Talk:Sam Brownback/Archives/2006

bad wording

and is extremely pro-life

I removed "extremely". Someone is either pro-life or not.--Hbutterfly 05:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes from POV in Views

Concerning stem cell research, I deleted the millions oppose comment because millions support it as well. Not only does Brownback oppose tax-payer funding but the research as a whole based upon his claimed moral principles.

Concerning his anti-abortion stance, I have changed the phrase to say anti-abortion instead of pro-life because the same paragraph mentions his stance on the death penalty. This is the phrase preferred by the Associated Press. I left the link to "Pro-life" as the contributor desired, but I am up for changing that as well. Please discuss here before reverting. Kimathi 05:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Does the phrase '"concerned" about pornography' sound POV to anyone else, or is it just the way I'm reading it? I think it would be better stated as: "He is averse to same-sex marriage, pornography [1],..." --Inaxdaze 10:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Even if it isn't POV, it seems like poor wording. I like your way better so I'll change it, and if anyone is opposed to the change I'm open to discussion. Kimathi 20:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This "reverted POV" stuff to insert POV is silly. The tax-payer funding comment by AmeriCan is ridiculously POV, and should be defended - thank you to all who have done so. Kimathi 15:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Views and Controversy

Disclosure: Based on the recent controversy with House press secretaries taking advantage of the Wikipedia community, I want to make sure everyone understands up front that I work for Senator Brownback. And while I’d very much like to change much about this article, I have limited my suggestions and edits to what can be sourced externally.

(Thank you to whoever removed my edits within seconds before I had a chance to post my reasons. I appreciate your objectivity.)

Also, I am endeavoring in every way to be respectful to the rules of the site and do things the right way. If I am not, apologies and please understand any mistakes are not intentional.

Views:

Intelligent Design: Brownback does not “favor” intelligent design. The most he has said (1) is that he is open to more than one theory being taught in schools, and a preference for facts being separated from theory. It would be accurate to say that Brownback “favors multiple theories being taught in schools.” I have removed to avoid ambiguity in the list of issues in a serious run-on sentence.

Controversy:

Brownback did not accept $42,000 from Jack Abramoff. (2) $42,000 was contributed to Brownback’s political action committee from three Native American tribes, which were Abramoff clients. (3) Brownback donated these funds to Haskell Indian Nations University in Lawrence, Kansas.

I removed the quote from Chief Bearskin as it’s quite biased. (4) (5). Chief Bearskin, from Oklahoma, has been trying to build a casino on top of a tribal burial ground in Kansas for years, against the wishes of the Kansas Wyondot tribe. This dispute between the Wyondot’s of Kansas and the Wyandotte’s of Oklahoma is his motivation for criticizing Brownback. If restored, please include both sides.

Rolling Stone writer Jeff Sharlet did not accuse the Senator of using the term 'fruits' to demean homosexuals. He made it clear in his (6) blog that the joke was his and that Brownback’s Biblical reference was clearly understood in context and was not referring to sexual orientation.

Articles below truncated to relevant sections.

(1) Copyright 2005 Associated Press December 23, 2005, Friday, BC cycle LOAD-DATE: December 24, 2005 SECTION: State and Regional LENGTH: 621 words HEADLINE: Summary of Brownback's comments on various issues DATELINE: TOPEKA, Kan. BODY: A summary of Sen. Sam Brownback's comments Friday on a variety of issues:

Intelligent Design

Brownback declined to say how he feels about a federal judge's ruling in Pennsylvania that said intelligent design couldn't be required by the Dover school district.

"You're obviously seeing the issue of the teaching on evolution coming in and being discussed in many places in the United States, and here was a place it was discussed," he said. "Facts should be taught as facts and theory should be taught as theory. I think that's the way to go."

(2) Copyright 2005 Associated Press December 21, 2005, Wednesday, BC cycle LOAD-DATE: December 22, 2005 SECTION: State and Regional LENGTH: 949 words HEADLINE: Fear on Capitol Hill: Will Republican lobbyist become prosecution witness? BYLINE: By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer DATELINE: WASHINGTON BODY:

Brownback's now-defunct Restore America Political Action Committee received $42,000 from four Indian tribes represented by Abramoff in 2002, according to Federal Election Commission records, and now he is giving it away.

(3) http://www.tray.com/ April 11, 2006

(4) http://www.bleedingkansas.org/Wyandotte_County.html

(5) http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=2228

(6) The truth is that Brownback did not mean to make a joke, nor did he mean to use “fruits” as a slur. I didn’t think he did, nor did I mean to imply that. But I was laughing at the senator. Just once, in a 7,100 word, rather earnest story. The moment was classic “Beavis and Butthead: “Dude. Did he just say fruits?” http://www.therevealer.org/archives/timely_002408.php

156.33.31.207 20:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)156.33.31.207

Thank you for posting your reasons for editing this page, and also your disclosure of the fact that you work for the Senator. However, sentences like this

(Thank you to whoever removed my edits within seconds before I had a chance to post my reasons. I appreciate your objectivity.)

Do not exactly engender goodwill towards you. Attacks on other people's objectivity carry far less weight on Wiki than they do on cable news channels. As for your edits, let's discuss these one at a time.

• No attack intended. Just hoping for sourced objectivity.

Senator Brownback wants evolution to be taught as a "theory", not as fact, something which he has declined to expound on, and wants intelligent design - something that is more a political tool than a theory - to be taught alongside it. If you'd like, the article can be corrected to reflect your employer's belief that evolution does not exist.

• Removing this again unless someone can cite Brownback as favoring intelligent design being taught or that evolution doesn't exist. Neither is the case.

Your edit to Sen. Brownback's relations with Jack Abromoff do leave the fact that he did accept money that was tainted by Abromoff, but remove the very heart of the issue - namely, the hurt and distrust created by taking the money. Feel free to reinsert the quote about the Senator donating the money to an Indian university; however, please provide a source that can be cited.

• Brownback did not personally accept money from Jack Abramoff, the two met only once in passing long before the contributions. The contributions came directly from his Native American clients to the senator’s political action committee. I am not attempting to white wash the abuses of Abramoff or that Brownback was connected to these funds, but as written, this gives an impression that is incorrect. Including the PAC and the university donation was in hopes to add more information. If I goof up citing it in the article, here is the FEC report that includes the contribution, see page 41. [1]

• Wikipedia’s last notation under the Wyandot article makes it clear that the Wyondot’s of Kansas and the Wyondotte’s of Oklahoma are at odds over a burial ground in Kansas. Senator Brownback supports the Kansas tribe, who are his constituents. It is incomplete to express the Oklahoma chief’s views without making it clear he is politically motivated in hopes to build a casino in a state other than where his tribe resides against the wishes of the tribe in the area. The chief says himself, cited above, that he has threatened to build a casino on the cemetery if the State of Kansas doesn’t put land the tribe bought in trust for use as a casino. Chief Bearskin is not so much hurt as he is taking a shot when it suits his aims of rolling bones on sacred bones. If there is hope to convey hurt, please cite an objective source. Reverted.

The issue with the Rolling Stones article was that many gays found the Senator's joke at their expense demeaning.

• The author of the article himself said Brownback wasn’t making a joke. The author’s comments on this subject are sourced above and have long been externally linked on this page. Brownback issued a statement, widely reported, that he meant no offense whatsoever. Reverted.

Intelligent Design

There appear to have been a number of occasions in which Brownback spoke in favor of teaching ID, including support for Santorum's Sense of the Senate motion[2], and a special meeting in the Capitol Building.[3] -Will Beback 23:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Pornography Claim

Given that the claim that Brownback is anti-porn was disputed earlier in this talk page, and that the claim is based on a now-broken link, perhaps should that claim be removed from the article? StaticElectric 01:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

Apparently, some users (mainly Getaway (aka BballJones)) question the accuracy of some facts presented and substantiated under the controversy's section. It is important to remember that while these users may not wish to acknowledge such information as relevant, they are pertinent to Sen. Brownback's biography. It is highly doubtful that both CNN and The New York Sun would have reported such information if it was false. 208.107.62.159 03:55, 31 July 2006 User talk:208.107.62.159

The stem cell topic has already been covered in an earlier section of the Brownback article. No need to refer to it twice. Also, it was written in a format which expressed the opinion of the Wikipedian, therefore, non-NPOV. --Getaway 13:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, there is no controversy. Treating Brownback work on the floor as if there is a controversy violates two Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There has NOT been one citation given that states that there is a controversy on the stem cell bill. That is the opinion of a few Wikipedians only. --Getaway 00:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If one needs verification that the current and, indeed, past stem cell bills have been considered controversial by the public one may reference [4] and the links provided within.

As the lack of controversy seems to be the only limitation user Getaway has cited to move the aforementioned information I have moved it back under controversies with citations proving that the stem cell bill is indeed controversial. ~Checkmate15

You made an inappropriate edit and I fixed it. Cheers. --Getaway 02:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Dead Citation

Hi, as some of you seem to be close to or familiar with Sen. Brownback, could you find another reference for the claim He opposes same-sex marriage, and pornography. (ref. 1; section Views), as the current one (http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0038523.cfm) is dead already for quite some time. --Túrelio 18:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Laurie Kellmen's Associated Press Article on Stem Cell bill

If you read the article, she is not clear where Brownback supposedly "appeared." It seems like she is trying to imply that it is on the floor of the Senate because she vaguely mentions the Senate earlier in the article. But her writing is just weak. I don't know if she is being deliberately obtuse or she just can't write, but there are other glaring problems with her writing. In our article we quote her as saying, "Brownback appeared with three children adopted from in vitro fertilization clinics(.)" I ask, once again, "appeared" where? But also, she states in this quote the three children were "adopted from in vitro fertilization clinics(.)" I would like to know where there exists an in vitro fertilization clinic that also handles adoptions. The wording is sloppy. She is obviously attempting, in her clumsy way, to say, "with three children who were conceived from embryoes adopted from in vitro fertilization clinics(.)" I don't think we should use her quote. It is wrong in two very important ways and it leads to confusion. I think that Wikipedians are getting charged with misusing Wikipedia to write negative items about Brownback (and, yes, some of the earlier edits were attempts to blast Brownback), but I think a lot of this misinformation is an outgrowth of reading sloppy writing from Laurie Kellman, an Associated Press reporter. We should just strike her comments unless we can find a clearly written article on what Brownback did to promote the Stem Cell bill.--Getaway 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is not really your job to determine the validity of an already vetted article. All a responsible user of wikipedia should do when using such an article is to report the piece using the reasonable person standard. Yes, there may be different takes on what specific words or phrases mean, however, the general intention of the article is clear. The rewording of the stem cell section seems to take certain liberties with the article in question. The current wording suggests that “snowflake babies” wouldn’t exist if stem cell research was sponsored; this characterization is not supported by the article nor is it supported by the bill in question. Instead it would be more accurate to say that such snowflake babies wouldn’t be affected by stem cell research as only those embryos already destined for destruction would be used for research. This is supported in the article itself, “that would otherwise be discarded.” It cannot be any clearer. Just because you do not like what is said in the article you go after the author and characterize their writing as intelligible. Surely, as a community we should strive for accuracy rather than manipulation of potential readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.62.159 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 25. Aug 2006~Checkmate15

Thank you for your rant. I did not hear any specifics in your rant, just a rant. I do not believe that Kellman did a good job explaining where Brownback was specifically when he was supposedly with these three children. Also, she is just flat out wrong to suggest that the children were adopted from an in vitro fertilization clinic. Now, that may not be important to you, but yes as editors of Wikipedia we are supposed to verify whether inforamtion meets bare minimum criteria to be included in the encyclopedia. Please review the rules of Wikipedia again for your education. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you and have a good day.--Getaway 12:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Snowflake Children

The term "Snowflake" children is a term used exclusively by the religious right. It is by no means a universally accepted term or concept, yet it is being presented in this article as if it were. Any attempts at clarification are immediately erased by a clearly partisan advocate who claims to be erasing POV, when in reality by eliminating any references to who does and does not advocate this belief, the erasures represent sharply partisan POV. StudierMalMarburg 20:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing will not be allowed. Sorry. There a comment added on the end which was clearly not NPOV. At the end the presentation stated: "News footage of the event didn't reveal any minority families present." This sentence is clearly not NPOV. Who is looking at the "news footage." A wikipedian? If yes, then it is original research." Who is the voice of this comment? A Wikipedian. Not acceptable. Put it in if you want to BUT you must present it for what it is: a satire by a fake news organization. It was presented as a legitimate argument from a legitimate source. Do you have a legitimite source making these arguments other than a blog like Kos?? Or a fake news organization like the Daily Show??? If this was a real debate then we would be able to pull out comments from the Democratic politicians, Republican politician, Planned Parenthood, Right-to-Life, but these arguments aren't there. All you have is a parody, which was presented as hard news, and one opinion from a Daily KOS nutjob. Not much to go on. Wikipedia does not allow the use of blogs because then you or I could just blog some horse hockey and then cite this horse hockey as legitimate horse hockey. Seriously, all you have is a some crazed Daily KOS blogger and a John Stewart parody, that really isn't much is it?? How do I know that the guy who keeps pushing this POV is not the nutjob that is blogging for Daily KOS??? I don't. I just going to assume that these folks are one and the same, unless someone can prove to me otherwise. A blogger's opinion is not going in this article or the Sam Brownback article either.--Getaway 20:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There was no reference at all to Daily Kos. You have a strange way of defending yourself. All this is about is a simple clarification that the terminology "snowflake children" is used exclusively by the religious right. No one else at all uses or accepts that term. Thus, by erasing any and all references to the fact that this is a term used by the religious right to push forward a political agenda, you are advancing a partisan POV. StudierMalMarburg 21:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You have not responded to what I wrote. Do you have a source to back up your OPINION? What is that source? Where do I find that source? I don't really care about your OPINION. I care about the opinions of reliable sources. So, once again, where is the source to back up your opinion and is that source a reputable one? So far all that you have offered is Daily Kos and a parody from John Stewart's Daily Show. Not much to work with there. So, once again, I encourage you to provide a reliable source to back up your OPINION, if not then your personal opinion's will stay out of the article.--Getaway 21:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the burden to provide support for your POV edit falls on your shoulders, not mine. Just attacking my arguments without provide solid, concrete citations for your OPINION will not work to get your edit through the Wikipedia rules.--Getaway 22:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not me who is forcing an opinion on everyone else. It is you, my friend. I'm not the one erasing entries. It is you. I'm not the one pushing forward a biased opinion as universal truth, it is you. Therefore, if you want to put forward the idea of "snowflake children" as a fact accepted by any group beyond the Christian Right, then the burden of proof is yours, not mine. StudierMalMarburg 12:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That argument is so yesterday. Don't you have something better to do?--Getaway 15:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's civility policies are not optional, so please do not make personal attacks on other editors. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

NOV tag

I removed the NPOV tag because there was no dicusssion going on concerning the article. Also, one editor makes the argument that the NPOV tag should stay as long as he/she wants it to stay. That isn't how it works.--Getaway 20:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no discussion because all you want to do is shout others down. StudierMalMarburg 13:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

POV Check

This article needs to be checked for its neutrality by a senior Wikipedia administrator. StudierMalMarburg 13:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you list some of the issues that you think are under dispute? -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Primarily the insistence of some editors to assert that Brownback's support of "Snowflake Children" is a universally accepted tenant. The term "snowflake children" itself is a highly charged term used by a very specific group of people: i.e., the Christian Right. As long as one editor continues to delete all references to who does and does not accept this term, then the article is not neutral. StudierMalMarburg 14:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The term is used by hundreds and hundreds of people. There is a Wikipedian article on the term. The rules of Wikipedia does not allow one Wikipedian to decide that the term must removed from this article just because that Wikipedian does not agree with the term and does not want to see the term in the article. That is non NPOV. That is called jamming one's point of view on the article.--Getaway 15:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the term. It's a matter of being honest about the fact that only the Christian Right uses this term. In your own words, deleting references to this fact is non NPOV and "is called jamming one's point of view on the article." StudierMalMarburg 16:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have tagged the above-discussed assertion's source as dubious for the reasons provided by editor StudierMalMarburg. Additionally, a reliable source for the assertion must be found if the sweeping statement it implies is to be asserted by the article. Getaway has contacted me on my talk page and informed me that he thought this was a "drive-by tagging", when in reality I was merely doing what SMM would have done, had he been a little more experienced with the source template tags Wikipedia provides. --Kuzaar^-T-C-

Unfortunately, you are not supposed to comment on me personally, but the article itself. You comments about me are not welcome or acceptable. Please refrain from personal attacks and stick to the article. Now, as to the article. Neither you or Marburg has given a reason to censor valid, sourced information from the Wikipedia article. Please provide your reasons and don't comment on me and engage in personal attacks. Please review the appropriate policy that you have blantantly violated: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Kuzaar this is you first warning.--Getaway 01:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that in no way have I created a personal attack in the above statement, merely called attention to the fact that it was your alert on my talk page that brought me here. With regards to the civility policy, please be aware that it is considered improper to warn policy to a user outside of their talk page. I am not going to warn you, but keep this in mind in the future. In particular, you have warned me for creating a "drive by tagging" on my talk page when I, as I said above, was merely acting on Marburg's behalf to put into the article the standard dispute tags as pertains to Wikipedia policy. Unfounded accusations of attacks, as you said, are neither welcome nor acceptable under the civility guidelines; again, please refrain from this in the future. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 04:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! You did exactly what you have asked me not to do: warn me on this talk page. You have one set of standards for you and another for me. Now, let's talk about the article, shall we?? You have not focused your attention on the actual article. I have not heard from you why you believe that the article should be censored by you and Marburg. There are organizations that refer to these children as "snowflake children." Now, you and Marburg might not like that fact, but it is true and it will be in this article and in the "snowflake children" article. Don't engage in personal attacks. Please review the policy. --Getaway 13:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not attempting to engage in censorship, I am attempting to make a veiled attempt at obfuscating the prevalence of a term adhere to NPOV by attributing it to a reliable source, which you have done nothing to assuage. Nor have I engaged in personal attacks- you misread my earlier comment, as evidenced by your comment on my talk page. When I was talking about an inexperienced editor, I was referring to how I acted on Marburg's behalf to flag a questionable assertion appropriately to aid discussion on the talk page. I was not calling you an inexperienced editor, as you seem to have implied on your comment at my talk page. Please be careful not to construe one comment for something unintended. Lastly, it might be important for you yourself to review the NPOV policy and realize that in order to maintain NPOV in the article, controversial statements MUST be attributed to a reliable source so as not to attempt to assert POV in the article. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have provided a link to a source. The organization that visited the White House. Marburg came along and changed the sentence to read that it is a term of, in Marburg's words (and opinion), the "Christian Right." It is NOT up to Marburg to decide if only the so-called "Chritian Right" use this term. I, for example, am NOT in any way a member of the so-called "Christian Right" but I use the term. Now, I'm not going to get into an edit war with Marburg. Now, I appreciate your input. That is why that I called it a drive-by. You are very familiar with the Wikipedia rules and I did not, and don't accept, the notion that you can just go around and tag things without attempting to work out the situation. You know that Marburg just can't to unilaterally decide to state that the term is MERELY a term of art created by and for the so-called "Christian Right." That is the way that Marburg wrote it, not me. What Marburg is attempting to do is impose his OPINION on the article. He is stating clearly with this edit that only "Christians" are concerning the about the use of these embryos, which is NOT true. Also, he is further limiting the number universe of concerned people, not only to just "Christians" but only so-called members of the "Christian Right." This is a blantant violation of the pricipals of NPOV. Now, you are assisting Marburg because you are simply coming in and slapping on the tag and let taking your hands off attitude, giving the impression that Marburg edit is appropriate that I, Getaway, have the burden of proof of why Marburg's edit is not NPOV. That is NOT the way that this is going to work. I choose the words, "some people" because I find that to be neutral terminology. If Marburg does not like that particular phrasing then he needs to come up with an alternative and the term "Christian Right" is NOT acceptable for the reasons that I have just given. He needs to provide an alternative and you need to assist because you have interjected yourself into this discussion and you have only worked to give Marburg the impression that he does a good job explaining himself. Where is his explanation??? Please show me. I would like to read it. I'm sticking with "some people" until a neutral alternative presents itself. I'm not going to keep providing new ones and Marburg just sits back and says that not acceptable show me something else. That is bogus. The problem is you. You are assisting him in this strategy of merely just saying no, and not engaging a discussion or providing alternatives (and "Chrisitan Right" is not acceptable, for the reasons that I have already given).--Getaway 12:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

POV Check, Part II

I removed the POV Check template because Marburg was improperly using the POV Check template to gain leverage in a dispute with me and Kuzaar did not remove the improper POV Check template. Marburg is attempting to impose his opinion on the article and that violates NPOV. The Wikipedia rules are very, very clear on the proper use of that template and it is clear that Marburg is attempting to bend the rules to simply jam his opinion on the article. The rules state: The POV check template is not for disputes. It is intended for:

• Articles which you have edited to be neutral, but may have overlooked something
• Articles which you suspect are not neutral, but are unsure how to proceed

For situations where you or other editors disagree on NPOV status, or need to reach consensus on neutrality, instead use the neutrality dispute template, {{POV}}, and explain the reasons on the talk page. The POV Check template has been removed because Marburg was improperly using it to gain leverage in a dispute. It is gone never to return. Now, the regular POV template will be removed if Marburg and Kuzaar refuse to participate in a real discussion of the wording.--Getaway 12:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Getaway. I think I've come up with a neutrally-worded phrasing for the assertion. Please let me know if the new version comes off as NPOV to you. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarification purposes, I have not tried to impose my POV on anyone, nor have I used the POV tag to try to gain leverage against anyone else. All I ever asked for was clarification of a very dubious term. All anyone has to do is look at the record of additions and deletions to see that it was not me trying to impose anything on anyone. If simply asking for clarification is considered imposing one's non-NPOV here at Wikipedia, then so be it. StudierMalMarburg 14:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You even stated that you put the POV Check tag on the document and you intended to keep it there until you, and only you, decided that it was to be removed. That is not the way that it works. It is based upon concensus, not your view of the world.--Getaway 14:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There you go again, imposing your interpretation of an event on others. At no time did I ever make the statement you claim. Anyone can go check the record of additions and deletions to verify the truth of it. What I said was that YOU could not make a unilateral decision to remove it until the dispute was resolved. It is indeed based upon consensus, maybe you should try it sometime. StudierMalMarburg 15:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you did. It is in the edit history. I will quote it directly: (cur) (last) 20:09, 3 September 2006 StudierMalMarburg (Talk | contribs) m (POV tag restored. So long as one editor is policing this article to his own POV, the tag must remain.) Those are your words that you deny you stated. Let's end this discussion. If you put in the article again your POV by stating that only members of "Christian Right" use this term then I will remove it, over and over again. Got, it?--Getaway 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I can only express my concern at the continuing of this dispute. In my opinion, the use of the term "snowflake children" is, in one way or another, an attempt to use a politically loaded term, and it may well be worth saying that it is often used as such. I have attempted to put this in NPOV terms by attributing the term to the source that said it- a fairly obviously far-right political website, but if the article in any way advocates its use, that is a violation of neutral POV and must be removed, keeping in mind that Wikipedia's role is to portray disputes, not re-enact or advocate them. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's go over this one more time. If you believe that there is something in the article that advocates, then point it out and we will discuss it. But you are talking in generalities. You have not given one specific example of that. We have attributed it to the source that stated it. Also, we will go over the fallacies of the desciption of the term, when Marburg, with your assistance, attempted to impose the viewpoint on the article that the term, "snowflake children" is only used by the so-called, using Marburg's term, "Christian Right." This incorrect commentary and opinion of Marburg is wrong is so many ways, but let me just focus on two glaring examples. In the opinion of Marburg, who is a Wikipedian, not a recognized expert in the area, that the term is only used by (1) "Christians" and (2) people with a right-wing political philosophy. That is commentary by a Wikipedian and as such it violates the rules of Wikipedia. How? Well, Marburg's commentary states that only Christians use the term and that eliminates all orthodox Jews who use the term and Marburg's commentary states that only people of right-wing perspective use the term and that eliminates all people with a leftward tilt in their politics, such as Catholic priests. It is commentary and opinion of a Wikipedian and Marburg attempted to jam it into the article. Now, if you have a specific suggestion then you should point it out instead of general complaints. Otherwise, you are merely using the talk page for your political commentary about the term. What is the specific problem with the way the article currently stands???--Getaway 13:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There, I've added a sourced sentence in the middle of the controversial paragraph that both gives the term per Getaway and explains its origins, per Marburg, and is sourced, per WP:RS. I hope everyone can settle on this, since it fulfills all the criteria and objections brought up so far. Either way, all I'm trying to do here is find a consensus version that both parties will find acceptable, which seems very difficult in politically charged debates. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that does not work. Use of a commentary by Margaret Carlson to describe the term snowflake children is inherently POV. Margaret Carlson's article is a political commenatary and Wikipedia specifically points out that Wikipedia should not use of the so-called facts in a political commenatary as a the source for facts. Once again, the attempts to characterize the word as a word of the so-called right-wing and it eliminates the Catholic priests from the universe of people that use the term, an attempt to minimize and limit the influence of the term. You are quoting a partisan, left-wing person (she is NOT just a reporter, but a left-wing commentator) making negative comments on the term as your source for the CLAIM that only "right-wing" people use the term. That is inherently bias. It like I quoted Pat Buchanan to give a non-biased evaluation of Planned Parenthood!!!! No. It does not work.--Getaway 14:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The key difference in the two ideas (between this and the example you gave) is that Pat Buchanan would be a reliable source for a view opposing Planned Parenthood. In fact, I would be shocked if he weren't already quoted in the Criticism section of the Planned Parenthood page. According to WP:NPOV and WP:RS, political commentaries are not only useful in politically oriented pages, but vital for perspective, and are perfectly acceptable as long as they are characterized and attributed and the statement is not borne by the narrative voice of the article, and if it is from a Reliable, reviewed and professionally edited source. I would also like to remind you that it was originally you who added[5] the reference to Bloomberg News, which is a reliable and respected reporting organization. I find nothing objectionable in the article's current revision. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No. I did not add Carlson. It was neither I or Marburg, but another Wikipeidan. However, at the top of Carlson's work it specifically states: "who was a columnist and deputy Washington bureau chief for Time magazine, is a columnist for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are her own." There is a disclaimer because it is commentary.--Getaway 14:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've said above, according to the NPOV and RS guidelines, commentary articles like this one are acceptable for citation as long as they are properly sourced and attributed to their writer. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(This comment originally was at the talk page of snowflake children): But it does work for a characterization of the source to be given, appropriately attributed, to a writer doing an opinion piece for a mainstream reporting organization such as Bloomberg. As I've said on the debate on the Sam Brownback talk page, political commentary sources are not only acceptable but necessary for explaining the debate over a political subject. For example, a quote criticizing Planned Parenthood would be appropriate in the "criticism" section of that article, as long as it was attributed to a correct, reliable source. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point. I do not object to using Carlson's article as an expression of point of view critical of the term snowflake children. I have never questioned that use of her article. What I question is the use of her article as evidence that ONLY right-wing people use the term. That is misinformation. She is the probably the most respectable source in the article critical of the term, but that does not make her an expert on whether the term is ONLY used by the so-called right-wing. That is inherently biased. It goes again common sense for a Wikipedia article to state that only the right-wing uses the term when we know that there are Catholic groups that use the term and those Catholic groups have both left-wing and right-wing people in them. Why is there this need to make the biased statement that ONLY right-wing people use the term? It is not based in reality and it is biased and it violates the policy of NPOV. I have been working on this article a long time. I got involved when I was reading it and originally this particular event was put in the so-called "Controversy" section of the article. And it was full of inacuracies. What is it that you want to express? If you want to express that the term is only used by the right-wing then I would have to disagree, but common sense dictates that not every single person that uses the term is a so-called "right-winger."--Getaway 15:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have not used "right-winger" as a pejorative term, nor do I intend for it to be used in any such manner in the article. I think another way to include criticism as portrayed by the article would be to say that the author characterized it as "generally being used as a 'rallying...'", etc. I certainly have no objections to saying that people outside of what has heretofore been demonstrated use the term, but I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case. Again, if you can find an attributable source that characterizes its use in liberal politics, I would have no objections about including that either. All I'm trying to get across here is that it's dangerous to bring up politically loaded terms in an article without sourcing comments carefully and regarding it objectively. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Getaway, I just reverted a change you made to the article. You do a lot of work rooting out Wikipedian commentary, so please understand that it's not appropriate for Wikipedians to put their own commentary into articles, the policies of which I'm sure you are familiar with. If you want to find a source and show reasons that people advocate the use of the term, that's fine, but don't try to discredit people by suggesting their commentary is unreliable when it came from a reliable source. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction on the article. I was trying to accurately describe her background, and was working from a cursory glance at Google results for her name. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Kuzaar, your repeated warnings are getting tiresome. I was not engaging in POV pushing. Don't make that comment again. My edit was an appropriate edit. I did not state anything that is not true. She is "left-wing". I find your warning to be reaching because you just defending using Carlson's word "Right" but you would not allow me to use the word "left". That is a double standard. Now, you stated that she was a reporter for Newsweek. She never worked for Newsweek. I was wrong. I confused her with that other left-wing hack, Eleanor Cliff. Also, she no longer works for Time. She was fired. She works for Bloomberg, which is obviously a large step down in her career. Now, I am going to put in the article that she is leftward in her political viewpoint because she IS leftward and she is expressing a left opinion and you and Marburg have insisted that the snowflake children term be described as a term of the "Right." Fair is fair. And don't even warn me again. If you remove it then you are engaging in POV pushing.--Getaway 15:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It is POV to say "X is left wing". It is not POV to say "According to Y, X is left wing", because that's sourcing a possibly biased statement, which must be attributed to maintain NPOV. Please understand the critical distinction between the two. In the name of being civility, though, and because the current revision is a fair enough approximation of NPOV, I'm not going to remove the description from the current revision. It's still technically asserting POV, but not in a disruptive or inflammatory way. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No. That is not true. There are examples all over Wikipedia of where liberals like to describe the point of view of whatever conservative speaker. But the liberals do not like it when a conservative describes the point of view of a liberal as a liberal. You are dead wrong. You are changing it because I am right. If you thought in any way that you could change it and I would not howl then you would.--Getaway 14:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not changing it because WP:CIVIL is not an optional policy. I am opposed to so easily classifying any person as a right-wing or left-wing person, because it is politically divisive, unhelpful, and creates a climate of opposition instead of one of cooperation. If you feel strongly about it then go take issue with people being labelled in any way. For whatever reason you seem to insist on baiting me out whenever I bring up an issue I find with this article, and that is unhelpful to the creative environment at the Wikipedia project. I am not interested in politics, only in making sure that Wikipedia is not used as a tool to advance agendas, as a soapbox, or ANYTHING other than an encyclopedia. Editors that have a vested interest in some of these things often take this interest as a personal attack on them, which couldn't be farther from the truth. To me the encyclopedia comes first, and I will not stand down if other editors try to bring foreign interests, loaded words, and advocacy into it. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the key point of what I said above is: If you feel that the encyclopedia labels opinionists conservative or unfairly tries to discount their opinion, either do what I do and root out the interests trying to assert themselves or show me where it's happening. I've done some work trying to mediate disputes at Protest Warrior (a politically conservative group) where an editor with outside interests has come in and tried to post information to make the subject look extremist, etc. I won't stand for either side of the political spectrum coming in and trying to characterize anything as what it is not. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)