Talk:Rob Portman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Update Polling Data

Someone please update Mr. Portman's support in opinion polls due to more recent polls being published.

his children

why is it mentioned that his middle kid has a reputation for being talented? what does that mean? and how is it pertinent to portman's bio? i replaced the bit of information about the names of his children as cited by the editor for being overly personal. is there a wikipedia policy that states this? if so, remove the bit about his children and contact me so i can avoid this in the future. thanks. --jonasaurus 22:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Lack of citations

The fact that virtually NONE of the information on this page is cited is certainly cause for concern -- where did it all come from? Where are the citations? --172.132.153.245 05:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that this has been true for 2 1/2 years. I added a citations needed tag to the top of the article, and hope that it stays there until the problem is corrected.W E Hill (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Cunningham Controversy

I had put in some comments re' the Cunningham controversy. I strongly think they are important, given the press and McCain's reactions. I have rectified them from the original, but strongly believe they should stay, at least in the current form.Mwinog2777 (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Insurance contributions

I removed this section as it seems only designed as a partisan attack and is factually wrong as stated.

Portman was known for being the largest recipient of donations from the insurance industry in all of Congress (the House and Senate).

1)I am not aware that Portman was "known" for any such thing and am not sure how do you cite such a reputation or label regardless. 2) The CRP citation is for the 2009 fundraising cycle and as Portman is no longer in Congress he can't be "known" for being the largest recipient "in all of Congress." When he was actually in Congress he was not in the top 20 of recipients according the same source cite for 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaComm (talk • contribs) 20:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Perkins41 (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate phrases

Under the section "2010 Senate Race", the comment "that is a lot of favors owed" appears. This is very suggestive and possibly speculative. Is this appropriate for an encyclopedia? Also, the phrase "Old Guard elitists" appears. There is no reference of who any of the almost 7,000 donors are. Could you please cite a reference for these donors, so we may know who these "elitists" are?Perkins41 (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

worked in the bush cabinet, this is your mess we dont need any more of your kind thank you........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.21.185 (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

email spammer

I just received this from someone claiming to be Portman:

(addresses me by first name) There are two reasons I am writing you today.

I first want to thank you and other supporters who watched our first debate of the campaign last night.... (and he goes on to beg for a contribution)

I never even heard of the man, and this is the first time I've ever received email spam for a political candidate whom I had never contacted. I don't even live in Ohio. I'm just noting this here because it's such an odd tactic -- anyone else gotten anything like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.54.75 (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Health Care for Congress

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens have no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

I wonder if you in Congress really did intend for this to happen in the Health Care Bill? You want a better system than everyone else in the nation? If I provide a better plan for my employees I will be charged a penalty tax. Why shouldn’t the proposed amendment below apply to all of you too.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States." Eulan Tucker

[email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.237.103 (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Article looks like a campaign brochure

Almost all positive, pretty pictures. In the lead section, it talks about how bipartisan he is, but he was part of Joint Committee which split on partisan lines. Not enough information about campaign funds and which lobbying groups fund his campaign efforts.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple citations are lacking

• Note There are multiple claims in the article that are not backed up by ANY sources, much less reliable ones. I have tagged the article as its lacks sources, and has issues concerning references. Where the info in not controversial I have simply tagged the passage, instead of removing the content. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Religion

Was he raised a Methoidist, then lapsed and re-converted on his marriage? Otherwise the current article does not make sense on the issue, as it says both that he was raised in a Methodist family and that he became a Methodist upon marriage. -- 92.226.92.116 (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

15 Genuinely Interesting Things

I don't have time to do this now, but there's some great material here. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits to this article mentioned in NPR news blog

The NPR news blog mentioned recent edits to this page as a possible sign that the article on Portman might be being cleaned up preemptively for a nomination as Romney's VP pick. Whether or not this is true, the mention itself is likely to bring attention to this article. Just a heads up. J0lt C0la (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, a large number of edits are coming from one user River8009. And that user does not seem to edit anything else. It has been mostly normal housekeeping and organizing, but keep an eye out for scrubbing. 75.148.199.241 (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles Retrieved in the future.

Citations 56, 57, and 58, from Govtrack.us, were "Retrieved 8 August 2012." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.244.9.8 (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the timestamps were added by someone living in an area where it is already August 8, 2012? --cmelbye (^t/_c) 22:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"Widely reported" as VP

One NPR article about this page, and another that mentions and disagrees with that article, to me do not mean it is "widely reported" that he is going to be VP. You can mention the idea the article has, but it is certainly not a source to say he is going to be the VP. Thoughts? --AW (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

'Agreed; I would say let this wait 1 day to play out and see it becomes more notable or just a flash. 90moredays (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Wikipedia does not make edits in its own articles that make references to itself. Unless, that is, it has substantial merit. Because this is only speculation at this point in time, I'd willing to say that at this point in time it is not merited. And if proven to be false speculation, it will be irrelevant and removed. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not so simple, even non-wikipedia pages now mention the editing going on here. See this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/08/07/158320294/one-clue-to-romneys-veep-pick-whose-wiki-page-is-getting-the-most-edits I am sure in 2 months this is not relevant anymore, but right now, those who edit the page seem to be aggregating here. And one can at least keep a close eye on it for the time being (who knows, as written, in some months this may be irrelevant) EDIT: Forgot to write, the article that I linked in here also cites the example of Biden, who is/was VP with Obama 194.166.233.111 (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely safe to say that the media is picking up on the edits on Rob's page. Article from Politico http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/why-wikipedia-isnt-the-veep-oracle-131322.html Article from Daily Beast http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/08/07/wikipedia-holds-the-clues-to-mitt-s-vp-pick.html Article from Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/will-wikipedia-predict-ro_n_1751782.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrad (talk • contribs) 19:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 August 2012

I don't know why this was removed from the page. It is completely factual and relevant to his senatorial career.

Sponsored Bills

Senator Portman has sponsored the following bills:

• S. 3077: A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in recognition and celebration of the Pro Football Hall of Fame - This bill requests up to $50,000 in $5 gold coins, and $400,000 in $1 silver coins, $750,000 half dollar clad coins.

• S. 3189: Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2012 - This bill reschedules "cannabimimetic agents" as Schedule I drugs. Cannibimimetic agents refers to such drug structures JWH-018, JWH-019, and similar synthetic cannabinoids.

• S. 3252: A bill to provide for the award of a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Jack Nicklaus - The purpose of this bill is to provide for the award of a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Jack Nicklaus, in recognition of his service to the Nation in promoting excellence, good sportsmanship, and philanthropy.

Tabrad (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional Edit Request "Portman served in both Bush presidencies. He was the Director of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs under George H.W. Bush, and he served both as trade representative and budget director under George W. Bush." "He's not at Mitt Romney's level of wealth, but he's very comfortable. According to his most recent personal financial disclosure, Portman's wealth is somewhere between $1.3 million and $16.3 million." "Along with his siblings, Portman owns a hotel in Lebanon, Ohio called The Golden Lamb, which is rumored to be haunted." He was a budget director and trade representative for Bush Ellron23 (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the text you inserted in the first edit request was ever added at all, let alone removed. The second request doesn't have any sources to back it up. I'll wait for someone experienced in American politics to add the first request's text in. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Lobbyist?

This article lists that Rob Portman was a "lobbyist" at the introduction when this is just plain false and misleading. He ADVISED lobbyists as an attorney, which does not in turn make him a lobbyist himself. This is irresponsible and obviously politically charged with the upcoming VP selection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wab5008 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess my view is probably clear from this edit; the Post notes that he worked for a lobbying firm, registered as a "foreign agent", and met with legislative staff on behalf of a foreign client. Yes, that sounds like an exact description of lobbying, but the Post stopped short of explicitly connecting those dots, so I'm not sure we should, especially not without any degree of nuance. On the other hand, the New York Times described Portman as the George H. W. Bush Administration's "chief lobbyist" here, but that's a bit different from the common usage of corporate lobbying. MastCell ^Talk 23:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Claiming that working as a registered foreign agent for a lobbying firm who advocated for lobbying clients doesn't qualify as a lobbyist is splitting hairs at best. WaPo may have stopped short but NYT didn't. From NYT's bio: "[Mr. Portman] worked as a lobbyist at Patton Boggs, an influential firm in the capital, and worked at two Ohio law firms between stints in the two Bush administrations." [1] PantsB (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Also his 2000 bio in Dartmouth's Alumni magazine written by Jake Tapper before he was famous lists his career from 84-88 as a "lawyer-lobbyist" w[2]PantsB (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the controversies section?

Where did the controversies section go? And what happened to the part about his career working with lobbyists or the referenced criticism of his congressional career? SmallEditsForLife (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversy sections invite controversy, and probably should not be included in living person's bio. Viewmont Viking (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So, as long as someone's living, we can't say shit about anything controversial he/she might have done?. That's fucking ridiculous.--37.11.49.31 (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Not what I said, I just said a controvery section invites cotroversy. If the cotrovery fits somewhere in his bio feel free to put it in as long as it is not a BLP violation. Viewmont Viking (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the only thing in the controversy section is also mentioned in the relevant section, I've integrated it into the body of the text.--Jamesofengland (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Separate "Controversies" sections are a non-starter; they are a poor practice that is considered a violation of WP:NPOV and multiple other guidelines. In particular, back in 2007 a special effort was undertaken to rid all 2008 presidential candidates' biographical articles of such treatment — see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 1#Status of "controversies" pages for the history of that effort — and the same thing has been done for all of the 2012 presidential contenders. And of course the same should be done for possible vice-presidential picks. Controversial matters should be introduced in the appropriate chronological sections along with everything else, where the proper context and weighting and balance and understanding can be maintained. Wasted Time R (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This article reads like an advertisement

The man is flawless, if I go by what I read in this wiki-bio. It's all 100% positive. It should be flagged by a moderator for non-neutral point of view/biased presentation. ---- Theaveng (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree

The section under "Tenure" brings up the Ryan Bill and links to the page where its discussed in more detail, but then breaks neutral point of view by only discussing the proponants view of the bill in the passive voice. You can't introduce a contraversial topic like that and continue to describe it in only positive terms. Its a single vote on a single bill that was not passed. Is it that much more important than every other vote he has taken? Spiderbill (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Section was removed for lack of notability. --Replysixty (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Portmans' previous law firm

Did Portman ever work for a law firm providing legal services to Baby Doc Duvalier?

"Rob Portman's Foreign Agent Registration Form"

http://www.americanbridgepac.org/2012/08/wire/research/rob-portmans-foreign-agent/ Dgharmon (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he worked for Patton Boggs, and Patton Boggs work for a lot of people; they're one of the largest law firms dealing with international relations. Portman didn't work on the Haiti account, though, as you'll see if you follow the reference after Patton Boggs in the article.--Jamesofengland (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney Campaign Reps

Should probably identify themselves before editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.225.194 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama reps, volunteers, superpac workers etc., should identify themselves before editing this page. 192.195.66.3 (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversies

I agree that there should not be a "controversies" section (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Portman&diff=506534312&oldid=506506195). If there are any controversies these need to be interspersed within the appropriate sections in the article, so rather than deleting, use the good work of that contributor as a starting point Cwobeel (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I reinstalled the section. There's no reason to erase over 2000 kilobytes of information, unless it's an attempt to remove balance and turn this into a "Yay Rob Portman is like a new car! He's flawless" advertisement. ---- Theaveng (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing it again. There's no reason to duplicate the information, which is already in there under his senate tenure section. If you feel that there is information missing, add it, but each sentence and nugget of information needs to be present in the article only once.--Jamesofengland (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I moved the information around to be more clear and not duplicate. I think this is more fair but does not pile on. 90moredays (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How is this a controversey of Portman? It sounds like some students were pissed off at the school for selecting him as the commencement speaker, but that Portman did not do anything controversial. I removed it for WP:BLP and WP:COAT reasons. Arzel (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing the "controversies" heading doesn't change the underlying issue. Arzel (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, do you think that this information is not useful to the readers of this article? It seems to me that it is written quite neutrally and providing facts, and providing both sides's viewpoints (students and the faculty) . Would you prefer a shorter version? Cwobeel (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Information on Portman's stance on gay and lesbian issues is certainly notable as well as the fact that this has caused controversy. There is no BLP violation as the information is presented in a neutral manner and well documented by verifiable citations. And I don't see any duplication of this information in the Senate tenure section. The section should be restored in my opinion. Kaldari (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is more than notable to be included, I only removed the headline part to see if that would calm "some" down on it and maybe see that the information should stay. Also not sure what is breaking BLP here? 90moredays (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to note his views on gay rights somewhere, that's fine. But politicians, particularly conservatives, are regularly the subjects of controversy and protest when speaking at universities. So if the reason for including this is to say he is against gay rights, just say he against gay rights under a "Political views" section (like other politicians have); if the reason it to talk about how people were pissed that he spoke at a university, skip it. -Rrius (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a political views section. Regarding controversies, I think it depends on how significant the controversy is. If a controversy gets national media coverage (which this one did, although not much) it may be worth mentioning in the article. If it doesn't rise above local coverage, it probably isn't significant enough. Kaldari (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I would much prefer a polticial stances or similar section, rather controversies or the like. Unless someone can come up with a reliable source that Portman was somehow involved in some real controversy (say, condeming a gay or lesbian relative), it's not a controversy. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 August 2012

Was Portman born in 1955 or 1956? The page lists both dates. 174.52.65.131 (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Kayak inclusion

I expected "In 1989, Portman began his career in government as an associate White House Counsel under President George H. W. Bush. Portman, who is an avid canoeist and kayaker, has published an article on one of his kayak trips. The article "China by Kayak" appears in the book First Descents. In Search of Wild Rivers." to be random promotional vandalism, but its apparently legitimate. It still feels oddly placed and not very noteworthy. Does anyone feel strongly about its inclusion? If so it should probably include a source - like [3]. I lean more just to just taking it out but maybe I'm just underestimating the importance of this. PantsB (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea it reads funny and does not really fit in that area. It could be removed or at least moved to a more personal life part of the page if it ties in better. Its just a article not a full book or something that really is notable by itself. 90moredays (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The first part seems notable enough to me. He is involved in government, so the beginning of his career in government is notable and should be kept. However, I'm not sure where I'd put it. By chronological order, it should stay where it is. However, by category, it should go in the section White House appointments. Maybe a short section could be made in Early Life and Career called Associate White House Counsel if more detail can be added to what Portman did in that position? Idk, just a suggestion. Also, the kayak/canoe thing is not notable, at all, in my opinion. That should be deleted. I'm going to go ahead and do that.--Wikigold96 (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I deleted the kayak/canoe thing and added a new section for Portman's time in the First Bush administration. I added a source and added one more sentence of detail, but it's still lacking in detail. I couldn't find much else about his time in the First Bush Administration. Anyone want to find some more detailed sources? I found these:

• http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/09/throb-portman-roasted-in-hilarious-1991-white-house-farewell-party-invitation/
• http://techelect.itic.org/blog/veepstakes-a-look-at-rob-portman
• http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Ohio/Rob_Portman/
• http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/07/politico-like-george-h-w-bush-rob-portmans-a-genteel-conservative.html --didn't use/read this one cause "Conservatives for Palin" seems, I don't know, somewhat biased
• http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=p000449
• http://conservativelyspeaking.us/elections-2012/rob-portman/ --didn't use/read "Conservatively Speaking" either, but, who knows, maybe it could be useful?

--Wikigold96 (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Signature

Portman's signature comes up at his campaign website's splash page (please Google Image search 'Rob Portman signature.') Can someone please upload that image to Wikipedia, and insert it inside his profile box on this page? Similar Wikipedia pages have signatures, and because his is available online, it would be a great asset to this page. Someone with experience uploading images to Wikipedia should upload it, or explain to me how it can be done without problems.--Camairaen (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

merger of Jane Dudley Portman?

I think the two articles should be merged, with content on Jane Dudley Portman and the rest of the family in the personal life section. Being on a hospital board and supporting meals on wheels are both wonderful things to do but neither of them amount to a reasonable claim of notability independent of the fact that she is a senator's wife. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There is enough reference material, relevance, and visibility for this subject to stand on its own, with its own page. The references are substantial and ongoing.--OhioTruths (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The test here is if we would have an article on her were she not married to a senator. I do not see any evidence she has done anything on her own notable enough to warrant an article. Spouses of notable persons are not automatically notable themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There is incredible amounts of information about her activities and life available online, very apart from other spouses of high-profile U.S. citizens. She is married to a U.S. Senator (whether hypothetically she were not) and was highly involved in numerous elections, including 2010 and 2012. She possesses a profile both needing of a separate page and beneficial to the continuing growth of the encyclopedia: 'merging' this page would only work to stymie additional works. Including all of Jane Dudley Portman’s referenced information on her page in Rob’s page would deter, as well, from a consistently readable Rob Portman page.

Other examples that raise similar concerns from your argument are: Ann Romney, Cindy McCain, various spouses of U.S. celebrities, and American volunteers close to political decision makers. If you disagree with this measurement, please explain what sets them apart. I see all have been involved in national political campaigns.

I reiterate keeping the page separate, and keeping it condensed as a gesture to this discussion and future discussions.--OhioTruths (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Merge References mostly articles about husband: activities are normal activities of a politician's partner.TheLongTone (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the merger proposal tag because the article on Jane Dudley Portman was previously deleted. --TommyBoy (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

GTLB rights

No, we do not change acronyms of well established notability because you think it is better. That is just never going to be done here on Wikipedia. The LGBT acronym is the correct way to address the community. Also, the wording of the sections and reliable sourcing was better before you made the changes. Perhaps if you can gain Consensus here on the Talk page to make your wanted insertions, it may be possible. Otherwise, you should not edit war any further. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I will gladly make the change again. To the second comment, I would like to know from what sources, if any, you make the conjecture. I do not know why the editors of the Rob Portman page cannot make reasonable accommodations like this for the obvious facts listed. In this specific case of the Portman announcement, there is considerable leverage to change the title. Aside from what is proposed in GTLB, which seems to fit this case, there is a very popular and widely prolific use of the GLBT acronym, which serves as a compromise between these two users. GLBT is, if not the most prolific, more prolific than LGBT in many places and universities. To any point that using an acronym without the “L” first is somehow incorrect, that’s nonsensical: think of all the men who were gay who fought in all the wars that have led to this pacific political moment in history. There’s a major historical reason for listing “G” always first when suggested, no matter who’s out against it. Per the compromise resolution, this is getting listed now to the Rob Portman page to bet suit the subject, the announcement, and the overall situation; I am also alphabetizing this in the political topics listed in his Senate tenure for this necessary accommodation and re-inserting the information you deleted in the topic’s body.

Do not edit war or delete this information further unless there is need to adjust the letters following “G.” This is rather final now. The opinions of prominent editors on this page will be sought if warring and deletions continue. --Camairaen (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The most outstanding stern is that the G is used for we men and women. Gay is a shelter over us both. --Ottolk (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Healthcare issue

This edit violates WP:NPOV and per WP:BLP the burden is on the editor adding the content to justify its inclusion.CFredkin (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

These sourced edits are impartial and their sources are all impartial, if that's your worry. But two users deleted clearly substantial information, and that is the only thing that needs justified. Thanks--Reducman (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only is the section on "Health insurance" wildly POV, it's not supported by the sources provided. I'm removing per WP:BLP.CFredkin (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey if you're new, great. But, you should not outright delete whole sections about political topics. Always just cite your issue; but not take down entire section. I'll just re-include it in my next edit. Or maybe you can since you deleted all of it without anyone to first talk with.--Reducman (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The statement regarding contributions from the insurance industry is redundant with existing content in the 2010 Election section. So I'm removing it.CFredkin (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin has a mistaken understanding of "burden" as it applies to BLPs. "The burden of evidence" on the last sentence of WP:BLP's lede refers to "the burden of proof" which links to WP:BURDEN, aka verifiability of sources. So, as long as the burden of verifiability is accomplished, content can remain in BLPs. CFredkin has taken that approach on other articles related to conservative politicians, and the way to manage this process is to ask 3rd party editors to weigh in, such as posting at WP:BLP/N. 18:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Social security

Please don't add contentious material sourced to partisan websites. If editors want to add to the article about Portman's position on social security over the years, there are some good pointers here: [4]. Cwobeel (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

ThinkProgress

is not a reliable source for this edit. Unless/until you can obtain a consensus that it is, please stop adding it to this WP:BLP.CFredkin (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletions

Don't delete content that is not contentious or controversial. Instead, use {{Citation needed}}. Cwobeel (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

sp exeperience

not a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Social Security privatization

There's a noticeboard that discusses reliable sources and the prevailing view there seems to be that ThinkProgress is not reliable. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BringthePaine (talk • contribs) 16:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, the primary source for this on C-Span says that it's "user-uploaded" content: Portman vocally supported President Bush’s “exciting” proposal to privatize Social Security by transitioning the existing program into “personal accounts” invested in the stock market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BringthePaine (talk • contribs) 21:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay--, but let's not be too hasty here. I object to your sweeping deletions of multiple sections of the article. These have to be handled one by one. If Portman is on record as getting excited about personal accounts invested in the stock market... That's privatization. Let's call a spade a spade. I mean, that *defines* privatization of Social Security, as envisioned by GWBush and co. So if Portman once (and/or currently) triumphed this cause, it should be recorded, particularly since it is such a key indicator of political ideology. One way or the other please do not just delete Portman's POV on social security: it's one of the most pressing issues for millions of Ohioans and Americans. --Smilo Don (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

So, it took me all of ten seconds to find the source from the archives of WhiteHouse.gov to confirm the darn quote. What's such a shame here, BringthePaine, is your habit of deleting anything you deem unverified. It strikes me as behavior antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia. Deleting is necessary yes, but it's not our first line of action. First, we call for citations and clarification and so forth. We don't just delete. And with an issue as crucial as social security, this is a vital issue. Now it may be the other editors of Rob Portman have composed unbalanced or poorly cited sections, but that does not give another editor (and a newbie at that) the right to come in blasting everything to bits. Please, please, please: add to the sources, add balance, add information, etc. I asking you to literally be constructive: to *build*, fix, tinker, strengthen. Smilo Don (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You were called out by other editors for adding improperly sourced content at another article. I don't believe the above statement is accurate where biographies are concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BringthePaine (talk • contribs) 19:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

There are 2 sources for the following content. One is user-uploaded content at C-SPAN (and therefore not reliable) and the other C-SPAN source doens't support the statement: Portman vocally supported President Bush’s “exciting” proposal to privatize Social Security by transitioning the existing program into “personal accounts” invested in the stock market.

I've edited the content according to the remaining C-SPAN source.

BringthePaine, please avoid ad hominem attacks on other users. The C-Span user-created clip is being displayed on the C-Span government website because it is a direct quote by Portman about Social Security privatization: the video remains his unadulterated words, therefore it should be allowable to use this as an Internet source just as it continues to stay on C-Span's website. And the next fact is the ThinkProgress source utilizes a direct quote from Portman in this case. Furthermore, ThinkProgress is generally progressive, but not partisan, and I see no reason why the source or the sentences it is being used as a reference for should be deleted. All the material needs to stay as it is.--Republicsisterhood (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree that this reference is reliable and provides a valuable source of the page.--Terrace Rock (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Republicsisterhood Pls provide the timestamp in either C-SPAN video or the text from the whitehouse source where Portman mentions "privatize" or "privatization". In the video, I hear him discuss the benefits of compound interest. The investment strategy for Social Security funds is a separate issue regardless of whether the funds are invested by the government or individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BringthePaine (talk • contribs) 00:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

In the C-Span footage, the subject is referring exclusively to the Social Security privatization campaign. Republicsisterhood's original sentence not only does justice to this article by specifying privatization, but is conservatively objective in the way it utilizes their direct quotes rather than added descriptors.

Oh, and if you actually watch the footage of the whole hearing, his quote "that's why it's such an exciting proposal and why I strongly support it" can be found at 1.10.49. He begins speaking at 1.07.15.--OhioTruths (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, so what's the timestamp in the video where he refers to "privatization"?BringthePaine (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This is settled in fact, and there's no need to make an edit to the sentences, or for users to re-explain privatization. The videos are from a hearing where congressmen spoke about the Bush administration's plan to transfer monies from the trust fund to "personal accounts" (Portman's words) in the stock market. This is privatization. Portman's brief remarks on "compounded interest", along with his entire remarks in the video, further acknowledge that. Both videos from C-Span should be used as references, the shorter one gives a highlighted section of Portman's remarks. Thanks for providing the page to the Social Security debate in the United States. I changed the discussion section title for users to understand what was disputed by the users.--Terrace Rock (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest looking at http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/Rob_Portman.htm#Social_Security for general background on his views on this particular issue, evolving or not. Using only one quote, taken out of context, from any source, could be considered a cherrypicking issue. 174.197.8.72 (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 27 October 2016

All of the following text is not supported by the sources provided (or cited to an unreliable source) and is therefore a violation of BLP policy. The caption of source #131 is user-uploaded content and not reliable, and there is no reference to privatization in the videos in sources 131 or 132, or in 134. (Compound interest is not privatization.) Also for source 133, ThinkProgess is not reliable:

Portman vocally supported President Bush’s “exciting” proposal to privatize Social Security by transitioning the existing program into “personal accounts” invested in the stock market.[131][132] During his swearing-in speech as OMB Director, Portman remarked on the topic of privatizing Social Security:

“President Bush has demonstrated political courage and leadership on this issue. We must develop sound policies now, to reduce the rate of growth and put these programs on a sustainable footing for the future.”[133][134]BringthePaine (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

See the relevant discussions above.--Terrace Rock (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: I can't see evidence of consensus in the section above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The term "spotlighted elite" is unclear and fails verification

This is a very odd and confusing section: "Portman gradually became a confidante of Cincinnati’s spotlighted elite, and has remained an associate of several of Ohio’s widely-known residents, including Bob Taft, Carl Lindner, and Anthony Munoz." First, what is "spotlighted elite" supposed to mean? I have never heard of that term, and don't see it in any of the sources. One of the sources in that section redirects to the homepage of the Cincinnati Enquirer, and another is a link to login at High Beam research. The source retrieval dates are also all given as December 2012, but it is October 2016 and as far as I can tell this material was just added to the article. Some more clarification/explanation would be useful, otherwise I would advocate removing this material because it doesn't appear to be adding substance and it confusing. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I understand "spotlighted elite" either. Is it an Ohio thing? I agree with some editors that we have to be careful not to report too much what names his opponents called him, unless it's especially relevant. (I could see some of Trump's zingers like "Crooked Hillary" or "Lyin' Ted"; if only b/c they were national news.) If we start quoting opponents' negative advertising on Wiki pages... oh my. --Smilo Don (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "spotlighted elite" is a name his opponents called him. I'm not even sure what it means at all. @Republicsisterhood: could you please clarify this content? Champaign Supernova (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with decision to remove. Just don't know what it means. I think it's possible to show who Portman's political allies are, who his major financial contibutors are, etc. , but the section--as written--didn't seem very informative or objective. --Smilo Don (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This was added during a previous edit by another user, then deleted. It adds insight into the Senator's ties and rise in politics. I do not think it is worded in a way that jeopardizes the article's objectivity. "Spotlighted elite" is not being used to refer to the Senator here, but instead to those figures listed as being associated with his rise. Elite is an accepted sociological term used widely throughout the discipline. Keep the sentence in its original form.--Republicsisterhood (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I know what "elite" means, but no one here seems to have any idea what "spotlighted" is supposed to mean in this context. It's odd and confusing. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I originally added this sentence over 3 years ago. These celebrities, in the context of Ohio elites, are widely known, and live lives of fame or notoriety depending on who you ask, instead of seclusion, hence the objective use of "spotlighted." The subject grew on these men in Ohio like he did the Bush family, as their preferences are influential. I do not see any objective reason to dispute this detail let alone delete it, you having done so without initial discussion as well. Because the factions of one place are more documented or anathema does not negate the existence of the same phenomena over the people of another place.--OhioTruths (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that "spotlighted elite" doesn't appear in any sources. It's a simple issue of verification. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This dispute is manufactured under a claim of lacking objectivity - which is not the case. The use of "spotlighted elite" here is objective. Both words carry accurate and sociologic use for an English encyclopedia. Plus, "spotlighted elite" does not refer to Portman himself, but people with whom he has shared association.--Camairaen (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to stop changing the titles of other peoples' threads. Seriously. Stop. This isn't about objectivity. As explained above, it's about how the term "spotlighted elite" doesn't appear in any of the sources, and how it is a made-up, meaningless, and confusing term. It's not about objectivity. It's about verification. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It's appropriate use. The sourced use of "widely-known residents" is extended from "spotlighted elites," so it's covered by those references listed at the end of the sentence. A Google search of the listed men's names confirms the applicability. I changed the name of the discussion back because it took me a longtime to understand what was being talked about.--Terrace Rock (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

None of these comments have overcome the objection that the stated material doesn't appear in any sources. That's an insurmountable obstacle, per verification. So I've removed the material again. We should only include information in this article that is verified by reliable sources. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 October 2016

Please remove the following text from the article:

"Portman gradually became a confidante of Cincinnati’s spotlighted elite, and has remained an associate of several of Ohio’s widely-known residents, including Bob Taft, Carl Lindner, and Anthony Munoz."

It was re-added to the article in a recent protected edit request although there was a previous, ongoing discussion about it on this talk page. Numerous editors have voiced concern about this content. "Spotlighted elite" is a confusing, non-standard term. No one has been able to explain what it means, and it appears in none of the sources. There are three sources given in the section in question. The first source talks about Portman's ticket distribution for a speech by President Bush. The second source redirects to the home page of the Cincinnati Enquirer. The third source is a High Beam link to an article about Carl H. Lindner, Jr., with no apparent mention of Portman. There is nothing in any of these sources to verify the content currently in the article about the "spotlighted elite", whatever that is supposed to mean. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The last edit to the article blanket restored content that did not reflect the status of Talk discussions above.BringthePaine (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

See the relevant discussion above.--Terrace Rock (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: It would be convenient if these requests could be made in the section in which they are discussed! I have now moved this to a subsection. I have read the discussion and I can't see a consensus either way. Please continue to discuss. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

1993 Radio ads

The following statement is an unfounded attack by a political opponent and has no business being included here:

Buchert ran campaign commercials citing McEwen's bounced checks, the expenses of his congressional office, and his campaign finance disclosures, while also calling Portman "the handpicked choice of the downtown money crowd" and "a registered foreign agent for the biggest Democrat lobbying firm in Washington," notedly labeling Portman and McEwen "Prince Rob and Bouncing Bob."

No, it adds insight into his first election to Congress and the environment he eventually won in. The names are accurately sourced and from a newspaper of the time which recorded his opponent's use of the words. This needs to remain as it is in the article.--Republicsisterhood (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It's atypical to include direct quotes from political opponents in this way, per WP:IMPARTIAL. We should summarize events, but not include direct attack lines such these. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Champaign Supernova and I don't always agree, but here we do. One could fill up Wikipedia pages with nicknames, accusations, attack ads, and the like. I *do* think there's a place for it, i.e. the Willie Horton attack ads that Bush used so successfully and notoriously vs. Dukakis, when the ad itself becomes a major issue in the campaign. So too the Daisy ad vs. Barry Goldwater. Both were hugely important and remain widely discussed. I suppose, if you could make the case that there was an especially notorious ad that pushed the polls one way or the other, well then perhaps you could include it. But if it's your run of the mill "X is on the side of special interests" or "X cares more about Y than he does about real Americans" or "X is a Washington insider," et. etc. etc. ... Then we can leave those to the side. In sum, I think you need to let it go, or show that the ad (or critique) was especially salient to that particular campaign. Smilo Don (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

PS. At the risk of suggesting an end-around, you could perhaps make the case that Portman has close ties to certain persons, interests, etc. I mean, suppose politician X is called a puppet of the gun lobby by her opponent. Well, that claim, in itself, is pretty shallow by encyclopedic standards. However, if editors documented that politician X was one of the leading recipients of gun-lobby money and so forth... well, that could potentially be a valid thing to include, without calling pol X a puppet. In the case of Portman and Cincinnati elites, you might show certain objective criteria that bound the two together. Smilo Don (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This was a detail from the subject's first congressional run on Wikipedia that was deleted during their first Senate run. These were notable radio ads and helped their opponent, issued in response to the subject's radio ads featuring the endorsement of former First Lady Barbara Bush. Given that and the subject's thin victory, I conclude they bear enough weight to stay on this page.--OhioTruths (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

We should assume good faith, and I agree they should stay because they add the context. We can look for sources for this, but they should not be deleted.--Terrace Rock (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 27 October 2016

The following text is not in the source provided and is therefore a violation of BLP policy: BringthePaine (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Buchert ran campaign commercials citing McEwen's bounced checks, the expenses of his congressional office, and his campaign finance disclosures, while also calling Portman "the handpicked choice of the downtown money crowd" and "a registered foreign agent for the biggest Democrat lobbying firm in Washington," notedly labeling Portman and McEwen "Prince Rob and Bouncing Bob."[39]

See the relevant discussions above.--Terrace Rock (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: (Request moved to relevant section.) I see no consensus for this change at this time — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 October 2016

Longtime editor of this page here, requesting page restoration of all deleted material from last edit on 21 October 2016, through duration of protection. The deleted material is being discussed on the Rob Portman Talk page now. Copy the page's entire content from the last edit on 21 October 2016 and paste it into the editing box, and save, to restore all the deleted material through the duration of the page's protection.

OhioTruths (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Will need to see some assent from other editors. Please reactivate when ready — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see this page unprotected. I think the editors can discuss in a civil manner. And I also feel that this page is missing a good deal of important information about Mr. Portman's tenure. The sticking point seems to be the "spotlighted elite," which a few of us feel needs to be reworded and better cited. Assuming we can cooperate nicely about that, perhaps this page can be unlocked. --Smilo Don (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you can propose your edits here first.BringthePaine (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "I think the editors can discuss in a civil manner," unfortunately this doesn't seem to be true. It is true on your part, and I thank you for your civility. However, two other editors on this page have referred to me as a "troll", which is clearly uncivil. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Champaign Supernova, there is a section on your talk page for this, and your additional comment below.--Republicsisterhood (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I give assent to OhioTruth's protected edit request.--Camairaen (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Camairaen, can you pledge not to refer to other editors as "trolls" if and when this page is unprotected? Avoiding personal attacks would go a long way toward helping all editors here contribute to improving this page in a safe and respectful environment. I would ask for the same pledge from RepublicSisterhood, who also resorted to personal attacks and name-calling. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

This request has my approval.--Republicsisterhood (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

That's great, but there's still been no indication of what the edit would be.BringthePaine (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Done I have reverted to revision 745577192 per rough consensus — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The consensus has been focusing under each of the relevant discussions above to not change the previously deleted content.--Terrace Rock (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Original Research and Non-Neutral Language

User:Sdlfje23efjgrsj Please provide the specific language from the sources that supports the following content and which also mentions Portman in this edit:

1) "...which would cause 500,000 Ohioans to lose health insurance coverage"

2) "The Senate bill is being written in private...."

Also, the following is not neutrally written: "....albeit by seven years".Amberwaves (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

115th congress HRC score

In the article, it says that he was given a score of 85% in 2016, but on their website here, it says he has a 0% rating. That seems odd, am I missing something? Ultimatescapegoat (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The 0% is his score for the 115th Congress (January 3, 2017 – January 3, 2019), while the article is giving numbers for other time periods, as listed in its source, votesmart.org. -- Pemilligan (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Refusal to recognize president-elect

Portman's refusal to recognize Biden as the President-elect after he won the election belongs in the article. It's reliably sourced and an important issue. It informs readers about what kind of politician Portman is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree; I've added a version as part of a larger, well-sourced update, with some context. Neutrality^talk 17:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)