This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can someone explain to me why his vote on requiring athletic coaches to undergo background checks is remotely related to LGBT issues? If anything it's offensive because it would assume that somehow they're checking the coaches to make sure they're not sex offenders. If no one has a reasonable objection to removal, I am planning on removing it from this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrippina Minor ( talk • contribs) 19:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
This page appears to be subject to systematic content cleansing in order to position Rep. Paulsen favorably for re-election. I call upon partisans favorable to him to resist the urge to delete contributions simply because they contain facts that might not appear in a campaign brochure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthteller52 ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
MNGOP, You can't just copy and paste his campaign bio into wikipedia. It's not only copyright infringement, but it also violates the spirit (and presumably the rules) behind wikipedia.
This is a source for unbiased and well-sourced information on candidates. Where they were born, where they went to school, their families, their life experience: all of that is appropriate. What is not appropriate is to use that information to paint a picture. Any picture. Nobody here cares what "the driving force in Paulsen's distinguished career" is. They just want to know the offices that career has consisted of, how he got into those offices and what he's done in those offices.
I'm too lazy to take the relevant _FACTUAL_ information from a campaign bio and rearrange it into a Wikipedia appropriate fashion, but if whoever posted the campaign bio (assuming their not a campaign staffer for Paulsen or the GOP, which it appears you are) wants to do that, go ahead. We'd all appreciate it.
This problem is being fixed. It appears someone went on to our profile and used over the top vocabulary about Erik. No way to tell if it was a supporter or someone against Erik looking to mess-up his wikipedia page. No way to tell.
Regardless, this problem has been taken care of and the parts that are in question have been taken out and are being rewritten.
Andfoxy13 ( talk) 21:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)PaulsenFriend — Andfoxy13 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Andfoxy13 why did you remove the advert tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.43.194 ( talk) 08:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I assume the tag was removed because it's not written like an advertisement anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.109.29.186 ( talk) 21:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Andfoxy13 do you understand that the history tab shows who did what? You might want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Db-spam which explains the Db-spam tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.43.194 ( talk) 02:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I just want to bring to the editors attention a potential conflict of interest edit by users at 143.231.249.141. At this IP address' wikipage the IP address is identified as "registered to United States House of Representatives." On July 30 an editor at this IP addressed deleted information concerning Rep. Paulsen's policy positions, even though the information was cited (and I did check out the sources to make sure it was correct). Check out the edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Erik_Paulsen&diff=305146361&oldid=302654297. I am not saying that Rep Paulsen or anyone connected to him made this edit, but it would be disturbing if that was the case. David Straub ( talk) 08:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be a slow editing war in this article between those who only want to portray either the negative or positive aspects of Paulsen's voting record. Obviously, it's unrealistic that an article in Wikipedia will have a comment on each and every policy point during the entire career of a member of congress, so I could see how much of what is written in this section could eventually be deleted if Paulsen continues to stay in congress. That being said, there should be an effort to write a more balanced section that represents the views of Representative Paulsen, particularly concerning his most recent voting record. David Straub ( talk) 13:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The more significant issue here is that this page appears to have been systematically maintained as a pseudo-campaign brochure by partisans to Paulsen. Active editing with relevant factual information will hopefully help the page "evolve" (sorry!) to be an actual Wikipedia reference. Your effort at objectivity is appreciated. Paulsen's page appears to have been subject to little of it. Truthteller52 ( talk) 14:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I support the idea of having this page under edit protection for a certain period of time. Perhaps this can let emotions subside. David Straub ( talk) 14:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It may be appropriate to place this page in a state of semi-protection as it's tempting for partisans to create accounts solely for the purpose of deleting factual content that they find unflattering. Truthteller52 ( talk) 20:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Likewise, it is tempting for partisans to solely use the page to post misleading language that twists the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waywaygone ( talk • contribs) 01:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I propose removing the more absurd stuff (he loves his wife; he got the Shiny Prize from some non-notable organization), for starters. The article also needs to be put into proper chronological order, without the silly "biography" section tag: this whole article is by definition a biography! -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've done some work; how do you folks feel about the changes I've made? -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that a statement from Public Radio saying it is "not true" that the health reform bill is not a government takeover of health care could be considered a fact. It is an opinion. That's hardly a foot-notable item and it should be removed. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waywaygone ( talk • contribs) — Waywaygone ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I have to disagree with the last statement, but only to a point. It is the norm in news articles, academic works, and even encyclopedic works, to provide a contrarian view point. Ideally the discussion of Paulsen's vote on the health care bill should be as follows 1). His vote and why he voted that way. 2) A brief sentence that describes the most basic and important details that are IN the bill. This does not include things such as "this is the greatest achievement in health care in a generation" or "this is the worst disaster for health care in the nation's history." 3). A contrarian opinion by some sort of public organization or individual that would challenge the opinion of the office holder. 4). A view from an individual or organization that supports the view of the office holder. Actually, you could take 3 and 4 and reverse them. So far the editing of the policy point section in this article has either been to state Paulsen's vote and then provide supporting evidence or contrarian evidence. There has also been some edits that I would just call a Red herring that state that Paulsen was on stage with Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, which I don't think has any relevance what so ever. David Straub ( talk) 14:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
All the votes listed are against liberal policy proposals. Makes it seem like the guy is a jerk. Show me a wikipedia page on a Democrat of similar stature that lists all that Democrat's votes against conservative policies. What gives here? This is obvious political bias, and shouldn't be in wikipedia. Instead just put a link to Paulsen's voting record and people can go look it up and think for themselves. Also, quit the political commentary, e.g. which so-and-so said was inaccurate, and so on. This is supposed to be a biography page of a living person not a page to debate Paulsen's votes or conservative positions in general. This page gets a BIG thumbs down in my view and should be completely rewritten. I just regret that I don't have the time to do it. Tpkatsa ( talk) 20:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It's likely that the reason this page reads as it does is because it's an accurate representation of Paulsen's policy positions and voting record. He consistently votes with the interests of big business and the mainstream of the Republican Party even though he represents a balanced district that was previously represented by a moderate. His true nature seems to be unknown to his constituents who have recently started to become aware of his habit of avoiding them and only communicating through slick advertising that only mentions uncontroversial positions and through heavily controlled teleconferences. --
Truthteller52 (
talk)
02:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/business/venture-capitalists-join-push-to-ease-fda-rules-for-medical-device-industry.html October 26, 2011 by BARRY MEIER and JANET ROBERTS 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 23:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Erik Paulsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.keyc.com/node/30600{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/newsroom/news-releases/american-humane-association-clinches-major-victory-for-military-dogs.htmlWhen 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) 20:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
As we approach the mid-term elections, it's critical that Wikipedia be a source of truthful, accurate information about political candidates. Recently, a contributor having only a single edit in their user history deleted information about Erik Paulsen's voting record on environmental issues. I have restored that and consider the edit to have been vandalism. In addition it being factual content, it's an important counterbalance to misleading TV ads that Paulsen is running in his district.
I get that my contributions on this page are seen as partisan. The solution to this is not to delete useful factual content that others don't want to be exposed to. It's for others to edit in constructive ways that they believe provide more objective balance. However, truth does not become falsehood simply because others don't like the truth. Truthteller52 ( talk) 15:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Aloha27: Hello? Why do the first three entries of this section have to be written in prose while the remaining three have to be written in tables that are already visible in the articles I've been trying to link to? Is it going to be one or the other? And why did you have to revert my message on your talk page? You're clearly the only one who cares about my edit, and no one's posted here since 2018, so I strongly doubt anyone else is going to participate. Love of Corey ( talk) 01:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Love of Corey::I told you that this was the place to discuss the BRD cycle. My talk page is not the place to have this discussion as other editors will be able to chime in right here and that is precisely what this process is for. The entries you choose to revert began with the election of 2014. For whatever reason the person who made up the tables in question didn't go back any further OR begin them earlier than that. I'm afraid I don't know (or care) what their rationale for taking the time to do that work was six-odd years ago. Why someone would eliminate said tables and that work rather that have a reader of the article be able to see the information right here on the article page what the results of the elections were rather than having to click on a link to view them doesn't make sense at all IMO. Regards, Aloha27 talk 01:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)