Talk:Mark Kennedy (politician)

Fact-check controversy

Is this section really worth having in the article? It seems very minor to me, and if there aren't similar instances, what's the point? John Broughton 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, John, when lives and resources are on the line, accuracy counts. Perhaps you don't expect honesty and accuracy from elected officials, but Minnesotans do. I suggest you leave the Iraq testimony on the page. Perhaps this will serve as an example to all elected officials, no matter the party, that if they don't expend the same effort as a college freshman at source verification that their actions will be held accountable.

I deleted the Fact Check and his refusal to complete that survey as almost no Minnesota politicians have. Oh, and this is how you spell douchebag.IndieJones

It seems an odd coincidence that the rallying cry of Democrats in the election is Kennedy's Bush vote percentage and the fact that it appears on this page. His voting record isn't that unusual among Republicans. It doesn't belong.Halvorson 23:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just a fact. It shows how close to the 'party line' he is. If this is 'good' or 'bad' is up to the person reading to decide. The fact check smart vote survey is the same thing, it's just a fact. -Ravedave 23:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point. But it's odd that the page would mention his Bush voting record. A more common fact would be his NRA or NARAl percentage records.Halvorson 07:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

He is in a state who voted for the democratic president for the last eleventy-billion elections. What are NRA/NARAL? -Ravedave 14:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, voted for the Democratic candidate by 2 or 3 points. Both Bush and Kerry held big rallies in Minnesota during the election. Minnesota isn't Massachusetts. The NRA is the National Rifle Association and I'm not sure what NARAL stands but their one of the largest pro-choice groups. They give out grades and percentages on politicians and I often see them mentioned on politician's pages on Wikipedia.Halvorson 18:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I found a valid reason to keep the voting % in. His campaign commercial claims that he crosses party lines to get things done. 98% makes it seem like thats pretty shakey. -Ravedave 00:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place to respond to campaign ads. The voting percentage is out of place and should be removed.Halvorson 03:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to delete "This fact-check failure isn't mentioned on the 'Fact-Check' section of his campaign website." It sounds biased and unneccesary. In my opinion, the entire Credibility, Accountability, and Fact-Checking section (including the name) sounds like a biased and poor way to make Mr. Kennedy look bad. I think it should either be written to sound more like facts than a campaign ad or be deleted. Funnily enough, I don't see this on Ms. Klobuchar's page. Jakeschneider220 04:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on voting record

Rather than a revert war lets have a straw poll. Should the article mention that Kennedy's record followed bush 98% of the time? (please list your reason why)

• yes - It's an NPOV fact, and is the opposite of what his ads say so I belive it is important to list it. -Ravedave 19:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• no - The statistic is misleading. These percentages come from Congressional Quarterly (CQ). The method for tallying them is by collecting statements on particular legislation made by administration officials. CQ then examines the voting records of congressmen to see how it matches up with the administration's positions. The problem with this method is that the administration takes positions on only a small amount of legislation (e.g., only 8.8% of roll call votes in 2005, only 26% in 2003). Therefore this leads to the kinds of misinterpretation that Ravedave exemplifies above. Not knowing the details behind CQ's 98% tally for Mark Kennedy, Ravedave concluded that Kennedy must be highly partisan when, in fact, the 98% refers to only 26% of the total 2003 House votes. It is entirely plausible for Kennedy to have a high votes-with-Bush-percentage yet still reach across the aisle with regards to the remaining 74% of House votes on which the administration didn't take a position. Since Wikipedia is a non-partisan reference tool rather than a campaign commercial, we should avoid citing statistics that are going to be misinterpreted by the average person. --Herb West 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources:

Poole, Isaiah J. "Presidential Support: Two Steps Up, One Step Down." CQ Weekly. 9 Jan 2006:80. Online. Available at http://library.cqpress.com/cqweekly [2006, Jan 9].

Nather, David. "Presidential Support Vote Study: Score Belies Bush's Success" CQ Weekly. 3 Jan 2004:18. Online. Available at http://library.cqpress.com/cqweekly [2004, Jan 3].

• yes - It's still a fact, whether or not it can be misinterpereted. Additionally, this statistic is equally potent whether his voting record varies between when the administration makes a statement or not. If he votes with the administration whenever they make a policy statement but is freewheeling when they don't, he's a crook. If he votes with them all the time, he's a darn good republican yes-man. Democrats will consider him to be just as evil no matter which way you look at it, and republicans aren't going to be deterred in their support for him. I agree, furthermore, that if Kennedy's campaign ad says he steps across party lines to get things done but his record indicates otherwise, that is unequivocally necessary to the article. False campaign ads say a lot about a person... all that said, I think this article is written in a very conspicuously liberal manner. I'm no expert on the man, but a little info on the actual issues would be nice rather than an array of facts that present him as a 'bad guy'. This article smells of 'soft libel', if you will, but facts are facts. Rather than take away from this article, it needs additions!

• no- Facts by themselves can paint a distorted picture. This article really is quite small for someone running for the U.S. Senate and most of it is devoted to his Bush voting record. The facts presented in the article are undeniably liberal slanted. They should be removed209.63.72.12 14:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Amusing. "the facts ... are liberal slanted." I didn't know facts could have slants, I thought thats why they were called facts and not opinion. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 15:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I know, I know, but i'll give you an example that I found on the John McCain page a while back. I remember reading that McCain had cheated on his wife while she was recovering from a car accident. I thought that was despicable and it is if presented by itself it is. But the page now states that McCain changed significantly after Vietnam, that the woman he had an affair with is now his wife, and that his previous wife still supports him to this day. Facts by themselves can be biasedHalvorson 19:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The presentation of facts can be baised, each fact itself is not. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No original research

An anonymous IP apparently asked what original research was. Here's a link to the page on original research: Wikipedia:No original research. Andjam 14:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hoax email testimony

In accusing a person of falling for an email hoax, the citations consist of a direct link to a transcript, and a link to Snopes about the hoax. But the Snopes article doesn't mention Kennedy. But unless a reliable source has complained about him falling for a hoax, I feel it shouldn't be mentioned here. Wikipedia isn't a place to publish new insights. Andjam 04:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Andjam- Your feelings on the matter do not correlate to the definition of original research. There is no 'insight' here; an elected official utilized a false supporting document when providing testimony supporting government action. The text of Mr. Kennedy's speech and the hoax reference are identical and the reader is able to read both immediately. There is no suggestion as to intent, reasoning, etc. Simply the side-by-side provision of two examples of text, one in the Congressional Record, the other on a reputable reference for Urban Legends and hoaxes. If you truly believe that this is original research, I suggest that you (Andjam) pursue mediation on the matter. Cordially yours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.174.52.14 (talk • contribs) .

And I quote: "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position."

To refer to information that is in the public domain cannot be described as "unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories", nor is it "analysis or synthesis" in any possible way. -- 80.227.0.153 23:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither page that has been cited says that he has circulated a hoax. That's an original conclusion derived from a synthesis of two citations. Andjam 23:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Congressional record contains the exact text of the hoax. That is not synthesis it is comprehension. Synthesis requires a new product, pattern or solution, something unique. Comprehension is the understanding and organizing of facts and ideas. You really need to review Bloom's Taxonomy... JimmyDobson 21:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Family Life

I corrected some things, but I'm not sure about the wording. In any case, his daughter Sarah graduated high school at the end of the last school year, and her brother Charles graduated from college. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.218.14.46 (talk • contribs) .

Failed verification

As far as I can tell, this Mark Kennedy link does not state that this ad was the first attack ad in the campaign. Andjam 13:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone supplies a reliable source stating that he made the first attack ad in the campaign (as opposed to, say, his opponent(s)), I'd be happy to hear about it. Andjam 13:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

He is an article calling kennedy's ad an attack ad [1] Can you find one stating that klocubar has released an attack ad? No, you can't, because she hasn't released one. Therefore the logical conclusion is that kennedy released the 1st attack ads. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 14:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source stating that she hasn't released one, you're engaging in original research. Andjam 21:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I'll keep my eye out for major news flashes such as "Klochubar doesn't release attack ads" and "earth doesn't explode" and "sun still shining". You may want to update the water article to not say it's wet since there isn't a reference and that would be original research. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 00:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

All you'd have to find is an article from a reliable source about the attack ad that mentions that it's the first such ad in the race. With regards to water, the article doesn't actually state in the article that it is wet. Andjam 01:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Is it possible to improve the quality of the picture. It is very blurry. 24.5.166.84

Fixed, I uploaded a larger version from the source. force your browser to refresh and it will be better. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 19:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Preceded By

Mark Kennedy defeated David Minge in the 2nd District. In 2002, however, he ran for the 6th District (due to reapportionment) and replaced Bill Luther. Since the box clearly states that his information is for the 6th Congressional District (his current seat), the information in the box should be reflective of that. I am modifying the box to correctly list Bill Luther as his predecessor. This also matches the information found in Minnesota's 6th congressional district. Justin Bacon 06:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mark Kennedy (politician). 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/20090114193944/http://ustr.gov/assets/Who_We_Are/Advisory_Committee_Lists/asset_upload_file209_5865.pdf to http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Who_We_Are/Advisory_Committee_Lists/asset_upload_file209_5865.pdf

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} 13:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Tone and sourcing

This article was a disjointed and discordant amalgam of uncited praise and poorly-cited obloquy. I have deleted the latter-- about 20% of the article critical of his tenure at UND, reciting such outrages as increases in the cost of parking. (The majority came from on IP associated with off-campus housing in Grand Forks.) I have, where indicated, added requests for citations for the former.

I have no interest in the subject, but do have an interest in solid and well-sourced content in Wikipedia, in contrast to the embarrassment this article had become. I will remove content without adequate sourcing and leave only a bare-bones biography if these defects are not corrected. Kablammo (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)