Talk:Erik Paulsen

LGBT Rights?

Can someone explain to me why his vote on requiring athletic coaches to undergo background checks is remotely related to LGBT issues? If anything it's offensive because it would assume that somehow they're checking the coaches to make sure they're not sex offenders. If no one has a reasonable objection to removal, I am planning on removing it from this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrippina Minor (talk • contribs) 19:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

This page appears to be subject to systematic content cleansing in order to position Rep. Paulsen favorably for re-election. I call upon partisans favorable to him to resist the urge to delete contributions simply because they contain facts that might not appear in a campaign brochure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthteller52 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

MNGOP, You can't just copy and paste his campaign bio into wikipedia. It's not only copyright infringement, but it also violates the spirit (and presumably the rules) behind wikipedia.

This is a source for unbiased and well-sourced information on candidates. Where they were born, where they went to school, their families, their life experience: all of that is appropriate. What is not appropriate is to use that information to paint a picture. Any picture. Nobody here cares what "the driving force in Paulsen's distinguished career" is. They just want to know the offices that career has consisted of, how he got into those offices and what he's done in those offices.

I'm too lazy to take the relevant _FACTUAL_ information from a campaign bio and rearrange it into a Wikipedia appropriate fashion, but if whoever posted the campaign bio (assuming their not a campaign staffer for Paulsen or the GOP, which it appears you are) wants to do that, go ahead. We'd all appreciate it.

I don't have the time either, but this is perhaps the worst POV violation I've seen in my years at Wikipedia. FIX IT or I'll report it, and then you'll get lots of other people editing the POV out of it. Moncrief (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

---

This problem is being fixed. It appears someone went on to our profile and used over the top vocabulary about Erik. No way to tell if it was a supporter or someone against Erik looking to mess-up his wikipedia page. No way to tell.

Regardless, this problem has been taken care of and the parts that are in question have been taken out and are being rewritten.

Andfoxy13 (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)PaulsenFriend — Andfoxy13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"It appears someone went on to our profile"

What on earth does this mean? Moncrief (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, considering that you're someone who removed the utterly truthful and even banal statement "Paulsen's opponent in the 3rd district is Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party (DFL) candidate and Iraq War Veteran Ashwin Madia" from the article, I'm not sure you're the best judge of non-POV. Moncrief (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, there is most certainly a "way to tell" who made exactly which changes to the article. It's called the page history, and it's easily accessible. Here's a link: [1]. And here are some very POV changes you yourself made to the article: [2]. Moncrief (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Andfoxy13 why did you remove the advert tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.43.194 (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume the tag was removed because it's not written like an advertisement anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.109.29.186 (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Andfoxy13 do you understand that the history tab shows who did what? You might want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Db-spam which explains the Db-spam tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.43.194 (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest edit

I just want to bring to the editors attention a potential conflict of interest edit by users at 143.231.249.141. At this IP address' wikipage the IP address is identified as "registered to United States House of Representatives." On July 30 an editor at this IP addressed deleted information concerning Rep. Paulsen's policy positions, even though the information was cited (and I did check out the sources to make sure it was correct). Check out the edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erik_Paulsen&diff=305146361&oldid=302654297. I am not saying that Rep Paulsen or anyone connected to him made this edit, but it would be disturbing if that was the case. David Straub (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing of Policy positions and key votes section

There appears to be a slow editing war in this article between those who only want to portray either the negative or positive aspects of Paulsen's voting record. Obviously, it's unrealistic that an article in Wikipedia will have a comment on each and every policy point during the entire career of a member of congress, so I could see how much of what is written in this section could eventually be deleted if Paulsen continues to stay in congress. That being said, there should be an effort to write a more balanced section that represents the views of Representative Paulsen, particularly concerning his most recent voting record. David Straub (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I also must note that I find it a little bit disturbing that the two editors who have made the most changes to this article, Truthteller52 and Waywaygone, have only edited this article. They haven't edited any other articles on wikipedia! That, along with the fact that this article has been edited by users at computers in the US Congress (see above conflict of interest comment) is potentially a problem. David Straub (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

To whatever extent an edit war is underway on this page, I would note that David Straub violated 3RR with four reverts on 27 April 2010. I'll leave it to admins to determine whether his reverts meet the criteria for exemption. Truthteller52 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Truthtellerbetold, I wasn't the only one who reverted your edits, and you did revert the deletions others made many more than 4 times. In addition, the fact that you are so familiar with wikipedia rules after only editing this article a number of times reinforces the notion that your account is merely a sockpuppet for hiding your identity.David Straub (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The sockpuppet claim is bogus as the investigation will demonstrate. I don't have sock puppets, meat puppets or any other type of puppets. It's unquestionable that others have reverted my edits. As is clear from comments elsewhere on this page, Paulsen's entry has been subject to systematic editing by partisans for a long time, probably years, and any efforts to introduce balance are resisted, including mine. Those days should now draw to a close. In terms of my knowledge of Wikipedia rules, I've learned them the hard way: by reading them after having been unjustly attacked. Furthermore, ad hominum attacks aren't much of an affirmative defense. Truthteller52 (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Truthteller, First, take a time out. Second, take a look at how the page looked right before you registered your account. It contains a policy section that has basically is just negative remarks to say about Paulsen's record, including "Paulsen opposes a public health care option, saying it would represent a "government takeover" of health care. Instead, he supported a Republican alternative plan;" "Paulsen voted against the American Clean Energy and Security Act (2009), an effort to curb emissions of greenhouse gases that cause climate change;" and "Paulsen voted against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." Your edits go over the top in criticizing Paulsen and that's why they have been changed by a number of users. It's not "unquestionable" that your additions have been changed, it's the wikipedia way. And by the way, if you want to address me by my first name, why don't you post your real name and contact info on your user page. I don't think you'd be making such bold statements if you actually had to take personal responsibility for what you said, rather than hiding behind a moniker (which I am certain is at least your second wikipedia account, i.e. sockpuppet.). David Straub (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"First, take a time out." Yet more condescension. I'm not a two-year old child, and if you'd like to claim I am, I'll just point out that your comments have been equally, if not more, incendiary than mine. If nothing else, I'm not making false charges about you such as the sockpuppet claim is. It doesn't even make sense. Waywaygone and I were reversing each other's changes. Why would someone use a sockpuppet to do that? Truthteller52 (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Since it has been used to discredit me on this page, I'll just note that the sockpuppet investigation of me has been rejected and closed. Furthermore, administrators who reviewed the evidence questioned why it was ever endorsed by a clerk since it was highly implausible from the outset. I hope that this sort of activity will no longer be used to attempt to discourage my participation on this page. Truthteller52 (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The more significant issue here is that this page appears to have been systematically maintained as a pseudo-campaign brochure by partisans to Paulsen. Active editing with relevant factual information will hopefully help the page "evolve" (sorry!) to be an actual Wikipedia reference. Your effort at objectivity is appreciated. Paulsen's page appears to have been subject to little of it. Truthteller52 (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we are in the midst of an edit war. First, Waywaygone needs to stop blanking sections. Second, Truthteller52, objectivity does not simply mean taking one side of the argument and presenting it as the truth. Obviously you don't like Paulsen, but you have to stop inserting reverting every single edit that tempers your one-sided depictions of Paulsen. This page is by no means an advertisement of Paulsen, as I am certain his campaign manager would not like to see some of the more unflattering details placed on this page. And including information that Paulsen was at an event with Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann is about as relevant as writing about how Barack Obama attended an event with Jeremiah Wright. Finally, if anyone wants to write something about Paulsen, place it on the internet, and not have anyone edit it, then Wikipedia isn't the place for you. Perhaps you should start your own blog. David Straub (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

David, the sentence, "This bill would increase taxes on those making less than $200,000 per year, which President Obama specifically pledged not to do during his 2008 campaign.", which I believe you have reinstated, is equally irrelevant (and unsourced besides) as my contribution concerning Paulsen's participation at a rally for Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Wikipedia achieves balance through the contribution of varying points of view, and more importantly, through the substantiation of those contributions. You have biases as well. Please don't tell me where it's appropriate for me to contribute on the Internet. That's condescending and disingenuous. Truthteller52 (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit Protection

I support the idea of having this page under edit protection for a certain period of time. Perhaps this can let emotions subside.David Straub (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to place this page in a state of semi-protection as it's tempting for partisans to create accounts solely for the purpose of deleting factual content that they find unflattering. Truthteller52 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, it is tempting for partisans to solely use the page to post misleading language that twists the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waywaygone (talk • contribs) 01:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's true for every article on a politican; I can even name one guy who's been dead for centuries yet attracts vandals on a daily basis. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you were accused of being a sockpuppet of me, I find it interesting that you disappeared during the entirety of the investigation only to reappear without any referencing of that. Absence of convenience? Truthteller52 (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of trivial crud here

I propose removing the more absurd stuff (he loves his wife; he got the Shiny Prize from some non-notable organization), for starters. The article also needs to be put into proper chronological order, without the silly "biography" section tag: this whole article is by definition a biography! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this suggestion. Truthteller52 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this page needs a lot more editing. This article was created in the midst of the 2008 by someone who obviously supported Paulsen. Another problem is the "policy section" needs to have more balanced editing. It's either just all anti-Paulsen edits, including the insertion of irrelevant items such as he was with Sarah Palin at a rally, or the removal of anything negative. David Straub (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Or the insertion of whether Barack Obama pledged not to do something in justifying how Paulsen voted on a bill. Truthteller52 (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with that. It all has to be deleted. David Straub (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've done some work; how do you folks feel about the changes I've made? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks great. Thanks for doing the dirty work :) David Straub (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A huge improvement. Thanks much. Truthteller52 (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that a statement from Public Radio saying it is "not true" that the health reform bill is not a government takeover of health care could be considered a fact. It is an opinion. That's hardly a foot-notable item and it should be removed. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waywaygone (talk • contribs) — Waywaygone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have to disagree with the last statement, but only to a point. It is the norm in news articles, academic works, and even encyclopedic works, to provide a contrarian view point. Ideally the discussion of Paulsen's vote on the health care bill should be as follows 1). His vote and why he voted that way. 2) A brief sentence that describes the most basic and important details that are IN the bill. This does not include things such as "this is the greatest achievement in health care in a generation" or "this is the worst disaster for health care in the nation's history." 3). A contrarian opinion by some sort of public organization or individual that would challenge the opinion of the office holder. 4). A view from an individual or organization that supports the view of the office holder. Actually, you could take 3 and 4 and reverse them. So far the editing of the policy point section in this article has either been to state Paulsen's vote and then provide supporting evidence or contrarian evidence. There has also been some edits that I would just call a Red herring that state that Paulsen was on stage with Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, which I don't think has any relevance what so ever. David Straub (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As a logical fallacy, a red herring is a diversion from fact. From what fact was the statement a diversion? Further, it was never claimed that Paulsen was "on stage with" Palin and Bachmann. The statement was that he "joined" them in this position with the implication that he did so during the course of the rally, which he certainly did. Regardless, that statement is now in the page's history (see Beating_a_dead_horse), and I'm content to let it remain there provided that the overblown campaign literature verbiage that has been removed in the course of Orange Mike's work to Wikipediafy this page remain out as well.Truthteller52 (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

His Votes read like a Liberal's worst nightmare

All the votes listed are against liberal policy proposals. Makes it seem like the guy is a jerk. Show me a wikipedia page on a Democrat of similar stature that lists all that Democrat's votes against conservative policies. What gives here? This is obvious political bias, and shouldn't be in wikipedia. Instead just put a link to Paulsen's voting record and people can go look it up and think for themselves. Also, quit the political commentary, e.g. which so-and-so said was inaccurate, and so on. This is supposed to be a biography page of a living person not a page to debate Paulsen's votes or conservative positions in general. This page gets a BIG thumbs down in my view and should be completely rewritten. I just regret that I don't have the time to do it.Tpkatsa (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It's likely that the reason this page reads as it does is because it's an accurate representation of Paulsen's policy positions and voting record. He consistently votes with the interests of big business and the mainstream of the Republican Party even though he represents a balanced district that was previously represented by a moderate. His true nature seems to be unknown to his constituents who have recently started to become aware of his habit of avoiding them and only communicating through slick advertising that only mentions uncontroversial positions and through heavily controlled teleconferences. --Truthteller52 (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

NYT regarding FDA and Medical devices

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/business/venture-capitalists-join-push-to-ease-fda-rules-for-medical-device-industry.html October 26, 2011 by BARRY MEIER and JANET ROBERTS 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Erik Paulsen. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.paulsenforcongress.com/index.asp?Type=B_EV&SEC=%7B988B9D2B-ACA9-49D0-937D-B4C8640D009B%7D&DE=%7B4E00262A-C198-41C3-8C0C-699D96BE2997%7D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122033131/http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/ElecRslts.asp?M=CG&CD=03 to http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/ElecRslts.asp?M=CG&CD=03
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.keyc.com/node/30600
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/newsroom/news-releases/american-humane-association-clinches-major-victory-for-military-dogs.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 20:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia As a Source of Truth

As we approach the mid-term elections, it's critical that Wikipedia be a source of truthful, accurate information about political candidates. Recently, a contributor having only a single edit in their user history deleted information about Erik Paulsen's voting record on environmental issues. I have restored that and consider the edit to have been vandalism. In addition it being factual content, it's an important counterbalance to misleading TV ads that Paulsen is running in his district.

I get that my contributions on this page are seen as partisan. The solution to this is not to delete useful factual content that others don't want to be exposed to. It's for others to edit in constructive ways that they believe provide more objective balance. However, truth does not become falsehood simply because others don't like the truth. Truthteller52 (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Continuous reversion of commonsense edit

@Aloha27: Hello? Why do the first three entries of this section have to be written in prose while the remaining three have to be written in tables that are already visible in the articles I've been trying to link to? Is it going to be one or the other? And why did you have to revert my message on your talk page? You're clearly the only one who cares about my edit, and no one's posted here since 2018, so I strongly doubt anyone else is going to participate. Love of Corey (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Love of Corey::I told you that this was the place to discuss the BRD cycle. My talk page is not the place to have this discussion as other editors will be able to chime in right here and that is precisely what this process is for. The entries you choose to revert began with the election of 2014. For whatever reason the person who made up the tables in question didn't go back any further OR begin them earlier than that. I'm afraid I don't know (or care) what their rationale for taking the time to do that work was six-odd years ago. Why someone would eliminate said tables and that work rather that have a reader of the article be able to see the information right here on the article page what the results of the elections were rather than having to click on a link to view them doesn't make sense at all IMO. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  01:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Literally SO MANY other articles of politicians write the election results in prose. But now that you've clarified your position, I'll finish the work that other user started. Love of Corey (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

IF you're going to take on that task, I'm afraid you'll be busy indeed. For example, looking at the election of 2016 where Paulsen defeated Terri Bonoff, you will see on her page that the information is indeed there but not in a table. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Bonoff#Electoral_history There are literally hundreds of such instances here in Wikipedia. I'd leave sleeping dogs lie as it were. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  01:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Love of Corey (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)