![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The neutrality of this article isn't actually in question, since it's a lovefest for the Senator. If it wasn't edited by his Senate staff, it was edited by a member of his family. On top of that, it doesn't cite any sources for its clear campaign-headline claims. Info999 00:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
And the mention of his prospective opponent has anything to do with his record or his conduct in office? Move on with the ad plants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.24.173 ( talk) 06:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The current issue of The New Republic (09.10.07) discusses Senator Grassley in "The strange heroism of Chuck Grassley. Earnest Goes to Washington" by Eve Fairbanks at https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20070910&s=fairbanks091007 (subscription required). The New Republic, described in Wikipedia as "socially liberal," paints a more positive picture of the Senator than this contested Wikipedia entry does. Drienstra 03:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Position against medicinal marijuana has nothing to do w/ investigation into health care kickbacks==>gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.24.173 ( talk) 06:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Noticed this article was edited by the same IP belonging to the US Senate [1] that removed vietname related claims from Tom_Harkin's article.
See slashdot and related article on misuse of wiki by politicians [2]
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coaxial ( talk • contribs) on 16:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC); Please sign your posts!
PORKULUS: A term used by Sen. Grassley to describe the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The word is a succinct portmanteau of the words pork barrel and stimulus. As of Feburary 10, 2009 it can be found on over 80,000 web pages and has gained popular informal use in many Republican and politically-conservative discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.123.191 ( talk) 21:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The term refers to the largest single government spending program, in USA history and in the world, and therefore is not a trivial matter. Wikipedia's verifiability criteria are met by the reference to Sen. Grassley's own Twitter 'tweet' of Feb. 2, 2009. Inclusion of the word, the discussion surrounding it and the context of its usage are encyclopedic, having met the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's own entry on the word encyclopedic. A direct link to the word "encyclopedic" in other online dictionaries would violate copyright, therefore such links are not provided here but can easily be found online.
Open discussion is welcome and encouraged. I respectfully ask that all undo's be explained at least as well as I have explained myself here. That's fair and promotes a deeper, more objective understanding of this subject at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.123.191 ( talk) 22:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Grassley's Twitter Tweet is directly referenced by his Senate web page at
http://grassley.senate.gov/info/civics_room.cfm and can therefore be considered first-hand information, consistent with Wikipedia's criteria for Verifiability.
99.154.123.191 (
talk)
22:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for those references. Your referenced video shows Grassley using the term but as you pointed out, it was Limbaugh who appears to have first used the term, not Grassley. At this point, I don't believe Grassley coined the term "porkulus." If I found otherwise, I'll post it here along with any further references for everyone's objective consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.123.191 ( talk) 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Clearly POV. You can keep in the reference to his voting record as per veterans issues, but the editorializing about coattails is POV and should not be in a wiki article. The potential opponent in 2010 information is also superfluous, and I'd encourage its deletion. HandsomeSam57 ( talk) 00:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Why is this sentence here? "Grassley is a member of The Family, a secretive Christian political organization that organizes the National Prayer Breakfast and made headlines in the summer of 2009 for its involvement in the adulterous affairs of Senator John Ensign, Governor Mark Sanford and ex-Representative Chip Pickering." It sounds like he is a member of the masons or something. Does the membership of Ensign and Sanford have any relevance to Grassley? Is it meant to associate him with individuals who cheated on their wives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahJaneSmith ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
What are the symbols |} doing at the beginning of this page? David Blandford ( talk) 07:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
As per WP:Weight, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV concerns, it seems bad to me to cite information from highly biased, opinion based sources (which are Jack Cafferty's blog and Democracy Now!) on an article that is a WP:BLP.
After all, conservative columnists have called health care reform malicious socialism. We don't include that in biographical articles about Obama or Pelosi or Reid et cetera because these article have a higher standard. The Squicks ( talk) 05:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Should the opinion criticism from Wendell Potter and Jack Cafferty be mentioned in the article? The Squicks ( talk) 16:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The section was removed and re-added today, with the latter edit operating on the assumption that we need a vote. Of course, that is wrong. I think the section gives undue weight to the this criticism. If there has been longstanding criticism of him as being in the pocket of the insurance industry, then that should be explained. Since it isn't, this just violates WP:UNDUE. It seems to be of huge importance because we are in the midsts of this debate, but when it is over, it won't seem so notable. Fleeting notability is not enough for Wikipedia.
I also think consensus has already developed against inclusion of the section, so I am going to remove it. -
Rrius (
talk)
03:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Before we do anything else, the consensus that Wendell Potter's speculation should be removed means that that material should not be in this article. After all, there's something like a five editors to one support for removal. The Squicks ( talk) 00:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I seem to have come late to this party. I have reinstated the section with the reference to this discussion. I see nothing wrong with with either the source or the content. It is an opinion that is true, but Potter does give a reason for his opinion and as someone who ran an entire organization on behalf of insurance companies before his epiphany, his views are quire significant. -- Hauskalainen ( talk) 16:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This statement: "At an August 12, 2009, meeting in Iowa, Senator Grassley supported the claims by health care reform opponents that end-of-life counseling provisions in the House health care bill" is slanted, equating a particular proposal with "health care reform" and implying those supporting different reforms are "reform opponents." 173.21.26.11 ( talk) 05:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}} Edit link number 40 to http://www.center4research.org/news-events/previous-foremother-awards/
Blosspara ( talk) 02:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Source #7, for the following quote: Grassley is against the use of medical marijuana; even in instances involving cancer or AIDS. just leads to a short bit about his views on meth, and doesn't actually mention anything about marijuana.
173.27.1.58 ( talk) 21:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed too that the webpage doesn't actually say anything about medical marijuana, let alone if he supports it or not. This is very misleading. ( 129.186.253.45 ( talk) 21:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)).
Isn't that a bit much? He's been Senator - why have yet another box pointing out he was also the GOP nominee? Seems pretty pointless to me - as I missing something? Flatterworld ( talk) 22:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Grassley Questions NIH Travel on Sponsors' Dime. Tijfo098 ( talk) 11:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Older ones:
Apparently his tenure in that area will be over soon: New Post for Senate's Medical Research Watchdog
Tijfo098 ( talk) 18:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Going through the current senators' articles, I have standardized all those that were not locked, with the style, in every case, of the majority of pages. Please italicize the list of senate seniority in the order of precedence. All other items match this article's. Missing parties and states have been filled in elsewhere, and sized where needed. Thanks. 75.203.4.199 ( talk) 06:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Under votes and ratings, the May 2009 quote, and citation, state soldiers have been fighting the flag for 200 years... seems to be at least one word missing, and a thought process.
75.203.4.199 (
talk) 03:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
75.204.49.226 (
talk)
01:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Partly done: I checked the source, and apparently Grassley actually made the error. It should say "fought for for over 200 years." However, since it's in a quote, I can't change it; instead, I added the "sic" template.
Qwyrxian (
talk)
08:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
United States Senate election in Iowa, 2010
Chuck Grassley (R) (inc.) 64.51% |
Roxanne Conlin (D) 33.23% |
John Heiderscheit (Lib.) 2.26% |
{{edit semi-protected}}
Alpha Quadrant kindly updated the order of precedence position at my request, but my request did not include changing Sen. Dodd or Sen. Specter, before & after, to Carl Levin D Michigan and Jeff Bingaman D New Mexico,respectively (see Seniority in the United States Senate). Thanks in advance.
75.202.165.24 (
talk)
17:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Done Took me a little bit to figure out where you were referring to, but I think I got it updated correctly now.
Qwyrxian (
talk)
05:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Their rating should also say "hate group Family Research Coulcil.." It's not POV to say what they are. They spend their time hating particular groups of people and trying to make laws against them. 174.58.138.200 ( talk) 13:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
What were Grassley's undergraduate and graduate majors? CountMacula ( talk) 09:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
External links, CongLinks, change parameter to washpo=gIQAxsWx9O 184.78.81.245 ( talk) 04:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Grassley co-sponsored PIPA, but nothing mentioning that entire fiasco is given on the page. I plan to start or contribute at least some mention of it when I don't have overworked programmer's brain strangling my motivation. Joad Marshal ( talk) 00:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Recent NPR story "An anonymous concerned citizen contacted Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley with a lot of questions about the Viking photos: Were the people on the clock when they were doing this? Was there any taxpayer money involved?" involving the Senator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.223.93 ( talk) 05:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Chronologically, he served in the Iowa legislature prior to the US House. 74.107.74.186 ( talk) 08:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
To me this seems a bit biased towards Patty Judge. She hasn't been even elected Democratic nominee and the article doesn't mention the other 3 candidates at all in the race at the moment.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chuck Grassley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I added the 2016 Results and did some math to fix out some of the other boxes, The "New Independent Iowa Party" (NIP) does not have a color nor a link with this template, therefore I'm leaving their candidate (Henneger) as an Independent, they're an entirely irrelevant micro-party that seems to have contested the '14 election for Governor with the same candidate (Jim Henneger) - They're not really a party, probably just him trying to get some attention - But what I wanted to know was how to add/change colors for the party box to the side, which seems to autofill, I notice previous years Independents were gray, while this time they came out yellow, I'm trying to learn this wikipedia thing by observation, trial and error, but its mighty arcane without any explanation. - Eli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.30.23 ( talk) 21:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Chuck Grassley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
An IP editor wants to remove the following sentence on Russian interference: On October 31, 2017, while facing questions from reporters concerning recent indictments, Grassley refused to answer and instead fled the area.
[1]
and the description Christopher Steele, one of the people who sought to expose Russian interference
. I agree with other editors that this change should be discussed here.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
17:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Chuck Grassley and son Robin have received federal subsidies for their farmland in Iowa since 1995. Per the EWG database which is based on reporting from the USDA, Chuck Grassley received $387,080 from 1995 through 2016. His son Robin received $1,148,340 during the same time frame. [1] Chuck Grassley is one of the Senators who voted to approve the Federal bailout for Farmers impacted by the tariff war with China in 2018. He is also on the list of applicants for the 2018 subsidies despite having personal assets in excess of $3.3 million. He is one of two U.S. Senators who has applied for the farm bailout. [2]
Grassley has been a strong opponent of traditional welfare, and how government handouts encourage poor societal performance, stating in a Welfare Reform committee hearing in September 2003, "Currently, most adults receiving assistance report no work activity. Clearly, that does not help move these families into self-sufficiency. Many argue that the way to move families into self-sufficiency is to encourage additional work". [3]
Similarly Grassley expressed condemnation of the working class in December of 2017 when he stated that he is in favor of getting rid of the federal estate tax—a tax generally aimed at the wealthy. Grassley, a member of the tax-writing Finance Committee in the Senate, told The Des Moines Register that the federal estate tax could force farm families to liquidate in order to pay the so-called death tax. “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies,” he told the paper. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anewm14 ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
References
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. [See comments below |
(This was originally posted to the Talk page on 12/18/18)
I would like to add information to the "Whistleblowers" section on the Chuck Grassley page. I would like to add the following text:
Grassley has been integral to the annual celebration of whistleblowers,
National Whistleblower Appreciation Day. The U.S. Senate passed a resolution
[1] in 2018 to officially name July 30th as a day to celebrate whistleblowers. Grassley has spoken at each National Whistleblower Appreciation Day celebration since the inagural event on July 30th, 2015.
_________
I would also like to disclose that I am serving as a paid editor: I am employed by Kohn, Kohn, and Colapinto, LLP. I am also associated with the National Whistleblower Center. I am receiving compensation in the form of payment for hourly work on article edits. If this calls for my using the Conflict of Interest form, please let me know and I will make sure to propose these edits in good faith and in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This information is also disclosed on my user page and my user talk page. Ana p54 ( talk) 19:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
References
Thanks for the suggestion, and thanks for being forthcoming about your conflict of interest. I'd have to say that I don't see justification for putting this material in the article, because it has mostly not been noted or covered by regular news sources. Virtually all the coverage I could find at Google [3] was from primary, interested sources, namely Grassley himself and the Whistleblowers organization. In order to put something in the article, it has to have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. This has not. That's my analysis; what do others think? -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Notes
Thanks for your analysis. References are hard to find, but they exist. Here is a reference for Grassley speaking at a celebration: [4] It is true that Grassley was the first senator to propose the day in the Senate, in 2013, and has proposed it every year since. [5] (a non-independent source). These things are true. They just don’t seem to have generated enough independent attention to be included in the article. The article already contains a section about his work for whistleblowers; I can't see justification for adding anything about the Day. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
An editor has edit-warred [6] long-standing text out of the article which provides the accurate context for Grassley's disingenuous remarks that the estate tax harms farmers and small business owners. The editor cut basically all the text and then wrote that " The Des Moines Register disagreed with Grassley's assertion", which gives readers the false impression that this is a DMR op-ed. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
As always, I find it awkward to go to the Talk page when an article is locked, so please forgive any missteps. Anyhow, there is a small error in the article, characterizing both Grassley and another guy as Iowa's longest-serving senator. The other, of course, has now become second-longest-serving.
![]() | This
edit request to
Chuck Grassley has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Requesting Chair be changed to Chairperson in the right-hand information box.
There is no change to the authenticity of the article or information, just a formatting change in the title for Senate Finance Committee. 174.67.53.145 ( talk) 00:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Chuck Grassley has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{subst:trim|1=
Change "Grassley is in favor of repealing the
estate tax, which is a tax on inherited assets above $5.5 million for individuals and $11 million for couples.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
[1]
[2]
References