Jump to content

Talk:Don Young/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Bridge to Gravina (I refuse to call it "Nowhere"...)

The Gravina Island Bridge article is very well written and brings up the points that are not emphasized by the media (which, as a journalism student, I have to say acted sensationally on this issue) about access to developable land and access to Ketchikan's airport. As some people looking into Don Young may have heard of the issue, would it be a good or bad idea to add just a little more (about access to land) into this article? Perhaps then those people would be inspired to research the issue a little more before declaring it a "Bridge to Nowhere." Also, the link to the Gravina Island Bridge article is buried under the word "bridge," which looks like it would go to the WP article about bridges. It would probably be a good idea if someone could figure out how to rewrite the sentence so the link to the article is a little more obvious. (I actually stumbled across the Gravina Island Bridge article after looking up Gravina, and it wasn't until I came back to edit this section and add it in that I realized it was already in there. I tried to rewrite it but it wasn't working, and I have other homework I've got to do first...) cluth 03:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking that about the bridge link. I didn't even notice it there on the first read because I unconsciously assumed it would just go to Bridge, as you say. Linking "an enormous bridge" would be more noticeable, but seems a bit off—possibly giving undue emphasis to the word enormous?
Changing the entire phrase to "the Gravina Island Bridge" would be redundant and flow badly... I'd suggest changing the heading for the paragraph to "Gravina Island Bridge" and linking that, but MoS:HEAD says don't do that. Hmm. That is a tricky one. —Zero Gravitas 03:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
How about:
In 2005, Young and Stevens earmarked $223 million for a project to build an enormous bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island (pop. 50) [...]
It's sort of clunky, but "a project" is more obvious as a topical link. —Zero Gravitas 03:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This article had material copied from an external web page. I have removed the material and have added a copyvio template to this page. Please do not copy text from other websites without permission. Samboy 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The offending text was added in this diff from an AOL proxy IP. Ugh. Samboy 21:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, that tag doesn't need to remain if the text was removed and the entire history isn't polluted with the violation. I'm going to remove it, if it needs to remain, I wont oppose readdition solong as the subsequent processes are carried out. 68.39.174.238 10:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
CORRECTION, that dude who removed it was NOT ME!!! 68.39.174.238 10:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence in Cape Wind section

When the article says "a measure opposed by the Coast Guard" it's not clear if they are opposing the bill to block the wind turbines or the turbines themselves. Which is it? --71.222.56.69 19:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting of recent changes by User:69.143.13.88

I've reverted all changes just made by User:69.143.13.88, for a number of reasons. First, many of the changes use POVish language. Second, and more importantly, the changes fail the policy on biographies - controversial statements must be sourced. Third, the only source that was provided, for just one of the added sentences, is problematical: According to an article on June 14, 2007 from the Naples Daily News, Mack himself has strong ties to Mr. Aronoff. But when I ran a search at www.naplesnews.com, the results indicated there was no article dated June 14th that mentioned Mr. Aronoff.

I welcome any appropriate content being added back to the article if it has a valid source provided. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The "worst congressman" Rolling Stone link which is repeatedly linked to in the article doesn't work anymore. Could someone find an archive of it or mark all the references as dead?J'onn J'onzz (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Issues

  • The information on his holding local office in Fort Yukon is inconsistent within the page and with other sources. Smaller cities in Alaska typically elect their mayors from within the council membership, rather than popularly. I have access to some information on local government in Alaska in the 1960s, but what I have is far from comprehensive. It's hard to say whether or not he served simultaneously in local office and in the state legislature. That was the case with others in early statehood days, based upon an interpretation of Article 2, Section 5 of the Alaska Constitution, until the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that such dual office holding was in fact in violation of the constitution.
  • Also in regards to his earlier political career, a recent obituary of a former Fort Yukon resident, David Shewfelt, claimed that Shewfelt defeated Young in his first run for city council. I've yet to see anything which confirms or corraborates this statement.
  • What is listed on the page as being an early photo, I would hardly categorize it as such. Most of the early congressional photos I've seen of Young show him to be clean-shaven and somewhat bucktoothed-looking.
  • His official residence has always been a point of contention in Alaska. I believe the Anchorage Daily News, back in 1992 or thereabouts, published a story showing photos of Young's boarded-up trailer in Fort Yukon along with his rather stately house in McLean, Virginia, and questioned him extensively about the juxtaposition of that. Perhaps he really meant it when he lists his residence address as "P.O. Box 125, Fort Yukon."
  • His daughters aren't mentioned by name in the article. However, they've always been mentioned in campaign materials as being named Joni and Dawn. I'm looking at a photo caption in the October 31, 1974 edition of the Anchorage (Daily) Times which lists their names as Joan and Pixie Dawn. Don't really know if this is at all worth pursuing or belaboring.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Given that California Congressman Pete Stark lost the "top two" general election to another incumbent Democrat last week, Don will move to the 5th most senior member of the House in seven weeks. Activist (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Dust Up with Prof. Douglas Brinkley

Young got into a heated exchange with Rice University professor Douglas Brinkley as seen here. Not sure if it's significant enough to add a sentence or two to the main article, but I offer it here in case anyone wishes to do so. Thanks. --Art Smart Chart/Heart 09:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Just keep in mind WP:NOTNEWS, which states in part: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.. I've left hints on this talk page regarding Young's early career, which I realize is much harder work to research than anything currently in the news. This article is more than a little slanted towards events from 2005 on. Not coincidentally, that's the same time frame in which serious efforts have been made to target Young for defeat. I'm only saying this in an attempt to put things in proper perspective. We're talking about someone who has held a major elected office for over 40 years, and has been a controversial figure for at least 20 or 30 years, not 5 or 6.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess this proves that it's largely a waste of time to try and hash anything out on the talk page. It's in there anyway, complete with a blatantly POV article from the Huffington Post cited as a source. For the hopelessly jaded who can't understand what I'm talking about, take a closer look at the article's title. I'm rather tired of pointing that parroting the corporate media is antithetical to what Wikipedia is about, but happens far too often anyway because it's a path of least resistance.RadioKAOS (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ethics Investigation

Young is being investigated the only question is whether or not a full scale investigation will be engaged. The committee extended the time to consider the issues beyond the normal 90 days for another 45 days, with regards to both Young and Alcee Hastings.

The Alaska Dispatch article links to the Politico article which contains this text:

RSS Feed

Ethics Committee looks at Alcee Hastings, Don Young By JOHN BRESNAHAN | 11/28/11 11:43 AM EST

The House Ethics Committee announced on Monday that it will take another 45 days to determine whether to launch full-scale investigations into allegations against Reps. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) and Don Young (R-Alaska).

Reps. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) and Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), the chairman and the ranking member of the Ethics Committee, made the statement in response to requests for investigations into the two veteran lawmakers from the Office of Congressional Ethics. The Ethics Committee has up to 90 days to act an OCE recommendation by conducting its own probe or making the results of the OCE review public.

I should add that while visiting the page today I found an error made in Young's disfavor, regarding his ratings. There is no such group as the "League of Conservative Voters." The League of Conservation Voters, on the other hand, gave him a 17% score for the 2009-2010 session, and a 0% score for the 2nd (extraordinary) 2010 session. Given the errors, I removed the entire line.Activist (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Continuing along the line of previous comments...

I'm no big fan of Don Young. In fact, Sheila Toomey's references to "Congressman For All Alaskans Except Those Who Didn't Vote For Him" and the like are right on the money. However, I do see an ongoing problem with this article. Too many people, who evidently spend too much time reading Roll Call and similarly-minded blogs, have chosen to throw out neutrality along with the baby AND the bath water in this case. The article is dominated by a rather lengthy criticism section which isn't actually labeled as such. I assume this is intended to get around the automatic scrutiny that such sections tend to receive.

Speaking of such, I noticed this in the Page 2 "this day in history" blurb in yesterday's local paper:

10 YEARS AGO
May 24, 2003 — WASHINGTON — Freshman Rep. Marilyn Musgrave is leading the charge against a gas tax hike being pushed by fellow Republicans. But she's finding that the limelight can be an uncomfortable place.
Musgrave, R-Colo., said this week the chief sponsor of raising the tax, House Transportation Chairman Don Young, R-Alaska, tried to intimidate her with an in-your-face tirade on the House floor. She said he also threatened highway projects in her district.

Now, why isn't this in the article? I mean, it only sounds exactly like fifteen other things which are in the article. I can only assume it's because the article didn't exist ten years ago today. Therefore, people couldn't rush like lemmings to repeat whatever they just heard or read in the news, such as they have in the case of most of the recent activity seen here.

This is why I keep tagging this article and will continue to do so. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 10:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Overuse/abuse of "controversy"

This page significantly overuses and abuses the word "controversy" or "feud" or whatever as a section heading to describe minor political moments. Not every single thing needs to be its own section and flash-in-the-pan political moments aren't necessarily "controversies." I am no political fan of Don Young (in fact, I knocked on doors in Fairbanks for his opponent in 2008), but quite frankly the "Tenure" section is incredibly poorly written and reads like a mishmash of random events thrown in a blender. It needs a thorough and complete rewrite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's a great example: Don Young's support of drilling in ANWR is a huge, well-known and important part of his platform that has drawn widespread opposition. Why is this article's only mention of that part of his political life a throwaway bit about him arguing with a historian in a hearing? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Uh, because the photos of Young and a staffer glaring at Brinkley with huge, beady eyes became a sensation du jour? Okay, I'm kidding, somewhat. I can very well imagine that playing a role, however.
I'm too fond of calling Wikipedia the "three monkeys syndrome" in full effect. Otherwise, how could anyone dream of portraying Wally Hickel as an environmentalist? It's right there in his article. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 04:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
An earlier section in this talk page ties Young to Alcee Hastings, regarding an announcement of investigations of the two. I see that article is in much the same vein as what I've complained about here. The major difference is that it doesn't quite carry on to the excess that this one does. Oh yeah, and there was a conviction to speak of in that case. It's almost as if you can see the pattern of the Capitol Hill fanboys here on Wikipedia. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 04:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the concerns expressed above, and just removed a really bad section about Jack Abramoff allegations. The problem is that many of the sources in the article are either unreliable blogs, or highly partisan sources pushing a POV, or both. My politics are the opposite of Young's, but Don Young does not deserve this hatchet job. Of course, the criticisms need to be covered, but the sources should be impeccable, and the writing scrupulously neutral. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors, I am semi-retiring from wikipedia. This means that I am going to cool off for a few months. So go right ahead and delete Don Young's interestingly important controversies, from his 1994 Oosk comment to his recent Latino slur comment. Go right ahead and get rid of all of his outrageous comments over the years. Americans don't hold politicians accountable anyway.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Don Young. 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}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Don Young. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

4 April Edits

I've taken the editor's problems at another page, slashing an article on coronavirus votes and retaining and repeating a serious error in that article about Rep. Andy Biggs, and I've urged that it be talked about rationally. Instead, he has stalked me to the Don Young article, which I've edited almost 60 times in eight-and-a-half years without a problem before, and he has eviscerated and reversed my recent edits. So, I'm talking about it, and this Unwikipedian behavior needs to end. Activist (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, there are several issues with the recently added material. We can start here [[1]]. Both the added sources are opinion articles. As such you need to show why those opinions have weight. In general when dealing with a BLP we avoid op-ed sources. We don't assume Op-Ed sources typically have WEIGHT for inclusion. The other issue is the focus on opposition to COVID-19 legislation etc. We went through this recently at BLPN [[2]] you need to show why this rises to the point where it should be included. So far you haven't. That gets to the next point. We don't agree on the content. You added per BRD. I reverted as UNDUE. You don't agree. That means we have a WP:NOCON situation. Per NOCON, tq{{"In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it."}} since this is new material and contentious about a living person it stays out until consensus brings it in. Finally, heading titles need to follow WP:Talknew, "Keep headings neutral". I will add that the issue isn't adding COVID-19 related material. The representative's stance on COVID-19 is a reasonable thing to include as it's a policy position. However, the "soundbite" like quotes are not encyclopedic and not DUE for inclusion in an encyclopedic article about a living person. Springee (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep it cool, keep it civil, assume good faith

Hi everyone. I an am Admin who watches all Congresspeople pages and I noticed quite an uptick in action here. I chose to implement this protection on the page, even though I know most of you are beyond this level, I hope it acts as a reminder to assume good faith, ensure civility, and keep a cool head during this trying time – all while ensuring all content on Don Young's page is sourced from reliable secondary sources and neutral in tone. I have no personal investment in Don Young, nor am I a constituent, I just want to make sure all Congresspeople articles are neutrally written and maintained. So, please keep a friendly tone and assume good faith. I'd hate to see this article further protected or end up as a discussion at Arbcom just because some folks couldn't agree. Thank YOU for editing Wikipedia. :) Missvain (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

And, of course, if editors involved here think it could be valuable to further protect this page (i.e. pending changes) than I am willing to consider. Missvain (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
My most recent response to this problem copied to Springee: Springee has recently engaged in WIKIHOUNDING me and my edits to the articles on federal and state legislators, of late starting with well-sourced and notable edits to articles about congressmen Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Ken Buck (R-CO), removing text about their being the only Reps in opposition to the first coronavirus bill and regarding which they have welcomed the immense media attraction and attention it has directed toward them. Then Springee moved on to stalk me at the Don Young (R-AK) article. Young is a Representative famous for his tin ear and vulgar mouth, who for the first time since I've been ever been aware of him doing so about anything, apologized for his recent "hoax" remarks about COVID-19. I've made almost 60 edits to the Don Young article in the last 8 1/2 years, and Springee's recent slashing through my edits there was the first and only time Springee has ever edited that article. Springee also claimed that I had sourced Young edits to four opinion pieces. Actually they were sourced to articles written by reporters at the Frontiersman, the regional paper where they covered the recent remarks that Young had made, also at the Anchorage Daily News, the state's largest paper, Alaska's "paper of record," and another by the Associated Press. So his contention was simply untrue on its face, and a personal attack on me. The fourth sourced text he removed in the Young article was by a University of Alaska emeritus professor of history who was invited to comment by the ADN regarding the remarks. The professor extensively discussed the facts, not how he felt about the Congressman's behavior. Now Springee has migrated to stalk me at KS Senate President Susan Wagle's article. I've edited this article for the last 11 months and have made 80 edits to it after another non-NPOV ideological warrior had chopped mine and many other editors' work to pieces, leaving it requiring substantial and difficult repairs. Springee's deletion of my Wagle edit was the first and only time he has edited the article. I've long been a member of the Arizona, Kansas and Alaska Wikiprojects, plus those of eight other states. Now you don't have to have a PhD in statistics to understand that the odds that Springee's deletions of my careful edits at these three articles are not simply random, but are intentional on the order of well over a million to one. Two other Wikipedia editors have contacted me in the last month to share with me that being the victims of behavior much like Springee's have caused them to cease editing, in the face of similar unwarranted attacks upon them. We are asked by Wikipedia to "assume good faith" regarding the work of other editors, but in the case of Springee, I find that to be a task of substantial magnitude. Activist (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Activist, your comment is long on accusation but short on content. It also begs the question, are your edits really NPOV since you have suggested those who object are otherwise. What I'm seeing is edits that have issues with both neutrality and weight. Please stick to defending the edits on those grounds rather than making grand accusations that assume bad faith. The best action here would be to try to explain why your edits are DUE and NEUTRAL. Springee (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Missvain:. Activist, per NOCON the material you added has been rejected. At this point you need to go to the talk page and discuss the issue and work to find a compromise. Edit warring by restoring with minimal comments at best is not the correct plan. Springee (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I've complained about Springee's Wikihounding me, here and at many other pages he had never edited at before. His response has been that I somehow started it, though he's been tracking me like a hungry tiger. I am reminded of Hitler claiming that Germany had been invaded by Polish (Germans dressed as Poles) cavalry in 1939, and that was a causus belli. Activist (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

User @Missvain:, Springee

Take it to BLPN. If you think this is a personal issue take it to ANI. Springee (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Are you familiar with WP:WIKIHOUNDING? Just wondered. Activist (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I've opened a BLPN discussion regarding the Bollier and Wagle pages. [[3]] Basically I'm asking for additional eyes. Springee (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Activist. Please review policy at WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Specifically, When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Also please review WP:NOCON, specifically In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it. Both policies say that if new material in a BLP is challenged then it must not be restored until it has been discussed and the concerns addressed. Continuously restoring the same material without so much as engaging in a good faith discussion related to the issues with the text is not adhering to these policies. The next steps are drop it, good faith discussions (with a request for a 3rd opinion), or something like ANI. Springee (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

While I was addressing your concerns and after I'd spent quite some time cleaning up many errors and incomplete citations left by other editors in the Don Young article and I was about to leave this feedback at the Don Young article, I was prevented* from doing so because you are still stalking me and Wikipedia automatically rejected the edit to the Don Young Talk page that I was making. Here's the message "Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it, resulting in an edit conflict. Here is what I'd written.

I guess I'll have join the immense number people with whom you've sparred in your last 1,000 edits (your totals are rising like coronavirus fatalities) and hope we can get it sorted out there.

Copying Missvain I've copiously labored to engage in "good faith" discussions with you, Springee, but actually you need to explain why you feel it is necessary to Wikihound and to stalk me and my edits. (Diff at:) http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Don_Young&oldid=952592084 The article needed work and I've cleaned up a number of errors within it. What you did is to follow me from the Andy Biggs and Ken Buck, articles where you erased well-sourced edits about notable votes in House floors by those two congressman alone, then you followed me to the Don Young article, the first time you'd ever made an edit to it, though I'd made about 60 edits to it over the last 8 1/2 years. You slashed my well sourced-edits and then, though you had been similarly absent there, diff at: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Don_Young&diff=949173903&oldid=949157000 You went on to do the same thing at my edits to the Susan Wagle article where I'd made over 80 edits over the years. You claimed that you were removing edits supposedly based on what you claimed to be "negative Op-eds," but in fact you had instead slashed out edits sourced to reporters for Newsweek and the Associated Press that had nothing to do with Op-Eds. You had written at "01:24, 5 April 2020‎ Springee talk contribs‎ 106,106 bytes -2,143‎ NOCON related to the restored material. It violates UNDUE. The newly added material was sourced to negative Op-Eds. Again DUE hasn't been shown."

You cited subjective criteria, that is your own opinion, as giving you license to engage in this very Unwikipedian behavior. You had claimed that there was little coverage of Young's remarks and reception. I just Googled his name and "beer virus" and got 18,500 hits. I looked at the first 20 and they're from Alaskan and nationwide print and broadcast sources. Now I see that you've reverted my text once again and in doing so so you've erased numerous other corrections I'd tediously edited throughout the article. You are claiming that "other editors" have agreed with you about the legitimacy of your savaging the article (as well as others). That's also not true: It's vandalism, pure and simple and no one has agreed with your edits at this article unless you're sitting in a "virtual" boiler room somewhere and others up to the same practices are remotely cheering you on. This has really got to stop. Activist (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I am beginning to think y'all need to take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I think additional oversight would be ideal. I am suggesting one of you perhaps consider it, before I proceed further, by perhaps reporting it myself. I am super concerned about the tone and edit-warring type behavior happening here. I appreciate the passion both of you have for Wikipedia and uh...Don Young, but, either you both need to step away and stop editing this article - don't worry, we've got this, seriously – or consider taking it to Admin Noticeboard(s) for review by a third party (I'm excluding myself due to my own observation and light involvement). Please let me know. In summary: (1) Admin noticeboard; (2) Step away from the article and move about your business for a while, consider unfollowing the article, too; or (3) It will keep escalating and getting messy. Again, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but, I am concerned. Thank you. Missvain (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

UNDUE section covering Young's 1998 vote on the Clinton impeachment

Activist recently added a section simply stating that Young voted for the Clinton impeachment and then putting some information about the overall vote. Unless there is something significant about this vote with respect to Young (not the impeachment which is clearly notable in it's own right) this is UNDUE content. I reverted the addition. Activist restored it without additional justification. I will leave this discussion up but if no additional support or reason for inclusion is given I will remove it again. Springee (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Activist, your cuts do nothing to address my concerns. This content is simply UNDUE for the article and until others support it's inclusion this is content added without consensus and despite being protested by other editors. Springee (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Stalking behavior

Discuss the content, not other editors. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Springee, Missvain, MelanieN Almost a year ago Springee reverted edits I'd made on the Ken Buck article. In his haste to remove mention of that vote where Buck was only one of two congressmen to vote against a coronavirus response bill, one of extreme importance, he conflated that first vote with a second that occurred two weeks later, when about 40 Republicans opposed the second bill. I corrected his errors, but he restored them and seemed to be canvassing, outreaching anyone with whom I'd had a disagreement about AP2/American contemporary political articles. He restored his erroneous edit and seemed to have recruited one of those editors to support him in his reverts of my Buck edits and his reversals of my edits to the Young article. I asked him to at least untangle the confusion he'd created in Buck. Instead, he went to this Young article that I'd been editing for ten years, reverting my well-documented and notable content, and he apparently canvassed that other editor to back him up at Young as well. This can be easily demonstrated by some administrator. I also noted that Springee spends about 18-20% of his time on Wikipedia arguing with others on ANI, a staggering amount of conflict in my opinion. I tried to avoid articles that he was editing, because I enjoy enditing Wikipedia, and am not interested in wasting that sort of time lawyering edits. A couple of months ago, I returned to the Buck article and found he still not had corrected his conflation of votes that I'd brought to his attention over half a year earlier. There is a record of all this. His rationale for removing my Young edit on impeachment is that it happened a long time ago. However, Young's vote was notable at the time and is no less so now when presidential impeaching is becoming an overarching issue. Young was one of about 80% of the Republican caucus in backing forwarding the Clinton impeachment Article 4 to the Senate for its consideration. Graham, then in the House, found that Clinton should not be impeached on the basis of Article 2. Young is one of the 9 remaining Republicans in the House who voted for Clinton's impeachment. (Two of the nine did not vote for Article 4.) My edits are well-sourced, as usual. Attacking other editors and wholesale reversions of their work because they do not agree with his political perspective is extremely inappropriate, nor is stalking and canvassing. Activist (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Activist, this is not an acceptable use for an article talk page. I will ping MelanieN since your ping had an error. Springee (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Springee, Missvain, MelanieN I just looked at a couple of WP articles about congressional officeholders, Ralph Hall and Lindsey Graham. Hall died over a year ago after many decades in office. Hall's brief article (given his impressive tenure/longevity) mentions his Clinton impeachment vote. Graham's article does as well, uttering his famous quote, which I'd forgotten, about his "No" vote on Article Two of Clinton's impeachment ("is this Watergate, or Peyton Place?"), and it has a color photo of him debating the impeachment. Should we remove all such mentions from those and similar articles about officeholders? Since Springee also wrote, rather than taking it to Talk, in his edit's windy subject line, "No reason to have a section in a congressman's BLP because on (sic) an impeachment (sic) from 20+ years back. If Young was a major player on the matter that would be different but this just shows how he voted." I also looked up Alexander the Great. Four editors made 14 edits in the last six days and he's been dead for 2000+ years back. Young's impeachment vote was one of the most consequential he's made in his 48+ years in office. So I've taken this to the article's Talk page precisely because Springee's very presence and actions on the Young article seem to be generated more by his interactions with me, his solely-imposed virtual topic ban on me. It's a diversion, rather than being about the article's subject and it should be understood in that context." My edit to the Young article was legitimate. Activist (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Don't assume that because this information is in one article it should be in another. It could be a case where the information is there because it simply wasn't reviewed. Conversely, it could be there because the article makes the case that they were a major player in the impeachment. The content you added does not. Springee (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Activist, this is totally inappropriate. The talk page is to discuss content, not the behavior of other editors. If you have an objection to an edit, explain why you believe your version is correct. I'm going to hat this as an inappropriate use of the article talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

LAX?

Some sources are saying that Young died at LAX, but the Anchorage Daily News says that he lost consciousness on a flight from LA to Seattle and couldn't be resuscitated. Did the flight turn around? Or is some of the reporting off? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a developing story and things will change rapidly as new details emerge. One of the citations covers it at happened in the concourse of LAX. A removed citation from Alaska Public stated he died in Concourse B. --P37307 (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
It appears that there is some disagreement between sources over exactly where Young died. Some are saying he died at LAX, while others are saying he lost consciousness mid-flight and died either then or shortly after landing in Seattle. I've removed the death place from the IB for now and noted the confusion in the article. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)}}
Actually, upon further inspection, I've realized that only Fox News seems to say explicitly that he died at LAX. I've adjusted the article to reflect this; most sources actually seem to report that he died at some point late in the flight to Seattle or right after.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
His Congressional BioGuide page should be updated within the coming weeks, and they usually list a death place on there. Will probably have to wait until a formal death certificate is issued, though. Canuck89 (What's up?) 18:37, March 19, 2022 (UTC)
Hello, replying one more time to say that the Fox News source has been updated to say he died at Seattle-Tacoma airport after landing, so all the sources seem to be in some form of agreement. I've changed the article/IB to say that he was declared dead upon landing at Sea-Tac. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Death category

I have added a “place holder” category regarding his death in Los Angeles County. I realize that when his cause of death is determined, the category will be updated. But this should work for now. I won’t consider it an “edit war” if someone has a better category. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The first news report I read stated that his episode leading to death occurred on the plane. This is reflected in the source I just added to the article, published around noon Alaska time today: "The congressman lost consciousness on a flight from Los Angeles to Seattle and could not be revived". If he was attended to by medical personnel after the plane landed, as I read in that first report, he would likely be declared deceased wherever the plane landed. The current state of the article suggests that he died at LAX but was put on the plane nonetheless, which sounds like some morbid Weekend at Bernie's-type shit to me. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. But none of that long word salad explains why you removed the category. Only remove it again if you have a more relevant one to replace it with. Juneau Mike (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
It now appears that no reliable source says he died at LAX; the Fox News source, for example, has been updated to say he died at Seattle-Tacoma airport. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Fox News is not a reliable source. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Fox is reliable per RSP. For politics Fox is no-consensus but this wouldn't be a case where politics should enter into it. Additionally, Fox has updated their information which is what we expect from reliable sources. That said, why is this even a category? Seems very specific well that and all sources agree he was alive when he left LA. Springee (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
"Alaska Airlines told The Independent: “At approximately 4:15pm PST, crew onboard Alaska Airlines flight 275 from Los Angles to Seattle responded to a medical emergency on decent into Seattle. The crew, assisted by medical personnel onboard, acted swiftly to provide aid to our guest until the plane landed and first responders boarded the plane. Out of respect for the privacy of our guests, we will not share further details about this incident." Source. Marquardtika (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@Michaelh2001: Here were my edits. As you can see, I didn't touch any categories. The category was actually removed here by Sunshineisles2 before I made those edits. As transparency is a hallmark of what makes Wikipedia work, and therefore you could have looked at the revision history and seen that for yourself, all we really have is an attempt to insult me with "long word salad". I'm going to ignore that and talk about the issues involved here. While Sunshineisles2 provided no edit summary specific to removal, I think I can explain what happened. Commons supports a scheme tying biographical entries to their place of death, but Wikipedia doesn't unless the circumstances are notable or in and of themselves or in some way define the subject's notability. Considering how populous Los Angeles County is and how many people die there every single day, it certainly runs afoul of WP:CATDEFINING.
All that doesn't even address the big-picture issue, something I refer to in another thread: why was this even a thing? The only justification you're offering is the addition of a source which happens to meet WP:RS. The first source I read stated differently, but I didn't go rush to add it to the article because I knew that specific facts were in conflict at such an early stage. There's been a lot of wasted effort dickering back and forth because of that. Wikipedia is not a news site. It's necessary to keep repeating that until people get it. The other day, a feud emerged between a key Young supporter and a news blogger over what details were reported when, all in the name of "scoring a scoop". Since the former is a notable living person who made a Facebook comment and then quickly deleted it, that's as far as I'll go mentioning it, seeing as how quick people are around here to cry BLP foul even over things which get significant coverage in higher-quality sources. The point here is that the news obsession some people have should be left to news sites and our focus should be on content of lasting significance. Why is that not the case? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, sorry for not providing an edit summary there; I went in with the intention of adding Young to the 1972 candidates category, saw the Los Angeles County category there, and removed it as a secondary thought without remembering to adjust the edit summary. As for why, you hit the nail on the head, that's just an absurdly broad category to place one person in. Not deaths from a particular cause, which are not known. Just... "death". As a word and a concept. Not every person needs the circumstances or general cause of their death to be placed into particular categories. It's why the categories for "disease-related deaths" in particular countries or territories were recently emptied and turned into container categories only. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Portrait?

Should Don Young's photo be reverted to one of his older official portraits, similar to Ted Stevens or Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, or is the current one alright? I'm not too, well, 'educated' on how Wikipedia works following the death of an official. Mycranthebigman (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to why that ever became a thing in the first place. To begin with, we have WP:BLP. The practice of putting what may not be the most flattering photo in such a prominent spot as the infobox doesn't exactly sound like we're taking BLP seriously. This article is still covered under BLP even if people remove the relevant tags as a mindless response to the headlines they read. Furthermore, we're supposed to be here to build a historical record, not yet another current events site or news site (see WP:NOTNEWS), so the "latest and greatest" mentality isn't serving the product very well. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2022

In the "Tenure" section, change "it is the 47th smallest" to either "it is the 47th largest" or "it is the 4th smallest". 2603:8001:BD06:1FB:F079:EFDD:8686:1C0B (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for noticing. Have a nice day and happy editing! --Ferien (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Lu Young

The article states "Lula died on August 1, 2009, at age 67" based on some particular snapshot-in-time source. The biography of her father John Fredson, Wolf Smeller, is somewhat hard to come by. From my recollection of it, it stated that she was born in 1940. Therefore, a conflict exists between reliable sources. Wolf Smeller was published by an academic publisher, so it may trump a news story written in just enough haste to beat a deadline as far as factual accuracy is concerned. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

”From my recollection of it” is original research and has no place in the article or on the talk page. Juneau Mike (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Are you trying to be antagonistic? I'm talking about an academic book published by Alaska Pacific University Press and you're trying to imply that it's not a reliable source. We're here to be a reflection of items of lasting significance published by reliable sources, the higher the quality the better, not the low-hanging fruit of mindlessly repeating whatever one's Google search turns up today or whatever fleeting topics the mainstream media chooses to push on us today. The latter is made perfectly clear. For years, you've consistently failed to understand that. Your repeated "retirements" in retaliation of the backlash you receive for failing to understand that is getting a little tiring to watch. You want to talk about OR, go look at 2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election. SPAs have repeatedly added content mostly pertaining to the general election, with multiple instances of tweets used as "sources". There is nothing to write about that election until Dunleavy issues a proclamation and sets dates, and people start filing to appear on the ballot. That article suffers from the same problem you and others have introduced into this article, this obsession with up-to-the-minute news and the lack of understanding of the difference between that and items of lasting significance. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Not antagonistic at all. You can’t throw something out there like, “I read something somewhere. I can’t reference it, but what it said was…” you know better than this. You’ve been on Wikipedia a long time. You are without mercy when pointing out mistakes other editors make. You can be condescending to the point of rudeness about it. Believe me, I know. And I’ve made mistakes as well. Not every error needs a ruler to the hand. Try to be better. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Normally I wouldn’t respond to this here; it’s better discussed on an editors talk page. However, whether or not I “retire” or take a Wiki break, does not disrupt this encyclopedia. Nobody cares, and it only has an impact on my own page. Try to stay focused and keep things relevant. Bring personal issues to my talk page. Thank you, Juneau Mike (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Parents names

The parents names on this wiki article are incorrect. The Anchorage Daily News obit lists them as:

Congressman Young was born on June 9, 1933, in Meridian, Calif. He was the middle son of Lawhead "Sy" Young Sr. and Arlene "Nora" M. Young Harris.

https://obituaries.adn.com/adportal/listingView.html?id=4242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meetthemets18 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Correction on Rep. Young's Parents/Siblings

Hello,

Zack Brown here, wanted to clarify that I am acting in my official capacity as communications director for Alaska At-Large (Formerly the Office of Congressman Don Young).

His family has notified me that his parents names in this wikipedia article are incorrect, and also that he is the oldest sibling of three boys.

His obituary with the correct names can be found here:

https://obituaries.adn.com/adportal/listingView.html?id=4242

I'm hoping someone here can help make these edits.

Thanks

73.106.144.111 (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Zack Brown

Done, thanks for the info. Marquardtika (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_Young/Archive_1&oldid=1164977532"