Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Glowing review of Baucus

This is a pretty glowing review of Mr. Baucus. Too bad the other Senator from Montana, Conrad Burns, is not treated with the same respect.

Not sure when you wrote your comment above, whomever you may be, but I believe at this point, you'd be hard pressed to feel the same way about the current state of this article. CriticalChris 18:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ad campaign

Does anyone know where I can find a copy online of the Mike Taylor "gay hairdresser" commercial?

Name?

Why did he change his name? --AW (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It is common for a boy to take his stepfather's name: Gerald Ford, Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton are a few examples.Catherinejarvis (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political leanings

If Baucus votes against the party on fundamental party issues such as environment, taxes and gun control (and now by inference from his actions he will on health care too - a public health insurance option was in his party´s presidential candidate election promises) then he cannot by definition be a moderate member of his party. He therefore probably has leanings towards the Republican party. That must make him center right of his party at least and not a moderate as was reported previously.--Hauskalainen (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My amendment to center right was deleted for not having a reference but actually there were no references for Baucus being moderate either. I have seen several web sites recently that call for Baucus to be stripped of posts gained from his position in the party given that he often votes against the party line and in line with Republic policies. I cannot give the references immediately but I am sure I can find them if needs be. If anyone adds back moderate, at least provide a reference for that. His record is clearly that he does not follow the party line therefore he has to be at one extreme or other. Center right seems rather generous to him in view of what I have read recently.--Hauskalainen (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming he is "a center right-wing" politician without providing a reliable source is not up to WP standards. Also, you say "based on his voting record" he should be considered "as leaning toward the Republican Party" That violates original research, since it is your own view and is not supported by reliable sources. There are mutiple reliable sources that describe him as a moderate[1], inclduing his "official" biography on the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee website and he should be listed as such. Also, "center right-wing" can be considered a loaded POV phrase, given the connotation of "right wing." He may not vote with the Democrats 100% of the time, but is far from being considered right-wing in his views. Several other democrats vote against party line issues. Are they "center right-wing," too? Given that the policy on biolgraphies of living persons is designed to protect articles from inaccurate descriptions, I'm reverting this back to moderate. Even if one or more reliable sources could be provided which specifically state he is a "center right-wing" politican, then the information could be added back, but only in a NPOV format, such as "Sen. Baucus is a moderate member of the Democratic part, though increasingly some interests groups have taken issue with what they view as his center right-wing views."DCmacnut<> 16:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "multiple references" come from Googling the terms "Max Baucus Moderate" - which comes back with 41,800 references. Try replacing "Moderate " with "Right" and you get many more hits. Well thats because itis of course a meaningless way to measure these things. I don't really care what his official biography says 'cos he probably wrote it himself. Actions speak louder than words and are more meaningful. Try looking at his voting record.. http://thatsmycongress.com/senate/ which lists members of congress by their record of voting record to see how progressive or regressive they are. His ranking on progressiveness is just 41 out of 60 democrats. I agree that "moderate" "right" and "left" are somewhat arbitrary terms (at least as to where you join the line) but "somewhat right" is probably a fairer description of where he stands based on his record than just "moderate". Would you be happier if I justify the description "somewhat to the right" with reference to his voting record to show that I am not expressing POV? It seems over the top to me. The description is not intended to mark him up or down in any way because every party will have people that are left of center as well as right of center (compared to the moderates in the middle). I think it is just useful for Wikipedia readers to know where in the spectrum he sits.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Please see the debate at Talk:Barack Obama about whether he is an "African-American." He's half-white and half-blac, but the majority of reliable sources refer to him as African-American, so that is what Wikipedia uses to describe him. Wikipedia relies 100% on what reliable sources say about an issue. Otherwise, editors can insert their own views and original research into an issue. The majority of reliable sources and Baucus himself idenfity him as a moderate. While his voting record on some issues may indicate a right-of-center view point, to use voting records to justify your views on his political leanings violates original research. I'm chaning this back to moderate. Please to do not revert it again or you will be violating WP:3RR and you will be blocked.DCmacnut<> 19:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the link/source you provided on progressive rankins says nothing about not being a moderate or being "right of center." It is just one metric by one organization which uses a small set of bills to determine rankings. It does not meet wP:RS. In fact, it indidates he is a "progressive," and there are several other Democrats on the list with the same or lower ranking as Baucus, such as Kent Conrad and Kay Hagan. Roland Burris ranks even lower than Baucus at 29%, the same ranking given to Lisa Murkowski. I don't think you could say with a straight face that Burris then qualifies as a "right-wing" senator.DCmacnut<> 19:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A voting record is the most reliable source in that it is objective. The other sources are subjective. --Navy II (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is original research to divine a political basis from a voting record. A voting record is a primary source, and WP requires third party reliable sources. The source the editor provided above doesn't even look at his entire voting record, only select few bills and votes that the organization has deemed worthy. Moreover, there are several Democrats who fall at or below the rating given to Baucus by this organization, many who would be considered from the liberal wing of the party. I stand by my original statements. Reliable sources refer to him as a moderate and that is how we should list him as such. I am again reverting back to the original version.DCmacnut<> 00:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the reference to his progressive voting record a direct statement that it is how that particular organization ranks him, rather than being a summary of his entire 30-year congressional voting record. I've also added statements that he received a 100% rating from the League of Conservation Voters and was endorsed by NARAL Pro-Choice in his 2008 campaign, to provide appropriate WP:NPOV balance. I want to assume good faith, but many of the recent edits seem triggered by opposition among some editors by his position on health care reform, rather than attempting to provide a balanced picture of his his political views. Much of the health care items are newsworthy, but WP:BLP requires that we take a very strong neutral stance in how we describe issues on articles of living persons. Hopefully my edits are a reasonable compromise.DCmacnut<> 01:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do not live in the U.S. and have no interest in U.S. politics though I have become interested in health care matters there when I discovered that some U.S. based editors were keen to mislead Wikipedia readers by denigrating the rather excellent health care systems in Europe. I found a recent US TV ad which has been running recently that was posted on You Tube which claimed that a women in the UK was denied an essential pap screening test and, as a consequence, she is dying of cancer. Sounds terrible and tragic. But it is also highly misleading. In reality the situation in the UK is that the government invites all women over the age of 25 to have regular PAP tests every 3 years (5 years as she gets older if there has been no problem). And the government pays for it as part of its role of defending the health of the nation. Tests for women under 25 are not done because there are very few cervical cancers in that age group and screening of women say from 16-24 would not be very sensible. The woman in question was under 25 at the time she alleges she was denied a test, so if she was denied anything it would have been a FREE pap test. She did of course have the choice to go to a private physician and pay for one herself. Just as you do in the US. She was definitely NOT denied a test. Just the funding for it until she was 25. She was the statistical rarity for catching this disease so young, which is of course very sad for her. But it was misleading for the american public to see TV ads intended to scare them about publicy funded health care by telling lies about the systems in other countries. Now I mention this because I watched the Senate debate on the appointment of the HHS secretary recently on C-Span and EXACTLY these kinds of scare tactic messages were being sent out by Republican senators opposing her nomination. Which is why I was interested to know where Baucus stands, because to me, as an outsider, it seems odd that his party's presidency is calling for a public sector competitor to the private insurance industry whereas Baucus seems to calling the shots in the Senate but has declared this to be off the table. His actions seem oddly in tune with the Republicans on the issue of not allowing the government to insure the health of people if that is what the people want. And if he is pro gun and his tax and other issues are more in tune with Republicans and he falls into the fourth quartile on his voting record on democratic issues then surely he has to be to on the the center right of his fellow Democrats in the Senate. He is not in the center but he is not the most right wing in the Senate. Center right seems correct to me. His voting record has to be more significant than what he himself calls himself. And this is not just my POV because I have seen numerous web site (partisan of course) calling for his party to strip him of his powerful position on this committee because of his position on health care reform and due to their doubts of his financial probity - i.e. taking money from insurance pharmaceutical companies and then taking steps which protext their interests rather than those of patients. The kind of sensible European evidenced based medicine which provides the best combination of value for money and efectiveness, and allows people to choose to pay for private extended coverage if they want, or to stay with a public sector insurer which regards every payout as being an investment in health and not a "medical loss" (which is how cmmercial insurance companies see it). Keeping the term "moderate" on his Wikipedia page without any reservations about that IS misleading. --Hauskalainen (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your views, but you are taking a very one-sided look at things. Moderate has a very specific connotation in the US political system, and by all media accounts he is considered a moderate. He may be right of center on some issues, but on other's he is left of center, so you can't simply say 100% he is right of center all of the time. A good example would be former Senator Zell Miller of Georgia. He nearly always voted with the Republicans. Baucus votes with the Democratic caucus most of the time, but on specific issues will part with them. That is the very definition of a moderate. You are just looking at one issue, health care, and your support for the European model (which I have no problems with) is coloring your edits. WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP drive the content of articles about living persons, and my presenting just the pro-single payer side gives undue weight to the issues, and ignores the complexities of the US health care reform debate. As far as I know, the Administration has not said the only want a public sector solution. Also, Congress is very territorial about issues under its jurisdication, and the Finance Committee under Senator Baucus is no different.
Trying to analyze his voting record on specific issues is a very subjective matter, and cannot meet the standard of a reliable source and is original research. The most we can hope for is by reporting what other's say about his voting record - his entire voting record over the last 30-years, not just one or two issues. That is why I kept your progressive ranking source, but added one from the environment groups that show he is very pro-environment on their issues, as well as pro-choice. The problem with outside group "political scorecards" is that they only analyze a handful of votes, sometimes just one or two votes. There are many other Democrats in the House and the Senate with similar views to Baucus, and by and large they are all referred to as moderates by and large. To only focus on Baucus with your edits provides undue weight to the issue and violates WP:NPOV. I'm sorry we disagree on this, but Wikipedia strives for neutrality in all matters, equally presenting all sides. The only other option would be delete any mention of his political leanings at all (moderate, right wing, etc.) and focus just on his views on specific issues.DCmacnut<> 13:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring of article

I've restructured the entire article into what I believe is better organization. I welcome any comments on further improvements. CriticalChris 18:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not thrilled with the changes for a couple of reasons, although the old version wasn't much chop either. Firstly, the new lead is pretty problematic - while he's in the news for his stance on health care at the moment, having "He is the current chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Finance, and in this role has expressed his beliefs that Americans are not ready yet for any form of single payer health care", and then going on to describe how his critics deride him before even mentioning how long he's been in the Senate is pretty poor. It might be worth having a well-sourced sentence or two on the issue at the end of the lead, as part of a general summary of stances that he's taken across his career, but this just looks to the casual observer like something a single-issue editor might have whacked in.
Secondly, I'm not much of a fan of having great whopping "views on X" sections. It interferes with the flow of the article, and it doesn't fit very well in a biographical article. I think it would be a good example to look to the featured Barack Obama article here - most of the article follows his career, and notable developments in that career chronologically, and then it has a section with a couple of paragraphs describing his notable political views. The previous version tried at this and failed; I'm not sure this rewrite is the solution, though. Rebecca (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This just looks to the casual observer like something a single-issue editor might have whacked in." WP:SPU? Really? I'm touched Rebecca. So much for WP:AGF. Is this "the solution?" ...I never intend any of my own edits to be a solution, and this article is no exception, it's merely a continuance of a collaborative editing process of a living article. If you want to contribute, please help edit here as appropriate, though if you merely wish to provide feedback in this talk section, I suppose that's also an option. CriticalChris 19:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that you were a single-issue editor. I know who you are, and I respect your work - which is why I was all the more gobsmacked at the lead that emerged from that rewrite, and also why I'm raising the matter on the talk page rather than simply reverting the thing. The two sentences on healthcare currently in the lead are BLP violations, plain and simple. At a bare minimum, these need to be removed - and preferably soon. Rebecca (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People, people, settle down, please... I haven't the time to wade in on this much, but I simply encourage all editors to follow the good article criteria and use the best possible sources in a meticulous manner. Besides Obama's article, what other Senate biographies are FA or GA? One I know to be GA is Ted Kennedy. See others at Wikipedia:Good_articles#Social_sciences_and_society. You may want to look at how those articles are structured and go from there. This one is B-Class, those are A-class, and I can tell you from experience that running the GA gauntlet DOES make for a very good article! However, personally, I don't feel that I ought to be editing this particular article, as I am a Montanan with a strong political opinion of Max (I'm pro-single payer health care, if you are wondering...) and thus I don't want to edit here because I cannot maintain neutrality. But, OTOH, as a three+ year wiki editor, what I CAN do is help everyone else stick to the best policies of wikipedia, advise on the MOS, and citation issues, and try to answer particular questions about what's going on politically in Montana generally, try to give as neutral an answer as possible on details about Max's life and career. Drop me a line on my talk page if you need some of that kind of help. Montanabw(talk) 19:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and chopped out the offending material. Look, I can't stand Baucus, and living in a country with more-or-less universal healthcare makes me think his stance is ridiculous. This said, BLP doesn't just apply to people you like. Rebecca (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to criticism regarding his taking of money from Health Industries whilst being a key decision maker on health care reform

Twice it seems in recent edits that references to Baucus being a large taker of funding from the health care industry have been deleted from the article, on one occasion that this is is due wo WP:BLP. Given the contextual relevance of this face and the fact that Baucus has been criticised for this because he holds chairmanship of a key sentate committee wrking on health care reform and has spoken against Single Payer Health Care which many believe would enable the government to stand up to powerful industry groups that currently gain from the present funding arrangements.

Baucus is a politician and politicians actions, which affect everyone affected by his decision making, is surely fair game for criticism. I would argue that WP:BLP cannot be applied to the political decisions and political actions of a politician.

I propose that the article should have this material back in place ... and pronto!--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hauskalainen and so does the U.S. Supreme Court. Politicians are public figures and the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that certain protections that are afforded private citizens in respect to criticism are not applicable to public persons. --Tritest (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP IS the state of the rules on wiki, so we DO have to follow it. After all, to be in wikipedia, a person has to have at least some notability, and hence the BLP policy was designed specifically for public figures, including politicians. I am not a supporter of Max (I go clear back to the crowd who nicknamed him "Gumby" in the 80's because of his flexible spine), but I must urge everyone to follow BLP. The thing with this article is that it lacks enough good footnotes. You can neutrally state something that may be viewed as critical, IF you have an unimpeachable, fair, verifiable, source that meets the criteria of WP:V to a T. So go dig up good sources. Montanabw(talk) 18:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP says
In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

So it is quite ok to reveal the allegation if it is true. This is whar Ed Schults, an NSNBC anchor says

And it should be noted tonight that Senator Max Baucus has taken more money from pharmaceutical companies and health insurance industry folks than any other Democrat in the congress. Sebator Baucus got 183 000 dollars from health insurance companies and 229 000 dollars from drug companies

The numbers are displayed and there is a reference at the bottom of the screen though it is too small for me to read. I would say that this is enough to warrant a mention in the article, but I agree it would be good to access the same source that MSNBC were referencing.

Unless you can come up with a better explanation for excluding this MSNBC statement then I would hold that the text and the reference should go back in because it is highly relevant.--Hauskalainen (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong objections to restoring Shultz' data. I replaced it with the other larger figures as they were accompanied by a more specific time frame. Schultz' data was perhaps for just one election cycle, and those figures could be particularly compelling if seen in that light, though chronological details would be nice. Can we source out more details for his statement? I also think the five year figures (2003-2008) paint a bigger picture of ongoing time at the troff. I'm open to improvements, please be WP:BOLD, and thanks for your collaboration here sir. CriticalChris 02:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the allegations are verifiable, then I have no issue mentioning them in the article. What I do have a problem with is mentioning them in the lead. It's one of the worst cases of undue weight I've ever come across from experienced editors. As I said above, I couldn't agree more with you ideologically about the issue, but you're established editors, and you should know better.

Baucus has been in the Senate for 31 years, and a leading member of it for a fair few of those years. He has dealt with thousands of political issues and voted on thousands of bills. There is no possible ground on which it could be argued that health care reform is so notable among those that it warrants taking up half the lead section. It might be appropriate to have a sentence on his opposition to health-care reform, considering if it's in the news, and on his practices of accepting donations generally if that can be substantiated strongly enough to warrant being in the lead. Rebecca (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you mention "editors" in the plural and I have not added anything to the lead section. I think you should withdraw the implicit allegation that I have engaged in undue weight editing. Having said that though, given the amount of money that America's expensive health care system spends on political lobbying, the vast amount of money received by Baucus, and his role in the health care reform basis, it would be irresponsible for this not to have prominent weight in the article. Although I did not add it to the lead, I would go so far as saying this is something that would be worth mentioning briefly there. After all the lead is intended to give a heads up on information about this personality and the rest of the article. Given the timeliness of the issue it would not be inappropriate to have some mention of this in the lead (though I agree that what was there did give undue weight to something that should have been in more detail further down). --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't accusing you of adding the material - Chris did - but it did appear to be being defended here. I agree that this needs decent coverage, but I think editors need to tread carefully in this area, so as to keep in mind BLP issues.
In an article this size, I think the current length of the health care section is okay, any more than about what is currently there is starting to get into serious undue weight territory, considering the length of his career.
The detail, though, is more problematic. It starts off with a sentence about how he "caused controversy" before it even lays out what his views are. There's a fair bit of editorialising there (for one example - "This is the same term the insurance trade association, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) uses..."), is using). These sorts of links need solid sourcing if they're to go in the article. There's also weasel words ("Some have pointed out that"...).
The whole section needs to be tightened up both in terms of prose and sourcing, and so it focuses just on sourced facts, quotes and such, rather than trying to make an editorial case for Baucus being a prick. Where it is necessary to include critical opinions, it would be better to actually quote notable Baucus critics directly, rather than trying to make the case oneself using primary sources. Rebecca (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rebecca says "There's a fair bit of editorialising there (for one example - "This is the same term the insurance trade association, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) uses..."), is using). These sorts of links need solid sourcing if they're to go in the article."
That's been sourced in the article for awhile. Here's the quote from the article that is cited and a link: "“We have to come up with a uniquely American solution, probably a combination of private and public coverage,” he [Baucus] said. That sounds like the insurance trade association, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), talking. AHIP has launched the Campaign for an American Solution, which it bills as an effort “to build support for workable health care reform based on core principles supported by the American people: coverage, affordability, quality, value, choice, and portability.”" Baucus Watch: A key senator on health reform holds a listening session, Columbia Journalism Review. Tritest (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're not understanding what I'm saying. You source him saying something, and you source the health industry saying something, and you make a link between the two. You can't do that - it's textbook original research. Rebecca (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research for two very obvious reasons. One, that is exactly what the source that is cited states, and two, the WP article only states a simple fact, and that is that both Baucus and AHIP are using the exact same phrase. A fact is a fact, and not OR. Here is the quote from the WP article: "Baucus has used the term "uniquely American solution" to describe the end point of current health reform and has said that he believes America is not ready yet for any form of single payer health care. This is the same term the insurance trade association, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), is using. AHIP has launched the Campaign for an American Solution, which argues for the use of private health insurance instead of a government backed program." --Tritest (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a textbook example of original research. The cites for Baucus statement, and AHIP's statement, are fine. The connection you're drawing between them (in essence, that one has a bearing upon the other) is original research. If this linkage has been the subject of notable commentary, then cite that - otherwise it cannot go in the article. There are similar problems throughout this section; it cites facts, but ties them all together in a way that is largely original research so as to make a case about Baucus. Rebecca (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the lead of any biography should first follow the guidelines of WP:LEAD, and as such be a very brief summary of each section that it in the actual article. My own informal rule of thumb is "one sentence for every section" though I don't always follow it... however, thinking in those terms will avoid the two concerns I see here, one of which is a question of Undue weight (though it must be noted that Max's position on health care goes back many years, note the prescription drug plan earlier this decade) and the other being an undue emphasis on a current topic, necessitating a rewrite of the lede a year from now when something else will be the hot topic...which is a pain in the butt because most of the original editors will be off on other topics...  ;-P Anyway, my advice is write the content, then figure out how to put it into the lead --- 3-4 words, a sentence, whatever, but about as much weight in the lead as in the article, and if topical, written in a way that will allow it to easily be swapped out for something that is topical later... Montanabw(talk) 01:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead is fine for what's currently there now, considering that most of the article is more "Views of Max Baucus" rather than anything resembling a biography of Baucus, which is what it's supposed to be. Rebecca (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Onion

To editor "Will Beback" I'm reverting your efforts to censor this reference to Baucus in The Onion humor/culture newspaper. The pop culture reference is well sourced, obviously satire, but that doesn't make it any less notable or worthy of deletion. Now, if one were attempting to place the Onion satire piece into the body of the article where the other serious, legitimate policy analysis and criticisms are found, that would be a different story. In any event, Baucus is clearly a public figure, and has no reasonable expectations of shielding from even the harshest of ridicule and criticism. Remember, WP:NOTCENSORED means something here. Should we open an WP:RFC on this issue? CriticalChris 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does it add to a reader's understanding of the subject? Every politican is satirized. The Onion did a hundred lampoons of George W. Bush, but how many of them are included in that article? None. Did this particular piece achieve any wider notability, say because Baucus joked about it in public or sued or anything like that? Not that I'm aware of. Just because someone makes a joke about a politician doesn't mean we should include the joke in a biography. That is just sound editing, not censorship.   Will Beback  talk  19:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the material was only added yesterday.[2]   Will Beback  talk  20:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A satirical piece is a case of a periodical making its own news. Because of this, such a piece only becomes notable if other media sources comment on it. The Onion piece is not notable. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skirting WP:CRITICISM

I have a certain suspicion about the subsection, "Conflict of interest charges" since it looks like a WP:CRITicism dumping ground. However, I do think the general topic is notable to address, and the title seems relatively neutral as a description of what it describes. However, the section is grossly, grossly WP:UNDUE length. We have nine paragraphs about Baucus' alleged conflict of interest on the health insurance legislation, currently pending. That's more than we have on his policy/action on Iraq, Israel, trade, "economic issues", voting rights, gun rights, gay rights, etc. combined. LotLE×talk 22:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Positions

I think it would be worthwhile to spend a brief paragraph in the introduction stating Baucus' positions on the main issues he has been involved with. The single short sentence (pro-choice and pro-gun rights) is too little, and indeed it tends to overemphasize those issues over others. However, something like three moderately long sentences explaining the half dozen or so issues the Senator has been most involved with is common for politician articles, and would give readers a good overview in the lead. LotLE×talk 20:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. His positions and his policies are what the article is mostly about, so it's bad form to exclude them from the introduction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur also, the substance and style of the article could benefit from a greater number of Baucus' policy positions being mentioned in the lead. CriticalChris 22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trade war

To whoever wonders why I deleted the line about Baucus' fears of a trade war, let me explain that I deleted it because it is more or less original research. No one knows what Baucus fears except Baucus himself, so it is inappropriate to present speculation as to his state of mind as fact. This is a common problem on wikipedia, and I will delete it wherever I find it. Treybien 21:32 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lock article for non-registered and youtube video

Beware: This article is being referenced with youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Y9X5ggxzA not proven correct/not fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.103.18 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 28 December 2009

The Politico link that footnotes the "intoxicated speech" reference does not definitively claim that Baucus was inebriated and that line should be removed from the Personal section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.252.10 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. The Politico blog post, which is discussed under videographing section, merely "quotes" from the "[Drudge Report]" for its baseless accusation that the senator was intoxicated but upon reviewing an offered clip, there is no indication to the veracity of such claim. This must be removed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rilixy (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

drunk on senate floor

shouldnt there be something about the time he showed up apparently drunk on the senate floor for debate? Crd721 (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... he's obviously drunk. too controversial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.165.51 (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting rights section

Could someone at least look at the section titled "Voting Rights" and attempt to explain why that section appears to be more of of a monologue someone wrote to support their viewpoint on the DC voting rights issue than anything remotely having to due with Baucus? 24.166.190.216 (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I'm from Montana, and it never came up as an election issue here.--161.7.105.164 (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it's compelling material, much of it is a bit tangential to an article on Baucus. I've paired it down a bit, keeping aspects of the material that relate to Baucus' record. I'm also placing a tag linking readers to the District of Columbia voting rights. I'd also like to remove the neutrality tag, as I believe it weakens the article.CriticalChris 19:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article's organization, and slant

This article starts off well; the lead and background on his early life are both good. However, the majority of the article after that seems to be selective and slanted. The information on Jack Abramoff can stay, but it should not be above his committee assignments or policy stands. It is a rather isolated incident in which there was no wrongdoing, yet it is placed up front. The long section on his girlfriend and a federal judgeship comes next, and is mentioned again in the personal section. The inclusion of this information is fine; the placement above his career achievements seems unwarranted. There are many sections on his votes, yet each one is unconnected to the others and it reads like editors simply put in whatever they thought might be embarrassing or controversial. This is a man who has been in Congress 38 years, so he votes on individual bills are relevant only as they connect to the larger picture. After all, Senator Baucus has voted five or ten thousand times. Picking ten or twenty votes to highlight hints of an agenda. Where he stands on a particular issue or vote is less important than the fact he has served so long and done so much. I invite other editors to consider this and add their thoughts.Catherinejarvis (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Max Baucus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Max Baucus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Max_Baucus