Talk:Jack Conway (politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

OxyContin

This was recently added

"The State of Kentucky and the previous Attorney General is suing Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin for the devastation and destruction of life to addiction and death. AG Conway accepted a $50,000 check from an organization named NADDI which is funded by Purdue Pharma. http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september102009/oxycontin_wolf_9-10-09.php"

I believe this statement is problematic in that it implies that Conway got the money as a personal donation when the source says it was funding for a state program. Even more problematic, the source is also the opinion of an activist of an organization with an apparent legal conflict with Conway according to the opinion. Also, this Salem News is not the existing The Salem News newspaper of Massachusetts but, according to the website, a web-only publication, and I don't believe it is independently established that it is a reliable source. Hekerui (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Allegations

This stuff is redundant to the paragraph in the Senate campaign section and is a reprint of Mongiardo's allegations, as reported by the Legal Newsline. There is no info what came of it and there's no mention on Conway's reaction in the part as written, so what remains is a list repeating Mongiardo's complaint - that seems like undue weight. The campaign section paragraph discusses the complaint and the nature of it and mentions Conway's reaction. Hekerui (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The edit in question appears to simply repeat what is said later and would need to be reworked to maintain neutrality. Gobonobo ^{T C} 14:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Giving a complaint filed by a primary opponent during a close campaign its own section without any results is undue weight since the section provides no substance beyond the allegations. It starts with "Uncovered by 2010 Senate Democratic primary opponent Lieutenant Governor Daniel Mongiardo" which gives the allegations the appearance of being proven. The Senate campaign section already includes the allegations, discusses their nature and doesn't give undue weight. Several IPs, a single edit account, and an account working primarily on Rand Paul and tea party stuff are readding the section without participating in discussion, which stretches AGF for me. Hekerui (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

First, this has nothing to do with Rand Paul and the tea party stuff. This is Jack Conway's wiki page and viewers should be offered a detailed biography of his life, career, etc. Second, the primary is over so this does not benefit Mongiardo in any way. Actually, I believe he left politics all together after losing the primary. The allegations are well cited, informative, specific, etc. They are not politically motivated and written in a neutral tone. Possible allegations are important to mention for any candidate. For example, Bill Clinton and his affairs. Should he not have a spot on his page for those specific allegations? I believe we should. Also, the information does not come from pro-Rand or pro-Mongiardo websites. The information is quite factual. I added a small section to the end this morning to make it even more clear. If you have a problem with the section, feel free to clarify it instead of deleting it.Libertybrewcity (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It is still redundant and still undue weight. Who cares whether Mongiardo is still in politics? I merged the subsection into the proper section. Hekerui (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned Mongiardo in the above talk only because you made an issue of it. I should really be asking you why you care about Mongiardo. Anyways, if the information is redundant then clarify it and make it less redundant! It's really not too hard.Libertybrewcity (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I had merged the ethics stuff into the previous mentions in the Senate campaign section. Check the article history before adding duplicate content. Hekerui (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Falsification

• The statement that he is opposed to the "cap and trade" plan of the Obama administration was made in 2010. A newspaper source is there that says unequivocally that all Senate candidates oppose the plan. Then a 2009 article, reposted from an attack website and not in the NYK.com Archives (I looked), is pulled out where Conway's position is described with qualifiers, then both are mashed up - this is synthesis and a falsification of Conway's position. The 2010 article shows clear opposition and is a reliable source.
• Conway says nowhere is the DailKos article that he supports the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, only "health reform". That's not the same thing. Everybody is Congress supports "health reform". The only specific statement sourced is that he opposes the lawsuit against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the actual reform signed.

Better was source found. Hekerui (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hekerui (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand why you removed my latest link. Conway stated multiple times throughout the campaign that he supports cap and trade, but not the current version before the house. I agree it is misleading to imply that he supports the current bill, which is why I made it clear that he said he favors emissions trading, but is against the Act pushed by the Obama administration. It is misleading to simply state he opposes cap and trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrocked (talk • contribs) 13:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I clarified using the 2010 source. Please remember to sign your posts. Hekerui (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Fund raising in Canada

Why do you users not think it is important to mention he has been raising money in Canada?[1][2][3][4][5] Truthsort (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It was just tagged on the paragraph without context. I included this along with the fundraising numbers - this is how the AP treated it (and Conway looks like a sideshow in all the other sources). Hekerui (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Loan

The additional loan to Conway's campaign by himself is not part of the 3,4 million campaign contributions, but extra, and that's in the given source, so the othe AP source is redundant. Especially since the version of the AP story ran by the Lexington Herald is much more detailed. Hekerui (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see the following refs to support the statement "Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway's fundraising for the second quarter of this year includes $400,000 in personal loans, the difference in giving the Democrat a slight edge over Republican Rand Paul.":[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Take your pick, I'm re-adding this to the main page. --Duchamps_comb MFA 17:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You replaced a reliable source that actually breaks down Conway's whole campaign money numerically with one that only talk about one part of it and only in one quarter - and you overestimated his quarter and underestimated the whole campaign. Why not use the available source? And what's the sense in posting the same AP story by the same writer here over and over again, only published by other sources? It's the same story from the same person as the one used on kentucky.com, merely less detailed. I used the total figures now. Hekerui (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your right. That source states, "Conway, his Democratic opponent, had nearly twice as much money bankrolled at the end of June. Conway, the state's attorney general, has received $3.4 million in contributions for the entire campaign. The Louisville lawyer upped the ante with $525,000 in personal loans, boosting his campaign's total receipts to nearly $4 million." We should add this information.--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh it's there, that's what I meant with total numbers. Best Hekerui (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Jack Conway's opposition to medical marijuana

I added a statement to the article yesterday about Jack Conway's opposition to medical marijuana and added as a citation for it a youtube video I made (h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToIRCZRLbUo). Both the statement and the citation was removed by user Hekerui however, apparently because the video contains a small amount of footage from another youtube video (h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxeduskZJVY). I did in fact take footage from that other video in making my video, but I figured reproducing a total of less than 10 seconds from another video when the original video was produced completely for educational purposes and not in any way for the purpose of making profit (such as with a newscast, TV show, song, movie) that it would be considered fair use. So my first question is: Does it not qualify as fair use? Also, the main reason why I did cite my own video and not the original video is because the original video appears to contain some other material that might be considered a copyright violation. So my second question is: Could the original video (h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxeduskZJVY) still be used as a citation? If neither of these videos can be used as is, then my third question is: How do I remedy the situation so that my video can be used as a citation? Can I have the maker of the original video leave a comment on my youtube channel saying that he gives me permission to use that small clip? Is that sufficient? Thomas6274 (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR and WP:RS. Youtube videos are generally not reliable sources, especially those not from an official site. Reywas92^Talk 23:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I read the links you provided and did a little research and found an exact same situation on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (link here). There are opinions for and against allowing the use of a quote captured on a youtube video, with no consensus reached on the matter, but the main objection seems to be that if no other reliable source can be found then the quote is not notable enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article. In this case though, since Rand Paul's position on medical marijuana is mentioned in his article and it even has its own section, I would say that it is definitely notable enough. So I think the material should stay in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas6274 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument and combined with the trouble with sourcing I think this should stay out. If it becomes a campaign issue I expect a reliable source will turn up. However, a more general point on drug policy can be easily made with available sources like http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100619/NEWS01/6190329 Hekerui (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The essay you linked to is written specifically for the discussion of deleting entire articles, which is a completely different matter. So the point still stands that including Conway's position is reasonable if Rand's position is mentioned in Rand's article and even has its own section.

It is also fair to say that the war on drugs is a major issue in the national discourse across the country, and that a significant part of a candidate's policy towards the war on drugs is their stance on medical marijuana. Also, it is pretty notable when a candidate takes a policy position at odds with an overwhelming majority of the general public, which Jack Conway has done here. Support for medical marijuana has consistently been in the 70%-80% range for at least the past decade, with a January poll showing as high as 81% support nationwide. Even more notable is the fact that a Democrat is taking a position against medical marijuana while his Republican opponent is for it, which is a very unusual reversal of roles on this issue.

So I think the argument for inclusion is strong based not only on the fact that the exact same thing is in the Rand Paul article, but on the fact that a candidate's stance on medical marijuana is not an obscure unreasonable thing to include in the article, particularly in this situation. Thomas6274 (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting argument, now if a reliable source had made it ... If it's so remarkable something will turn up sooner or later, no need to link to link to YouTube material of unclear authorship/copyright status. Let's be patient. Hekerui (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What the source said ... is not what the article was made to say

This source has been extensively cited for Conway's political views. Here is what the source says about his opinions on "National Security":

During his 2002 congressional race, Conway said he supported the war in Iraq and favored some provisions of the Patriot Act, which made it easier for government agents to conduct surveillance on American citizens.

According to his Project Vote Smart questionnaire, Conway also favored the use of military tribunals to try suspected terrorists.

"I support the president on Iraq," he said during a 2002 KET interview. "... You have to reach across the aisle in situations like this, and I would have been among the 40 percent of Democrats that voted for the resolution on Iraq."

Ron Ray, a Crestwood lawyer who was deputy assistant defense secretary under President Ronald Reagan, said Conway's analysis of what should have happened before the United States invaded Iraq -- seeking authorization from Congress and gaining the support of other nations -- is based generally on sound constitutional reasoning. But he said he believes Conway ultimately came to the wrong conclusion in supporting the invasion "because we were lied to war" by the Bush administration.

And he said Conway's support for the Patriot Act "doesn't make him a liberal or a conservative, it makes him a big-government guy, and there are plenty of big-government guys in both the Republican and Democratic parties."

Conway said in his Courier-Journal interview that he likes the fact that the Patriot Act has been amended to provide more judicial oversight before federal agents can look at mail and tap phones. And he said he now opposes the Iraq war because the Bush administration overstated the case against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and his efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction.

"In this case, they trumped up the intelligence and then they didn't have a plan for winning the peace," he said.

This article, however, translates Conway's support in 2002 for SOME parts of the Patriot Act into "Conway supports the Patriot Act." It describes his opinion in 2002 about Bush's Iraq actions, and fails to reference his later repudiation of those actions. betsythedevine (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's probably better included now. Hekerui (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Concern Troll at work on this article?

One of Rand Paul's paid staffers has been working undercover as a concern troll, Daily Kos reported yesterday. Using a pseudonym, this account worked hard to make the point that Conway did not merit progressive support. (Sample story by "Huey Long" at Kos)

(Sample comment, dated September 2: "I've been following Jack for a long time now and I tried to warn you all that he was no good (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-Hbp_LjKq4). I can think of a million better places for progressives to send money than Jack Conway, starting with Democrats who OPPOSE Bush's tax cuts.")

At least one previous concern troll incident included not just postings to liberal blogs but efforts in Wikipedia. So I decided to check to see if any new SPA had been at work making the same arguments here on Conway's biography:

There may be others, but this one is notable: [12] In one of his comments on this talk page, he claims authorship of a video posted to YouTube as the work of Derek 5141, the creator of no less than 5 anti-Conway videos. I am not sure what remedies we have under Wikipedia policy, but I would encourage editors to take a closer look at this article in the context of the really dedicated work somebody has been doing on it so far. betsythedevine (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is my youtube account with the 5 videos exposing Conway's views on a variety of issues, but my 4 edits to Jack's page (2 of which are minor) have been fair I believe. Go ahead and take a second look, but I don't really see what the big deal is. Most of the people making edits to any political article have an opinion on the subjects they are making edits to, just like I do.

Just for the record, I am not the Rand Paul intern named in the Daily Kos article suspected of posting material at Daily Kos. Thomas was a randomly chosen name, just like my youtube username. Thomas6274 (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's talk a little more about the recently outed paid intern for Rand Paul, Thomas Kubica, and his Daily Kos identity "Huey Long." On July 25, Huey Long joined Daily Kos and posted his first diary, referencing a video he had "found" on the internet -- said video was also posted on July 25 by an also-anonymous "demfromny" who exactly like "Huey Long" was a liberal fan of Daily Kos. Demfromny: "I've been reading a lot about Jack at Daily Kos, so I decided to research his positions." (wow, and not just research them but post a professionally edited video of every non-progressive quote available on tape, going back to 2002). Huey Long in his first diary on Kos: "I had been meaning to research Jack Conway, so I began today by searching for some of his videos on Youtube."

And just one day, on July 26, later Wikipedia gets a new editor with an interest in adding material about Jack Conway. And this new editor is also a very professional video-editor who has by now posted 5 YouTube videos, every one of them attacking Jack Conway for not being progressive enough. And what a coincidence -- one of the 5 videos Thomas6274 uploaded under the name Derek5141 on September 6 is exactly the same video uploaded by demfromny on July 25. Any comment about that video and how you got permission to upload it? betsythedevine (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm responding to this nonsense, but I will anyways, mostly in the interest of setting the record straight for someone's name who has been mentioned here. I will do so on your talk page however, as it is not relevant to this article. Thomas6274 (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss article content. An article can be made NPOV via content discussion and without divining motivations of contributors. Copyright concerns matter of course but personal inquiries will only lead to animosity, which would be a pity. Hekerui (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hemp farming and WP:WEIGHT

According to the Jackconway.org official website, he is running on 4 major issues: 1) Cutting the Deficit, 2) Small Businesses, 3) Protecting Social Security, and 4) Wall Street Reform. Neither Conway nor his opponent has made hemp farming or marijuana a major part of his program as Senator from Kentucky. Why these continued efforts to portray Conway as a major foe of marijuana? The man has been Attorney General of Kentucky, did he launch some major initiative against marijuana during that time? If so, please go ahead and cite that, instead of pulling out of context his remarks made in the context that he supports Kentucky law enforcement's fight against the growing scourge of meth and prescription drug abuse.

Here is a transcript of what Conway really said in the YouTube video being cited:

[responding to a question] Am I in favor of hemp farming for Kentucky? it's a law enforcement issue. The problem with hemp is, when you're trying to eradicate marijuana, which is a major law enforcement issue in Kentucky, I know how difficult it can be for law enforcement to make the distinction. I think we need to leave that issue to those in law enforcement, who are advising us on it. If there's a difficulty in distinguishing between hemp and marijuana then we shouldn't have hemp farming in Kentucky. It's more of a law enforcement issue about making certain we don't let a gateway drug get into the marketplace.

WP:WEIGHT: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

"Progressive Jack Conway hates medical marijuana!" trumpets one of many Paul-supporting sites promoting this effort. The evidence? Conway's mild response to an ambush question about it, "I'm not in favor of medical marijuana." And such "information" was long a part of this article as well: [13]. What is the point of such misrepresentation? To find hot-button issues for groups of progressive voters and give a misleading impression that Conway is their foe.

I don't think the article on Jack Conway should be parroting Ron Paul talking points for him instead of giving due weight to Conway's own statements and his own political record. If he were an active foe of Kentucky's potheads, he had a lot more opportunity to do something about it as Attorney General than he would as US Senator. betsythedevine (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Project VoteSmart's editorial opinion of both candidates: "0% courage"

Project VoteSmart has rated both Conway and Rand Paul as having 0% political courage: "Rand Paul refused to tell citizens where he/she stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2010 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders." Although neither candidate answered their survey in 2010, Conway did fill one out in 2002, which has been used as an excuse to link to an archived version of their page prominently denouncing Conway for "0% courage." I feel this is unfairly prejudicial, unless we link from our bios of both candidates to the statement by VoteSmart that they have 0% courage. betsythedevine (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think Paul's and Conway's External Links section should include a link to their PVS Issue Positions page, go ahead and add it. Thomas6274 (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you have already added the page to Conway's article twice as a reference, there is no need to duplicate their crude editorializing as an external link here. But again, I protest the undue WP:WEIGHT you are giving to marijuana-related issues, when they have not been a major focus of the campaign, of Conway's past actions or statements, or of his likely activities as a Senator -- but your continued emphasis gives the false impression that they are. betsythedevine (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your assertion that Project Vote Smart has engaged in "crude editorializing", and I think it makes no sense to include Rand's PVS Issue Position page in his External Links but not Conway's, but I don't feel like arguing about it for at least right now, so I left it alone.

As far as Conway's position on medical marijuana and industrial hemp, we should not limit the article to issues that Conway lists on his website or talks about on the campaign trail. Thomas6274 (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Revisions to War on Drugs and Foreign Policy sections

I revised the War on Drugs section to remove content about Rand Paul and replaced it with information further detailing Conway's positions. The Political Views section should document what Conway's actual positions are, not Conway's attacks on Rand Paul.

I also revised the Foreign Policy section because I don't think it should state as fact what his decision to support the Iraq War was based on. His decision could have been based on other factors, such as a desire to bring stability to the Middle East, a desire to spread democracy around the world, public opinion polls, or a combination of these and other factors, including his concern about WMD's. I also restored a reference that had been mistakenly deleted. Thomas6274 (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The AlterNet article is a POV piece by an author who opposes drug regulation. He cites a US-wide study as evidence that there is no "drug epidemic" in Eastern Kentucky. Here's what a different government study says: "Other opiates and synthetics admission rates for primary abuse are higher in Appalachia than the rest of the nation, especially in coal-mining areas. The trend is rising across the nation and in Appalachia, but at a faster pace in Appalachia. This is particularly the case in Appalachian coal mining areas." ("Other opiates" include prescription drugs like oxycodone that Conway spent time going after.) Map 2.19 shows Eastern Kentucky as one of the hardest-hit regions for this area-wide problem. betsythedevine (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The AlterNet article actually says, "Conway said that Kentucky, which is suffering from budget cuts, can't take on drug traffickers without federal help." It is a low-quality source to cite for the sentence it is now attached to: "Conway states that if elected to the U.S. Senate he will make sure law enforcement has the federal resources needed to fight the drug problem in Kentucky". Fortunately there are better, less bloggily opinionated sources for his support of keeping federal drug-war funds flowing into Kentucky, such as the Cincinnati Enquirer, with which I am now replacing the AlterNet reference. betsythedevine (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Editorial comments even from WP:RS not appropriate in article

I do not think an editorial comment from NPR about a Jack Conway advertisement belongs in this article. Or, if it does, maybe the Rand Paul article should also include quotes from editorials such as this one from the Lexington Herald Leader (Sept. 22): "Rand Paul flunks Reality 101...as is often the case with the Republican U.S. Senate candidate, when his broad concepts meet reality, they are exposed as the spiel of a snake oil salesman." Or this one from the WSJ (May 24, 2010): "The Kentucky candidate's bad history ... A Senate campaign is not a libertarian seminar, a lesson that Kentucky Republican Rand Paul has learned the hard way since his primary victory on Tuesday. He has now renounced the doubts he expressed last week about some parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and has declared the matter closed. But before we move on, it's important to understand why Mr. Paul was wrong even on his own libertarian terms." Cherry-picked bits from editorial comments about active candidates are not appropriate in a Wikipedia BLP. And, on a practical level, if we allow their inclusion but then give other editors the task of creating "balance" ex post facto, we are going to create bloated articles full of special pleading pro and con to the great waste of many people's time. betsythedevine (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Marijuana again, and Aqua Buddha

In response to a pile of news stories about Rand Paul's college hijinks at Baylor, eg pressuring a young woman to take bong hits and worship "Aqua Buddha", both candidates were asked if they smoked pot in college. Paul refused to answer, Conway said he tried it. If this admission gets major coverage in WP:RS or becomes part of the current Senate campaign, that will be time enough to add it to this article. Rand Paul's mocking Christianity and criticizing government efforts to promote gender equality have generated such coverage, because they are related to his political stance. betsythedevine (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What is funny about this is that you reverted an edit on Rand Paul's page which re-added a quote from an unknown student saying that Rand Paul smoked weed. But, here we have a politician flat out admitting it and yet you do not want it in the article. Truthsort (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What I think is funny is that you twice deleted well-cited and relevant information about Rand Paul's college days, first calling it "Irrelevant non-sense," then saying "you need to discuss this before re-adding this derogatory content". You still have not discussed on the Rand Paul talk page your attempted removal of events that were covered by major news sources, by the way. And the crazy Aqua Buddha story is not even in there, no irrelevant scandal, just stuff closely related to Rand Paul's drug policy views and libertarian politics. Instead, you hop over here to make your WP:POINT by adding information that is not even a real news story. If you want to argue for your POV on Rand Paul edits, do it on his talk page, not by trying to deface Jack Conway's bio. betsythedevine (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I guess when an article in the Lexington Herald Leader quotes him admitting it, then it is not a news story, right? WHAS-TV picked up on this story as well.[14] Truthsort (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That initial brief mention halfway down the page of a story in the Lexington Herald Leader did not strike me as significant news coverage. Now that one more local outlet has picked up on this, it could become more significant to both bios if that trend continues. betsythedevine (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There are two articles that verify this and where it is mentioned is irrelevant. Truthsort (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(Starting the indent cycle again): I was questioning its significance, not its verifiability. Quoting WP:BLP, "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable.. and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Has there been any news interest at all since the appearance October 14 of your "second" source, which directly quotes your first? betsythedevine (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I notice there is extensive comments on Elizabeth Dole's web site regarding her controversial attack ads on her opponent's Christian faith in her last election, however, when a simple sentence was added here regarding Conway's controversial attack ads on his opponent's Christian faith it was immediately deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.90.94.39 (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because you did not cite any reliable source backing up what you said. I have now written up the Aqua Buddha ad controversy in what I hope is a balanced way, since media attention is now going to it. betsythedevine (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems you wrote more about Rand Paul's college activities than Jack Conway's controversary ad. And since this article is dealing with Jack Conway, it seems you should deal with the ad, and not Rand Paul's college activities. Please try again at getting it balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.90.94.39 (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. Any mention of the controversy on Jack Conway's wiki page should focus on Conway's role in the controversy (the TV ad). If the reader wants to learn the details of Rand Paul's college activities, they can view Rand Paul's wiki page (where there is much less focus on the TV ad, and more focus on Paul's activities). I have therefore rewritten the section on the controversy in a manner that is much more appropriate for Jack Conway's wiki page, and included a link to the corresponding section on Rand Paul's page for easy reference between the two pages.Thomas6274 (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the content into the article, User:Betsythedevine. Truthsort (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Love the part about how Rand lit the children on fire. Wonder if we can get a cited article for that. Since wikipedia is accurate and all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.50.224.2 (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

When one anonymous person vandalizes the article and six minutes later another anonymous person just happens to notice the vandalism-- and instead of reverting it hops to the talk page to say how that proves Wikipedia's well-cited information about Rand Paul can't be trusted... Actually the vandal edit was only on this page for 40 minutes before somebody else noticed and reverted it, so you don't have to worry all that much about our accuracy.betsythedevine (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Recentism concerning an ad

I rewrote a section with the statement "rewrote badly formatted section for recentism". That was reverted with the comment "restored material that was deleted for no reason". To explain in more detail: The ad is an ad, and this is an encyclopedia, so to give it more weight in his biography than his entire 2002 Congressional race is recentism in that it overburdens the article with documenting controversy as it happens. If, following the election, the ad is considered to have had an impact in swaying the election, then that can be noted, but that still shouldn't amount to a whole paragraph of back-and-forth, and the impact, if any, is not known yet. Controversial advertising is not uncommon in elections and needs not to be given undue weight. And yes, the paragraph has bad formatting (external links in the article body, direct links instead of footnotes, using an url instead of a wikilink). Hekerui (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a more detailed explanation. I thought recentism was a word you made up, LOL, couldn't find it anywhere in the dictionary. I will respond to your concerns by tomorrow, but I have to step away from the computer for a while. In the meantime, the material should be left up in my opinion. The concern is that the issue is too heavily documented, not that it is biased, so it is hasty to take that useful information down I believe, especially when it is taken down by the same person (Betsy) that created the section "Aqua Buddha Controversy" in the first place! Thomas6274 (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I created that section in response to somebody's request, and will be the first to admit it was not perfect. I probably did write too much. betsythedevine (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit Betsy, "anti-Christian" is a complete mischaracterization of the group Dr. Paul belonged to. I have seen you as well as another Wikipedia editor use that description of the NoZe Brotherhood before, but it seems to me to be totally inaccurate. According to some accounts they poked fun at Christianity/Christians, but from what I have read their antics were more aimed at the strict atmosphere of piety on Baylor Campus (where dancing was forbidden until 1996), and I have read nothing that they hated Christianity or were against Christianity. I recommend reading Jason Zengerle's article "The Most Despicable Ad of the Year", which is a follow-up piece to his original article where the Aqua Buddha story originated. In it he writes:

Although the Conway campaign makes the NoZe Brotherhood sound like a bunch of pagans who got together to sacrifice small woodland creatures in tribute to the anti-Christ, the group was, in reality, the closest thing Baylor had to the Harvard Lampoon. In other words, the NoZe existed to poke fun at and, whenever possible, piss off the school’s administration; and since Baylor was (and, to a lesser extent, still is) a devoutly Southern Baptist school, the surest way to do that was to engage in absurd acts of sacrilege. So that’s the context for understanding why the NoZe, in its satirical newspaper, called the bible “a hoax”; and why Paul allegedly told a female classmate his God was “Aqua Buddha”; and why the Baylor administration ultimately banned the NoZe from campus. After all, during Paul’s time at Baylor, the Baylor administration banned dancing on campus, too. (Chapel attendance, meanwhile, was required.) Belonging to the NoZe didn’t mean a Baylor student was irreligious or a bad Christian. It simply meant the student didn’t subscribe to—or, at the very least, was questioning toward—all of the very conservative dictates of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I understand you were actually summarizing the contents of Conway's TV ad, but there isn't any reference to the group being anti-Christian in the ad, and there is a difference between "mocking Christianity" as the ad states and being "anti-Christian". "Anti-Christian" is a characterization you inserted (and have used before) that is not accurate. Thomas6274 (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Thomas, I guess I got the "anti-Christian" tag for the group from the Politico article which says, "The group's work often had a specifically anti-Christian tone" and also quotes one NoZe alum that the group had "a strong subversive anti-Christian strain."[15]. As for Jason Zengerle's anti-Conway invective, could that have anything to do with all those threats from the Rand Paul campaign?[16] By the way, did anybody OTHER than Jason Zengerle think Conway's ad featured small forest creatures sacrificed to the anti-Christ? I agree with you that "mocking Christianity" is a more accurate description of the group than "anti-Christian." betsythedevine (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack Conway's college days

Here is an interesting article on Jack Conway's early days.[17] Truthsort (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is not a linkfarm so unless you want to discuss something from this Daily Caller piece related to the article this can just as well be removed as a forum post. Hekerui (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It has content from his earlier days. The wikipedia article on Conway does not go a lot into his days in college. Truthsort (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This material from Tucker Carlson's blog is perhaps remarkable for the desperation it reveals to dig up some dirt on Jack Conway. Dirt-diggers contacted 25(!) of his classmates and found out he was "a quiet leader--serious, affable, and kind of boring." The "strangest episode" they could find is that some crazy con artist was in the same pledge class at his fraternity. The frat held "keggers"; some members allegedly smoked pot or even did cocaine, but not one person could be found to tie Conway to drugs, hazing, drunkenness, or anti-religious pranks--despite all the efforts of the desperate blogger, who was reduced to devoting an entire page to the fraternity's bad behavior in the late 1990s and even later. Conway graduated in 1991. Now, if any of that turns out to be newsworthy to any national media in connection with Conway, it might have some relevance to this article. Quoting from WP:BLP, "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. " The talk page is not a forum for gossiping about the subject of the article, or for posting links to material that would entirely fail to meet Wikipedia's standards. betsythedevine (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not post this for gossip purposes, I simply made a suggestion about this given that the article does not go into his early life very much. Truthsort (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, Truthsort, I did not mean to be uncivil about your motivation. The link you posted is to a right-wing blog, and neither of your comments seems to make any claim that it is an encyclopedia-quality source or that the material there could pass WP:BLP. The impression from what you said earlier is that you posted the link to encourage readers of this page to read that unencyclopedic material; this is (as Hekerui pointed out) an example of what talk pages are not supposed to support. And I am quite happy to have my comments deleted along with yours under the "not a forum" policy. betsythedevine (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean my comment as an insult and I hope that's not how it was understood, the original post simply read like an invitation to read the Daily Caller article ("interesting article"), not to discuss the Wiki article. Hekerui (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus should be sought on talk page

This page and Rand Paul seem to be under attack with substantial re-writes whose POV is to promote Rand Paul's candidacy. For example, removing controversy about Civil Rights and "replacing" it with a POV statement about a Conway money bomb. betsythedevine (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are making it sound a little more dramatic than it is, but as far as the one substantial re-write I did which you pointed out, that is fair for you to ask for a discussion on the talk page before removing long established material on the eve of the election. The few other changes I did in the past few days is nothing too substantial I think, but if that was too much too soon before the election, don't worry, I'm done making the changes I wanted to make. Thomas6274 (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)