Talk:Jim DeMint/Archive 1

Archive 1

DeMint's apology

DeMint issued clarifying comments in the wake of his controversial statement about gay and unmarried teachers. But they amounted to neither a retraction of his statements, nor an apology for the pain they may have caused among his constituents and observers. DeMint expressed a regret for having commented on his personal views during his campaign. He explained that it was only appropriate for him to comment on issues directly applicable to the position of Senator; not such issues as he deems are domain of local education officials. The below reference to the Greenville Online News correctly characterizes DeMint's apology as "generic." Greenville News states: "...whether DeMint was apologizing for Sunday's remark about gays, Tuesday's about unwed teachers, or both, wasn't clear from the statement issued by his campaign." --24.51.38.135 14:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

DeMint's statement was more than an expression of regret, he did actually apologize ("So, as my wife often reminds me, sometimes my heart disengages from my head and I say something I shouldn’t — and that’s what happened yesterday. I clearly said something as a dad that I just shouldn’t have said. And I apologize." [1]). And it's not that vague what he's apologizing for. He made comments on October 3 and 5, which were similar in nature and which drew a great deal of public attention. On October 6, he issued an apology specifically referencing both the subject matter of his earlier comments (the people responsible for educating children) and comments made "yesterday" (which would have been October 5). I think it would be consistent with the facts to insert a sentence that reads, "DeMint later apologized for his remarks," with a link to the text of the statement. As 24.51.38.135 notes, DeMint may not have apologized for the "pain [his comments] may have caused among his constituents and observers," but he did apologize for the remarks themselves. - Walkiped 21:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He apologized for making the remarks, not for the remarks themselves or the harm they may have caused. Furthermore, his apology is based on the assertion that his personal socio-political views (as opposed to his professional socio-political views) should have been withheld from public disclosure. This assertion is so bizarre and unique in national politics that it strains the credibility of his apology. This excerpt from Meet the Press (October 17, 2004) includes a refusal to apologize for the remarks.

REP. DeMINT: Well, I apologize for that remark, because I really regret distracting from the main issues of this debate.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, do you apologize because it's a distraction or do you apologize for what you said?

REP. DeMINT: No, I apologize for distracting from the real issues of this debate. This is...

MR. RUSSERT: So do you--wait, but let's clarify. Do you believe that gays should be able to teach in the public schools of South Carolina?

REP. DeMINT: I believe that's a local school board issue and the voters of South Carolina want me to talk about how they're going to be safer, how they're going to have better jobs, how I'm going to save Social Security.

MR. RUSSERT: But you said they shouldn't be. And the Republican Party in South Carolina's platform...

REP. DeMINT: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...said they should not. Do you believe that gays should be able to teach in the public schools?

REP. DeMINT: I believe that's a local school board issue.

...

REP. DeMINT: I believe that's a local school board issue. And, Tim, I was answering as a dad who's put lots of children in the hands of teachers and I answered with my heart. And I should just say, again, I apologize that distracted from the real debate.

MR. RUSSERT: But you apologize for distracting but are you apologizing to gay teachers or to single mom teachers?

REP. DeMINT: No. I'm apologizing for talking about a local school board issue

...

MR. RUSSERT: But don't the voters have a right to know about whether or not you still stand by comments you made in the campaign? :Do you stand by your comments?

REP. DeMINT: I apologized for answering a local school board question.

MR. RUSSERT: No, you're apologizing for the distraction, but it's a simple question. Do you believe that gays should be able to teach in South Carolina schools?

REP. DeMINT: Well, Tim...

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that single moms should be able to teach?

REP. DeMINT: It's a very simple answer. I think the local school board should make that issue, not Senate can--I mean, make that decision.

MR. RUSSERT: But you didn't think that a month ago when you answered the question.

REP. DeMINT: And I apologize for that, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: For answering the question?

REP. DeMINT: Yeah, for distracting from the real thing.

MR. RUSSERT: But not for the substance of your comments.

--24.51.38.135 00:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about this language then, "He later apologized for making the remarks, saying they were "distracting from the main issues of the debate"."? - Walkiped 02:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's a reference for DeMint's apology, since one user previously deleted the mention of it. - Walkiped 02:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bias

Tenenbaum led in many polls for much of the year, but DeMint rode George W. Bush's long coattails in the state to a 9.6 percentage point victory in November. come on now this is one of the most bias sentences on the senator pages. Especially as De Mint opposed a lot of the spending policies of President Bush.

The term "coattails" does not imply agreement on the issues, but that a by product of George W. Bush's winning total in S.C. was that it helped DeMint if only by bringing more Republicans out to vote. Nanook0001 (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please review Joe Wilson (U.S. politician)

Jimbo Wales has requested that we try to improve Joe Wilson (U.S. politician) for the reasons he stated on Talk:Joe Wilson (U.S. politician). I put in a few hours but can't think of anything else, except a photo or two which we are unlikely to get permissions for over the weekend. Please see if you can improve the article any further. --James S. 10:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

not true

DeMint is very conservative, even by South Carolina Republican standards.

There's nothing wrong with saying that he's very conservative but "even by South Carolina Republican standards" is completely untrue. I live in South Carolina. Senator DeMint isn't any more conservative than the average South Carolina Republican.--Hbutterfly 22:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Isn't enough to say simply that DeMint is very conservative? I think both sides will agree that this is true. Nanook0001 (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

subjective

Tenenbaum led in many polls for much of the year. However, the state's strong support for George W. Bush gave DeMint enough of a push to defeat her by 9.6 percentage points in November.

Isn't that rather subjective? South Carolina is a conservative state. There's not really any way to prove why Senator DeMint was elected.--Hbutterfly 22:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I find his support for Telco's and not net neutrality scary.

It seems to me this senator was bought and sold By the Telcoms for $40,000. Free trade? I guess just not on the internet hu Jim. Yo got some intresting feed back on you article you posted to c|net. You should take a look.

http://news.com.com/Why+Net+neutrality+means+more+federal+regulation/2010-1028_3-6088253.html

And here are his political contributors. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00002472&cycle=2006

I don't see what that all matters much. It is actually the free market to allow a company to charge what it wants for its services and of course allow competitition.76.182.88.254 21:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling?

"DeMint lodged an anonymous objection [3]to stall a bipartisan bill to aid Hurricane Katrina and Federal Flood victims that supporters hoped would have been waived through unanimously..." - shouldn't that be "waved"? I'm not American, so for all I know there may be a technical term "waived" that is correct here, thus I haven't edited. Just thought I'd mention it, though. 86.132.140.45 (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Waived is correct. In this reference, the article refer to the waiving some normal procedure in parliamentary proceedure. --789so7isstuffed (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DeMint web.JPG

The image Image:DeMint web.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

DeMint's win meant that South Carolina was represented by two Republican Senators for the first time since the dark days of Reconstruction when Radical Republicans imposed harsh sanctions on South Carolina and Republicans Thomas J. Robertson and John J. Patterson served together as Senators.

"Dark days" is an example of subjective terminology and is really inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. Just saying "...since the Reconstruction era" would suffice.

69.139.22.185 (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)konner3

Dutch descendant?

Anyone carrying the name "DeMint" might be of Dutch or Flemish ancentry. Anyone familiar with the roots of this mr. Jim DeMint? 2NG (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Problematic statment "Establishment media outlets"

Establishment media outlets tend to be more interested in Senator DeMint's opinions (real opinions or opinions they claim he holds) on homosexuality.

This seems rather subjective, unsupported and unnecessary. The statement, in the absence of any information on what his views on the subject actually are, is very poor style.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrwsaranac (talk • contribs) 16:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal section

This section does not appear to have any encyclopedic value. I plan to remove this section if there is no objections --789so7isstuffed (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In April 2003, the Associated Press reported that DeMint was one of six members of Congress living in a Capitol Hill townhouse subsidized by The Fellowship, a Christian religious organization with ties to fellow Senator Sam Brownback.

I have an objection. It's pertinent info on the associations of Jim Demint. "The Family" furnishes Demint an apartment. ````s2grand````

"Waterloo" comment

I think it's time to include DeMint's infamous statement regarding U.S. health care reform on this page. Right now it's mysteriously not there:

"If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

This was widely reported in the media and the quote is still discussed today, more than a month later. Midtempo-abg (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree... AnonMoos (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Honduras

There have been several reports of DeMint threatening to block the passage of the ambassador to Brazil and another important post unless Obama recognizes the election under the current Honduran regime, something Obama said he wouldn't do. It would be worth pointing out what DeMint has been doing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.80.230.44 (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

gay marriage

It doesn't belong there because it's just propaganda for some asshole to come here and affirm their beliefs in failed logic, that's why. 75.253.201.112 (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that this is something Jim DeMint actually said and believes. Should Wikipedia also scrub every reference to eugenics? It's not "propaganda" it's "something Jim DeMint actually said and is very relevant because it's controversial." I'm not really sure what you aren't understanding here. To be clear, "I personally don't like it" is not a reason for inclusion or exclusion of information. Kelseypedia (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And you don't seem to understand how the average human mind works. People look for things to confirm what they already believe, whether it's correct or not. It doesn't need to be in the article. I honestly think this is more about you not wanting to be wrong than it is about including it in the article. Maybe you should shrink your head down a little bit and re-evaluate your stance. 75.221.226.237 (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

His comments against homosexuals, including ones that he later tried to "take back", belong here because he said them, and that is a fact. It has relevance for many voters and they deserve to know what the candidates believe, even if he later "takes it back." The only reason they retract statements or apologize (though he arguably didn't make an committed retraction or apology, he was cautious about his wording, see the Meet the Press transcript from above), is so that they can appeal to the moderate voters. The conservative voters already know what he said and if he later changes his statement, that doesn't mean he has changed his views. The statements belong here, because even if one later regrets a statement, it doesn't erase it from history, and there is no proof that he has changed his beliefs. Voters have a right to know the record of what the candidate has said publicly. Calling someone an asshole because they have a different view than you and believe in transparency in politics, is a very pathetic argument from the above contributer.Matikainen (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Protected

This article has been fully protected for one week, due to an ongoing revert war. I see no discussion here on the Talk page about the matters people are so eagerly reverting. I did notice that a made-up name (Josephine de Beauharnais) for the senator's wife survived in the article for some time, so at least some of the recent editing has been mischievous. (I have some concerns that this edit restores the wrong name for his wife, though perhaps it was an oversight and was just a piece of leftover vandalism that did not get removed). Please try to get agreement here on talk for any changes you think are valuable. Be sure that changes observe the WP:BLP policy. If agreement is reached on the outstanding issues, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is right above this one. It's mostly just about people with big heads not wanting to be wrong. I don't feel like protecting the page is actually fair since I am choosing not to create a user name. Rest assured though, I will be back, and I will revert as many times as it takes. I have just as much of a right to have or not have something on here as anyone else. Kelsey, you may have won right this second, but I wouldn't take this page off your watch list any time soon. 174.58.137.241 (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Sorry, thought it was a semi-protect. Oh well, it's good like this then. 174.58.137.241 (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Admins will step in and block specific editors if they see that WP:BLP or WP:EW are being violated. If you stand by your remark that you will 'revert as many times as it takes' you're painting a big target on your back, so I hope you'll choose to discuss instead. I gather that this senator is controversial, but we should follow a neutral point of view and avoid WP:UNDUE weight when describing his views and actions. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I did participate in the discussion, and yes I do stand by what I said. I will revert as many time as it takes because I know I'm right. I have just as much of a right to be on here editing as anyone else does. The string that I kept removing is unnecessary and doesn't need to be there. It's actually pretty simple. 174.58.137.241 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If you stand by your remark that "you'll revert as many times as it takes" then you are defining yourself as an edit warrior, and admins will not allow you to edit the article in the future. Regardless of whether you are right or not, you need to be willing to persuade other people. You are expected to abide by consensus. If not, please find some other outlet for your editing interests. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is actually the problem - there is no discussion. I tried to have one, and reasons given against having the material in there is that people are biased and make up their minds about things and the user has as much right to edit as I do and there's no reason for it to be in there and it makes no sense and also my head is huge. Nothing but appeals to emotions have been given, and I'm stumped as to how to handle it. I also apologize, I had missed the bit about his wife's name and tried to restore it after I noticed it. The user has made no effort to explain why it doesn't belong besides "I don't want it in there." It's very relevant, as the Senator is controversial and that's a statement he has made regarding his controversial positions. Kelseypedia (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually you didn't participate in the discussion. You left one little comment and then thought that everything was done and over with. It doesn't need to be in there because it's unnecessary. It has nothing to do with emotion. It's common sense. You don't own Wikipedia, as your name would imply. Get over yourself. It's not going to stay in the article as long as I have anything to say about it. I have unlimited IP's so bring it the fuck on because I don't care. 75.221.106.57 (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I said, for reference: "You don't seem to understand that this is something Jim DeMint actually said and believes. Should Wikipedia also scrub every reference to eugenics? It's not 'propaganda' it's 'something Jim DeMint actually said and is very relevant because it's controversial.' I'm not really sure what you aren't understanding here. To be clear, 'I personally don't like it' is not a reason for inclusion or exclusion of information." You addressed none of that and continued to insist I had a big head and a huge ego. You have yet to demonstrate why it's "unnecessary" while I've repeatedly given justification for its inclusion. My username also does not imply ownership, it's meant to be amusing. Adding "pedia" to the end of my name for a username doesn't mean I think I own the place. If I did, I wouldn't be attempting to engage with you, despite your insistence that you'll edit war until the end of time, by any means necessary, without giving any justification for it. Kelseypedia (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If article text is properly written, you should not be able to tell the political views of the person who adds it. (That would be evidence that it's neutrally written). How hard is it to guess the views of the person who added this?

DeMint has since re-tooled his rhetoric regarding homosexuals as a public health initiative. In a 2008 interview, he cited the prevalence of certain diseases among homosexuals as his reason for opposing gay marriage.

Not only does this sound partisan, the first part of it makes no sense. (What's with the 're-tooled'? What is the 'public health initiative?') If an editor thinks that DeMint has distinctive views about gay people that our readers would find interesting, try to explain what he believes in a straightforward manner. (The safest option would be to use a direct quote of DeMint). If his views have been notably criticized, add that as well, within the limits of undue weight. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever removing the first part. To be honest, it sounds like the two statements were added separately, with the first and unsourced part added by a supporter who was trying to downplay his remarks - if your implication is that the person who added that section is opposed to DeMint, I just wanna say it's not so black and white is all. The second statement is sourced, though, and I believe should be re-incorporated into "political views" section. Kelseypedia (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because something has a source, that doesn't mean it needs to be in the article. It's already stated that he opposes gay marriage and that's enough. 75.221.106.57 (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What makes that enough? His statement is very radical and controversial to the point that it's worthy of inclusion. I'd be saying that regardless of where on the political spectrum I'm located. Kelseypedia (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It makes it enough because that's all that needs to be said. He opposes gay marriage. There is a point when it becomes nothing more than propaganda, and that's what happened here. It's disgusting that I even have to fight for it not to be in the article. Any decent person should read the statement, and say "WTF?" The problem is that a lot of Republican'ts/Cons will read it and not even bat an eye. Or someone on the fence may read it and say "oh well I never thought of it that way. I guess we're actually helping them." It's ridiculous. Simply saying that he's opposed to gay marriage is enough. If you can find an actual direct quote of his assholery, then go ahead and put it in.75.221.106.57 (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am listening to the program right now and will post what he said and the time he said it once it happens. It's one thing to have a position, and it's another thing to expand on that position in a shocking and controversial way. Kelseypedia (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your ears aren't a good enough source. I think Ed's suggestion of a transcript is a better idea. 75.221.106.57 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think a transcript is a much better source, too! If you can find one for free, I welcome you posting the link. http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2008-01-31/senator-jim-demint-why-we-whisper-rowman-littlefield It appears that the citation is referring to what DeMint is saying around 18:00 minutes. However, I will listen to it in full and transcribe the most relevant parts with timestamps. This isn't meant to be original research as a "transcript," but merely to, in this dispute, prove or disprove the article's original statement and citation. Kelseypedia (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the rules are on making your own transcript, but I'm not going to bother searching for one. I don't even want it in the article. I think you're actually wasting your time. 75.221.106.57 (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You've made that quite clear and came very close to giving proper justification but it doesn't seem you're interested in an actual discussion, and will instead just edit it out no matter what. Kelseypedia (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well when you're wrong, you're wrong. Maybe you should just let this one go, and move on to other right-wing lunatics. 174.58.137.241 ([[User

talk:174.58.137.241|talk]]) 07:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are no special "rules" on transcripts for audio broadcasts, nor is a transcript even strictly required (though it certainly will aid in any possible challenges to the material in question). As long as the material is sourced, presented in a neutral tone, and relevant to the article as a whole (rather than a WP:COATRACK poseur, I have no problem with it's inclusion. FellGleaming (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a quote then go ahead and add it. I doubt you will be able to. My whole point is that this wouldn't even be an issue in other encyclopedias. It doesn't need to be included. It's right-wing propaganda. Honestly, I would think that a supporter of DeMint would be embarrassed of him being so ignorant. 75.221.106.57 (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If nobody can find an actual quote of DeMint saying something relevant, I don't see why we are having this conversation. Other people speculating about what he thinks is not too convincing. I notice someone has tried to cite a 2008 radio interview with Diane Rehm. ("Demint, Jim, Remarks to Diane Rehm, 'The Diane Rehm Show', National Public Radio, January 31, 2008"). Anybody have the transcript? If so, we should be able to tell what he actually said. If not, why should it be used as a reference in a WP:BLP article? EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If the audio of the Diane Rehm show is accessible, I suppose it could be used. But if DeMint's remarks were never made in any print medium, and if nobody else ever commented on them in print, it makes you wonder if they are a key part of his thinking, and are important enough for this article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, time has not been abundant. I can transcribe the audio but it would take a while. It's around the 18 minutes mark that he begins to talk about it. It actually has been printed elsewhere - the reason he was on the Diane Rehm show was to talk about his book "Why We Whisper," in which he outlines his defense of religious conservatism. He states moral opposition to homosexuality, which he believes is a choice, and also tries to to make an economic case - "because homosexuals are more likely to have multiple sexual partners, they are more likely to get STDs, and the treatment of and checking for these STDs costs the country money, and if society allows gay marriage we pay a steep economic cost by encouraging this wrong lifestyle." It's a slippery slope type thing. He doesn't want gay marriage because it "encourages the spreading of STDs" as more people "accept the homosexual lifestyle." Since he's on there to talk about his book and directly reads from it, I suppose that would be a MUCH better source, but I don't have it. I also put a summary of his argument in quotes not because that's what he said verabtim, but because it's only what he believes, and I'm not pushing any viewpoint except that the material the multiple-IP address user repeatedly removes is central to the Senator's beliefs and it has been printed. "Why We Whisper" is a staunch defense of social conservatism and how people shouldn't be afraid to speak out for things in which they believe, so knowing that makes me think it's even more relevant and deserving of inclusion in the article. Kelseypedia (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Demint's statements were made in print. The context of his remarks in the interview were expanding upon his position he outlines in his book. FellGleaming (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the argument that quoting DeMint's views on a controversial issue is propaganda in favor of those views. When DeMint argues that gay marriage will result in the spreading of STDs, it puts an unusual opinion out there, but neither promotes nor discredits it. It has value in helping fill in the details of his socially conservative views in a way that saying he opposes gay marriage does not. Waltezell (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party Relationship

I removed the claim that he is a member of the Tea Party movement on the basis that the source referenced simply identified him as a strong conservative. The two are not the same thing. Any claim of membership in the Tea Party movement would have to be on the basis of a claim made personally by him or an official record of membership in an official Tea Party/9-12/etc organization. 66.188.33.186 (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a general consensus that DeMint is not only a member but a thought leader among the Tea Party movement. Here are some links to articles that mention his relationship to the Tea Party:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/09/jim-demint-earns-stripes-tea-party-power-broker/ http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0920/Sen.-Jim-DeMint-and-tea-party-architects-of-a-GOP-makeover http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/19/jim-demint-driving-tea-pa_n_688139.html http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34296.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/us/politics/31demint.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwhester (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments during the campaign

Any politician makes many many comments and speeches during a campaign, and so to arbitrarily include certain non-noteworthy comments in great detail while ignoring others is inappropriate. Non-noteworthy comments have been deleted. Rodchen (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Non noteworthy material has been reinserted. Please prove its noteworthyness. Rodchen (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide some evidence suggesting a lasting notability of these events?Rodchen (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added news cites to show that his position are still of interest. Your editing appears a bit WP:POINT-y. Please do not delete well-sourced material without a good reason.   Will Beback  talk  03:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The news cite links on Slate actually appear dead, and the Wall Street Journal site I have no way of reading. During a campaign many many things are stated, but this one particular comment does not have any more lasting note worthiness than anything else said during the campaign. So to include this one or two comments is inappropriately highlighting one comment arbitarily. Please provide some evidence of lasting notability to include this in a senator's bio. Rodchen (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me remind you that for bio of living people, the burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material. This unduly weighted matieral should be removed and discussed before readding. Rodchen (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The same issue has come up repeatedly in successive campaigns, and in between them as well. I added two new sources to show that these issues are of ongoing interest. The sources are more than adequate.   Will Beback  talk  04:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

One cannot and does not cover every single issue during a campaign, needless to say every comment a person makes. This was an insignificant event which does not warrant inclusion in a bio about the entirety of one's life and career unless you can show lasting notability. Rodchen (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You earlier state that this edit appears to be WP:POINT-y. May I inquire what point you think I am trying to make? Rodchen (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be mimicking arguments made at the Barbara Boxer talk page. However this is a different matter than the "ma'am" issue. This concerns one of the subject's most noteworthy issues. How do we know it's noteworthy? Because there are so many sources which discuss it over at least a seven-year period.   Will Beback  talk  04:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well Mimicking and 'distrupting to make a point' are very different. I am new to Wikepedia, and bothered by the liberal slant I and many others see. So I am trying to learn the 'culture' of Wikepedia, and argue in the way editors argue. So yes I am 'mimicking' (if you want to use that word), but I am not trying to do such to be distruptive, I am doing it to try to learn how to argue and make points in a way that fellow editors will understand.

I actually see these two issues as very similar. Of course there are difference. One is 7 years old, and another is 2 years old. But in other ways they are very similar. Each was a relatively insignificant event (from the Senator's point of view), but something which the senator's opponents made a big deal of.

I would also argue after the past election the Walsh incident is also one of the events Boxer is noted for and famous for.

And please remember, regarding DeMint, this is not a 'policy' issue. This is not a policy or position which he is pushing. In fact he specifically said that it is a personal opinion of his which has no bearing upon positions that he is even in a position to deal with in Congress. It was a comment (similar to the Walsh incident) that he made.

So I would argue they are VERY similar. Differences? Yes. Of course. No two situations are identical. But very similar, and the arguements you make (I am trying to learn from you) are pertinent and useful for me to use on the Boxer page, and vice versa.

So I return to the fundamental question - Will an embarrassing comment which has been blown out of proportion by the Senator's enemies be included in the article? If you have any sense of neutrality, I hope you will not say that the comment should be included in the conservative's bio but omitted from the liberal's bio. Rodchen (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I will assume it can be removed. Rodchen (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not how wikipedia works. You're being very difficult to engage in constructive discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well let me ask what I should do then. After waiting 2 days for a response, and getting none, what is the way wikedpedia works?

Or better yet, maybe you could respond to why it should not be deleted given the above comments. Rodchen (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Are any of the sources that support the statement invalid or questioned? A quick glance at the sources, Slate, WSJ and a local paper show national and regional signifigance. Do you question the validity of the Wall Street Journal? You aren't getting many comments because the statements fall so obviously into WP:Notability guidelines that there is only one side to argue. I can't think of even a weak case for non-inclusion from a policy standpoint. I would actually be interested in hearing the line of logic that would allow a policy exclusion of this statement from a purly academic standpoing, what is it? 161.150.2.58 (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not clear in this discussion what content is in dispute.Waltezell (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the controversy is over whether to retain DeMint's remarks about gay marriage. He apologized for the remarks (because they distracted from other issues in the campaign) without repudiating them, and years later reiterated the opposition to gay marriage, adding that his reason for opposition is the transmission of diseases by homosexuals. (A note about my neutrality on this. I am a native South Carolinian in a 19-year same-sex marriage -- performed in Mass. -- living in DeMint's home town. I find it offensive and counter-factual that he says my marriage is spreading disease.) I hope there is some way to sort out the dispute over the neutrality of this article, so the notice at the top can be removed.

There are three branches of U.S. conservatism: neo-conservatism, addressing foreign policy and the U.S. role on the world stage, fiscal conservatism, and social conservatism. Three major issues for social conservatives are abortion, church & state (such as prayer in schools) and gay marriage. I think it can be objectively argued that DeMint takes extreme positions on abortion (no exceptions for rape or incest) and prescribed school prayer (which was ruled unconstitution decades ago). His position on same-sex marriage may not seem so extreme, as many states have recently passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, but when he says that same-sex marriage can result in the spread of disease, that is an extreme position. There is no need to call these positions "extreme" in an encyclopedia article, but including these details helps fill in the nature of his conservatism. He passes every litmus test for social conservatism.

I think it might be helpful in this article to gather up the unorganized list of his political positions and organize them according to three branches of conservatism, with some subheads and transitional language that makes the picture of his conservatism coherent, instead of a list that forces the reader to figure out connections that scholars, regardless of political leaning, should be able to agree on.

DeMint's positions on same-sex marriage and other gay-rights issues are relevant to his work as senator. The Employment-Non Discrimination act, federal benefits for gay employees and the Defense of Marriage Act are all issues that have come before the Senate during DeMint's term in office and seem likely to come up again.Waltezell (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Duplication of retirement plans

His plans to retire are included in this article twice. I deleted one of the references, but it was restored. Can I please understand why editors feel it needs to be included twice? Rodchen (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo vs. Iraq

The line on his votes says that he voted against the NATO intervention in Kosovo, but the source only says he voted against the use of ground troops. Am I misreading it? Otherwise, the distinction should be drawn out in the article. Asasa64 (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No idea what this was meant to address, but it certainly didn’t belong in the header

This was in the header. It's unsigned, and appears to be responding to something someone else said, but the author apparently didn’t bother trying to figure out how to edit before throwing in two cents. Also s/he spelled Wikipedia with a "c". Anyhow, despite my desire to erase it, I gave it a section of its own instead. Neat!

What follows are not my comments. Osiriscorleone (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"Saving Freedom: We Can Stop America's Slide into Socialism".

Senator De Mint has just written a book (see above - Fidelis Books 2009). Whether the book is good, bad or indifferent, it is likely to be a better guide to what the person actually thinks that what his political (including media) opponents say he thinks. The works of other politicans are recorded on their Wickipedia pages.

By the way the book contains nothing on homosexuality - which may indicate that the issue is not so high in De Mint's thinking as the article implies.