Talk:Richard Blumenthal/Archive 2

Restored comments on military service controversy to 2010 campaign section

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

Although listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, this obviously is not an actual RFC. The !votes of the two users here were taken into context when closing the discussion below. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

---

I believe these details make better sense in the context of the 2010 campaign, which is when the supposed controversy occurred, rather than in the section on his actual military service, which ended in 1976. Billmckern (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The controversy relates to his military service, not his 2010 campaign. NickCT (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: Respectfully, I disagree. It happened in 2010, not 1976. And I explained that here and when I made the edit. I don't appreciate the suggestion that I made an unexplained edit. I might be wrong, but my reasoning is very clear.

Billmckern (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Usually in the edit summary one says "see talk page" to indicate you've explained your changes on the talk page. The controversy relates to his military and it has implications outside of the 2010 campaign.

I'm restoring the original ordering. Let's WP:BRD please. NickCT (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: Here's what I wrote in the comments on the article AT THE TIME I MADE MY EDITS: "‎Military service: Same comment as before. It's already in the 2010 campaign section" and "What he said regarding Vietnam already appears under 2010 campaign and doesn't need to be repeated. Also, if you're going to cite every time it sounded like he might have said he served in Vietnam, you should cite the many more times he didn't say that."

The problem is NOT where I made my comments, because I made them in the article edits AND on the article talk page. It's not MY fault if YOU didn't read what I wrote.

I still think I'm right about the best place to include the comments about the 2010 campaign "controversy" over Blumenthal's comments on his military service, but maybe we can see if anyone else wants to offer an opinion so that we can form a consensus.

Billmckern (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You left no edit summary in this edit.

You want to RfC this topic? Fastest way to get 2nd opinions. NickCT (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: Yes.

Billmckern (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Billmckern: - Take a look at WP:RfC bud. Read the part that says "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". We're not talking about "comments about the 2010 U.S. senate campaign controversy". We're discussing where we should put details about Blumenthal's description of his military service in Vietnam.

Do you need help phrasing things a little better? NickCT (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: I think my phrasing was spot on. You and I disagree about whether the news accounts about Blumenthal's description of his military service, which were published during the 2010 campaign, should be included in the section on the 2010 campaign or under the description of his military service, which took place from 1970 to 1976. I don't know how to phrase it any more clearly or neutrally than that. I think your comment here is simply a continuation of our disagreement.

Billmckern (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Billmckern: - You seem to agree that there are two topics here. 1) Blumenthal's description of his military service & 2) the 2010 U.S. senate campaign controversy that arose from Blumenthal's description.

In the RfC you describe the topic under dispute as being the 2010 campaign controversy. That's not the topic under dispute. The topic is Blumenthal's description of his military service, which relevant outside of the 2010 campaign. NickCT (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: What are you doing now - moving the goalposts? I said the content about the controversy over Blumenthal's military service references events that took place in 2010 and should be included under the heading about the 2010 campaign. You said it should be included under the heading about his military service, which took place from 1970 to 1976. That's been the whole point of this disagreement - unless you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Billmckern (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Billmckern: - I'm not arguing we shouldn't mention the 2010 controversy in the 2010 Campaign section. What I'm saying is that the broader controversy concerning how Blumenthal has described his military service should be mentioned in the military service section.

Just so I understand, are you arguing that we shouldn't mention the controversy in the Military Service section, or are you arguing that we should mention it in the 2010 Campaign Section, or are you arguing both? NickCT (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: I've argued all along that it should be mentioned only once, and that it makes more sense to include it as part of the 2010 campaign.

Billmckern (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Billmckern: - Still a little confused why something which was relevant outside of the 2010 campaign, should be relegated to the 2010 campaign section. You realize the comments that caused the actual controversy itself happened well before the 2010 campaign? Additionally the service that he didn't do, didn't happen in the 1970's (work your way through that sentence ;-p ). And you realize the controversy re-arose recently with a mention from Trump?

So your rationale seems to be that we ought to confine things to the 2010 campaign section b/c that's when the Times initially highlighted the issue? Why confine something that played out from 1970 to 2017 under one section? NickCT (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: Blumenthal's military service ended in 1976. No one accused him of misrepresenting his service until 2010. It seems logical to me that accusations first made in the 2010 campaign belong under the heading of the 2010 campaign.

Billmckern (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Billmckern: - Do you acknowledge that the issue was noted after the 2010 campaign and outside the context of the 2010 campaign? NickCT (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: Well, yeah. And I think any references to mentions of this so-called controversy post-2010 ought to be included in the relevant post-2010 section(s), where they'd be chronologically accurate and in the correct context.

Billmckern (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

- @Billmckern: - Well listen, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the "write chronologically" argument. For minor, discrete events, it probably is more appropriate to write chronologically. The problem is, this doesn't seem like a discrete event (a point I think you agree with). As I'd mentioned before, the controversy and the events that led to it could be said to have taken place from the 1970's to today. NickCT (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: We disagree. The FIRST time Blumenthal's military service was ever raised as a "controversy" was in 2010! That's THIRTY-FOUR years AFTER his service ended. In my view, talking in the context of 1970-1976 about an event that happened in 2010 doesn't make sense.

Billmckern (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Billmckern: - There wasn't an "event" in 2010 though. There was a "report" (i.e. the NYT story) about "events" which happened outside of 2010. NickCT (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: Yeah -- and the details of that reporting which happened as part of the 2010 campaign belong in the section about the 2010 campaign. Because the reports happened in 2010. And pertained to the campaign. In 2010. Not 1976.

Billmckern (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Billmckern: - We can certainly say in the 2010 section that the 2010 NYT report happened. But the details of the report cover things that happened outside the context of the 2010 campaign. For example, the 2008 Norwalk speech Blumenthal gave, in which he said he'd been to Vietnam, was not related to the 2010 campaign, and hence shouldn't be include in the 2010 campaign section. NickCT (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: I give up. Every time Blumenthal is in the news, people cover the article with "stolen valor" arguments. It seems sensible to me that that story needs to be mentioned only once -- not in both the military service and 2010 campaign sections. It should include relevant details like the fact that the McMahon campaign fed the story to the New York Times, and there were many more occasions where he characterized his service correctly than there were occasions where he said something that could have been construed as claiming he served in Vietnam. And if it should be mentioned only once, it seems to me that the 2010 campaign section makes the most sense.

Clearly I'm not persuasive where you're concerned. We're not going to resolve this between us, and since that's the case I don't see the sense in spending any more of my time on it. I'll move on to something where I can (hopefully) be more productive.

Billmckern (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Billmckern:

re "the McMahon campaign fed the story to the New York Times" - Citation?

re "people cover the article with "stolen valor" arguments" - That's how the NYT portrayed it. Isn't it appropriate we follow the sources?

re " there were many more occasions ... that could have been construed as claiming he served in Vietnam" - That's sorta a stunning argument. Isn't that like defending a thief by saying "Well, there were many more occasions when he wasn't stealing things".

re "We're not going to resolve this between us" - I'm really just trying to understand your POV. You seem to agree that this controversy didn't exist solely in the context of the 2010 Campaign, yet you feel that we should keep all information about in that section. Difficult to understand. NickCT (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: A reasonable interpretation is that the McMahon campaign fed this story to the New York Times. "McMahon Strikes. Turns Blumenthal into Bruce Caputo". In this story, the author says the story originated with McMahon; the Times editors later said they had received the video and other details from the McMahon campaign, but that they had initiated the story on their own. The Times disclaimer is here: "The Candidate and the War".

I don't mean "cover" as in a news outlet reporting on a story. I mean "cover" as in every time Blumenthal's name is in the media, partisan conservatives cover the whole Wikipedia article with claims of stolen valor -- the lede, the military service section, the 2010 campaign section, the Senate service section... As I stated, I think the "controversy" over his comments needs to be covered only once, and in my view the best single place to include those details is in the 2010 campaign section. The additions to multiple sections of the article every time he's in the news are just vandalism for the sake of partisan politics.

I completely disagree that including details where Blumenthal spoke correctly about his service shouldn't be included. They SHOULD be. The comparison to a thief claiming not to be a thief isn't accurate. A more accurate comparison would be someone who isn't a thief who once or twice said something which kind of, sort of, sounded like he might have said he had stolen something, and then someone else using that as "proof" that he really was a thief, while ignoring all the other times he accurately said he wasn't.

I don't think I can make myself any more clear (clearer?). I think the claims that Blumenthal said he served "in Vietnam" should be covered, but not given more coverage than they warrant. In the interest of fairness, the fact that these claims possibly (probably) originated with an opposing campaign ought to be included, as should the fact that Blumenthal characterized his service correctly far more times that the number of times he supposedly didn't.

17:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)~

@Billmckern: - Daily Ructions is a reliable source? Looks more like some random thing you'd pull off the net to confirm your own views. I'm surprised you'd characterize the Times piece you cite as a "disclaimer". They clearly seem to refute the idea that McMahon fed them the story. Have you read the article?

re "lede, the military service section, the 2010 campaign section, the Senate service section" - The edit we're discussing now is purely whether it should go in the "military service" section.

re " thief who once or twice said something which kind of" - That analogy doesn't make sense. The question is whether Blumenthal lied about or misrepresented his military service. Not whether he did or did not serve in the military. Saying someone told the truth about an event 7 out of 10 times, doesn't really mean they should be forgiven for the 3 times they lied.

re ""in Vietnam" should be covered, but not given more coverage than they warrant." - Strikes me as though you're trying to bury the lead. Not sure why, but it may have something to do with your oddly forgiving views on Blumenthal's behavior. NickCT (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@NickCT: I'm out. It's very clear that this discussion isn't going anywhere.

Billmckern (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2017 (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.

Request for comments on where to place military service controversy

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

The consensus of the editors who commented is in favor of covering this topic in the U.S. Senate - 2010 election section. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

---

One contributor, NickCT, suggests that comments about the 2010 U.S. senate campaign controversy concerning Blumenthal's military service should be included in the military service section of the article. The other, Billmckern thinks these details should be included in the article's section on the 2010 campaign. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Thanks,

Billmckern (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Content regarding his military service should be included in the military section. Meatsgains (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The content should be in the section about the 2010 campaign. A cross-reference in the appropriate place in the military service section using {{See above}} or {{See below}} to the 2010 campaign section would be appropriate. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 15:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I think it belongs in the 2010 Senatorial campaign section both because the controversy came to light during the campaign and because it isn't actually about his service but about comments he made later that were untrue. On another note, the disputed text needs work. Blumenthal didn't "misspeak"; he claimed to have been in Vietnam when he wasn't. "In Vietnam" does not need to be quoted. The partial sentence, "There were also other occasions when his description of his military service seemed to insinuate that he'd been to Vietnam" should be "imply" rather than "insinuate" because the latter is highly POV. "He'd" should be "he had". Finally, this is just a list of places where he implied he'd been in Vietnam; how did this affect the campaign? Was this a controversy reported initially by the NYT and picked up by the opponent, or was the opponent the one that discovered it? (I'm not actually expecting answers, but they're things I'd think about if I was rewriting that part) Ca2james (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Campaign section. Redundancy in multiple sections is poor encyclopedia writing. The issue has connections to multiple areas, but it is most clearly and most strongly tied as the political controversy. If neither section existed, I do not believe we would create a military section to contain only-this. If neither section existed, I believe we would create a political controversy section to contain only-this. I don't think that calculus is changed by the fact that both sections already do exist with other content. Alsee (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2018 (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.

Once again, I am concerned with the tone and language used to describe this mans lies. Why does it seem that Liberal individuals have "toned down" language which almost admonishes them for their crimes and lies while conservative individuals are chastised and use harsh language used against them even for basic accusations. This is becoming a huge problem on Wikipedia and is one of the main reasons the site has lost credibility.

Orphaned references in Richard Blumenthal

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Richard Blumenthal's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "forbes":

• From Under Our Skin: Whelan, David (March 12, 2007). "Lyme Inc". Forbes. Retrieved January 7, 2010.
• From Bill Ackman: "William Ackman profile". Forbes. Retrieved February 12, 2018. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
• From Infectious Diseases Society of America: Whelan, David (2007-03-12). "Lyme Inc". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2007-05-03. Retrieved 2008-06-24. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Chronic Lyme disease: Whelan, David (2007-03-12). "Lyme Inc". Forbes. Retrieved 2008-06-24.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Vietnam Veteran Claims

Why isn't there anything about Blumenthal's "mis-statements" he was a Vietnam Veteran? In fact he never even left the state of Connecticut. I think you got to stamp the word "biased" on the whole article if that isn't in there. That's apart of his record and it belongs in there. --24.177.0.156 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You must have accidentally overlooked this passage in the article Richard Blumenthal#Misrepresenting military service allegations.

Billmckern (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is obviously being scrubbed by political operatives. Blumenthal is a goddamned liar, he committed fraud for political advantage, and he belongs behind bars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4F00:F2:45A5:FEF2:6D5C:8504 (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The didn't over look it, because it has been deleted. This article is extremely biased. 2604:2000:1403:4F2:BC3F:AB41:E2E7:9F10 (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Offered without comment: "Trump pretends he was in the military during White House reception". Raw Story, December 11, 2019. ""Like we used to say in the military, make a path," Trump said."

Billmckern (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Billmckern -- this article isn't about Trump so there was no reason for you to "Whataboutism" by bringing him up. His article has that anyway as this is wikipedia and the operatives make sure to sling mud at anyone to the right of Vladimir Lenin or Stalin. This article is a propaganda article as it currently stands, but no surprise, Blumenthal is a Democrat so of course a turd like him is polished as much as possible, which means leaving out facts like him being a fraud who never served over seas. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:A845:94E1:7A2A:8EDF (talk)

Section on Vietnam controversy seems disproportionately long

I added a {recentism} tag to the section on the Vietnam controversy. The length of this section seems vastly disproportionate, going into a blow-by-blow account of all the events (and the spin on both sides) over the past week. I think a discussion of this length would be excessive even in, say, the article on the 2010 Connecticut Senate race, to say nothing of the article on Blumenthal.

I'd suggest trimming this down to a single paragraph. I think we could boil it down to a statement that he had in the past given speeches in which he seemed to have claimed to serve in Vietnam (with a ref to the NYT article that broke the story), and a sentence about his response in the press conference (with a link to an article about that). If people want more details, they can go to Wikinews, or any of the interweb's fine news-providing organizations. -- Narsil (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That will eventually happen. Right now the story is a hot topic and everyone wants to post the latest revelations, even though some will be redundant. That is rampant throughout WP in the first week of information. I don't know if one paragraph will suffice, however, it will eventually get trimmed down. Victor9876 (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough! I figure the {recentism} tag will serve to remind someone to trim this down when the time comes. But that time needn't be just now. -- Narsil (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters is harshly partisan. That entire paragraph can go, in my opinion. The Vietnam controversy is not a flash in the pan. Recently, Blumenthal's notability arises almost entirely from this controversy. Even real political junkies can't name any Senate nominees who aren't already in the Senate, with two exceptions: Richard Blumenthal and Joe Sestak. So I think the May 20 version[1] I created was a good compromise. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to try working on this article. I believe my May 20 version was pretty good, and I haven't seen any argument against that in three days. I'm going to go ahead and restore that version, with some slight modifications from the subsequent editing, such as moving the reference to the swimming team, which I thought was a good idea. But generally, expansion of the section since May 20 and removal of any mention of this controversy from the article lede is not a good idea. The lede needed more information; but in the Vietnam section, we can have such a thing as too much information. I think we need to find representative quotes from across the publication spectrum. But we don't need a quote from every publication that ever had anything to say about it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to combine your reversion with some of my May 21 edits [2] to make it a little more succinct. For example, that USA Today quote is superfluous, and identifying the Huffington Post as "from the left" is needless editorializing. —Designate (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing is basically 1 sentence under the military section. The facts alone certainly merit much more explanation. Let alone the analysis of the different POVs . Right now this is underrepresented which leads me to think a Strong POV permeates the article. 2604:2000:1403:4F2:BC3F:AB41:E2E7:9F10 (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tag

I see that a neutrality disputed tag was added to this article in August. It directs readers to the talk page for the article to obtain additional details, but I see nothing here on the talk page about that tag. Should it be removed, or does someone want to explain what's not neutral about the article?

Billmckern (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Billmckern. The tagger did put in details, then removed them. You're free to remove it per NPOV dispute as there has been no discussion. Markvs88 (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Where is the wealth from?

Nothing in his career as stated here explains how one could get to this kind of wealth. Did he inherit it? Is it his wife's? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Anvilaquarius: Fixed.

Billmckern (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Vietnam Veteran Claims

Why isn't there anything about Blumenthal's "mis-statements" he was a Vietnam Veteran? In fact he never even left the state of Connecticut. I think you got to stamp the word "biased" on the whole article if that isn't in there. That's apart of his record and it belongs in there. --24.177.0.156 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You must have accidentally overlooked this passage in the article Richard Blumenthal#Misrepresenting military service allegations.

Billmckern (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for comments on where to place military service controversy

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

The consensus of the editors who commented is in favor of covering this topic in the U.S. Senate - 2010 election section. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

---

One contributor, NickCT, suggests that comments about the 2010 U.S. senate campaign controversy concerning Blumenthal's military service should be included in the military service section of the article. The other, Billmckern thinks these details should be included in the article's section on the 2010 campaign. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Thanks,

Billmckern (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Content regarding his military service should be included in the military section. Meatsgains (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The content should be in the section about the 2010 campaign. A cross-reference in the appropriate place in the military service section using {{See above}} or {{See below}} to the 2010 campaign section would be appropriate. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 15:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I think it belongs in the 2010 Senatorial campaign section both because the controversy came to light during the campaign and because it isn't actually about his service but about comments he made later that were untrue. On another note, the disputed text needs work. Blumenthal didn't "misspeak"; he claimed to have been in Vietnam when he wasn't. "In Vietnam" does not need to be quoted. The partial sentence, "There were also other occasions when his description of his military service seemed to insinuate that he'd been to Vietnam" should be "imply" rather than "insinuate" because the latter is highly POV. "He'd" should be "he had". Finally, this is just a list of places where he implied he'd been in Vietnam; how did this affect the campaign? Was this a controversy reported initially by the NYT and picked up by the opponent, or was the opponent the one that discovered it? (I'm not actually expecting answers, but they're things I'd think about if I was rewriting that part) Ca2james (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Campaign section. Redundancy in multiple sections is poor encyclopedia writing. The issue has connections to multiple areas, but it is most clearly and most strongly tied as the political controversy. If neither section existed, I do not believe we would create a military section to contain only-this. If neither section existed, I believe we would create a political controversy section to contain only-this. I don't think that calculus is changed by the fact that both sections already do exist with other content. Alsee (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2018 (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.

Section on Vietnam controversy seems disproportionately long

I added a {recentism} tag to the section on the Vietnam controversy. The length of this section seems vastly disproportionate, going into a blow-by-blow account of all the events (and the spin on both sides) over the past week. I think a discussion of this length would be excessive even in, say, the article on the 2010 Connecticut Senate race, to say nothing of the article on Blumenthal.

I'd suggest trimming this down to a single paragraph. I think we could boil it down to a statement that he had in the past given speeches in which he seemed to have claimed to serve in Vietnam (with a ref to the NYT article that broke the story), and a sentence about his response in the press conference (with a link to an article about that). If people want more details, they can go to Wikinews, or any of the interweb's fine news-providing organizations. -- Narsil (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That will eventually happen. Right now the story is a hot topic and everyone wants to post the latest revelations, even though some will be redundant. That is rampant throughout WP in the first week of information. I don't know if one paragraph will suffice, however, it will eventually get trimmed down. Victor9876 (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough! I figure the {recentism} tag will serve to remind someone to trim this down when the time comes. But that time needn't be just now. -- Narsil (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters is harshly partisan. That entire paragraph can go, in my opinion. The Vietnam controversy is not a flash in the pan. Recently, Blumenthal's notability arises almost entirely from this controversy. Even real political junkies can't name any Senate nominees who aren't already in the Senate, with two exceptions: Richard Blumenthal and Joe Sestak. So I think the May 20 version[3] I created was a good compromise. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to try working on this article. I believe my May 20 version was pretty good, and I haven't seen any argument against that in three days. I'm going to go ahead and restore that version, with some slight modifications from the subsequent editing, such as moving the reference to the swimming team, which I thought was a good idea. But generally, expansion of the section since May 20 and removal of any mention of this controversy from the article lede is not a good idea. The lede needed more information; but in the Vietnam section, we can have such a thing as too much information. I think we need to find representative quotes from across the publication spectrum. But we don't need a quote from every publication that ever had anything to say about it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to combine your reversion with some of my May 21 edits [4] to make it a little more succinct. For example, that USA Today quote is superfluous, and identifying the Huffington Post as "from the left" is needless editorializing. —Designate (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing is basically 1 sentence under the military section. The facts alone certainly merit much more explanation. Let alone the analysis of the different POVs . Right now this is underrepresented which leads me to think a Strong POV permeates the article. 2604:2000:1403:4F2:BC3F:AB41:E2E7:9F10 (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Richard Blumenthal

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Richard Blumenthal's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "forbes":

• From Under Our Skin: Whelan, David (March 12, 2007). "Lyme Inc". Forbes. Retrieved January 7, 2010.
• From Bill Ackman: "William Ackman profile". Forbes. Retrieved February 12, 2018. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)
• From Infectious Diseases Society of America: Whelan, David (2007-03-12). "Lyme Inc". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2007-05-03. Retrieved 2008-06-24. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Chronic Lyme disease: Whelan, David (2007-03-12). "Lyme Inc". Forbes. Retrieved 2008-06-24.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tag

I see that a neutrality disputed tag was added to this article in August. It directs readers to the talk page for the article to obtain additional details, but I see nothing here on the talk page about that tag. Should it be removed, or does someone want to explain what's not neutral about the article?

Billmckern (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Billmckern. The tagger did put in details, then removed them. You're free to remove it per NPOV dispute as there has been no discussion. Markvs88 (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Where is the wealth from?

Nothing in his career as stated here explains how one could get to this kind of wealth. Did he inherit it? Is it his wife's? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Anvilaquarius: Fixed.

Billmckern (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

New lead image

Following suit with Dick Durbin and Bernie Sanders, these outdated official portraits from a decade ago should be replaced with recent images. Here's some potential replacements and let's vote as to whether we should change the image. I favor B or D. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• 
  Option A (current; 2011)
• 
  Option B (2017)
• 
  Option C (2017)
• 
  Option D (2018)

Early political career

How does this relate to Blumenthal's early political career?

"Blumenthal clearly showed his true political colors on Dec. 14, 2021 when he attended the Communist Party USA Awards Ceremony in his Senate State of Connecticut. As a reminder his net worth of approximately $100 million was made under a Capitalist system of government. Blumenthal is a true Communist." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:2b00:8d3f:f600:6183:94ab:f7fe:566 (talk • contribs) 10:24, December 15, 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't. That was WP:Vandalism. Thanks for pointing it out, I have removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)