Talk:Scott Walker (politician)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Prank Call

I don't understand... How is this prank call significant to Walker's bio? The caller suggested something underhanded; Walker declined to take the suggestion. It seems eminently un-noteworthy to me.CFredkin (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not anti-Walker. It just seems like given the fact that the incident was reported in the media and, I believe, in Walker's own book, that it is notable, but I may be wrong. I will undo my edit. Quis separabit? 23:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It was reported in the Washington Post (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/what_a_prank_call_proves_about.html), NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/02/23/133996140/wisconsins-gov-walker-takes-prank-call-from-fake-koch-brother), and New York Times (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/walker-receives-prank-call-from-koch-impersonator/?_r=0) in additional to regional news outlets. It was a big story, if only because it gave a sense of Walker's political philosophy and perceived alliances. I think it certainly merits a place in an encyclopedia entry. Amblerdrive (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I restored it then undid my own edit, but editors must edit according to the dictates of their consciences in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia. We can agree to disagree. Quis separabit? 03:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Over time, going into the 2016 presidential election, this item may again be deemed too small. The size of this WP will be growing. [1] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of "Alleged"

The article presently says that Walker committed "an alleged infringement of campaign guidelines" during the 1988 Marquette Student Body president election. In fact, it is substantiated. Walker confessed to the the infractions, as documented in the Marquette Tribune on February 24, 1988. The use of "alleged" is hence inappropriate and misleading. I am correcting this in good faith. Any attempt to remove the "alleged" would seem to be politically motivated and is a distortion of the facts. Amblerdrive (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like someone here to explain what exactly is problematic about erasing "alleged," when the figure himself confessed to his violation? Amblerdrive (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that this material is ref'd to an article from the National Journal that uses the term "alleged". Capitalismojo (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

National Journal:"After graduating high school, Walker enrolled at Marquette University in 1986. He ran for student body president as a sophomore, promising to balance the school’s budget problems, but lost following an alleged infringement of campaign guidelines." If the reference says "alleged" wikipedia uses "alleged". Period. Also stop edit warring and please stop adding new discussions at the top of the talk page'. Please. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

He confessed to something. Saying that confession is what the other sources was talking about is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Even if its obvious its the same incident overall, the way the "alleged" source describes the incident may not have the exact same boundaries to what Walker "confessed" to. (Source alleges A, B, C. Walker confesses C (or even D). and as per Capitalismojo, we WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE which says "allege" Gaijin42 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Walker confessed specifically to the violation of campaign rules regarding distribution of pamphlets, per the Marquette Tribune, February 24, 1988. Could this be added? Amblerdrive (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That source says that Tom Thimot says that walker admits violating rules. The distribution violation was made by Rodriguez, and is specifically described as "not a violation of the campaigning rule". Thimot says that the actual violation was not submitting a list of all workers. So indeed we have a "alleged A" and (possibly) "admitted B" WP:SYNTH issue. Beyond that the "violation" is either giving someone who didn't want one a pamphlet, or not having a complete list of workers. Both very minor offenses and if included at all should be described correctly as to not imply something more serious (like ballot stuffing, etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we can edit this to be more specific. How about the following:

"During the course of the campaign, Walker's team was accused of several improprieties, including mudslinging and the theft and destruction of hundreds of copies of the Marquette Tribune issue, in which his opponent was endorsed. After having initially denied it, Walker subsequently confessed to having violated a policy that prohibited the distribution of pamphlets under the doors of YMCA residents. He was subsequently banned from subsequent campaigning at the YMCA." (Citation: http://marquettewire.org/2010/10/26/tribune/tribune-news/walker-wpo1-tw2-je3-one-question-controversial-claims-continue-in-walkers-campaign/)

This seems to meet your criteria. It leaves the alleged offenses as "accusations," and properly identifies the offense to which Walker confessed. And it is also properly cited. I cannot imagine any problems with this. Amblerdrive (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You do understand that the actual ref says "alleged", correct? You have heard the multiple editors who have problems with the misuse of 27 year-old student newspapers and the implications that this proposed edit is WP:UNDUE, yes? Capitalismojo (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If by "actual ref" you mean the Marquette Tribune or the Marquette Wire, then I cannot find the use of the word "alleged" in reference to the YMCA campaign violations. I can find "admitted to the violation." I still fail to see how this constitutes "alleged." What am I missing here? Amblerdrive (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

As to using a campus newspaper as a source, naturally, it would be the primary and likely only news source to report on such an incident. One can't imagine that it would have been reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel at the time. It is the appropriate source. The Marquette Tribune is also a cited source in the entry on the Marquette Law School. I can't imagine any problems in referencing the source, at the students were journalism majors, most likely, and surely were professional in their news endeavors. Other news sources (e.g., http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2013/dec/18/scott-walker-early-years/, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/24/scott-walker-college_n_4847939.html) have relied on this reporting. Further, I note that the Mark Zuckerberg entry relies on the Stanford University newspaper for its article. Amblerdrive (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You are reaching WP:IDHT territory here. There is not consensus for your changes. Numerous editors have raised objections, and nobody has come to your defense. please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

By "numerous," I note, you mean two. Amblerdrive (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Make that three - and Huffington Post is not a reliable source for BLP articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

What about Politifact? It also relies on the Marquette Tribune reporting? Amblerdrive (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please understand that we can't use the credability and reliable source status of one organization to assert that another (entirely unrelated) organization is reliable. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP,WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS. I think reading these will help your understand where the other editors are coming from in regarding your effort to eliminate the word "alleged". Capitalismojo (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have examined the policies you cite. Here they are:

BLP Requires: 1) Neutral point of view (NPOV), 2) Verifiability (V), and 3) No original research (NOR) PRIMARY prefers Secondary Sources, defined as being "at least one step removed from an event," rather than the immediate perspective of involved parties. Reliable Sources: should make "sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered"

So let's apply these standards to the use of "alleged," shall we?

The MT article (as compared with the op-ed) cited is written in a neutral point of view, it is verifiable, insofar as one can go to the MU library and see for oneself -- and Walker himself confessed to the violations, and there is no original research. It is straight-up reporting.

The MT article is a secondary source. It was not harmed directly in the violations it confirmed Walker to have committed. The MT was harmed in another incident (the alleged theft and destruction of newspapers), but this separate affair would stand as unconfirmed. The other violations (early campaigning, rule violations at the YMCA) are confirmed.

Reliable sources is satisfied insofar as Walker himself is quoted in the article to have committed the violations.

So, again, what is the problem with eliminating the word "alleged"? Amblerdrive (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The WT says that someone else says that Walker admits some undefined vilation of rules. It is WP:OR to say that that admission matches what a different source has alleged. Particularly when the WT source makes it clear that the actual distribution was not a violation, and was done by someone who was not an official member of the Walker campaign. WP:DROPTHESTICK Gaijin42 (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The "someone else" was, in fact, the elections commissioner. Amblerdrive (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

your argument elsewhere is that Walker admitted it. We don't have a source where Walker admits it. We have a source where someone claims that Walker admitted it. As it is an allegation by that person, "alleged" is still appropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the ultimate in beating a dead horse. It is not noteworthy in a biography that supporters of a student election candidate may or may not have broken student electioneering rules 27 years ago. That theory could be used as the new example of WP:UNDUE. The fact that one editor believes that it is a proven "scandal" that a Walker supporter distrubuted brochures at a YMCA or at a dorm does not, in fact, make it a proven scandal (or a scandal at all). You have not achieved any agreement on this point. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

And this? http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/walker2.jpg.

I don't know how this merits an "alleged" adjective. It's not alleged. He was found guilty. Amblerdrive (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That source is not talking at all about something completely different than your previous allegations, and being found "guilty" of something where the punishment is "wait one day" is WP:UNDUE. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

Scott Walker is getting a decent amount of coverage for a potential POTUS run, so I come here to get some quick information on this particular politician. Well apparently, the only notable thing the Governor of Wisconsin has ever done is pass some "controversial" "cuts" to some government programs and then get reelected by his state that apparently (and in the tone of the articleauthor, righteously) wanted to throw him out. This is emblematic of the problem with Wikipedia and the outward bias of its editors. I know this guy is a favorite of plenty of conservatives across America -- are any of their articles worthy of being dubbed a legitimate source by this website? Or does that distinction only apply to Salon? 2601:B:C600:1127:940A:996A:2FFF:AD51 (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

" then get reelected by his state that apparently (and in the tone of the articleauthor, righteously) wanted to throw him out." -- if the fairly blue state of Wisconsin (U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin) "wanted to throw him out" they sure have a funny way of showing it, electing him governor three times (including recall) and in every competitive political race he has run since 1992. As far as attempting to impeach any conservative publication or author from Wikipedia and relying on left-wing snarkfests, perhaps the above editor could work on improving Wikipedia, not trying to make it into a partisan hatefest. Quis separabit? 15:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair coverage/editing will be most important moving into the Republican primaries. The article may need to be reduced in some areas to allow expected expansion. Walker is already building his election team. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2015

In Scott Walker's education, he didn't "leave before graduation"; this is misleading. He dropped out of college after two years. "Left before graduation" doesn't mean anything. It could imply he went into the military or graduated early. It could also mean he transferred. He did none of these things. So it should specify that he dropped out. 152.3.129.109 (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2015

A close-parenthesis is missing in the 'Education' section (Section 6.10) - please change the text "(all the governor's appointees." to "(all the governor's appointees)." RangerRex85 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Education/Alma Mater

Is it worth noting in his infobox that he never received a degree from Marquette University? This is mentioned, with sources, in the body of the article, but the infobox makes it appear that he actually graduated. It wouldn't go against Wikipedia precedent to add a note clarifying this; several other college dropouts, like Bill Gates, have this mentioned in their infobox. I'm wary of making the change myself, because it could be construed as political, and my status as an IP editor certainly doesn't help.--108.21.63.129 (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

After reviewing the infobox template, I removed "Alma Mater" parameter from the infobox. The template states "It is usually not relevant to included either parameter for non-graduates, but article talk page consensus may conclude otherwise..." I interpreted this to mean that a case needs to be made FOR including the alma matar of a non-graduate, otherwise it will not be included. If somebody would like to make a case for including the "alma matar" (and whether it should include a note about non-graduate), this is the place for it. *Seen a Mike* 17:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed previously. As noted then, you do not have to graduate to be considered an Alum and several well known figures are listed as Alum's of colleges they never graduated from. (Barack Obama Occidental, Bill Clinton - Oxford for example.) There is some good discussion here. Arzel (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As the originally mentioned, it "wouldn't go against Wikipedia precedent to add a note clarify" that he did not get a degree, just as it doesn't go against Wikipedia precedent to include an alma mater of a non-graduate. *Seen a Mike* 20:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Obama and Clinton examples are illuminating. the infobox should mention his education, but can also certainly mention he did not graduate. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Per Seen a Mike last comment-the Marquette University category should be reinserted since it is "Wikipedia precedent to include an alma mater of a non-graduate." Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Done.--Polmandc (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• I wondered whether the "alumni" category applies to non graduates, and I figured that this will be something others will wonder about as Walker's visibility rises. Per a 2007 discussion at Category_talk:Alumni_by_university_or_college, it was explained that the term "alumni" is not limited to graduates, and that is how the categories have been applied.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Boy Scout Activity and Concern about Partisan Editing of Walker page

I removed Walker's teenage activity in the Boy Scouts, which was promptly restored by another editor. Not sure why Boy Scout activity is documented here when other activities more relevant to Walker's political career have been systematically edited out (e.g., details about Marquette campaign violations, details about the "Koch" phone call, his "divide and conquer" comment regarding approach to public sector unions, and documented lies about editing the Wisconsin Idea). Restoring Walker's pastime as a teenager hardly seems more relevant in a biography than his political activities. Again, I express my concern that this page is systematically scanned and edited either by Walker operatives, campaign workers, or other deeply committed partisans in order to present the most favorable possible presentation of a likely presidential candidate. Amblerdrive (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Amblerdrive: Please read up on BLP and OR, if you haven't done so yet. It is evident from your own comments that you carry significant personal feelings of your own. That does not disqualify you from editing but you must be careful not to violate NPOV. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding scouting and specifically being an Eagle Scout, about 400+ US biography articles have the category Eagle Scout and include mention. It seems to be a fairly common addition to bio articles of all sorts. I have no strong feelings either way, but it seems ref'd and minor. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I yield to few in my contempt for this despicable whited sepulcher of hypocrisy and criminal enemy of my homeland; but the Eagle Scout bit is in fact a fairly standard note in U.S. bios, and is properly cited; I don't feel it violates WP:UNDUE. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not so much reporting his earning of an Eagle Scout that I object to. It's fine -- but only in the context of a greater, fuller presentation of the subject. My larger point is that details like this are permitted to remain, while other details of his life that are more immediately relevant to his political career are not only omitted -- they are systematically edited out by a small handful of editors here. I'm fine with Eagle Scout being in the entry, so long as other elements are also included. But as it stands, the entry focuses on elements aimed at inflating Walker's presidential ambitions, rather than offering a balanced view of the subject. Amblerdrive (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Amblerdrive: I don't believe equating Walker's getting a D- in a single course (based on a Professor saying: "I think I gave him a D-.") with his attaining the rank of Eagle Scout is reasonable, and it's definitely not more relevant to his career. Also, your characterization of his "weak academic performance" here appears to be based on your personal opinion. Let's state the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions.CFredkin (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course, a specific course grade is not a major point. That's why it was placed in a footnote rather than in the body of the text. And "weak academic performance" is pretty much confirmed by his 2.59 GPA, which is quite low. One can omit the term, assessing that 2.59 speaks for itself. But one might want to leave it in, should some readers not have experience with college and the GPA system. But, again, it is no leap to call at 2.59 "weak." This is not merely a "personal opinion." Ask any college professor if I'm wrong about this. But this is not a crucial phrase I'm insisting on leaving in the entry. I think the main question is whether or not readers will know that 2.59 is "weak."

All content in WP must be verifiable and must not include WP:original research. This is particularly important for WP:BLP's.CFredkin (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding, "Let's state the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions," I wholeheartedly agree. I have included numerous facts to submit to the readers' judgment. The problem, which gets to the heart of this heading, is that any facts that do not promote Walker's candidacy are promptly removed from the page. That is not allowing facts to speak for themselves. Amblerdrive (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll add here that Walker's "divide and conquer" strategy of dealing with organized labor and state employees and his active consideration of introducing agitators to crowds of protesters have been eliminated. The Eagle Scout achievement of a teenager remains. Not only that -- the model of his motorcycle is also included. Which of these, in all seriousness, is more relevant to readers of this entry? I think at least some people reading this cannot help but feel that there is some partisan-edged editing of this entry. Amblerdrive (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

My read of the article indicates that Walker's interactions and relations with organized labor and state employees are covered in considerable detail currently. The Budget Repair Bill section is one of the longest in the article. And, as discussed above, the fact that he considered and ruled out something is hardly relevant, especially since the statement was made during a prank phone call. As far as the reference to motorcycle riding goes, I don't believe that's been discussed previously. It seems uncontroversial, but I wouldn't necessarily be averse to removing it.

This particular bio hardly reads like a hagiography to me. The fact that you've been prevented in some cases from inserting POV content into the article is not evidence per se that the article is biased one way or the other.CFredkin (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Those elements are not in the article, because the sourcing being proposed for them was poor and did not meet BLP standards. That you fail to understand BLP and continue to try and force in poorly sourced information about someone says a lot more about you than it does wikipedia or the other editors here. Look to the example of Orange Mike, who clearly despises Walker, yet understands BLP and has not come to your defense about these issues. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You can repeat that these elements were "poorly sourced," but I don't think that makes it true. I cited the Journal Sentinel, Politifact, the Washington Post, the New York Times, NPR, etc. And all of these were erased. Repeating the claim that these were poorly sourced here only reaffirmed my conviction that politics animates most of the editing on this page. And the fact appears to be that many so motivated editors here have a great deal more time and energy for editing here that those of us with families and full-time jobs. So I fear that this mode of editing will win in the end. The loser will be those readers coming to this page to learn more about Scott Walker than what gets past the editor here. I'm sorry if this offends any well-intentioned editors here, truly. But it's hard not to express a genuine frustration at what is an obvious and repeated pattern of editing on this page. Amblerdrive (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Given your own agenda, you cannot throw stones. If you wish to, however, you should contact dispute resolution. Quis separabit? 21:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My "agenda" here was to bring some balance to the entry on Wisconsin's governor. But I don't see any point at this juncture in taking this to dispute resolution. I'm perfectly confident at this point that the process there would be controlled in the same fashion and by the same parties that controls the edits on this page. The fact is that there are a few editors who regularly check this page for anything less than flattering about the governor and then systematically eliminate it -- no matter how relevant and well-documented. These people seem to have infinite time and energy for this task. This is why I suspect at least some of them work for the governor, though obviously I'll never be able to demonstrate that. Anyhow, you win. I have a life to which I must return. But this has been a real object lesson in how wikipedia can be controlled by interested parties. Old school encyclopedias with qualified scholars and peer-review is the only responsible way to deliver knowledge to a curious public. Amblerdrive (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You might benefit from reading up on some of the guidelines for the project. WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and no WP:Original research are some of the core tenets. Wikipedia isn't an appropriate venue for axe grinding.CFredkin (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

rvt on statements about obama

Editor "Rms125a@hotmail.com" made this rvt a few days ago. changing
"He has distinguished himself from Jeb Bush by appealing to conservatives by refusing to say if he believes President Obama loves America or was a true Christian, and stating that he did not know if President Obama's patriotism was in doubt.
to He condemned Rudy Giuliani's comment that President Obama lacks patriotism.
Googling I could find nothing about Walker condemning Giuliani's comment on Obama's patriotism or lack of it, but I can tell you that the source given --
(GABRIEL, TRIP (February 22, 2015). "Scott Walker Hardens Tone on Social Issues to Woo Christian Conservatives". New York Times. Retrieved February 22, 2015.)
-- does NOT says what Rms125 says it does:

Unlike Jeb Bush, Mr. Walker refused to say last week if he believes President Obama loves America after Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, claimed the president did not at a dinner that Mr. Walker attended.

Mr. Bush and other presidential hopefuls said the president’s patriotism was not in doubt. But Mr. Walker repeatedly said he did not know. On Saturday, he said he did not know whether Mr. Obama was a Christian. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the question is... how are either this or Beinhart's opinions relevant to Walker's bio? Not everything that's published is notable in a person's blp.CFredkin (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

They are public statements (or non-statements) about the President of the United States by a leading candidate for the Presidency of the United States, i.e. by the subject of the article. What do you mean "how are they relevant"? Even if Walker's campaign goes downhill from here they are worth a brief mention.--BoogaLouie (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The media asked Walker if Obama loves his country and whether he's a Christian. Walker says he doesn't know. It's hard to imagine anything that's less informative about Walker. The fact that the media asked the question and then made such a big deal of his non-response says much, much more about the media than it does about Walker.CFredkin (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Unlike Jeb Bush, Mr. Walker refused to say last week if he believes President Obama loves America after Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, claimed the president did not at a dinner that Mr. Walker attended. ... other presidential hopefuls said the president’s patriotism was not in doubt. But Mr. Walker repeatedly said he did not know. On Saturday, he said he did not know whether Mr. Obama was a Christian.

Not "if Obama loves his country", but if he (Walker) believes Obama loves his country. A candidate for president refuses to say if he believes the current president of the country loves the country he is president of. This is in the context of politicians regularly professing their love of county and in the context of a large vocal movement of "birthers" denying the President is an American citizen. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Presidential 2016 hopefuls in Iowa -- (News for future editing)

A new section will be needed.

Headline-1: Walker Surging in Iowa Poll as Bush Struggles

• http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-31/walker-surging-in-bloomberg-politics-des-moines-register-iowa-poll-as-bush-struggles

QUOTE: "Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is surging, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is an also-ran and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is dominating in a new poll of Iowans likely to vote in the nation's first presidential nominating contest." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

From our other Wikipedia article, apparently Gov Scott Walker has 'declared':

Republican_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016

Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sort of. Quote from article list "The individuals listed below have been identified by reliable sources as potential candidates." So he hasn't declared. RS says he's a potential candidate. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right. [2] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Today, at noon PT (3pmET) the annual CPAC straw poll will be taken. Here is the schedule:[3] -- AstroU (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

2016 campaign for president section

Created this section a few days ago and it was hidden in this edit with the edit summary:
"(2016 campaign for president: hide premature section; if he announces then unhide; if not delete)"
I cannot agree. In the United States an enormous amount of campaign work, fundraising, speechifying, schmoozing, policy proposal making, is done before candidates announce they are running. In other words, the campaign for president begins before candidates "officially" announce. That's why the phrase "officially announce" is often used. I have unhidden the section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There are plenty of RS refs that support this new section. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI:The nod of CPAC goes to Ron Paul ("3-pete", third year in a row). Scott Walker surges to 2nd. By Washington Times Staff - The Washington Times - Saturday, February 28, 2015
Percent (for) Candidate

• 25.7% for Sen. Rand Paul
• 21.4% for Gov. Scott Walker
• 11.5% for Sen. Ted Cruz
• 11.4% for Dr. Ben Carson
• 8.3% for Former Gov. Jeb Bush
• 4.3% for Former Sen. Rick Santorum
• 3.7% for Sen. Marco Rubio
• 3.5% for Donald Trump
• 3.0% for Carly Fiorina
• 2.8% for Gov. Chris Christie
• 1.1% for Former Gov. Rick Perry
• 0.9% for Gov. Bobby Jindal
• 0.8% for Former Gov. Sarah Palin
• 0.3% for Former Gov. Mike Huckabee
• 0.3% for Former Ambassador John Bolton
• 0.1% for Sen. Lindsey Graham
• 0.1% for Former Gov. George Pataki
• 1.0% for Undecided
• 0.7% for Other
  I'll add more references later. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

2015 Budget

Walker has now introduced his proposed 2015 budget. We have sections on the previous two budgets and should probably add a new section. I suggest that it contain something on the $2 billion budget hole, the proposed cuts ($300 million) to the UW System and attendant proposal to give the UW independence, and something on the $700 million transportaion shortfall. Those are the things that jump out at me at least. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone might also address the controversy surrounding the submitted and then retracted change to the Wisconsin Idea found in the budget. Amblerdrive (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pretty big deal in Wis. this week. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/02/18/scott-walker-cut-541-million-in-taxes-last-year-now-his-state-will-miss-a-108-million-debt-payment/ • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Divide and Conquer"

A google search of scott walker "divide and conquer" yields "About 94,600 results", but there is nothing about it in the article. Why not?

Most sources are Walker opponents but not all. Source include "In film, Walker talks of 'divide and conquer' union strategy" from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and fox news --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again, the fact that something has been published doesn't automatically qualify it for inclusion in a blp.CFredkin (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The leading newspaper in the state Walker is governor of does a story on a rather aggressive statement. (Q. "Any chance we'll ever get to be a completely red state and work on these unions ... A. "Oh, yeah, ... The first step is we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer.")

That statement now has hits on 94,600 websites. Surely you have something more to say than that this "doesn't automatically qualify it for inclusion in a blp"?

"Walker talks of 'divide and conquer' union strategy" is particularly relevant and worthy of inclusion now that he has changed his position on a "right to work" law of course. Here is Fox News's original sympathetic spin on the 'divide and conquer' union strategy

Walker's opponents insist the remarks undermine the Republican governor's long-held claim that the polarizing law he and the GOP-led Legislature pushed through, stripping most public workers of nearly all their collective bargaining rights, was meant solely as a budget-balancing measure. They also say the comments signal that Walker ultimately means to go after private sector unions by making Wisconsin a right-to-work state, which would allow workers to not pay dues even if they are covered by a union contract.

Walker said Friday that he has no desire to pursue right-to-work legislation and no such bill would pass the Legislature under his watch. (from "Video: Walker explains divide, conquer strategy", May 11, 2012)

Compare with this more recent story:

Wisconsin is set to become the nation's 25th "right to work" state. Republicans in the state Legislature are fast-tracking a bill to Gov. .... the governor argues that a right-to-work law makes Wisconsin more competitive with Indiana and Michigan, neighboring states that adopted right-to-work laws in 2012. (from: Gov. Scott Walker Goes Head-To-Head With Labor Over Right-To-Work, February 26 2015) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As you note above, Walker states: "...because you use divide and conquer". You use "divide and conquer" for what? Dealing with opposition to his budget repair bill? Dealing with unions? The video ends abruptly after that statement. Because of that, any interpretation of his intent is purely speculation.CFredkin (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What I noted was q and a from the transcript (More complete version):

Q. "Any chance we'll ever get to be a completely red state and work on these unions -"

A. (Walker) "Oh, yeah," Walker broke in.

Q. "- and become a right-to-work?" Hendricks continued. "What can we do to help you?"

A: (Walker) "Well, we're going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill," Walker said. "The first step is we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer."(In film, Walker talks of 'divide and conquer' union strategy") --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

My point still stands. Look at the video. It ends abruptly after Walker says "divide and conquer". The first step to what? We don't know what exactly he's referring to. It's just speculation.CFredkin (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC) I'm not the only person saying this: [4].CFredkin (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"We don't know what exactly he's referring to", huh? Funny, Fox News seemed to know what was at issue:

"Walker's opponents insist the remarks undermine the Republican governor's long-held claim that the polarizing law he and the GOP-led Legislature pushed through, stripping most public workers of nearly all their collective bargaining rights, was meant solely as a budget-balancing measure. They also say the comments signal that Walker ultimately means to go after private sector unions by making Wisconsin a right-to-work state, ... Walker said Friday that he has no desire to pursue right-to-work legislation and no such bill would pass the Legislature under his watch."

We'll see if your "point stands" after a RfC.

In the mean time, here is what politifact says about Walker and right to work legislation. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/feb/23/scott-walker/supporting-2015-right-work-legislation-scott-walke/ --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's a supposed transcript of the video that was released by the person who captured it:

Walker: Well, we're going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill. The first step is, we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer. So for us the base we've got for that is the fact that we've got - budgetarily we can't afford not to. If we have collective bargaining agreements in place, there's no way not only the state but local governments can balance things out. So you think city of Beloit, city of Janesville, any of the school districts, that opens the door once we do that. That's your bigger problem right there.

Assuming it's accurate, it seems to refer to budgetary issues and the impact to budgets not only at the state, but local levels. I have no idea how anyone can divine a crypto reference to his intent to support right-to-work from that.CFredkin (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with BoogaLouie. This was a huge news story at the time, its language has become part of the discussion on Walker, and its exceedingly well documented in video form. I don't think his language is ambiguous -- it's in response to a question about right-to-work. And the fact that he is likely now to sign that legislation that makes Wisconsin right-to-work makes it all the more relevant. It should be in the piece. 2601:D:CA00:7E5:F1E3:4D97:424E:7BCA (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You are a discerning editor, 2601:D:CA00:7E5:F1E3:4D97:424E:7BCA. I will attempt to have a proposed subsection on the issue in a week or so. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm on board for restoring this to the entry. Amblerdrive (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"Divide and Conquer" paragraph added

here --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added the rest of the Walker quote and removed speculation. I also removed some redundancy regarding the Right to Work law itself.CFredkin (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Divide and conquer" watered down? soliciting opinions

Editor CFredkin replace this (my) edit:

In a January 18 conversation with Beloit businesswoman and supporter Diane Hendricks, made shortly before the "budget-repair" bill was introduced and captured on film by documentary filmmaker Brad Lichtenstein, Walker was asked if he would make Wisconsin a "a right-to-work" state (i.e. would "prohibit private-sector unions from compelling workers" to pay dues to the union that negotiates their contract). Walker replied that, "the first step is we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer." In the conversation Walker did not go on to detail plans to support "right-to-work" legislation in the conversation, but according to the Journal Sentinel newspaper as governor walker had "consistently downplayed seeking any restrictions on private unions in public statements", although he had earlier co-sponsored right-to-work legislation in 1993 as a state legislator. (On March 9, 2015, Walker signed legislation making Wisconsin a right to work state.)

with this (with the edit summary "add rest of Walker quote and rm undue speculation and redundancy"):

In a January 18 conversation with Beloit businesswoman and supporter Diane Hendricks shortly before the "budget-repair" bill was introduced, Walker was asked if he would make Wisconsin a "a right-to-work" state. Walker replied, "Well, we're going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill. The first step is, we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer. So for us the base we've got for that is the fact that we've got - budgetarily we can't afford not to. If we have collective bargaining agreements in place, there's no way not only the state but local governments can balance things out. So you think city of Beloit, city of Janesville, any of the school districts, that opens the door once we do that. That's your bigger problem right there."

IMHO the verbage by Walker that CFredkin added is not terribly clear ("So for us the base we've got for that is the fact that we've got .... " wha????), while the text he deleted as allegedly "undue speculation and redundancy" provides helpful context for why anyone cares about what Walker said.

• The description of right-to-work: (i.e. would "prohibit private-sector unions from compelling workers" to pay dues to the union that negotiates their contract)
• and the fact that right to work did pass later: (On March 9, 2015, Walker signed legislation making Wisconsin a right to work state.[69])
• the citation to the article in the Journal Sentinel mentioning "divide in conquer" (Stein, Jason; Marley, Patrick (May 10, 2012). "In film, Walker talks of 'divide and conquer' union strategy". Journal Sentinel. Retrieved 16 March 2015.), which cfredkin replaced with a transcript Marley, Patrick (May 10, 2012). "A transcript of the Walker-Hicks union discussion". Journal Sentinel. Retrieved 16 March 2015. (a primary source)

If anyone else agrees I will start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment on this.

(P.S. Here is another recent article noting the connection between "right-to-work" and "divide-and-conquer"):

`Diane Hendricks, the billionaire head of the largest U.S. wholesale roofing supply company. ... [has] given more than $540,000 to [Walker's] two gubernatorial campaigns ... Hendricks became a lightning rod during the recall after Walker’s opponents found footage of them discussing his plans to crack down on organized labor with new laws limiting union-organizing power, such as the one he just signed, often referred to as “right to work” legislation. “Any chance we’ll ever get to be a completely red state—work on these unions and become a right to work?” Hendricks asked. Walker’s reply: “The first step is we’re going to deal with collective bargaining for all public-employee unions, because you use divide and conquer.”` (Meet the Billionaire Roofer Behind Scott Walker bloomberg.com, Mar 12, 2015) --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Um, how is it "watered down"? It's the full quote from Walker.CFredkin (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC) As I stated above, I don't believe any of the statement is particularly relevant to his bio. But if we're going to include it, we need to include the whole thing. Otherwise it's too open to misinterpretation.CFredkin (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I guess by "watered down" I mean the context is taken away and diluted by Walker's rambling answer to Hendricks. BoogaLouie (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually the context is taken away by not including his full quote.CFredkin (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
      • What does that explain? It is unclear. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Full quote is needed.--Polmandc (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • How about the text that CFredkin deleted? Do you feel that is needed? --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • No need to list legislation of 2015-03 here. Same with additions to his quote (WP:QUOTE: an unedited, exact reproduction of the original source).--Polmandc (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

CFredkin

Here's the sequence of events: 1) Lichtenstein releases video of interaction with Walker which is edited to end immediately after his "divide and conquer" comment. 2) Some in the media speculate that Walker was referring to "right to work". 3) Others in the media point out that the video was edited to cut off the rest of Walker's statement. 4) Lichtenstein releases a transcript of the rest of Walker's statement which seems to support his later explanation that his statement was about "protecting the taxpayers from unions he said stood in the way of helping the state deal with a budget shortfall".

The speculation regarding the meaning of Walker's statement is inappropriate for his bio. In fact it is arguable that the speculation mainly occurred because Lichtenstein initially released only a snippet of Walker's statement. Readers can judge for themselves what he meant. In addition the description of "right to work" and the fact that Walker later signed it is redundant given that there's a section on Right to Work later in the article. This paragraph is already one of the longest in the Budget Repair Bill section. Continuing to load it up with additional commentary will definitely veer into the realm of undue.CFredkin (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of undue, if we're going to include speculation about the meaning of Walker's statement, we're going to need to include Walker's later explanation of his statement that I referred to above. It would also be appropriate to mention that Lichtenstein has worked for Democrats in the past and donated to Walker's opponent, since that may have influenced his editing of the video. That's a tremendous amount of content to devote to a single statement in Walker's bio.CFredkin (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply

To quote the transcript for the umpteenth time:

Q (Hendricks): Any chance we'll ever get to be a completely red state and work on these unions -

A (Walker): Oh, yeah.

Q: - and become a right-to-work (state)? What can we do to help you?

A (Walker): Well, we're going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill. The first step is, we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer. ...

• So, agreed, video provider Lichtenstein is not sympathetic to Walker. Agreed, Lichenstein edited the video to end immediately after his "divide and conquer" comment. But do we know what is on the unedited video? Yes we do, so Lichenstein's sympathies and editing are not really an issue.
• Disagreed, a transcript of the rest of Walker's statement which seems to support his later explanation that his statement was about "protecting the taxpayers from unions he said stood in the way of helping the state deal with a budget shortfall". The "rest of Walker's statement" ("So for us the base we've got for that is the fact that we've got .... " etc.) is gobbledygook. Sound suspiciously like a politician who realizes he's started to say something in front of a camera he shouldn't and is trying to think something up on the spot.
• As for `Some in the media speculate that Walker was referring to "right to work",` well its true Walker doesn't go on to say "... then we'll deal with private sector unions". So also agreed the article should not say anything like

"Walker denied supporting right-to-work legislation, but in a 2011 video was heard saying that taking away collective bargaining rights of public employee unions was the first step in a divide and conquer strategy to make Wisconsin a red state."

But the short sentence in parenthese (On March 9, 2015, Walker signed legislation making Wisconsin a right to work state.[69]) ) is not speculation it's a fact.

• Agreed, there's a section on Right to Work later in the article. But I submit that most users of wikipedia don't read articles all the way through but scan them for facts they are looking for so a mentioning something quickly that is very relevant to a paragraph even though it is later mentioned in detail is not a bad practice. The redundant sentence (On March 9, 2015, Walker signed legislation making Wisconsin a right to work state.) is not that long. The explanation of "right-to-work" legislation (i.e. would "prohibit private-sector unions from compelling workers" to pay dues to the union that negotiates their contract) is no more unnecessary than adding a description to legislation called the Affordable Care Act. Legislation is named by its supporters to sound good, not explain it.
• Agreed, the "paragraph is already one of the longest in the Budget Repair Bill section", but (to repeat myself) A search of scott walker "divide and conquer" yields "About 94,600 results". The issue is a big deal.--BoogaLouie (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

proposed compromise

Keep the paragraph edited to CFredkin's satisfaction (with the gobbledygook) but add,

• my explanation of "right-to-work" legislation,
• my short sentence, and
• CFredkin's statement about Walker's later explanation that his statement was about "protecting the taxpayers from unions he said stood in the way of helping the state deal with a budget shortfall".

(i.e. would "prohibit private-sector unions from compelling workers" to pay dues to the union that negotiates their contract)

Walker later explained that "divide and conquer" referred to "protecting the taxpayers" from unions that "stood in the way of helping the state deal with a budget shortfall." (On March 9, 2015, Walker signed legislation making Wisconsin a right to work state.)

--BoogaLouie (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for redundancy. That's why there's a ToC. And the proposal is ridonkulously undue for the reasons described above.CFredkin (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, the statement as written is a compromise from my perspective, because I don't think it should be included at all. As mentioned above, in my opinion the reason it got such widespread media attention was due to the initial editing of the video by Lichtenstein. In the context of Walker's entire career it seems like a nothingburger.CFredkin (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

I think CFredkin is correct in this case. Per WP:MOSQUOTE, Walker's entire quotation should be included (possibly in a {{cquote}} or a {{blockquote}} because it's so long). But I do side with BoogaLouie when s/he said that a single ref from PolitiFact doesn't violate WP:UNDUE. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Erpert for your taking the time to get involved. Another question for you: Do you have an opinion on whether the sentence:

(On March 9, 2015, Walker signed legislation making Wisconsin a right to work state,[69] see below.)

should be added at the end of the paragraph? Or whether it is WP:Undue?

Yes, there is a right to work section farther down that mentions this (which is why the "see below" would be added), but some users may not have the time or patience to read the whole article, and the proposed sentence is quite short. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's why I believe it's inappropriate to add the statement re right to work:

1) Walker's statement doesn't appear to relate to right to work.

2) It makes the paragraph the longest in the Budget Repair Bill section by far (and is in my opinion the least relevant), which is undue.

3) It's redundant to the Right to Work section. There's a ToC, which references the "Right to Work" section, for this reason.CFredkin (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

1) Does Walker's statement relate to right to work? See this snibit of the conversation

2) Is the "paragraph is already one of the longest in the Budget Repair Bill section"? Yes, but a search of scott walker "divide and conquer" yields "About 94,600 results". The issue is a big deal.--BoogaLouie (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

3) For a wikipedia user in a hurry a short sentence telling what happened to the issue is useful. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

1) Once again, the "snibit" referenced above is not the full statement. The fact that BoogaLouie continues to refer to the incomplete version is beginning to test the bounds of WP:AGF. For ease of reference, here's the full statement.

2) As mentioned above, in my opinion, the only reason the interaction received press attention was due to partisan editing of the video by Lichtenstein. Also, please see WP:recentism. Finally the number of hits on Google isn't the determining factor for inclusion, otherwise the project could be maintained exclusively by robots.CFredkin (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I personally think the article sounds fine either way. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"Divide and conquer" - BLP notice board

I'm appealing the deletions here --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see discussion in section above.CFredkin (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Secret $1.5 million donation

Should there be any mention of this story in the article? Secret $1.5 million donation from Wisconsin billionaire uncovered in Scott Walker dark-money probe |yahoo.com |3/23/2015 .

Deleted by CFredkin here with edit summary "The source is related to actions by Walker's appointees, not Walker himself." Surely public officials have some responsibility for the actions of their appointees. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Go try that argument on the Obama article and see how far it gets you. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition, any suggestion of a link between contributions by Menard to Club for Growth in Wisconsin and favorable treatment by administration appointees, is purely speculation at this point by a reporter for Yahoo News.CFredkin (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with @CFredkin regarding above and with respect to this entire thread and his proper removal of text designed to denigrate Walker politically by partisans here. Up to what point do we hold politicians responsible for everything their purported supporters say and do? Amazing how when the same thing happens with other politicians (i.e. Democrats), some of these same editors yell "undue" and dispute the credibility of every source. Quis separabit? 21:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The edit was dealing with the facts. Dark money was donated, treatment favorable to the donor was received. It did not allege Walker took a bribe. It just stated (what is to the best of our knowledge) a fact. What is pure speculation is that Yahoo is biased against Walker. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Since the same break was given by the previous administration its a big leap to say that A has any relationship to B. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No one said Yahoo! is biased against Walker, although I would not be surprised if it is; Silicon(e) Valley and all. The proper question, which I didn't raise, would have been whether the reporter in question, Michael Isikoff, is biased. If there were substance to the claim, I have no doubt that the New York Times, and possibly, just maybe even some genuinely reputable media outlets would have picked it up by now. Quis separabit? 22:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

So, Menard donated $1.7 million in exchange for $1.5 million in breaks. Not a very good businessman. And as @Gaijin42 points out: "[...] Menard's firm had been awarded $1.5 million in tax credits in 2006 under Democratic Gov. James Doyle.", although Doyle's name is not mentioned in the text: "Walker's press secretary, Laurel Patrick, strongly denied that the governor had provided any special favors for Menard and said Walker was 'not involved' in the decision to award his firm tax credits, and notes that the last administration had awarded Menard $1.5 million in tax credits in 2006." Quis separabit? 22:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Some replies:

• Have "some genuinely reputable media outlets ... picked ... up" the story:
  • Report: Menards owner gave $1.5 million to pro-Scott Walker group By Mary Spicuzza and Jason Stein| Journal Sentinel| March 24, 2015
  • Scott Walker Saves More Money For Menard Charles Pierce| esquire.com| March 24, 2015
  • Walker dismisses report of $1.5 million from Menards owner, followed by tax breaks Associated Press| March 24, 2015

All the above stories are based on the original speculation by the Yahoo reporter.CFredkin (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Menard donated $1.7 million in exchange for $1.5 million in breaks. Not a very good businessman." It's not just the tax breaks. "Under Walker, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has brought fewer environmental enforcement actions, another top concern of Menard and his company, which have been fined millions of dollars in high-profile pollution cases in Wisconsin over the past two decades." (from Report: Menards owner gave $1.5 million to pro-Scott Walker group By Mary Spicuzza and Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel| March 24, 2015)
• "No one said Yahoo! is biased against Walker, [but] whether the reporter in question, Michael Isikoff, is biased." Since Michael Isikoff is "Chief Investigative Correspondent" for Yahoo, Yahoo has to take some responsibility ... I said "Surely public officials have some responsibility for the actions of their appointees". The same would go for private companies. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Tag - 2016 Campaign

User:Iowajason, can you please explain why you added this tag? Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if my documentation was inadequate. I thought it self-explanatory that I was questioning the significance of this part of the article. Politicians and their spokespeople dodge questions every day and this doesn't seem to be an important question. Assuming he ends up entering the 2016 presidential campaign, will this be an important part of his legacy? A week or two later, this particular press conference does not seem to be a turning point in the campaign. Iowajason (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Lede

The Lede is an akward mix of Walker's early life and electoral history. Instead, shouldn't the lede focus on his actions as governor? Perhaps a brief mention that Walker formed a 527 group exploring candidacy in the 2016 election would be appropriate as well... --Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Added the 529 but lede needs work. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As a note to User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, it is totally irrelevant whether a change is "necessary" or not. If an edit improves an article, then that's all that matters. And moreover, it is "necessary" to address the Lede section given its numerous problems. I recommend that you look at MOS:INTRO, which states "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead." Quite frankly, the previous version of the Lede that Rms125 reverted to is a blatant violation of this ideal. Information about all of Scott Walker's odd jobs in his early life or where he went to college is most certainly NOT what is most noteworthy about Walker. All of the information deleted from the lede section can be easily ascertained by reading the next section about his early life. But it isn't noteworthy enough to be mentioned more than once in the article. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that edits meant to improve articles do not have to be "needed", which is largely if not entirely a subjective construct. However, if the edits do not (or do not appear to) improve the article, they needn't be maintained. I wasn't aware of the lede colloquy above at the time and perhaps I should have worded my edit summary differently. I certainly have had no difficulty trimming unsourced, non-noteworthy, trivial, promotional, vanity or any other kind of crufty text from many articles, usually to other editors' annoyance. I don't quite understand your comment: "Quite frankly, the previous version of the Lede that Rms125 reverted to is a blatant violation of this ideal." I accepted what you said and did not revert again, just tweaked a word or two, so to which revert are you referring? (See [5].) Quis separabit? 02:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

There's been a bit of a misunderstanding here... My comment was referring to your original revert, not your second edit (which I hadn't seen at the time I wrote the comment on the talk page). In any case, I was being rude and overly-defensive, so I apologize for that. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Blanking

Removal of material that was sourced and present in the article for while, without discussion is not useful. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Creating a sub-article is fine, but we need to follow WP:SUMMARY. Removing the content that was here, which was related to Walker's governorship is not acceptable. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@PrairieKid: Have you heard of WP:BRD? I suggest you follow it. You did a WP:BOLD edit, and I objected with a reversion. Now you need to discuss and not edit war as you are doing now. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

These are my objections:

• The material you moved to Political positions of Scott Walker are mostly actions he took as a Governor.
• You can't just come here and do a massive edit without discussing first, particularly after you see an objection
• Edit warring is never a good option

- Cwobeel (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not a summary of the content you moved to Political positions of Scott Walker:

In recent months, Walker's opinions have shifted further to the right of the political spectrum. He has a 0% ranking from the NARAL Pro-Choice America, an organization promoting abortion rights. The National Rifle Association gave Walker a 100% ranking in 2014. Walker has not given a strong opinion on climate change, but his views seem to reflect those of others' in his party. He signed a “no climate tax” pledge promising not to support any legislation that would raise taxes to combat climate change and has been a keynote speaker at the climate-denying Heartland Institute.

References

What are you trying to do? This is totally unacceptable editing behavior. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Here are my thoughts:

• The political positions stuff did relate to his time as Governor and I was just about to begin moving everything to the right spot. I do feel that most of it belongs on the political positions page. There has been general consensus that bio articles should not be voter's pamphlets (not my words but the words of dozens of prior editors) and that the main bio page should relate strictly to the subject's life and direct decisions, without going into detail on every bill. That's why I moved the content.
• WP:Bold says just that--make massive edits if an editor feels they are justified. Now, it also says that I can't get too upset if another editor wants to have a discussion. I am not even remotely upset about the discussion but more about the way you're treating it (see below). I obviously did not see the objection until after making the edit. I chose to revert because I still feel that precedence and policy indicate the article should be the way I have left it. I am here now, happy to discuss it.
• Wow... Accusing me of edit warring? That's where I begin to feel a little disrespected. For the second time today, I will remind you about WP:CIVIL, particularly about WP:AGF. Immediately assuming I am edit warring, posting 3 times on the talk page and once on my talk page, all in a accusatory tone does not seem like the friendliest way to go about it. I am happy to continue the discussion, with civility.

Now- let's move away from accusing me of edit warring and move on to discussing the actual content. You made a few big edits, none of which mention your objection to the moves themselves. Let's move on to talking about the content. What do you disagree with? PrairieKid (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

And in the time I made that comment, you made two more, again forgetting WP:AGF. While the summary I made does not relate directly to the content I moved, it does relate to an overall, holistic summation of Scott Walker's political views, which is the point in that section. If you'd like, I can add a little more to it. It does do exactly what it is intended to. PrairieKid (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you edit warred, just look at the article's history. I am objecting to your edits for several reasons, which I have explained above, and to which you have yet to respond. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"Holistic summation" you say? Please read WP:SUMMARY - Cwobeel (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:SYNC in particular. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

And, please, read WP:BRD. You will need to learn how to use it. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Howdy. Again, I will remind you of WP:Civil. Saying I am "nuts" or crazy or that I have not read any of those policies (especially after showing them to me twice) is not going to help anything. In life, if you want stuff to get done, you really have to pick your battles. Now, our battle here is not over each others' personalities but over a difference of opinion. When we finish, this article is going to be FABULOUS! Let's keep focused on that goal.

Now, to go over your worries once more, I did try to expand the section to make it a little closer to a summary in sync with the new article. How do you think it looks? PrairieKid (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You know, maybe it would be best to seek out a WP:30? We're both pretty involved in this article. It might be good to get an outsider's opinion. How does that sound? PrairieKid (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to collaborate, respect WP:BRD and self-revert. That is the only way I will engage. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

And I mean self-revert to the previous version before the massive deletions you have done, without consideration for others. BTW, I did not say you are nuts, what I said it what you have done is nuts. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert 3 hours of hard work just because you refuse to have a conversation about it. Looking at the article now, what is wrong with it? You have not given a single, specific thing. For example, you've just said "I don't like the summary" of it which is a lot different than "it's missing this, this and this". I've had to guess at what you mean. You need to give me exact, specific details about what you think needs to be fixed and why. And you need to be willing to do it without the revert. PrairieKid (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask again about the WP:30? I've used it in the past to resolve disputes (sometimes I win, sometimes I lose) and it really is good to have. Would you be willing to get another editor over here? PrairieKid (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Consensus relevant here.--Polmandc (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Then let's have the discussion. That's what I've been saying all day. Do you have any comments on why we should break precedent? Or why we shouldn't keep the article clean and concise? Or why the massive copy edit I did, massively improving the grammar and prose were not beneficial? Please, I seriously am happy to hear your thoughts. If I am WAY off base, let me know, but you have to tell me why. I will throw away the hours of work I just spent building these articles, but I need some reasons why. PrairieKid (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are the reasons:

• Splitting articles is only needed when the size of an article exceeds certain constraints. We did not have these constraints here.
• You moved several sections that are related to actions Walker took as governor, to an article inappropriately named Political positions of Scott Walker.
• After your bold edit, I reverted on the basis of these concerns, and instead of responding and seeking consensus for your edit, you reverted back to your preferred version.
• Not only that, you continued to edit war again after another editor undid your changes.

- Cwobeel (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, let me go over your concerns once again.

• That's not entirely true. See almost any politician's page which has been worked on; they all have separate pages for their time as whatever they were and another for their political positions. WP:SPLIT says that one reason for splitting is size, while another is differing content. I would argue that certain sections of this article were so long as to be unreadable (and certainly broke WP:UNDUE) but I really don't see you accepting that at this point. Now, WP:SPLIT also says specifically that it does not require consensus. However, if there is a dispute, it also says we need to reach consensus, which I am here trying to do. But WP:SPLIT might be the first policy you've brought up that actually concerns the article and not an editor. I
• I did not do a terrific job at first moving that article. I responded to your own concerns on that talk page and decided I was wrong. That's why I made the move. Now everything is in the right place--the stuff about his Governorship is on that page, while the stuff about his political positions are on that page while the stuff directly relating to his life are on this page.
• I immediately came here to seek consensus. After you posted your initial concerns here, I came to respond in about 7 minutes. I immediately cited policies, both relating to the reasons for the changes and why I did them without consensus. You have absolutely broke WP:CIVIL. I wanted to have a good, honest discussion about policy and prose and you have not been civil to me from the start. That's not the way to treat another editor or another person. Calling me nuts, saying I was ridiculous. That's just not right.

• This is not edit war. This is "one editor is doing something everyone does that greatly improves the article, while citing policy, while another editor makes personal attacks on the talk page and reverts without giving reasons other than 'this is nuts.'" PrairieKid (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Not an edit war? Please read WP:3RR. Self-revert to the prior consensus version and we can have a conversation about consensus, which currently does not exist for your preferred version. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:SPLIT: The two main reasons for splitting material out from an article are size and content relevance. If either the whole article, or the specific material within one section becomes too large, or if the material is seen to be inappropriate for the article due to being out of scope, then a split may be considered or proposed. Consideration must be given to size, notability and potential neutrality issues before proposing or carrying out a split.

There is no issue of size, and there is no issue of material being out of scope. So why are you doing this? You argument that other politician's articles have multiple pages is meaningless as that is not what the criteria for splitting is all about. - Cwobeel (talk)

PrairieKid, your edits to this article may be well-intentioned, but you need to obtain consensus for such massive changes. Multiple editors have disagreed with your edits. Please obtain consensus before continuing to restore your edits. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to seek to return the article to the state it was in at Eeyoresdream's last edit on April 26 until consensus has been achieved for the subsequent edits.CFredkin (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Question from uninvolved editor

I've been asked to help out here. Does this version reflect a semi-stable version before all the contended changes were made? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

CFredkin suggests this revision [6]. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I believe Eeyoresdream's edit was the last before the massive changes began that are in dispute.16:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's what I've done: Reversed the changes and redirected the split articles back to here to avoid forks. Contentious splits should be discussed before being executed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Redundant Statement

User:PrairieKid, I'm removing this edit because it's redundant with the second sentence in the lede.CFredkin (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Restructuring

Now that we have the article back to previous consensus version, I think we can contemplate the following restructuring: Creating a new section "Political Positions", that will feature Walker's current and evolving political positions as he launches his probable nomination campaign. If that section becomes large enough, we could consider a split. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed.CFredkin (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Currently the "Tenure" section includes the actions he's taken as governor. I believe the "Political Positions" section should state his positions on issues without duplicating the actions mentioned in the "Tenure" section.CFredkin (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

yes, good point. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

But any reliable secondary sources that characterize his actions in that position broadly might be worth utilizing, even if only in-so-far as a single statement or two. In principle, that is -- I don't know if any such sources exist in this case. Though having looked at the scale of the article and the degree of the sourcing that does exist, I'd be surprised if there wasn't something. and we should keep in mind that his statements concerning such actions (and media/political reaction to his decisions) will sometimes be a separate issue worth noting in a discussion of his positions, and some reference to topics previously mentioned might not necessarily be redundancy. Again, in principle. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Finally- let me list out my main reasons for doing so:

• 1) WP:UNDUE- certain sections of the page (particularly those pertaining to the protests and court case) seems to have undue weight. Two subsections take up nearly one third of the article. I do feel that they are important though and should be included some where. They just shouldn't take up that much of this article.
• 2) Grammar and Prose- There were so many issues with the grammar, prose and organization. Moving them to another article allowed for better organization and structuring and a change in prose that was both more effective and which had better grammar.
• 3) Precedence/Consistency- as I've said, most major politicians have these types of articles. We've long discussed that the main bio articles should not be voter's pamphlets, listing out views on issues which is the purpose of the new article. As for the Governorship article, again, we've decided that we don't need the play-by-play on the main articles. That's why I left the summary there.

I want to give one more reminder about WP:CIVIL. You have a right to disagree with me; that's the whole point. But calling me names and saying I'm crazy are not going to solve anything and are only going to cause more problems. Really, I'm a nice guy with a decent life who is trying to contribute to an awesome website. I imagine you're in the same boat. Let's be friends. Cheers. PrairieKid (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There are two proposals here:

• Restructure
• Split

Any common areas of agreement? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:PrairieKid, can you please give some examples for #2 above?CFredkin (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

First off, the article has very poor organization. Elections are all over the place, some of the chronology is off... As to the grammar, I mean, read the massive section that was there (glad we found another home for it!) about the protests and you'll see what I mean. Once I have time, I will do a c/e of all Walker related articles as well... I've put a lot of time into him these last few days I think he might be my next GA candidate...? I hope you'll all continue to work with me here. PrairieKid (talk)

Personally, I tend to agree with you on #1. In particular I think "Investigation of Illegal Campaign Coordination" seems too long for Walker's BLP. Most of the content has nothing to do with him.CFredkin (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. It can be trimmed (summarized), and the bulk of it moved to Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election - Cwobeel (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Cwobeel (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If y'all want to throw out the Governorship article, I will hesitantly(!) let you. Thank you for at least moving a big part of the content (and the main source of the problem) to another article. I still feel like we will probably want to create that article in the future, especially if Walker runs for President, but, hey, I'll say it fails WP:CRYSTAL and leave it alone for now. We can talk about it later. At least we'll have a good foundation (the article I built) to start with if we ever cross that bridge. PrairieKid (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Now, I really, really, really (*2095836) would oppose having all of the political positions on this page. It's a bit messy, does not pertain directly to Walker's personal life and is not what we do for nearly every other politician. Almost without fail, a short summary of his views and the way the media has characterized them is left on the main page while the bulk of the content is moved. You can see many of the dozens of those articles here. I've heard (and said myself) time and time again, Bio pages are not Voter's Pamphlets. My question now would be about why Walker is any different? While we certainly don't need to stick to the status quo simply because it is the status quo, it is important to be consistent and not to differ from the rest of the articles without good reason. I am not satisfied that that has really been discussed. Let's talk about it. PrairieKid (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Walker is a governor, and his political positions on national and state issues are relevant for his biography. If and when he announces his run for the nomination, and when he declares additional positions as it would be expected of a candidate, and if and when these become too long for this article, a new article focused on these aspects can be spun off. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Many politician articles have their political positions as part of their biography. One I worked on last year was Joni_Ernst#Political positions, for example. There are many others, of course. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

For another politician bio that has already declared his run for the nomination, see Ted Cruz#Political positions. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Why? I mean, you didn't really give a reason. You just said what your plans are. But that's a whole lot different than what we've done for politicians in the past. Nearly all of those articles I wrote about above (and especially those concerning politicians who ran for office or became relevant post-2010ish) did not follow that path, for good reason. We don't want to crowd an article with his views. We want to give an overall viewpoint of his values, ideas and personal beliefs and how those influence his positions. At least, that's what happens with all others. I just need you to give me a couple of good reasons to break that precedent. Otherwise, it begins to break WP:STATUSQUO. PrairieKid (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

As to Joni Ernst, that's just another article that has not been the attention of large focus. I would support creating the same article for her and Ted Cruz. In fact, Ernst's TP has a lot of discussion about that section with many editors proposing cutting it because of the precedence. Let me put it all a different way--if you look at articles that are Good articles or Featured Articles, you will absolutely see that trend. See Rand Paul, Joe Biden, Cory Booker (he doesn't even have the summary, although I'll add one in a minute)... and those were just on the first two lines of listings. Out of those lines, the only article that did it this was was Scott Brown and one of the comments on the GA nom is that the section is too long. Looking at FAs, we see a similar trend. Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Mitt Romney all follow the trend. Why should we break it?

Finally, can I ask that you make all your TP comments at once. There have been a lot of edit conflicts during this discussion because I think you're done and then you post more. It's a small thing but I would really appreciate it. I'm glad we're finally having a good discussion! PrairieKid (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I was very clear with my arguments. Here it is again in a nutshell: until the point in which we have too much content about Walker's political positions to warrant its own article, that content will reside here. After that we can consider spinning off a new article. That was exactly the process that took place with most politician's bios. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

And BTW, there is nothing stopping you to augment the Scott Walker#Political positions to a point which will force a split. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Case in point:

• Political positions of John McCain is ~16,000 words
• Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton is ~10,000 words
• Political positions of Rand Paul is ~3,800 words
• Ted Cruz#Political positions is ~2,100 words
• Joni Ernst#Political positions is ~1,400 words
• Scott_Walker (politician)#Political positions is 346 words.

The entire Scott walker article is ~5,800 words; per WP:SIZESPLIT when the article reaches ~10,000 words, we can consider splitting sections onto sub-articles.

- Cwobeel (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this might be a time where we've exhausted all arguments and just have to agree to disagree. Of course, I feel like I've already countered your point and I am sure you feel like you have countered all of mine. I'll leave the article as is for now but, again, don't be surprised if I bring this up again in the near future. I appreciate the fact that you were eventually willing to have a civil discussion about this. PrairieKid (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point, which is that you believe that Scott Walker deserves a separate article about his political positions as the other politicians you mentioned. Unfortunately, there is not enough material to construct a separate article, neither is there a need for a split at this time. I am sure that that the time will come in which may be needed. Till then, happy editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A general comment from a (mostly) uninvolved editor. Yes, buzz about a presidential bid, OK. But the subject is a sitting governor. He is not a think tank or an academic or political philosopher. He has a multi-term record of actions. I tend to think our readers would be better served by improving the "Tenure" section rather than the "Political positions" section. The tenure section is very good, of course there's nothing wrong with a political positions section, yet I wish a fraction of the energy going into abstracting political positions was going into expanding the back and forth on events. By his actions we will know him. I support holding off on splits for now. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Right to Work

This commentary is WP:undue. Let's stick to the facts. There's no need for subjective commentary here. Wikipedia isn't a good venue for POV pushing.CFredkin (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

One sentence from politifact is WP:undue? You sure? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

More soliciting of opinions

Is the adding of this sentence in the "Right to work" section ...

However Politifact.com rated Walker position a "Full Flop," for a "major reversal of position", on right-to-work.

... giving "undue weight" (aka WP:undue) to PolitiFact.com? (This is the sentence that CFredkin deleted, and is referring to above.) Anybody care? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"Let's stick to the facts. There's no need for subjective commentary here." Sorry, but this is as wrong as you can get. Of course every Wikipedia editor understands our clear mandate under our core content policy WP:NPOV to fairly summarize all significant views in reliable sources, including facts and opinions. Commentary is essential to achieving balance. This attitude could not be more wrong. Unfortunately this unusual position has surfaced in multiple threads on this talk page. Hugh (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

NYT opinion

Why is the NYT editorial opinion not usable in the context of this bio? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Because it is just that -- an opinion piece from a partisan and biased source. A local (i.e. Wisconsin-based) media outlet would have more credibility despite the inevitable bias, especially if a counter opinion could be found and posted, but the NYT editorial board? Why not the Washington Times? Or Fox News? Or SEIU or Media Matters or Glenn Beck? The NYT enjoys no reputation for even-handedness, it is a hyperpartisan mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, except on the rare occasions when the paper's editorial board disagrees with the Party's official posture on some issue or other. Quis separabit? 15:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Currently the article includes one reaction to the events of this subsection, Politifact noting the subject of this article's change of position. The article gives the impression the events were without controversy. In your view has this article adequately summarized reliable sources, events and reaction, regarding these events? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed content, an addition to the end of the "Right to work" subsection:

The New York Times editorialized Walker's "true priority is stripping workers of collective-bargaining rights and reducing their unions to a shell. The unions would no longer be able to raise money to oppose him."

Source:

"Spreading Anti-Union Agenda". The New York Times. February 22, 2011. Retrieved May 11, 2015.

We are asked to include all significant views. We are asked to cover not just events but also reactions to events. Most actions by governors go unnoticed by the editorial board of The New York Times. This is a very significant viewpoint expressed by a very significant source. The proposed content is a highly noteworthy statement by a third party about the subject of this article. If a NYT editorial is not valid as an opinion on events in the life of the subject of this article, then none is. The NYT is not in general a rabid pro-union tearsheet. In any case in-text attribution is included to address the possibility of bias in the source as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. And in any case sources need not be neutral. Sometimes a biased source is the best way to cover the spectrum of views. The proposed content is clearly only about the source's opinion, not about facts. The current coverage of this subtopic in this article is non-neutral with respect to the reactions to this legislation in reliable sources. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If this article had been on Right to work laws I agree all significant viewpoints should be included. However, that's not the relevant ways to write articles on politicans where it kind of goes without saying that Liberal politicians are opposed by Conservative politicans/media and vice versa. To find how articles on politicians should be written, we can take clue from the Barack Obama article which is a featured article. That artice certainly does not include "any significant views" on the various actions of Barack Obama during his tenure. If you look at the health care reform section for instance there is no criticism at all, even though that reform has been extremely contested. I also find it particular undue to include quotes from NYT. If we are to include a reaction part it should be one sentence summing up the overall reactions. Iselilja (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The proposed content is about Walker; in particular, it is an opinion about his motives; it is not about Right to work legislation. The source is not a "Liberal politician," it is an editorial board opinion, with in-text attribution, from a newspaper of record, perhaps the world's newspaper of record. The Obama article section is not an applicable precedent because that section is a summary of a main article. Coverage in our encyclopedia is in proportion to coverage in reliable sources, not according to some arbitrary number of sentences; in any case if you allowed only one sentence you could do worse than the proposed content. Hugh (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"in particular, it is an opinion about his motives" -- since when do we include conjecture and POV text for BLP articles? Quis separabit? 17:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The proposed content is not conjecture. It is a verifiable statement of opinion of a 3rd party about the subject of this article, clearly attributed in text as such, and includes a well-formatted, readily available-online reference. Most living persons do not attract the attention of the editorial board of The New York Times. Is it your position that BLPs are exempt from our mandate to include all significant views? Hugh (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's my opinion that good/featured biographies on politicians in general don't include all kind of "opinions" of the subject, again see the article on Barack Obama as well as other president articles. Iselilja (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You may say the opinion piece reflect directly on Walker; but there exist 100,000s of articles reflecting directly on Obama, and not included in the encyclopedia; the same for articles on other presidents etc. I don't think it makes much sense to say the health care section is non-applicable simply because it's a summary article. It leads to the question of why there isn't a reaction section in the main article, since reactions are more relevant in such an article than in an article on a politician. So, if you don't have a reaction section there, there is even less reason to have a reaction section in a biography article. (The main article includes a public opinion section, though, which has been left out of the Barack Obama artice). But anyway, the overall Barack Obama article has very little opinion stuff, so while we are supposed to refect sources, there is a tradition in high quality politician articles for including mainly what a politicians says and does; not the reactions of all their adversaries. One could argue of course that the Obama article is overly sanitized and that articles ideally should include more opinions/reactions/criticism, and personally I am leaning a bit that way, but I am very sceptical of including quotes which should be kept to a bare minimum. (If you look at a high-quality encyclopedia like Britannica, the articles seldom include quotes, and those who exist mostly from the article subject themselves). Reactions in Wisconsin, including polls if such exist, may also be more relevant than New York Times. A sentence on reactions certainly needs to include more than NYT. (When I want to limit reactions to one sentence, it's based on the overall shortness of the "right to work" section) Iselilja (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have concerns about Obama's bio, bring it up on that article's talk page, not here. This is not Britannica, this is Wikipedia where we report significant viewpoints published in reliable sources. I have yet to hear a substantive argument on why the editorial board of a mainstream newspaper is not a reliable source representing a significant viewpoint. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it is relevant to use featured articles as a kind of benchmark for how biographies should be written because having some internal consistency is itself a value; also with regard to getting the encyclopedia NPOV. Though I agree we shouldn't regard the promoted stuff as flawless. It is well established also in policy that the style of Wikipedia is the encyclopedic (not news reporting etc) and Wikipedia like serious encyclopedias write stuff in our own words, not as a quote farm. Also, I have heard no explanation how it can be NPOV to include a quote/opinion from NYT and not include other reactions. To insist on including one partisan quote while making no effort to include reactions from the other side in an article seems to be the definition of cherrypicking. Write a sentence where you sum up the various reactions with a couple of links, including opinion polls if exist as well as demonstrations if any, and we can see whether that will work. (Including quotes from one side of a partisan issue will normally per NPOV require quotes also from the other side, and then we end up in a quotefarm) Iselilja (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that The New York Times is a partisan source? really? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The proposed content above is a quote, but it is not a quote farm. Please join us in discussing the proposed content. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. @Iselilja: May I clarify, the point about your analogy with the Obama article is that it is not the best precedent for the current content discussion, since as that section participates in a parent/child relationship, editors might well disagree on the level of detail in the summary section vs. the parent. This article is currently, by consensus, the lowest-level, most detailed article on its subject. Here we are not summarizing a parent article, we are trying to fairly summarize the breadth of views in reliable sources. BLPs are not controversy-free zones. Also by policy quotes are fundamental. If you feel strongly about the quote marks please suggest an accurate and complete paraphrase of the quote that eliminates the quote marks. And The New York Times is not an adversary of the subject of this article. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Walker's bio isn't intended to be a coatrack for editorial content from the media. Let's stick to the facts.CFredkin (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, The New York Times is media, but you have to admit, it's pretty special media. Sure, stick to the facts, but we also have "stick to the sources." Fact is The New York Times editorialized on the subject of this article. The proposed content is a highly noteworthy and from a highly noteworthy source. Do you believe the sub-section on the subject's right to work legislation, as is, is a fair summary of available reliable sources, including reactions, and all views? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Beyond facts, we are asked to describe disputes, and to include significant opinions. The proposed content is compliant with WP:ASSERT and WP:YESPOV. Hugh (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@CFredkin: Articles in Wikipedia are not about "facts", but about "significant viewpoints". You may want to re-read WP:NPOV (I do from time to time and found it always that I learned something new about it). - Cwobeel (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a solid addition to this article. This opinion piece purports to know Walker's "true priority", his secret plan to reduce unions to a shell. Absurd. Unless the NYT ed board has been empowered with telepathy, this is just partisan conjecture and not a "significant" viewpoint. I too find it valuable to use similar GA/FA articles as examples to emulate, and agree that this would put us far afield from other political bios. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No telepathy is required for us to say what the The New York Times said. The opinion of The New York Times on Walker's motivations is verifiable. But of course an editor of your experience understands well the difference between WP voice and source voice with in-text attribution. Hugh (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Which neatly avoids the point. It is a poor addition. It does not improve the biography. The opinion of the NYT on this matter is not inherently significant in the life of the subject of this biography article. This proposed addition goes against common FA/GA usage in similar articles, and I agree with others that we shouldn't do it. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If there is some "common FA/GA usage" that you would like to cite in content disputes as if they are policy or guideline, such as an exemption for BLPs in our mandate under WP:NPOV to include all significant opinions, kindly formulate your ideas and achieve consensus the appropriate policy or guideline pages. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

If not the The New York Times editorial board, what is an example of a source for an opinion on the subject of this article that you think might be significant enough to merit inclusion? Hugh (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I was agreeing with the points made by the other editors above, not proposing a new policy. Again the point is missed. I do not propose inserting opinions about BLP articles about politicians, I am broadly against that. It leads to attack pages and serious NPOV/WEIGHT problems. It's not a good idea at the President's article, and it's not a good idea here. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Wow, BLP re: politicians are exempt from our mandate under WP:NPOV to fairly summarize all signficant points of view? I did not know that. There is no source for an opinion, even with in-text attribution, that you would acknowledge as due weight? I would have thought no category of article needs careful application of balance more. The above proposed content does not transform this page into an "attack page." May I ask, since this is as you say not a new policy or guideline, can you kindly direct me to where I might learn more? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd guess that if the NYT made a positive comment about Walker's policies we would be having a different conversation.... - Cwobeel (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it. There are plenty of op-eds from conservative media outlets saying positive things. They aren't in the article that I can see. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Subject cites de-funding Planned Parenthood in short list of accomplishments in Iowa stump speeches

Noteworthy neutral proposed content, addition to "Political positions" section, "Abortion" sub-section:

In January and April, 2015 speeches in Iowa, Walker included de-fundung Planned Parenthood among his accomplishments.

Noteworthy reliable source references:

• Williams, Derica (January 27, 2015). "Our American Revival: Gov. Scott Walker wades into the presidential campaign waters". Fox News. Retrieved May 12, 2015.
• Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition Summit. Waukee, Iowa: C-SPAN. April 25, 2015. 4:33 minutes in. Retrieved May 12, 2015.

You've already added content on this subject. There's no need for redundancy. In addition, I believe the existing content already adequately represents his position on the subject in the Political Positions section.CFredkin (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the content you link to:

Walker signed the 2011 state budget that de-funded Planned Parenthood.

You deleted the above proposed content, because you claim these two statements are redundant? Of course, obviously, they are not redundant. They share no refs. Seriously, you see no difference, between a governor signing a budget which includes hundreds of thousands of line items, some of which may be the result of compromise with the legislature, and a politician, in his own words, on video, bragging on defunding a program in his standard stump speech? Note our encyclopedia's summary of Walker's right-to-work initiative uses a Walker quote to attempt the finesse, "Eh, I'm not really for it, but if the legislature is, I guess I'll sign it." Right. Signing legislation is not the same thing as a stump speech. You know better. What's up with you? You know Am. Politics the sequel is coming, right? Hugh (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I plan on restoring this content. Hugh (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no consensus for restoration.CFredkin (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what the contention is. Walker is proud of his defunding of Planned Parenthood, as per his speeches. So what is the deal? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a matter of whether he's proud of it or not. The same argument can be used to duplicate much of the content in the Tenure section. I don't see where we would draw the line.CFredkin (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That Walker is bragging on defunding family planning in his stump speeches is highly noteworthy and not in the tenure section or any other section. Hugh (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Yes, the proposed content is completely non-controversial. It is sourced to the subject of this article's own speeches, two of them, one on video. Hugh (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I must admit that I am completely confused. Why can't we describe the aspects that Walker is running on? He is after all a possible candidate for the highest office, and the way he presents himself to voters is important biographical information. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

POV Pushing

User:HughD First you remove part of Walker's quote with the comment that it's too long. Then you inappropriately block quote it. How does that make sense?

Proactively removing part of Walker's quote, as you did above, and not including the full quote as you did here with the intention of obscuring his meaning is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a good forum for POV pushing.CFredkin (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:BQ was in the edit summary. WP:MOS says 40 or more words get blocked. Is that not clear? Kindly refrain from speculating about the motives of your collaborators WP:AGF. Hugh (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't aware of that requirement. Can you please address my second statement regarding the 2 edits referenced?CFredkin (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the quote is too long, if that's what you area asking. Hugh (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC) If you want to discuss anything further, kindly start a new thread with a new AGF attitude. Thank you. Hugh (talk)

Would you agree that posting:

On February 28, 2015 in an interview in Palm Beach, Florida Walker said the "the most significant foreign policy decision" of his lifetime was President Ronald Reagan's firing 11,000 striking air traffic controllers in 1981.

without posting:

"It sent a message not only across America, it sent a message around the world," Walker said. America's allies and foes alike became convinced that Reagan was serious enough to take action and that "we weren't to be messed with," he said.

dramatically changes its meaning and is inappropriate?CFredkin (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide feedback on your additions of content in a separate thread with more of an assumption of good faith. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As you know, I'm referring to your "additions of content", not mine.CFredkin (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The parts of your recent addition not in quotes may be a copyright violation; could you please take a look and perhaps introduce a paraphrase? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. But in the meantime I'll note that this is the 4th time you've added the "public union first strategy" statement without reverting to Talk. Per WP:BRD you should have reverted to Talk following the first revert.CFredkin (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

America's allies and foes alike became convinced that Reagan was serious enough to take action - possible copyvio, pls paraphrase, thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Source: America's allies and foes alike became convinced that Reagan was serious enough to take action Hugh (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC) thanks Hugh (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Context for Walker's declaration of his "divide and conquer", public union collective bargaining 1st strategy

The issue I see is that it is stating in wikipedia's voice that divide and conquer is specifically part of the right to work strategy. The quote is about balancing the budget. That some infer it to be about RTW is a legitimate POV, but needs to be presented via WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I am removing it again, please do not restore it without consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your engagement in talk space. The initial state of this content prior to some recent improvements was a long, in-text, non-blocked direct quote from the subject of this article and context consisted of identifying the questioner and the date. With little context, it is understandable that readers might not understand the quote. A direct quote from the subject of an article, particularly one of this length, requires great care and attention to context. In this case, the nut of the quote is very certainly due weight. In my opinion, perhaps Walker's single most notable contribution to politics is his role in successfully implementing a strategy of approaching the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions early. Prior to Walker, public employee unions were generally considered impossible to dislodge, and collective bargaining was generally considered as American as apple pie. (<- this is not proposed article space content mind you, just a guy on a talk page commenting on notability, ok?) So hopefully we all agree the quote is due. Now, it needs context. Context is provided by quoting the question as well as the answer. This seems reasonable to me. Reading the question first, our readers will more clearly understand that the quote was in reponse to a direct, unambiguous question about right-to-work. In case there is any doubt, we have multiple, highly reliable, national and international news outlets that were not confused in the slightest as to the meaning of the quote. Clarity and context is also provided by briefly summarizing what reliable sources understood from the quote. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course we need to be extremely careful with WP voice. Here, a long direct quote from the subject of this article is prefaced with a very few words, summarizing across multiple, national and international reliable sources, what those sources understood from the quote. They are in substantial agreement. They are not confused about what Walker was talking about. Hugh (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for politicians to answer a different question from the one that is asked. Readers can interpret for themselves what he meant. Personally I don't think his answer has anything to do with right to work. Regardless conjecture is undue for the article itself.CFredkin (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"Personally I don't think his answer has anything to do with right to work." I don't know what to say to that except perhaps that I'm sorry it is not clear to you, and to point out that the good news is multiple reliable sources were not confused. Maybe it will help you see my point were I to note that even ABSENT the long Walker quote, the proposed content "Walker's right-to-work strategy was to first pursue the collective bargaining rights of public employee unions," standalone, is an eminently serviceable summarization of the refs that supported it, which include The Washington Post, International Business Times, Fox News, and Al Jezeera. It's Walker's answer to a direct question, it is not our job to clean it up, or to explain to our readers that he MIGHT be talking about something else entirely. Hugh (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks I guess for not deleting the refs. I see you have tucked them out of the way at the end of the long direct Walker quote. What is the big deal with offering our readers a brief summarization of these sources that clarifies and gives context to the long direct Walker quote? It is non-neutral for us to include that long direct Walker quote without us having anything to say about what copious reliable sources have to say about the quote. In for dime, in for a dollar. Please offer your own summarization of these sources. I know you guys know better than this. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the summary you have chosen is not neutral and does not conform with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. At a minimum we would need to say "according to X [...]", or introduce it more neutrally. None of those sources say "Step one in his plan to dismantle unions was". That is spin that you are adding. Yes, many sources link the quote to RTW, but you cannot exceed the linkage that they have, nor can you exclude the competing POV that he was actually talking about a balanced budget. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please suggest another summarization. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Just re-edit, this time adding a full attribution. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's the sequence of events: 1) Lichtenstein releases video of interaction with Walker which is edited to end immediately after his "divide and conquer" comment. 2) Some in the media speculate that Walker was referring to "right to work". 3) Others in the media point out that the video was edited to cut off the rest of Walker's statement. 4) Lichtenstein releases a transcript of the rest of Walker's statement which seems to support his later explanation that his statement was about "protecting the taxpayers from unions he said stood in the way of helping the state deal with a budget shortfall".

The speculation regarding the meaning of Walker's statement is inappropriate for his bio. In fact it is arguable that the speculation mainly occurred because Lichtenstein initially released only a snippet of Walker's statement. Readers can judge for themselves what he meant. This reference is already one of the longest in the Budget Repair Bill section. Continuing to load it up with additional commentary will definitely veer into the realm of undue.CFredkin (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well argued. Let's have the context, paraphrase the long quote, and keep it short and sweet. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"Some in the media speculate that Walker was referring to "right to work"" Very, very clearly Walker was talking about right-to-work. No one who reads this question and this answer can have any doubt. That Walker was talking about anything else is an extreme minority viewpoint, a viewpoint held exclusively by Walker himself in attempting damage control after his campaign found out what he said with a camera rolling. No one is "speculating" about anything. The reliable media sources are doing their job, reporting what was said. Come on now, keep it real. Hugh (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd strongly prefer not to paraphrase the quote. Personally I believe that created the confusion to begin with. I could perhaps support a statement along the lines of: Walker's opponents claimed that he was referring to plans to make Wisconsin a right-to-work state. Walker said his comment was about "protecting the taxpayers from unions he said stood in the way of helping the state deal with a budget shortfall".CFredkin (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The confusion was a long, barely-Engish direct quote with grossly insufficient context and no "commentary" allowed as per extremely local regs that might have offered some scant clarification. To me the direct quote is not as important as what the reliable sources have to say about it: Walker had a road map to right-to-work in mind in 2012. I agree we can an afford approx. 1 sentence summary of Walker's damage control to wrap up this paragraph. "Walker's opponents claimed..." What sources were you thinking of there? Hugh (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

When describing what Walker meant by his own words, his own interpretation is authoritative. You may think he is spinning/pandering, and you are entitled to do so, as are reliable sources we may use for their POV, but generally we don't let other people put words into others mouths with the authority of wiki's voice. Just think of all the fun we could have over in the Obama/Hillary article with a standard like you are proposing. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

What is with the Obama references on this talk page? Obama is not running against Walker, unless you mean Michelle, or 2020 at the earliest. Hugh (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Who said he was. The standard for politician blp is the standard. It applies to all equally. My point is that you know very well where the line is, and what is allowed on liberal BLPs, and I am not going to allow the line to be somewhere else on this blp. Picking the opposition spin for every quote/action is not the way BLPs are done. We include notable interpretations. They don't become THE interpretation. Even that is generous, considering how much is plain excluded from the liberal BLPs Gaijin42 (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I was making a joke about Obama, ok? geez. Back to this article, when you speak of "opposition spin" are you thinking on one or more of the sources for the currently discussed content? Hugh (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"his own interpretation is authoritative" In this article it's exclusive. "Commentary" is verboten, even when it might clarify. I understand what you are saying, it can get out of hand, bu this article has a "no opinions" policy so severe it harms the article, as it did here. Sorry, in my judgement the question and answer were so clear, and the consensus across multiple rs was so strong, in-text attribution was not necessary, but I'm comfortable with in-text attribution. Myself normally I would not delete content and well-formatted reliable source references that just needed a tweak or in-text attribution. Who's working on this, me? Hugh (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"Here's the sequence of events:" The film, the transcript, and the first media coverage all happened on the same day: Thursday, May 10, 2012. Your version of history makes it seem like a transcript came out that invalidated early media coverage. Hugh (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm re-reading the early sources and I agree I got ahead of them on the quote/right-to-work connection. Sorry everybody. The best sources are even less definitive than the quote. And I see what you are saying about the "Walkers opponents said..." That is the way to go, good idea. The Fox News ref is probably the best example. I think the way forward might be facts 1st, the context + the quote, as is, followed by maybe a 1-sentence paraphrase of the Fox source and a one-sentence paraphrase of Walker's explanation. Can I try something and we look at it? Sorry again. Hugh (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure. propose something here and we can work on it. Good on you for taking a second look at your position. Its a hard thing to do and it reflects well on you that you did it. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I tried to implement the above consensus in article space. Comments? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

HughD Looks good, especially after you added this diff [7] I don't think the "according to fox news" is important here, we aren't giving their opinion, they were just the vehicle quoting Walker. The WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV we need to handle there is Walker's not Fox's. (regarding copyright, its of such short length such is not an issue imo, and its walkers words and therefore copyright not Fox's in any case. ) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The quote is Fox voice. The in-text attribution is there to avoid copy vio. I'm comfortable w/o it. Someone other than me should probably introduce a paraphrase 1st. Hugh (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

User:HughD, I think you raise a valid point. Apparently I mis-read a source. The video snippet was released at the same time as the transcript. The point of the source though is that Lichenstein has declined to release the full video of the interaction. It appears that some sources focused exclusively on the video snippet which I think contributed to confusion regarding Walker's meaning.CFredkin (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Re-reading the secondary rs I think "he was talking about the budget" is a reasonable reading. (I still find the tape and transcript compelling, but it is a reasonable reading of the secondary rs). I was harsh, sorry. Hugh (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Stance on Abortion

This content was restored with the comment that it shows how his view changed over time. However, the statement doesn't indicate his view. It indicates that he declined to state a view. Now he's stated a view. So the fact that he declined to state a view previously doesn't indicate an older view, it's just irrelevant.CFredkin (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

If he changed his position, that is absolutely encyclopedic for a politician's bio. Flip flop, anyone? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

In politics, not declaring a view, is a view. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with CwoBeel. It's important to remember that section is not intended as a voter's pamphlet, but as a biographical section on Walker's political positions and how they have advanced over time, so even if he changed that viewpoint, it would still be encyclopedic. And I certainly think avoiding a question like that is important to include. PrairieKid (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. He has not changed his position. In the first interview, he refused to answer. That is not a position and it does not matter how many times you say it is a position. It does not make it one. His position is he will sign a 20 week bill--end of discussion. There is no need for the attempt to make a non-answer into a claim of his "flip flopping" because that is old fashioned POV pushing. Also, there are more important other aspects to abortion that needed to be consolidated into the abortion section from other places in the article and I did that.--ML (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

WOH-- you've made a few really big edits. There is by no means consensus to remove that information. I have reverted back to an old version of the article until we have consensus. Him not stating his position was widely covered by the media. The fact that he is now signing a 20 week bill is a slightly different position. He went from not having one (or not stating one) to his current position. That may not end up on his campaign website, but that's not what Wikipedia is. It's important biographically to show the evolution of his viewpoints and his life. I don't see how saying he changed his position is breaking WP:NPOV. If anything, removing that as well as a rating from an accredited association breaks WP:NPOV. PrairieKid (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"A few weeks before the November election, in an interview with The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the governor sidestepped questions about his earlier opposition to abortion, and declined four times to answer directly when asked if abortion should be prohibited after 20 weeks — a position he had previously embraced. He also declined to restate his earlier opposition to abortion in cases of rape and incest."

Gabriel, Trip (February 22, 2015). "Scott Walker Hardens Tone on Social Issues to Woo Christian Conservatives". The New York Times. p. A1.

Relevant. Declining to confirm earlier, widely known positions to an editorial board is significant. The New York Times thought that declining to answer 4 times was sufficiently noteworthy to share with their readers. This article ran on the front page. As I reader of WP I am interested in every dodge and weave by the subject of this article. The most neutral thing for us to do is to summarize every shift we find in reliable sources. About the only thing the subject of this article could have done worse for women than declining to answer is if he had said, "It's not a priority with me." Hugh (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Also noteworthy: Bassett, Laura (October 15, 2014). "Scott Walker Dodges Questions On Abortion, Birth Control". The Huffington Post. Hugh (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The broader superior section "Political positions" relies heavily on direct quotes. When our coverage in WP is limited, we are asked to say so and why. Here our very ability to accurately summarize the political positions of the subject of this article is severely limited by the nature of the subject himself. A summary of the following source from Wisconsin's paper of record should be integrated into the lede paragraph of the "Political positions" section:

Marley, Patrick; Stein, Jason (March 2, 2015). "Behind Scott Walker's claim of doing what he says, a record of dropping bombshells". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Hugh (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC regarding massive changes

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

---

Hello. There has been a bit of dispute regarding some edits I made today to this article. This is the article just before I started editing it. Basically, I created a new page, Political positions of Scott Walker and moved some of the Gubernatorial stuff over there. After reaching consensus that that article was more about his time as Governor than his political positions, I created the Governorship of Scott Walker article. I have moved quite a bit of content from the main SW article to those two and have added quite a bit of new content to those articles as well. I left summaries behind at the main article and am trying to keep everything straight. (I've done a lot of going back and forth between pages.) Most of the political articles I've worked on have gone through this process (Everything from Rand Paul to Jeb Bush to Hillary Clinton) and I think it's better. Another editor was concerned with the massive change. Basically, is 3 articles better than 1? Should we return everything back to the main page (keeping some of the c/e I did) or keep it at three separate pages. (I apologize for the length of the explanation... It's been a long day of editing!) PrairieKid (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:RFC, what you have posted above is malformed and impossible to address in RFC format. What you need to do is to first respect WP:BRD and revert your changes. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, while the editor PrairieKid should read WP:RFC as suggested by Cwobeel, looking at the article WP:SIZERULE appears to apply. Now, other articles such as United States have violated the guideline and still achieved GA status, so its implementation is not universally applied. As Cwobeel as suggested BRD does appear to apply, and whether it was the best thing to split the article the way PrairieKid did is debatable, even if well meaning. May I suggest expanding on the subject here, and creating sub-articles when this article reaches over 100k of readable prose (which is not currently the case, while it is over 100k including references).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Commnet while the RfC is not properly formed, I would say that the article seems overly long and that another option to splitting it into separate articles would be to prune it back. There are sections such 2011 budget repair bill that could be cut back without losing the key points. There are other paragraphs that are overly wordy IMHO. Flat Out talk to me 02:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment This was already litigated, and it was determined there is no need for separate articles until we reach the limits of WP:SIZE - Cwobeel (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Scott Baio endorsement

Scott Baio endorsed Scott Walker, this endorsement was covered by ABC News, Politico, USA Today, the Chicago Suntimes, and Washington Post and others. It doesn't matter if somebody isn't a fan of the actor that gave the endorsement, the endorsement received significant coverage from a number of reliable and notable sources.

Who's saying I am not a fan of Scott Baio? Who isn't a fan of Baio?? (Kidding, I'm not.) The point is that he is no longer an important or influential individual, and his support cannot in any way be reflective of any trend or indication of any larger community supporting Walker, especially in the entertainment industry. It is like saying that Kristy McNichol and Polly Holliday support Elizabeth Warren for any position --- UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. Quis separabit? 02:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It's a goofy addition to a BLP. Just because there are RS refs for a factoid doesn't mean it has to be added. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't be and it should be vigorously opposed as nonsensical. When Brad Pitt endorses Walker, then we should include it. Quis separabit? 04:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It's fun trivia, and I'm glad it was at this talk page to learn about. Maybe at some point it will belong in a sub-article about endorsements of Walker. In the mean time, it does not seem significant enough for this Wikipedia article, even though Baio's career is by no means dead (those who think otherwise have not been watching Nick at Nite). Please note that Wikipedia did not hesitate to list the chefs and fashion designers endorsing President Obama's reelection.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Scott Walker which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Political positions

Te section currently is all about the candidacy to the presidential nomination and does not reflect the content of the main article. Tagged as such. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like there are 2 concerns:

1) Can you please elaborate on how stating his positions in the context of the next election is a problem? In any case, I think this concern can be addressed by changing the second sentence in the section to state:

Based on an analysis that includes Crowdpac's rating, public statements by candidates on issues, and congressional voting (not applicable to Walker), FiveThirtyEight rated Walker as more conservative than the average Republican in the 113th Congress (2013-2014) as of May 27, 2015.

2) The approach is similar to that taken for the bios of other politicians (e.g. John McCain, Hillary Clinton).

Regardless, I think having 2 tags on the section is unnecessary and excessive if both these concerns are being addressed in one section of Talk.CFredkin (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The political positions section needs to be a summary of the main article, per WP:SUMMARY. There is no way around it. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the contortions to advance your agenda. John McCain was a Featured Article, but apparently violated WP policy.CFredkin (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC) The fact that you're not steadfastly maintaining this line at Hillary Clinton is duly noted.CFredkin (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't edit Hillary Clinton. I prefer to edit conservative pols bios. More fun. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I have merged back the content here. There is no need to split as the size of this article does not warrant a split. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

See also above discussion on this very subject #RfC regarding massive changes - Cwobeel (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

In an effort to have a presidential campaign article in alignment with other presidential candidates, a political position section was created in the presidential campaign article. There was already some form of a political position section here. The political position section was then removed from the presidential campaign article and also the politican article and then spun off into its own article. I don't know who did that. That article was then removed, and the content was merged into the politician article, and now the presidential campaign article has zero reference to the political positions of the presidential candidate. The presidential campaign article is so small now, it's laughable. The presidential candidate political position segment was different, and if you didnt notice, the source of the material for some of it was a very recent article that was written specifically about the political position of the presidential candidate. If anybody is reading this please consider taking a moment to review some articles from other presidential candidates, and make some kind of good faith effort to have a presidential candidate article that is in alignment with that of other candidates, instead of removing all of the content and moving it here.MeropeRiddle (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There needs to be some kind of forked article on campaigns or positions taken. Not everything that's encyclopedic about a politician is fit for a BLP. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 12:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above but I think it is a tad early to model Walker's article on a McCain or a Hillary. I believe the subject of this article has an established pattern of saying one thing in a campaign and doing another in office, a tendency notable even for a politician, to the extent that I begin to question whether identifying the positions of his campaign can be encyclopedic rather than promotional. I worry about disconnecting his rhetoric from his actions in office. I see advantages to keeping everything in one place where we can all look at it and more easily evaluate it for consistency. I was disappointed at the lack of discussion prior to the recent fork. I was disappointed to see the recent fork taken as an opportunity for a little pointed subsection blanking. If and when we fork it should not be a POV fork. I supported the recent merge. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

We should fork only when there is a need to fork. And we have not reached that threshold yet. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)