Talk:Mark Begich

Croatian Americans category

I have removed him from the Croatian Americans category, pending a discussion on whether that is accurate is pending at Talk:List of Croatian Americans. --TommyBoy 21:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Despite the unresolved question, he has since been restored to the category. --TommyBoy (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1994 Anchorage Mayor election results

I recently contacted User:Zero Gravitas, regarding the 1994 Anchorage Mayor election results. Unfortunately, he was unable to provide an answer to my question. For more information, see his UserTalk page. Any assistance from other users would be appreciated. --TommyBoy 02:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

On further Googling I've found a 2000 Peninsula Clarion article which has partial first round results, but still nothing about the runoff, which is what counts... —Zero Gravitas 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

POV? Needs citation

"He has consistently raised taxes and granted substantial wage increases to municipal employees."

I'm removing this sentence for now - but if it is factually true, someone should feel free to put it back in, with citation. As a relative outsider (I live in California) this strikes me as a potentially POVish statement, especially since none of Begich's other actions as Mayor are included in the article. Eeblet (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is true and easily found in documents from the city and or articles from public records. Also, it should be added he is under extreme pressure (under 35% approval ratings) and under investigation for fraudulent acts as mayor (like misleading the city council on deals he made to local unions etc.) Ran the city of Anchorage into a 30Million dollar hole.........how about some of you LIBERALS here on WIKI do you dam work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.190.18 (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Under his mayoral leadership, the Begich administration as falsified and destroyed public records, lied to federal investigations, corrupted investigations, intimidated witnesses, falsified municipal investigations, tampered with evidence, betrayed oaths of office (countless times), denied others their constitutional rights (countless times), corrupted Internal Audit reports, knowingly and intentionally continued felonious crimes, committed perjury, received and given bribes, and on, and on, and on...

His administration committed countless crimes against the public with collusion, coercion, and extortion, including the Municipal Manager, Municipal Attorney, Director of Employee Relations, Director of Internal Audit, etc., all of whom are his mayoral appointees.

In less than 6 years as mayor, the municipal budget was increased by 55%. His campaign for the senate included claims of having increased jobs and eliminated the debt when in reality, he devastated our city and left us with a huge deficit.

Hopefully, Begich will be the next Alaskan politician prosecuted for corruption. If he isn't, it won't because of a lack of evidence, lack of culpability, or my lack of effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.190.18 (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a forum. This page is for discussion of improvements to the article, not for personal opinions on its subject. --skew-t (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The anonymous editor (with a Wasilla, AK IPN address, 66.58.190.18) had a prior history of massive, inappropriate deletions of content from Wikipedia articles such as Wendy's and Stephen Hawking, replacing well-vetted content with vulgarisms and pornographic graphics. Activist (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Dang!

I just want to compliment the wiki users. That was really, really fast update about the senate election.Saberwolf116 (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Political Positions

Anyone happen to know exactly what this guy believes? Senator's websites are always very vague and amorphous so I don't really think that can provide much insight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.224.157 (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You can check here Mark Begich from On the Issues - Lestatdelc (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Recount

Resolved

Is it sure, that Stevens doesn't request recount? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.54.42.174 (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ted Stevens had conceded defeat, so the prior question is obsolete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.54.6.114 (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Added resolved tag as the question of a recount is, as noted above, moot. Lestatdelc (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Croatia or Austria - Hungary

"His Croatian paternal grandfather John Begich immigrated to the United States from Austria–Hungary in 1911".

What's this about "immigrated to the United States from Austria–Hungary". I'm not going to revert as I doubt anyone really cares, but there are no encyclopedias that say, for example, "born in Austria-Hungary". It's not really a 'place', in the sense of any identity. Saying Austria-Hungary is much like saying someone born at the same time was born in the British Empire rather than Ireland or India. I will watch this article with amused interest. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

His paternal grandfather immigrated form the Austria-Hungary empire, which Croatia was a part of still in 1911. It gained independence in 1918 when the Austria-Hungary Empire desolved as a result of WWI. If you click through the link itself, it is the article on that specific national entity, of which Croatia, where Begich's grandfather came from, was still a part of. Lestatdelc (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Senate

Do not show Begich as the incumbent until he officially takes office on January 6.Saberwolf116 (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

GovSource reference makes no mention of Begich being a moderate Democrat. I've updated the reference to reflect current language.CFredkin (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the quotation marks that were added to Mr. Ruedrich's statement about the Justice department being corrupt. While I'm not endorsing his statement, it is improper for a Wikipedia editor to change a quote without brackets to indicate a change from the original statement. Putting quotations around 'corrupt' implies that the speaker is not agreeing with the term; as Mr. Ruedich is a Republican partisan speaking about what he considered the illegitimate election of a Democrat, I have no doubt that he meant the word exactly as he said it and as it was reported in the cited article. DoctorEric (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Unsupported Claims?

This article currently includes the claim that "Begich's political views are considered to be moderate", which is not supported by the source. Any reliable sources for this? Or is it synthesis?

Also, the article includes an un-sourced claim that Begich supports drilling in ANWR. Any reliable sources for this?CFredkin (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

See Anchorage Daily News June 12, 2008: http://www.adn.com/article/20080612/begich-opening-anwr-key-energy-plan Activist (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The article mentioned that Begich was born in 1962, elected to the Assembly at age 26, and then stepped down from the assembly after serving three years in 1988. Arithmetic indicates some errors in chronology.

Additionally, the first paragraph of the article indicated that he was elected mayor by a margin of 11 votes, but the details below indicate he was elected by an 8% margin. Again, assuming that there were more than 150 voters in Alaska's most populous city, arithmetic indicates an error. 66.58.154.96 (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that the following list of campaign points is appropriate in the lead for this article. If it's going to stay in, we should add his support for PPACA.

"He is pro-choice, supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, gun rights, same-sex marriage, and opposes the Patriot Act."CFredkin (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say he served three years in the Assembly; it says he was chairman for three years. Obviously you have to serve for some time before becoming chairman. The "eleven votes" quote is an obvious error which can be removed (he won by eleven votes over the victory margin, not eleven votes over his opponents). —Designate (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Carbon Tax

Begich's support for a carbon tax is well documented, as shown here and here. This is notable due to the importance of the energy industry to his home state and also based on the fact that it is referenced in multiple reliable sources.CFredkin (talk)

As noted below, it's election year robo-calls and attacks by the NRSC. Not really due weight or NPOV for the article, especially in the context you want to add it. Members of the oil and energy industry want it to be an issue, and really shouldn't be adding it to articles. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's sourced to Forbes and Politico (among others), and the Forbes article doesn't mention the robo-calling. That definitely seems due weight. I'm merely noting his votes on the issue. However, I think the statement can be streamlined as follows:

In March 2013, Begich voted for an amendment by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse “to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to ensuring that all revenue from a fee on carbon pollution is returned to the American people".  He also voted against an amendment by Senator Roy Blunt which would have required 60 votes to establish a carbon tax in the future.

I agree with Dave, reporting in Begich's article what the NRSC are attacking him over is not relevant. Tiller54 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's another source from the Anchorage Daily News which testifies to the notability of the votes in Alaska.CFredkin (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a letter to the editor from one of the paper's readers. It's nothing of the sort. Tiller54 (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course, and it was published in a WP:reliable source. So far, I've provided articles from Forbes and Political and a letter to the editor from the Anchorage Daily News to indicate notability.CFredkin (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

jAlso, the edit does not making any claims regarding Begich's support for a carbon tax. It merely presents the votes.CFredkin (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A letter to the editor is not a notable source. An op-ed by a Forbes contributor (which is something anyone can be) is not a notable source. Reporting on what the NRSC are attacking him over is not appropriate. Tiller54 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, campaign claims from before he was elected regarding his support for drilling in ANWR definitely don't cut it. That may have been acceptable before he was elected, since he hadn't held state or national office before and hadn't had a chance to actually do something about the issue. But now that he's been in office for 5 years, the fact that he has not actually done anything about the issue overrides any statements he made in his prior campaign.CFredkin (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

He still holds the same position, that it should be opened for drilling. This is actually relevant to his bio. The fact that he "has not actually done anything about it" is because a single Senator can't do something like that. His support for gay marriage is also still relevant, despite it still being banned in Alaska. Tiller54 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A single senator can initiate a bill. That would count as action. I'd also like to point out how ridiculous it is that you're arguing that actual votes (mentioned in multiple, reliable, secondary sources) are not notable in his bio, but campaign statements are.CFredkin (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Two of your sources are not reliable, the third is reporting on what the NRSC are attacking him over. Ads by campaign committees that twist votes to suit their narrative don't belong on any candidate's page. Tiller54 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As for ANWR, there is now a third reliable source detailing his support for drilling there. If you'd like to carry on adding NRSC talking points to a bio of Begich, may I suggest you edit this page instead. Tiller54 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I accept the Alaska Public Media citation that you added re ANWR drilling. However it's still ridiculous that you're defending mere rhetoric from Begich regarding ANWR and being pro-choice, but rejecting statements regarding actual votes from reliable, secondary sources. Which 2 exactly of the following sources is unreliable for the carbon tax votes: Forbes, Politico, and Anchorage Daily News?CFredkin (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"mere rhetoric from Begich regarding being pro-choice"? What on earth are you on about? Even a cursory glance of the sources shows that he has a pro-choice record. If you really don't understand why a letter to the editor is not a reliable source, you really shouldn't be here. Tiller54 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question....CFredkin (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC) What's the 2nd supposedly unreliable source above? And where does it say at WP:reliable source that letters to the editor published in reliable sources are not reliable?CFredkin (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and read WP:RS and you'll find the answer to your question. Tiller54 (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Unbelievable. You've got to be kidding me. Same as I've stated below and here. Dave Dial (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record, my proposed edit (in the shaded box above) would include 3 secondary sources and 2 primary sources. The 3 secondary sources are Forbes, Politico, and the Anchorage Daily News. You object to the Politico source because it references robo-calling, the Forbes article because you don't like the author, and the ADN source because it's a letter to the editor which you claim is unreliable (although you're unable to reference the specific policy that supports that claim).CFredkin (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Politico article is reporting on the NRSC's robopolls, which is not relevant to Begich's page. The letter that was in a newspaper and the Forbes article fail WP:RS, as you've had explained to you several times now. To quote: "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors... The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: [including] the creator of the work (the writer, journalist)." Thus, a letter from Some Bloke to a newspaper fails WP:RS. An article by a Forbes contributor - not a journalist, a contributor, which anyone can become and publish anything, without oversight - also fails WP:RS. If you'd actually read WP:RS, you'd have understood why. Tiller54 (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Election year robo-calls

This edit seems like election year politics, not really enough importance to include in the article. Perhaps if it becomes a deciding factor in the upcoming election, it can be added with analysis, but now just seems to be a blip. Dave Dial (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

See discussion above in "Carbon Tax".CFredkin (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Emissions Control

The comment for reverting this edit indicated that one source is out of date and the other is not reliable. One source is to Begich's 2008 campaign web site. If there's some indication from a reliable source that he's changed his stance on cap-and-trade, then we can note that. But I don't believe a definitive statement on his support can be considered to expire.

Why would the Washington Examiner not be considered reliable?CFredkin (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If his 2008 site said that he supports cap and trade (or anything else), then we can confidently say that that was his position in 2008. But I think it's extrapolating to say that because that was his position then, then it is most certainly his position now. And in any case, saying that the cited text confirms that Begich supports cap and trade is a stretch even from the most charitable point of view.

Re: the Washington Examiner, I think it falls right on the line of RS and partisan publication. But the cited article in particular reads a lot like an opinion column (and, to the previous point, actually states that Begich "denies ever supporting" a carbon tax.) Arbor8 (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you make some fair points. However the statement on his web site is pretty definitive:

"Mark Begich will support national legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 through a cap and trade system."

I'll take another shot at editing based on your input.CFredkin (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

New edits look good to me. Arbor8 (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Tenure

A previous editor posted a comment derived from a Washington Free Beacon article, going beyond the charges in that article to claim, in a clear violation of BLP and NPOV guidelines that an Alaskan lobbyist had bribed the Senator to obtain funding for a geothermal project. The article also claimed the utility had gone bankrupt, when it had in fact reorganized, divesting the geothermal project in the process. However, all three members of the Alaska delegation had supported the earmark and all received campaign contributions from the lobbyist, who represented numerous utilities and municipalities throughout Alaska, led in the period 2009-2014 by Rep. Don Young with $7,100, followed by Senator Lisa Murkowski ($5,500) and Begich ($5,100), per Open Secrets. Activist (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Disputed content

User:Somedifferentstuff, please follow WP:BRD here and enumerate your edits for discussion in Talk. Thanks.CFredkin (talk)

RFC for content attributed to votesmart.org

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.

---

Trying to determine whether or not this is 1) a reliable source, and 2) not a violation of WP:UNDUE -- Here is the material as it currently appears in the article.

In all of his 6 years in the US Senate Beigich has received a 100% rating from abortion-proponents NARAL and a 0% rating from abortion-opponents NRLC. ---- here is the source

Comments

Looking at it closer, the source appears reliable, but having the above material in the article is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE as it is not attributed to any other source than this website. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that votesmart is reliable, I've never heard of a problem with them, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. I don't think that stating the candidate's position on abortion is undue. Juno (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The article already states his position on abortion here. This RFC is discussing the additional material above. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Using it to make your own decisions, it may be ok. But using it as a reliable source to insert into an article is original research and synthesis. Kind of like using links to votes at .gov websites. It's OR and synthesis. We need a secondary reliable source to indicate this information is notable, we can't do our own research on a site like Votesmart and then insert it into a BLP. That's a no-no. Dave Dial (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Which part is SYNTH? Juno (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You extrapolated multiple portions of the link, combined them and made your own interpretation. One can't help but use OR and SYNTH when using those kinds of websites. Both sides do it, as well as the .gov links. It does not conform to Wikipedia policies. Just use secondary reliable sources to show the notability of the votes. Not, opponent ran this ad and this website shows this. Dave Dial (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC) (Added after comment, but before response) Also, you claim WP:BRD as a reason to make a revert, except you were the one who changed content first. So per BRD, you need to discuss before changing. Dave Dial (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" The above source states his rating from NRLC and NARAL, that isn't SYNTH. I'm more than open assessing votesmart continued service as a RS I'm having a hard time feeling out your SNYTH complaint.
• A, B so no, not really. Juno (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You just broke 3RR (1,2,3,4)and should self-revert. Dave Dial (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I have not? Look, I'm going to try to say this as politely as possible: you really need to read the guidelines that you're lecturing people about, before you lecture them. Juno (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Unless this was reported in secondary sources, I would omit. What is at play here is significance. If this was a significant issue it would be reported in a multitude of secondary sources. Per WP:NOPV (my highlight): Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Significance is not attained by the mere publication in VoteSmart. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll dig for some more sources. Per significance Begich's abortion position receives far more coverage that say, his VA positions, which occupy more coverage. It seems like we are talking about multiple issues at the same time. I'll try to break things down further below. Juno (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We need secondary sources to identify the significance of the data culled from VoteSmart. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be dealing with two separate issues: should abortion and same-sex marriage be lumped together? As far as I can tell, you don't think that they need to be? Per the second, did you see The Hill source? That more concrete coverage than most of his other listed policy positions get, even before the other media coverage. Juno (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Replace sources Here from RfC call. My question: why use primary sources (VoteSmart & NRLPAC) when there are secondary sources like NBC, CBS and HuffPost who outright discuss the importance and significance of Begich's stance on abortion-related issues? It makes no sense to beg an OR or SYNTH when there's an alternative. EBY (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

VoteSmart is a WP:RS reliable source, and the listing does not appear to be remotely construable as editorial opinion. This does not mean the wording is ideal, but it does not violate Wikipedia policy. It might be phrased as" During his tenure in the Senate, Begich consistently was rated 100% by NARAL, and 0% by NRLC on abortion issues" or the like. IT is not a surprising or even particularly contentious claim, and certainly does not run afoul of WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Contentious issues on October 30th

There was some back and forth over the removal of text on October 30th. DD2k objected to the inclusion of the material on 3 points: the use of WFB as a source, abortion being mentioned twice, and etc.

• I've taken out the material sourced to WFB until I can look for more sources that cover that material, I'd ask anyone looking to reinsert it to do the same.
• There are other issues mentioned multiple times in this article, and in plenty of other Senator BLPs so I can't really see that being a huge issue. Juno (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to object to good faith edits, but I don't think political BLPs should be politicized in the weeks before an election. For any BLP in any party. That's the OR and such above I am referring to(votesmart, .gov links). But I'm not going to edit war over it. Once November 5th rolls around, these articles will have much less controversy and can be fixed. Dave Dial (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do take my word for it: I feel the same way. Juno (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Contentious edits from Oct. 31

I'm going to try to compile all of the issues that have been mentioned on the talk page, as well as in edit summaries. If I have missed any, please add them! Juno (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Abortion

Should it be mentioned at all

Another user brought up thee idea that it might not be a significant enough issue to be covered. Its gotten more coverage than some of his other issues, namely his VA positions so I am of the opinion that it is worth mentioning. Juno (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If he has a position on abortion, and has made public comments on this, of course it should be included. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned twice

At various times, the Tenure section has included a broad outline of some of Begich's policy positions. I thought this was helpful and I see it mirrored in other politician's articles but I am not passionately attached to it. Juno (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Can votesmart be used as a source

My feeling is yes, but I can look for more sources too. I don't think there is any doubt that more are out there. Juno (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Unless the issue is covered in other sources, to establish significance. Otherwise it is WP:OR. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll look for more. At a minimum, the endorsements should be verifiable elsewhere. Juno (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. If an endorsement is significant, you should have no problems in finding sources reporting on it. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Virtually none of his other endorsements and certainly none of his legislation have received as much news coverage as his abortion beliefs, but we cover those other things. Juno (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with user:Cwobeel that Votesmart can't be used in isolation. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and thats why I didn't. Juno (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Should Abortion and Same-sex marriage be lumped together?

I am fairly strongly opposed to this. These are two radically different issues, with text based on different sources. Juno (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Many politician bios have a section on "Social issues" where all these issues can be grouped. There is no need to have a separate section for each aspect. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know man, whats the difference between "domestic issues" and "social issues", between "healthcare" and "Veterans affairs". Lets try to keep things independent. Juno (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If there is substantial reporting, separate sections may make sense. Otherwise, we can have these under a single sub-head. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

According to good, its gotten more coverage that nearly any of his other positions, and rarely at the same time as his same-sex marriage positions. On a related note, I don't really think it makes sense to lump the Patriot Act and the death penalty together. Juno (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Only Senator without a college degree

It was mentioned that RP does not have an undergrad degree, but does hold an a MD. I'm not sure what the source is for that and either way, I don't think it puts him in the same category as Begich. Juno (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Trivia. I would omit, unless widely covered as a significant aspect of this person. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair point on WP:TRIVIA

I myself am a sucker for these bio points but you're probably right. At a minimum, I plan on moving it out of the lead, it could probably go all together. Juno (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Mother's runs for Congress

It seems formative, relevant and its already mentioned it our biographical sources. I figure its worth a sentence. Juno (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I see no problem with that. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

OR violation from abortion material / Neutrality

I've removed this sentence from the abortion section for violating WP:OR

In all of his 6 years in the US Senate Beigich has received a 100% rating from abortion-proponents NARAL and a 0% rating from abortion-opponents NRLC.

None of the sources talk about "In all of his 6 years in the US Senate" - This is a clear WP:OR violation; per policy, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." -- The fact that 2 of the sources are from 2010 is a big warning flag. ---- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, but will hold off on the 6 years from now pending more research. Juno (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you disagree? Also, I've needed to remove "abortion-proponents" etc. which is simply not accurate. According to the main article, NARAL is an "organization in the United States that engages in political action to oppose restrictions on abortion and expand access to abortion." In other words, they don't advocate women getting abortions, they advocate women having access to abortion services; two different things. Since we are dealing with a BLP, that material needs to be left out until some sort of consensus is reached here. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, if we're going to play that game then the NRA doesn't support guns it only supports "access to guns". Juno (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Somedifferentstuff that the 6 years thing needs to stay out. And I appreciate them removing the unintentionally borderline weasel word descriptions of both groups. It might be less contentious to, in a few words, describe them using text from their respective wiki articles. Or perhaps just say pro-choice and pro-life, respectively, which is closer to the truth than pro-abortion/anti-abortion, etc. Shatterpoint05 (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Tangentially related, I noticed that every reference in that sub-section is now a bare url. If we come to a new consensus about changes to the section, can whoever makes the changes also fill in those citations more fully? Thanks! Shatterpoint05 (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Shatterpoint05, per this article, the preferred terms are "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion"---- I'd also be fine using the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life". -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Either of those work for me Shatterpoint05 (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm good for pro-choice/pro-life. Juno (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the article per this discussion. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mark Begich. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081113145841/http://www.cqpolitics.com:80/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-senate to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-senate
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081120172055/http://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/senate/raceratings_2008-10-09_12-20-35.php to http://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/senate/raceratings_2008-10-09_12-20-35.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mark Begich. 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http:/www.begich.com/issues/energy
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081205030040/http://www.elections.alaska.gov:80/08general/data/results.htm to http://www.elections.alaska.gov/08general/data/results.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Begich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.adn.com/life/story/7679658p-7590861c.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080327061125/http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/about/members.shtml to http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/about/members.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.begich.com/issues/energy

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mark Begich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090403235154/http://www.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/stevens/story/746047.html to http://www.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/stevens/story/746047.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140904163827/http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.com/ratings/senate to https://rothenbergpoliticalreport.com/ratings/senate
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022014417/http://community.adn.com/node/138066 to http://community.adn.com/node/138066
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.adn.com/2008/06/12/434862/begich-opening-anwr-key-to-energy.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)