. We understand your position, however, Wikipedia doesn't err on the side of ommittal. This entire debate goes back to |post I made at WP:SELF. Unlike 172, when I was confronted with this problem I took it to the source and asked questions instead of waging revert wars on articles willy nilly.

This issue isn't about Norm Coleman, its about the interpretation and intent of WP:SELF and it needs to go back to there. Its very inconsistent to even bring this debate here (because we'll have to have it again Next article) and its dishonest for people such as 172 (and his revert cheerleaders) to continue attempting to legislate by force what is already clearly written and settled, as a justification for their conviction that the content is not encyclopediac. What's funny is that if they thought this line of reasoning had any weight at all they would have stuck to it, instead of coming up with all kinds of secondary, misguided citations of WP "law".Yeago 17:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, we've had quite enough of the self-righteous assertions and personal attacks. Would you care to address all the carefully-considered (and long) arguments being made against inclusion above? Mackensen (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange, Congressional Staffer Edits is just a redirect to Wikipedia:Congressional Staffer Edits Shenme 16:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I will respond to the long response in detail later, in the next couple of days. I have not read a word yet, but will guess that the argument focuses on the idea that a handful of wikipedia editors can decide what news is, instead of 27 worldwide media outlets, some of the most respected in the world, including BBC, NYT, Washington Post, etc...

Right now I am focusing on gathering information which shows the validity, or invalidity of these wikipedians editors claims. Travb (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Other wikipedia articles which reference wikipedia scandal

Several other articles reference the wikipedia scandal. (This is not a complete list, and will grow.) Please add any refernces here.

This begs the question:

Why are certain wikieditors focusing exclusively on the Norm Coleman article?

What does this list show? Not only does the news media feel the wikipedia scandal is relevant, 26 news media outlets around the world, including some of the most repspect in the world, but several other wikipedians independently have judged that this scandal is relevant.

Signed:Travb (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

List of wikipedia articles which reference wikipedia scandals

• Cathy_Cox#Wikipedia_controversy
• Conrad Burns Added by 12.38.254.2[18] and modified by another user 129.98.237.32[19], Deleted the next day here This was a referenced section, citing the Daily Chronicle/Bozeman Daily Chronicle,[20] (Bozeman, MT) the user argued the dubious "self-ref" rational.
• Joe_Biden#Articles Citing: Wikinews (2006).
  Wikinews investigates Wikipedia usage by United States Senate staff members. Retrieved February 9, 2006.
  Added by a user here,[21] Modified and added by another user here, [22] Defend here. [23]
• Dianne_Feinstein#U.S._Senate_career {{wikinews|Wikinews investigates Wikipedia vandalism by United States Senate staff members}} Added by User:Boud.[24]

Footnotes

I deleted an orphaned footnote, which was not referenced in the main article:

• 1993 Letter from Norm Coleman to the Saint Paul City Convention Delegates - addressed: "Dear DFL Ward Convention Attendee."

Please add it back using <ref name=" "></ref> tags. Thanks. Travb (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid revert wars

I want to remind some users who continue to delete referenced sources (25 referenced sources in all) that this is an encyclopedia. Wikiusers have referenced 25 news outlets, on three continents, including some of the most prestigous news outlets in the world. I would like to remind these users of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Myself and other users have not only met Wikipedia:Verifiability, but surpassed the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability.

I would be interested to see news articles (not web blog articles) that state that the wikipedia scandal involving Norm Coleman's office is not newsworthy. In otherwords, instead of devolving into peity revert wars, do some research, and defend your opinions, as all wikiusers are required to do. Those who wish to keep this in the article have exhasitvly researched this subject. Those who do not wish to keep this in the article, to my knowledge have done none.

If you cannot argue the case of deleting the wikipedia scandal here on the merits, please do not devolve into peity revert wars. I would argue that this simply shows how weak your position truly is.

Signed:Travb (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Compromise note

The following users have touched on my concerns, I believe, in a more convincing and articulate manner than I've made in my own comments: SlimVirgin, Michael Snow, Graft, Mikkalai, Geogre, Christopher Parham, Mackensen, Will Beback, Rebecca, HOTR, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, and TJive. I thank them, along with a few other serious contributors with whom I disagree, for the thoughtful feedback. Although some of Wikipedia's most dedicated and skilled writers have joined me in questioning the relevance of the section on Wikipeidia in this article, it's clear that there is still too much resistance to the outright removal of the content on the staff edits. Therefore, I've taken the initiative of posting a compromise draft avoiding excessive self-reference while alluding to the Wikipedia edits in a single sentence combined with a footnote offering further detail. [25] Again, thanks again to everyone for the insightful feedback. 172 | Talk 22:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

172's wording is much more acceptable than an insertion of dozens of links on the same matter where verifiability is not even the issue. --TJive 22:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Verifiability is not a question here; no one disputes that the incident happened. The dozens of links is overkill. 172 | Talk 22:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

May I remind you that you two have started another revert war. I would urge you to stop immediatly. This is not supposed to be the behavior of an admin.

Verifiability is not a question here; no one disputes that the incident happened.

Verifiability is not an issue to you two, because the overwhelming evidence shows that there is massive Verifiability of this issue. In otherwords, TJive and 172 selectively choose which wikipedia policy to use in their defense, and which wikipolicy to ignore. Instead, the two of you argue personal opinion and appeals to authority, with no verifiable sources.

The irony is that verifability is an issue. Several of those who want this information to stay in the article, aruge Verifiability, but never actually use the word verifiability.

It is important to note that TJive and 172 recently started (and have sustained) revert wars. I have found consistently that when the evidence is against a person, the argument will quickly devolve into peity revert wars, started by the person who has the weakest argument.

Although some of Wikipedia's most dedicated and skilled writers have joined me in questioning the relevance of the section on Wikipeidia in this article Remember User:172, in your own words, Wikipedia is not a democracy. So therefore, if wikipedia is not a democracy, why do you mention a list of people who are questioning the relevance of the section on Wikipeidia in this article? Please explain this inconsistency, as I am confused.

Many of these same people, particuarly Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters have argued that we should shorten this section. Which you were initially opposed too. Therefore, this list is not as comprehensive as it first sounds.

FWIW, I do think the article would be slightly better with the entire matter removed. If you were to list, say, the 50 most germane facts about Coleman, "staffers edited WP" wouldn't be in there. Probably the name of his first pet is verifiable too, some human interest story probably ran it (I'm guessing, but it's plausibly likely trivia). However, I do not think a single sentence would be actively detrimental to the article; multiple sentences are so detrimental, since they are really undue weight. LotLE×talk 02:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My mistake Lulu, I was wrong. I took your words out of context. My mistake.Travb (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Again wikiusers, I would advise that we all do not start revert wars. And follow Wikipedia:Civility on this page. (Lord knows I have personally learned the importance and power of civility the hard way)

I commend User:172 fig leaf of peaace as a wonderful idea and great comprimise. I would be willing to comprimise that the section be shortened.

Thank you User:172 for your civility and your wonderful idea. Travb (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be making TJive and me the issue here. We're not. Please take into account that around a dozen of other editors have stated similiar concerns. Please work toward consensus. The only workable compromise is going to be keeping the reference to Wikipedia brief, with further detail for those interested in entries on the history of Wikipedia and the footnote. 172 | Talk 22:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be making TJive and me the issue here

I am sorry sir, this is not the case. This is not personal. I am concerned that you and Tjive talk comprmise here, and start and substain revert wars on the main page. that is why I have mentioned your names. If Lulu, for example, did the same thing, I would bring up his name too.

Please take into account that around a dozen of other editors have stated similiar concerns. But wait, 172, you stated yourself that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Please clarify.

Please work toward consensus. I agree, consensus is important. Revert wars hamper progress. I would suggest that we stop reverting information that other wikipedians add, and help each other to build an encyclopedia.

The only workable compromise is going to be keeping the reference to Wikipedia brief, with further detail for those interested in entries on the history of Wikipedia and the footnote.

I agree in principle. We must work out the details now. What is "brief" what will satisify everyone? Why does this section deserve only one sentence, whereas the other media sections deserve a full paragraph? Travb (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Travb seems to have a bizarre impression that this is about a clash of personalities, or a personal and ideological defense of Coleman, based on his labyrinthine comments on various talk pages, especially in regard to his perception of 172's views. Verifiability isn't an issue, not because it isn't an argument that can be leveled to remove material we are personally affronted by, but because we question the relevance of the information to an encyclopedia. It might be verifiable that Coleman choked a bit on the ham sandwich he ate on Tuesday, and it might be reported in a dozen outlets of varying respectability, but that doesn't mean it should be mentioned here, in this article. As for "revert wars", that takes at least two, and you were the first to revert 172's content today, which is quite distinct from even the deletions of yesterday; in other words, he is attempting a compromise while you are busy making the section, and particularly the notes, of inordinately obnoxious length. --TJive 22:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, 172, you sound like you're accepting the Nobel Prize up there. I think the gutted, clinical, lonely sentence you stuck in there "in January 2006, a number of news agencies ran articles on edits by Coleman's congressional staff to the senator's Wikipedia entry" is insufficient because it is entirely nondescriptive of the character of the edits by Coleman's staff, something that could be easily accomplished in an NPOV way by giving the examples. I see you (or whoever) stuck some tiny print down at the bottom that gives a bit more but that seems silly. We are going to start a fine print section in this article because some just can't stand having certain text in the article body? In my opinion Wikipedia readers are owed more, they are owed the opportunity to have the information with reasonable descriptiveness in order to make up their own minds. DanielM 23:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted a change to 172's compromise, even though i disagree with his initial position. I think it is time to calm things down. I'm not saying 172's wording need be the final version. A bit more info could be more fair to Coleman. A short article on the incident might be another approach. My point for the moment is that we should try to work out a better wording here before making any changes to this article.--agr 23:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I tabulated the straw poll, see above, a great victory for the forces of truth and justice ;) DanielM 00:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a battleground or a democracy. Nor is Wikipedia a game. We are not here to 'fight' other editors but to help Wikipedia's devolopment. 172 | Talk 08:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully with what you say, but not what you actually do. Would we both agree that revert wars are not helpful in this process? Travb (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The incivility of the inclusion side here is staggering, as is their general unwillingness to bring forth sound arguments. The points I and others raised above have gone largely unanswered, save a bizarre attempt by Travb to make a source say something which it does not say. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If you find incivility in a lighthearted comment like "a great victory for truth and justice," with a winky on the end of it to boot, then you have thin skin indeed. There really needs to be more lightheartedness and less animosity. The majority of the includers are entirely civil and constructive, so you're just wrongly broadbrushing. Anyone who takes a fair look is going to find excluders who are insufficiently constructive and "civil" (however you and 172 are defining that word). You say this incident has to do with Coleman's staff, not Coleman. I say he is responsible for his staff. He could have disavowed his staff's spinning of the article, but in fact his chief of staff came out all defiant about it. This is supposed to have happened without at least Coleman's acquiescence? DanielM 21:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...So starting and substaining revert wars are "civil". Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears on its face like you are only seeing one side of the debate, your own. I readily admit that my side has been "uncivil". Do you admit that your exclusion side has been uncivil?

Calling my argument "bizarre" possibly expresses your own bias, nothing more. Especially when you do not explain why it is "bizarre". Please do not revert to name calling and descriptive adjectives, especially when you do not back up your allegations:

make a source say something which it does not say. Interesting point, but it begs the question: how am I making a source say something which it does not say? I cite 25 articles about the wikipedia scandal, showing its relevance, and I have yet to see any of the exclusion wikipedians offer one. I see the inclusion wikipedians building an encyclopedia, and I see the exclusion wikipedians attempting to delete portions of an encyclopedia based on what? News articles? No. None have been provided. Democracy of wikipedians? No. 172 says wikipedia is not a democracy. So what exactly do you base your arguments on? I have asked repeatedly but all I get in response is two wikipedians calling my position "bizarre" and nothing more. Travb (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I refer to the discussion above, where I pointed out that no source stated that the Senator himself was involved in the alterations. The major point of my argument, which you have persistently failed to address, is that this event is tangential to the Senator's life and career and is better discussed elsewhere. My arguments are stated cogently above. You'd do us all a service at this point to address them. Mackensen (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to Tjive. Please read Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. Please avoid personal attacks. Please no Ad hominem attacks. Please don't assume (guess) my position. Please don't question (guess) my ulterior motives. Lets stick to the evidence and the facts. Please do not try to muddle the debate by bringing in information and past edits which have no relevance to the Norm Coleman debate. Please don't use deragatory adjectives such as "bizarre".

Verifiability isn't an issue, not because it isn't an argument that can be leveled to remove material we are personally affronted by, but because we question the relevance of the information to an encyclopedia.

It might be verifiable that Coleman choked a bit on the ham sandwich he ate on Tuesday, and it might be reported in a dozen outlets of varying respectability, but that doesn't mean it should be mentioned here, in this article.

The problem with cute anaglogies is that they are rarely similar to the central debate in question. Coleman's staff changing wikipedia has nothing to do with choking on a sandwich. This is about Coleman's staff attempting to shape public opinion of him by anonymously editing out unfavorable facts on wikipedia. This story was picked up by some of the most respected news organizations in the world. In otherwords, it was relevant to those news organizations, relevant enough for them to mention it. I mention all of those news organization, which both you and 172 deleted, to show how relevant this story truly is. It has not only been verified by these 25 plus news organizations, the story was relevant to these news organizations. Just as the story was relevant enough for several other wikiusers to add this information, independently to other wikipages. Talk:Norm_Coleman#List_of_wikipedia_articles_which_reference_wikipedia_scandals We are not talking about a choking story in the National Inquirer, we are talking about a story that was picked up on three different continents, in some of the most prestigous media outlets in the world. These links were deleted by both you and 172. You two refuse to see how verifablity and relevance go hand in hand, because if you did, your argument would collapse. Instead, you two want us to trust your opinion over 26 news organizations, that this story is not relevant. What do you base this decision on? Not democracy of wikiusers, because 172 conveniently states that wikipedia is not a democracy.

I am confused, what do you base you decision on? Was there a follow up in the NYT or Washington Post which said: "Disclaimer: this story about Norm Coleman and the other politicians was not relevant." Please disregard this story. I don't think so. Agai, what do you base your decision on?

I am interested Tjive and 172, why Norm Coleman? Why aren't you fighting to remove this information from Dianne_Feinstein#U.S._Senate_career or Joe_Biden#Articles? Why have you decided to start this debate here?

As for "revert wars", that takes at least two, and you were the first to revert 172's content today, which is quite distinct from even the deletions of yesterday; in other words, he is attempting a compromise while you are busy making the section, and particularly the notes, of inordinately obnoxious length.

172 deletes my additions, including: 25 newsorganizations and four sentences

I revert 172's deletions

Tjive deletes my contributions again.

I revert Tjive's deletions

Tjive continues/sustains the revert war that 172 began, reverting my additions

Who started the revert war Tjive? Was it me or 172? Did I delete anything in my edits before 172 deleted my work? Addding parenthsis around "revert war" and confusing the issue by stating: that takes at least two does not take away from the fact that 172 deleted my edits, then you continued to delete my edits. Simple question Tjive: who started the revert war: me or 172. I will continue to ask until I get an answer.

he is attempting a compromise while you are busy making the section, and particularly the notes, of inordinately obnoxious length.

I am happy to comprimise. Starting and substaining a revert war is not a comprimise. Don't take the moral high ground when your actions and words are starkly different. While 172 and you are talking comprimise here on the talk page, you are starting and substaining a revert war on the main page. This is hardly the actions of comprimise. You can't have it both ways: you can't say you want to comprimise and start and substain a revert war.

inordinately obnoxious length I am willing to comprimise on this. I have not deleted any of your work, I would appreciate if you would quit deleting mine. You are 172 have added no reference to this scandal. Not even one article which supports your view that this wikipedia scandal is relevant or irrelevent. So in otherwords, myself and others are attempting to add information to an encyclopedia and you and 172 are attempting to start and substain revert wars, deleting portions of the encyclopedia based on your own opinions (and nothing more to my current knowledge). Wikipedia is not a democracy, as 172 continues to argue, but if it is not a democracy, what is it? Why is Tjive and 172's opinion more important than everyone elses? I have asked this question and been ignored, repeatedly.

You two can't have it both ways:

1. You can't say wikipedia is not a democracy then turn around and write a list of people who support your position,
2. You can't say that you are comprimising when you are starting and substaining revert wars.
3. You can't argue that this article is not relevant when we have provided 25 plus articles which says it is, and you have provided none. You two can't have it both ways.

1. Again, simple question Tjive: who started the revert war: me or 172. I will continue to ask until I get an answer.

Signed:Travb (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Short response. Each person he invited here made a cogent argument which you've thus far ignored or misrepresented. I'm waiting on you for several responses at this point. I'd love to see answers too. You aren't dealing with 172 and TJive alone. Mackensen (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not about to participate in your little charade. You went around musing about 172's ideological and political beliefs, promising to watch carefully in the future for an indication of them, and have since continued this line of speculation here and extended it to myself. I edited this article because Norm Coleman has been on my watchlist for months. Once I noticed the same for Marty Meehan, I did it there as well. I have not been actively seeking out fights based on partisan politics. I explained my reasons and am responsible for my actions alone. Verifiability not being the issue, the simple fact of an incident being reported by any news or online organization in particular is not justification for inclusion in an encyclopedia. You have yet to come to terms with that argument, cute anaglogies [sic] or no. --TJive 21:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Again, simple question Tjive: who started the revert war: me or 172. I will continue to ask until I get an answer." Travb (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter? I suspect not. The important thing is to fix the article. I've asked you repeatedly to address the content issues which I've raised. Are you unable to do so or simply unwilling? Mackensen (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Congressional Staffer Edits

I have created an article to replace the internal redirect at Congressional Staffer Edits. I also moved it to Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia for clarity. I tried to keep it balanced, but I trust others will review and edit it. I think a link to it from this article would be appropriate. It should put things in perspective and reduce the need for detail here.--agr 12:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave it a bit of a cleanup & linked the internal, though I did find the 25 sources added by Travb to have been excessive, so I've hid them, for now. El_C 23:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I've written the lead paragraph (although was nonetheless faced with accusations that I've "contributed nothing to this project"). El_C 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Final comprimise?

{{wikinews|Wikinews investigates Wikipedia vandalism by United States Senate staff members}}

And a see also section with Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia, which can be expanded to include other wikipedia sites, but only one see also site is about Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia. The list is alphabetized.

We delete:

In January 2006, a number of news agencies ran articles on edits by Coleman's congressional staff to the senator's Wikipedia entry.¹ See Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia, and the footnote.

That way the debate is defused and goes somewhere else. Can we all agree on this?

I will make the changes to the page.

We also lost a footnote to another unrelated section along the way. I had added it to the reference section, and it was deleted somehow.

Signed:Travb (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this comprimise okay? I hope so. Lets put all this behind us. We have all been uncivil, as I have admitted readily. Travb (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, I think I've been pleasant throughout, despite having my patience tried. The important thing is to resolve the content dispute, regardless of whoever started the edit war. The addition of the Wikinews piece seems inappropriate, as it is not related to the remaining content in the "Media" section, and is therefore something of a non-sequiter and further expands an unnecessary section. Far better, given the tangential nature of the issue and the fuller coverage alloted elsewhere to treat this as we treat similar issues, and file it away in "See also," where it belongs. Mackensen (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I figure if the wikinews section is okay on the Diane Fienstein page and Joe Biden page, that it is okay here too. This way the argument goes somewhere else. We acknowledge the argument, but we defuse the argument by going somewhere else. I think we both agree it is a better than 25 references, and a full paragraph.

By relegating it to the "see also" alone, then it is very obscure. I think this is an adequate comprimise. Considering I would prefer the 25 articles and the full paragraph. I have comprimised on this signifigantly. You don't want this in the article at all. Putting two links to other pages, one at the very bottom of the page, and one in the very last section, seems like a good middle point, a good comprimise. Travb (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeap. I now understand that 172 and the Reversionists were simply contraposing a pretty valid need for Wikipedians not to overemphasize the role of Wikipedia. A section is a bit much, given that in 20 years it will be a mere spec in their lives, but outright exclusion or relegating it "Where It Belongs" (hahahahaha. a real winner.) in See Also: isn't any better. Next time, try communicating through something better than a tagline and please, stop trying to codify your opinions with WP:NOT, WP:SELF, etc. Nobody has a monopoly on right. This whole ruckus could have easily been Avoided.Yeago 23:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. It seems pretty clear that you've no idea who I am, since none of what you wrote, save the bit about belonging to the "See also" section, applies to anything I've said. You mistake mockery for argumentation. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Could we agree to stop the civility argument (or move it to user pages) and get back to the proposed compromise? I find it acceptable, by the way.--agr 02:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see exactly what the compromise is supposed to be. If it involves fine print at the bottom of the page or a wiki news box or the text being carted off somewhere else, I am against it. A few people have objected to the text in it's location under the "media" section or whatever we are calling it now. I propose to compromise by moving it to it's own small section. You know, we have this debate where editors are split on the text's relevancy, but I say why don't we extend Wikipedia readers the opportunity to decide this for themselves, just as we do? If it were a case where there was voluminous verbiage involved and it was making the article untenably long I could see looking at the question in a different way. But it's not a case like that, we're talking about four line. Additionally Wikipedia is supposed to be inclusive, where people have differences you put both perspectives there. Jimbo Wales talked about that, he said about this incident something like 'listen, if the Coleman team had a problem with the article, they could put their side of the story in there, that would be better than deleting the other perspective.' DanielM 11:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:DanielM, I agree with you, and your argument is very persuasive. That said, there has not been an edit to the page since I changed the page. That is pretty impressive when we were on the verge of an edit war several times, the most recent time being less than 1 day before. Comprimise means you give away something. I agree with you that the article should be a paragraph, or at least three sentences, but I am willing to give up my vision of the page, what I see as "fair" and right for wikipedia, to stop the edit war.

Remember: Comprimise means that both sides give away something, User:Mackensen is obviously unhappy with the comprimise too, but too his credit, which shows maturity on his part (probably more than me), he has allowed the changes to stay, and has not started a potential revert war, despite his displeasure. The same can be said for you, User:DanielM. Despite your unhappiness with the edit, you have allowed the proposed changes to stay. Thanks.

I am really glad 172 was the first person to recommend comprimise. That is why he is an admin and I never will be. Three cheers to 172. User:172 and I see a lot of things differently, he even justifiably booted me once months ago, but I can really see why he is an admin, and a good one at that.

First person to recommend comprimise? What planet did this happen on? He could have asked for a comprimise a couple of months ago but instead he waged a revert campaign with his buddies. It was only after several months that this proved unsuccessful did he join in earnest discussion instead of handing down dismissive and misguided applications of WP:Law.Yeago 14:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:DanielM again, your suggestion and rational I agree with 100% but what are you giving up? When you make your suggestions, what are you comprimising?

I am going to "unwatch" this page, and (try) to move on to more interesting subjects. Up until three days ago, I had no clue who Norm Coleman was. Best wishes guys. If you don't like my comprimise, you are welcome to change it, or propose something else, maybe my comprimise is not the best one, but again, I think it says a lot that there have not been any edits for several hours since my last edit: the edit war has stopped. I am glad 172 was more mature than me to initially propose comprimise.

Best wishes.

Signed: Travb (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

172 is an ADMIN?! DanielM 11:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, double-whoa here. The admin-ing process is not without its holes--they'll make you an admin for writing a good anti-vandal script and sitting back as it collects vandal-reverts. Then, once its done this 11,000 times everyone starts drooling at your number and viola, you're admin by overwhelming popularity.Yeago 14:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You know what's even more amazing? 172 was desysoped a long time ago. Not only do you persist in incivility, despite being warned, you can't even be bothered to check your facts. 172 was made an admin before we even had a serious vandalism problem, and lost his adminship well over a year ago. Lack of familiarity with process, policy, and individuals oughn't be badge of honor. Mackensen (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Others vandal-botted their way into Admin--not 172. Thank you for the good news.Yeago 15:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

For clarification, I was not desysoped as a result of sanctions by the arbcom. I more or less gave up my adminship, as Neutrality alludes to here. [26] Or more technically my admin acess was removed due to "inactivity" or "lack of response." [27] Mackensen, this confusion, by the way, is the reason I wanted the case reopened earlier for clarification. 172 | Talk 15:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be inclusive, but the dispute resolution process emphasizes consensus building. In the straw poll, the keep and remove position were essentially balanced and the swing position was "shorten." While I agree the incident was important, it hasn't reoccurred and Wikipedia does advertise itself as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." So I think a shorter mention, with a link to an article that describes the situation in more detail is a reasonable compromise. A separate section is not, as it increases the prominence of the story. I prefer 172's sentence with an adjacent link to the article on the incident, but I can live with what was proposed by Travb. I think it is time to stop making unilateral edits and work out a solution here.--agr 13:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I accept that the keep and remove positions were essentially balanced with a slight edge to keep and that the swing position was shorten. I will leave aside my objections (to the fact that an editor posted copy-and-paste messages against the text in question on a bunch of selected user talk pages and this made the poll results other than what they probably would have been) because it's an imperfect world and sometimes you go with what you got and move on to the next thing. I would accept a compromise based on 172's text with the single-word insertion of "controversial" like so: "In January 2006, a number of news agencies ran articles on controversial edits by Coleman's congressional staff to the senator's Wikipedia entry." There would be an obvious link where it would be clear that readers can find out more information, or a tiny phrase like "see X for more information." I will go ahead and characterize in advance any editor who would would argue that the Coleman staff edits were non-controversial and routine as indulging in a blatant POV attempt to keep information away from Wikipedia readers, many of whom would find it relevant and desire it in their learning about Coleman. Agr, would you mind making the change if it seems like the best compromise? DanielM 12:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

to the fact that an editor posted copy-and-paste messages against the text in question on a bunch of selected user talk pages and this made the poll results other than what they probably would have been I suggest that both you and Yeago try to be more civil. Poll results are irrelevant on Wikipedia. The numbers don't matter. What matters is the substance of the comments, and I acted to bring more constructive feedback regarding this article. 172 | Talk 15:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see for the life of me why you regard that as an uncivil comment. You were calling us "idiots" and now you are on my case for civility for THAT?! Are you trying to set the stage to tattle on me to some admin? It won't work because he or she will read the comment. For pete's sake, I just proposed to largely accept your compromise! DanielM 17:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC) PS: Yeago can defend himself, stop trying to lump us together.

A prescient comment.Yeago 17:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to put the word "selective" between 'constructive' and 'feedback'. Oh, and you better listen to him DanielM because he's the last word on it. Obviously a revert war is both constructive and civil. So is soliciting yet others to revert for you, and to vote along party lines in your poll.

Obviously, this comment will draw more claims that I'm being "uncivil"--either show me where I've lied or mislead, or shut up.Yeago 16:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)