Talk:Bob Casey Jr./Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

"Some Pennsylvania journalists and political pundits have expressed concerns over Casey's long term health." Who? This smacks of POV. Unless there's a link I think it should be removed.

POV?

The link is: [1] Robert Casey Jr. is in "excellent physical condition," but has decided not to have a blood test to determine if he carries the gene that caused the incurable disease which afflicted his late father, Gov. Robert Casey Sr...

Casey will not know if he is predisposed to the disease even though there is a 50-50 chance he has the gene. Half of those people who inherited the gene will get the disease..

another link:[2]

Casey must contend with another of his father's legacies.

His father died of a rare bone marrow disease known as familial amyloidosis, which forced Gov. Casey to undergo a life-saving heart and lung transplant...

Casey doesn't know if he is predisposed to the disease because he has never been tested...

Casey said 50 percent of the people with a relative who has the disease are likely to have the gene that causes amyloidosis and half of those will get the disease.

another:[3]

[Governor Casey] died five years later after frequent transplant-related infections. Mr. Casey lives with the possibility he'll have the disease, but is uninterested in taking the blood test...

"I guess I'm at an age where I don't want to know," [Bob Casey] says. "Ultimately I probably will (have the test), maybe when I'm in my 50s." Maybe by then, he says, gene-altering drugs will increase chances of survival without a transplant.

It's a legitimate topic being discussed in the Pennsylvania media. Excluding information about a topic cited numerous times in the press is NOPV.

I believe that the following statement is very subjective and open to different interpretations:

"However, Casey's views on abortion will help him gain the votes of moderate Republicans in the Philadelphia suburbs. Such moderate Republicans have played a pivotal role in many of the Democrats' recent victories in Pennsylvania."

This sound like pro-Casey political propaganda and would definately be challenged by both Sandals and Pennacchio, because Casey will lose just as many (if not more) votes from pro-choice Republicans and even more to the point, Democrats, than he would pick up anti-abortion votes from people who would probably vote for Santorum anyway.

I (meuu) believe that this page is too slanted in Casey's favor, and have challenged the neutrality of it therefore, with the "POV" graphic. It makes it sound like an undisputed fact, which it OBVIOUSLY IS NOT, that Casey will do better against Santorum than either of his primary opponents. Those who present this argument on this page make the obvious assumption that the issue of who can best defeat Santorum is the only relevant issue as to who is the best candidate; this line of reasoning is clearly rejected by many.

It is also implied that all Democrats are behind Casey, no matter what. The leaders are, true, but not all the voters are. Hoeffel, has made the issue of who can beat Santorum as the paramount issue even though Casey, unlike Hoeffel is extremely anti-abortion. Casey's father was not a loyal Democrat and refused to support Bill Clinton, solely because of the abortion issue.

Furthermore, it is implied that it is only the abortion which separates Casey from his primary opponents and that is clearly not the case. Certainly not in the minds of Pennacchio or Sandals.

Exactly how far to the right Casey really is, is certainly open to debate. Whether he is actually any less conservative than Santorum is open to debate. Casey has so far ignored both of his primary opponents entirely and therefore has not responded to the argument that he himself is far to the right. How can we know where he stands on the issues with this silence?

Why exactly is it surprising that Casey opposes school vouchers?


"Casey is said to have a more conservative viewpoint on politics than most Democrats"

Pretty POV he's pro-life/anti-abortion but all of his other viewpoints seem to be in line or if not slightly left of the centre of the democratic party eg. Opposition to cuts in Medicaid and opposition to drilling in the Artic wildlife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.232.169 (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Updated article

I have updated the article to reflect the fact that Casey is now the Democratic nominee and have removed an entire section about what a "controversial" candidate he is. Most of it read like POV pushing by primary opponents suggesting that he is too conservative or Santorum supporters trying to portray him as a secret liberal. Most of it was also rather repitious and just generally didn't make for a good encyclopedia article IMHO. I have condensed it into a few paragraphs about his senate bid with a link to the main article on the senate race. TMS63112 21:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Changed reference to homosexual adoption, which stated Casey opposed it, to accurately reflect his statement that he would oppose legislation that would prohibit it, and added link to PA Catholic Conference survey to give primary source (and see also here). Not sure why the same survey as linked later gives a different question and a different answer.

List of Offices that Casey Ran For

Can someone get a list of all the offices Casey has ran for?The article says that this is his 5th election in 9 years, but can we get a list of what the elections were for?

Bcody 01:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

His elections were for Auditor General (1996, 2000, won both), Governor (2002, lost in primary), Treasurer (2004, won), and U.S. Senator (2006). However, I think that all these races are already mentioned in the article and do not need to be listed after the referenced sentence. Bridge Partner 02:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a source for the 2002 Democratic Gubernatorial Primary results? These numbers don't make sense outside of Chicago:

Ed Rendell (D), 57% + Bob Casey, Jr. (D), 44% = 101% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.6.132 (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

PA Senate History

The article currently says that Casey is the first Senator elected "in his own right" since Joeseph Clark. I'm not so sure that this is accurate. Harris Wofford was appointed by Governor Casey in May of 1991. But, he won a special election in November of that year, defating former PA Governor Dick Thornburgh. As Wofford won the 1991 special election, couldn't he be considered as winning a U.S. Senate seat "in his own right"?

WayneNight 06:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That statement is in fact, incorrect. Wofford did indeed win a term in his own right over Dick Thornburgh in one of the most exciting Senate elections in PA history. Wofford was appointed by Governor Casey. The next Senate election was held, and Wofford won. Next go around he was defeated by Santorum. USER:lawrence142002

That special election was for the right to finish the last four years of John Heinz' third term. Wofford did try to run for a full term in '94--only to be defeated by Santorum.

On the other hand, Bob, Jr. was elected to a full six-year term. So he gets the nod.Blueboy96 20:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I added "to a full term"... best of both worlds, I think.


I took out the part about the "Red Roof Inn" story because it had no references, and the last line was blatantly POV. But if a reference can be found, I didn't have a problem with the presence of the story itself. --69.72.22.28 18:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Stusutcliffe 13:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • It seems to have made its way back into the page, so I added the proper wiki tag.

Naming

Would "Bobby Casey" be considered a significant name in addition to the three listed? His opponents, like Santorum, have frequently used it (claiming that it distinguishes him from his father, but it also acts as a diminutive because it sounds less serious; sort of like Republicans using the term "Democrat Party" as opposed to Democratic.) -Thermal0xidizer

Neutral?

The line "Casey might be best known for the acts of sabotage that he committed against Green Party Senate Candidate Carl Romanelli" doesn't seem very neutral. - Jord 15:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Eeep, how did that escape our radar for so long? That line is unsourced, is not supported by the rest of the content, so needs to go per WP:BLP. The rest of that pragraph is dubious at best: speculation and innuendo, with the only source being a self-published source (so much for "best known" in the first sentence). I am going to clean up that paragraph pronto, unless you beat me to it.
Good catch there. And thanks for elaborating the POV tag here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
---
Done. I'll take off the tag too. You can revert if you like but point out whatever else needs fixing here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
---
I also left a welcomeanon tag and an npov1 tag on the contributer's Talk page to welcome, encourage them to get an account and a gentle reminder to have a neutral point of view. Fortunately, that paragraph has only been around for three days. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No trivia section please

Please refrain from re-adding the trivia section into this article. Such sections are discouraged and the one snippet of information is, as far as I can see, totally unencyclopedic; rather it seems somewhat flippant and could be seen as a weaselly way of disparaging the subject without violating the biographies of living people policies. If someone can provide a reliable source for this factoid, and demonstrate its encyclopedic value (e.g., some context), then its can be incorporated into the appropriate place in the article (not into a trivia section). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 12:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely, and have removed the sentence (again). I think we would need to see some independant coverage of the comment in a different publication than where the comment was published. That would indicate notability of the comment itself. Cheers Kevin 04:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No Coverage of Casey's Failure to Do Anything About the Flood of Illegal Immigration into Pennsylvania

Whatever else one may say of PA's US Senators, Casey and Spector, they have both displayed a stunning lack of leadership in entirely failing to take any steps to protect PA from the flood of illegal immigration which has driven down wage levels, increased crime, resulted in many children of illegal aliens in PA's public schools, filled hospital emergency rooms with illegals, and generally altered the quality of life in many PA towns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.145.224 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Who let Lou Barletta on WP? Tomdobb (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Only Current Pro-Life Democratic Roman Catholic Senator

I think this fact should be mencioned. In all the 51 Democratic senators, only 4 are pro-life, and just one is a Roman Catholic.81.193.215.48 (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but this isn't for censorship. According to the articles about Democrats for Life of America and Catholicism and American Politics, there is just 4 pro-life Democratic senators, being 2 protestants, 1 mormon and 1 Roman Catholic. I can't understand easily why some people want to obliterate this, unless for purposes of "political correctness".85.243.71.176 (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems largely trivial to me, but I don't have a problem with it being included in the appropriate section with a reliable source attached to it. Tomdobb (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's trivial. The fact that for a political party in the past so much conotated with the Catholic Church like the Democratic Party, to see that nowdays there's just a Catholic that follows the doctrine of the Church in this polemical issue, seems relevant.82.154.84.68 (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it remains in the article for now. Unless another editor objects, I have no problem with it staying (providing it's sourced).Tomdobb (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have an undisputedly reputable source here. I think that the claim is probably right personally. But Wikipedia has standards and I don’t think they have been met yet. The one article talked about here, Catholicism and American Politics, is simply another Wiki entry!

Could one find a website, one officially affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church? I know the Vatican’s website wouldn’t bother to mention the positions of one American politician but how about the Senator’s home diocese? I suppose that the group, Democrats for Life of America, would be an acceptable source if one could find nothing else. But you’d have to provide a citation that links to a relevant page of their website.Nuada79 (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

FACT CHECK: "currently the only pro-life Roman catholic senator", what about Senator Sam Brownback? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.210.52 (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The only pro-life Democratic Party Roman Catholic senator. Read again, please.85.242.237.126 (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

ACORN funding

If I am correct in my thinking, only one of the two activists in question dressed up. The woman, not the man. And neither were seeking illegal help concerning financial matters. The ACORN workers offered legitimate help and the activists dubbed in their own voices later, as if they were in the office asking how to launder money.

I'm not sure how the section should be reworded but right now it almost reads as if the Senator approves of helping pimps and prostitutes cover up their activities. Some context here might be appropriate. The cite can be mistaken, as most news sources did not report the full, correct details at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaraSLR (talk • contribs) 22:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Health care

"Following in the footsteps of his father, who as Governor of Pennsylvania pioneered the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Senator Casey is in favor of expanded health insurance protections to all Americans." This reads like a peice of promotional literature for the Casey campaign. Also, "expanded health insurance protections to all Americans," is vague. The sentances following this are specific and sufficient. I suggest removal unless someone can provide a source or more detail.Npeters22 (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Bob Casey, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bob Casey, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Wording

"In 2011, Casey was rated by NARAL Pro-Choice America as "anti-choice" and was not endorsed in their election guide. That year, he voted against defunding Planned Parenthood, against H.R.1 and for cloture for the nomination of Goodwin Liu, earning him a 100% rating for those three votes.[40]"

I'm just curious - is this the wording we meant to use in this article (as in, NARAL said he's "anti-choice")? Is it trying to be facetious and pointing out that NARAL is portraying him as anti-choice but his actual policy votes in recent years have been pro-choice? I'm not sure it's actually coming across that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:7:1A66:AD35:6B59:C9EF:2D03 (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Bob Casey Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Future event

User:PrairieKid and I disagree about the inclusion of the following sentence, which I propose to remove:

He will become the longest serving Democratic Senator in Pennsylvania history should he finish his third term.

User:PrairieKid believes that the inclusion of this sentence is justified under WP:CRYSTAL as an event that is "almost certain to take place". I respectfully disagree with the assertion that Casey is "almost certain" to serve his entire six-year term beginning in 2019. Casey could be convicted of something, die (heaven forbid), step down to take a job in a future Democratic administration, or run for President in 2020 and win. SunCrow (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, I will just restate what I said in my edit summary. WP:CRYSTAL says events almost certain to take place are ok to be included. As of right now, we largely expect Casey to serve all three terms. (If you know something we don't regarding his presidential ambitions, health or corruption, do tell.) Crystal would be if we wrote something like "Casey is likely to win reelection to the Presidency in 2024" (obviously, a bit extreme) or "Casey has a good chance of winning the Iowa Democratic Caucus" (a bit less extreme). And, hell, even if he does not serve all the terms, the above statement is not untrue; if he served three terms, he would be the longest serving Senator. I have seen similar statements on several other BLPs, especially concerning politicians.
I should also defend the importance of such a sentence. Both for the history books and modern politics, Casey breaking that record is notable. Seniority is very important (as you, SunCrow, and I have discussed in other places), the potential political shift of Pennsylvania politics is important and many people find these records interesting and notable. Casey is becoming an important figure in Pennsylvania political history; it's statements like this that show the progression. PrairieKid (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I have no objection to including the information on Casey being the longest-serving senator from PA once it has happened. It is the inclusion of the information before it has happened that I object to. Also, the wording is a concern (i.e. Casey WILL become the longest serving vs. Casey WOULD become the longest serving, etc.). If we include this information at all, it should be phrased as a possibility instead of a certainty.
As to presidential possibilities, please see https://www.pennlive.com/news/2018/11/sen-bob-casey-tells-tv-station-hes-considering-presidential-bid.html and https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/15/casey-2020-run-993954. SunCrow (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any value in including this information now. It's a WP:CRYSTAL issue. If and when it is true, it can and should go into the article, but there's no need to speculatively include the material now, especially since it hasn't come to pass yet. There's no rush. Marquardtika (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Casey_Jr./Archive_1&oldid=1061348845"