Talk:Deb Fischer/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• 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 also does not cite sources but titles in many references. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This section was removed by another user based on

===Federal grazing leases===

Fischer has come under criticism because her family's ranch near Valentine grazes cattle on federal land, leasing it for about $110,000 per year less than the market rate on private land. The lease on federal land costs $1.35 per cow-calf unit per month, compared to a rate of $32 to $37 on private land in Cherry County. Opponents of federal grazing leases argue that she should relinquish her family's permit if she wants to remain "morally consistent" with her message of less government. Fischer argues that the poor quality of federal lands, plus the restrictions that come with federal leases, make it inappropriate to compare them to private leases.^[1]

Thoughts? Arbor8 (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

To me, this only gives the appearance of failing

WP:UNDUE

because it's the only issue-related paragraph in the article. As one of half a dozen or so paragraphs on various arguments adduced by Fischer's supporters and opponents, it wouldn't seem at all out of place. Although these half-dozen or so paragraphs don't exist yet, I suspect that they'll get written as the Fischer-Kerrey race develops. To encourage their insertion, I'd change the section heading to something more generic, like "Issues" or "Controversies".

At present, the paragraph attempts to maintain

WP:NPOV: note that Fischer's response to the criticism is included. Ammodramus (talk

) 21:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the following on the grounds that it was unencylopedic puffery an not notable. Another editor restored. I've commented out for the time being but wanted to get others' thoughts:

Fischer has been praised by Senate Republicans and Democrat State Senator Danielle Conrad who called her "one of the most talented and effective senators, in the history of the body."^[1] State Senator Tom Hansen said "I don’t think Deb has any serious baggage. She can defend her votes. Politically, she’s very astute. And she can be tough." ^[1]

Thx. Arbor8 (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like puffery to me. It (a) fails to include the response of Fischer's critics, and (b) is so general that it conveys little or no useful information to the reader. I note that the editor who inserted it has done lots of drive-by edits to politics-related articles; he/she may not be aware that Nebraska's legislature is officially nonpartisan. Ammodramus (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The content should be edited to appropriately reflect the source. It's a fine article in the Huffington Post that discusses Fischer's strengths and liabilities. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether it is a proper reflection of the source isn't the issue. The problem is that its unencyclopedic puffery that doesn't add anything to the article. Just saying that someone is a good person, on its own, is not notable. Arbor8 (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that a reliable source has an entire article about how she's well respected by colleagues in both parties and is respected for her approach to politics is perfectly appropriate to include. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This article needs a serious expansion. I see that, among other things, there's nothing at all about Fischer's highway-funding bill, which was a major story in the 2011 legislative session and which has been cited both in her favor and against her.

I will try to provide some of this expansion. In the course of so doing, I'd like to switch the citations over to

Since there've been no objections, I'm proceeding with LDR. Ammodramus (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• She has been a rancher for Sunny Slope Ranch since 1972.^[1] (date omitted)
• In 1999, she earned the Nebraska Association of School Boards Lifetime Achievement Award and the Nebraska Rural Community Schools Association Outstanding Board Member Award.^[2]

I recognize that the second bit is reffed to her website, but it might be worth including if it can be independently sourced. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Other articles that point to Sunny Slope Ranch redirect here, so it is important to include this information as an explanation why. It would be nice if you didn't have to dig for that, but it's probably not something that merits inclusion in the article header. 97.68.84.119 (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of this section? Specifically - why is there a line writing off the previous female U.S. Senators as just "caretakers?" Hazel Abel was elected by the people of Nebraska, even if it was not for a full term. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say simply that Deb Fischer is the first female Senator from Nebraska elected to a full term (omitting the part that belittles the previous representatives)? Rob Shepard (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've rewritten this paragraph to address these points, and moved it up to the section on the election, where it seems more appropriate—it deals with Fischer's election, not with her tenure in office. Ammodramus (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.omaha.com/article/20121028/NEWS/710289933. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see

Section in question was almost the entirety of an Omaha World-Herald story with a copyright-2012 notice at the bottom, copied verbatim into the article. Ammodramus (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deb Fischer. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.omaha.com/article/20120421/NEWS01/704219916
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120605145529/http://news.legislature.ne.gov/dist43/biography/ to http://news.legislature.ne.gov/dist43/biography/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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) 18:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deb Fischer. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105010525/http://leadalumni.unl.edu/2011OutstandingLEADAlum.html to http://leadalumni.unl.edu/2011OutstandingLEADAlum.html

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.

• 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) 15:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

WhatsUpWorld and I disagree on the phrasing and some of the content of the lead section. Our differences are shown in my latest edit. There are two particularly significant issues:

• WUW calls Fischer "an American politician" and later notes that she's from Nebraska. I call her "a politician from the state of Nebraska in the Midwestern United States". In reverting one of my edits, WUW's edit summary states "People know that Nebraska is a Midwestern state". This is not true. Many Americans have at least a vague idea of where Nebraska is; but Wikipedia isn't just for Americans; English-language WP is for all English-speaking people. Just as most Americans don't know that Kerala is in southern India, that Borno is in northeastern Nigeria, that Rutland is in the East Midlands of England... so we shouldn't expect people from other countries to know where US states are. Adding a brief explanation of Nebraska doesn't unduly lengthen the lead, and makes the article much more accessible to non-US readers.
• WUW prefers a construction expressly stating Fischer's current position: "serving as the senior US Senator from Nebraska since 2013". I prefer one that can't be rendered false by subsequent events: "In 2012, she was elected to one of Nebraska's seats in the US Senate, taking office in 2013." My version is supported by
  Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Out-of-date_material. WUW's version will only be true as long as Fischer remains in her Senate seat; mine will remain true whatever might happen in the future. — Ammodramus (talk
  ) 13:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I think nationality is relevant. She's an American politician and not a politician from the Midwestern US. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't need to use the adjective to convey nationality. "X is a politician from the United States" conveys exactly the same information as "X is an American politician". And, in fact, Fischer is most definitely a politician from the Midwestern US; this fact is highly predictive of her positions and emphases on a number of issues, in particular agricultural matters. We do our non-US readers a disservice by leaving out this fact, or by forcing them to chase the Nebraska Wikilink. — Ammodramus (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The normal formulation is "X is an American politician serving as ...". I don't see why we should make an exception for one senator. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – "... is an American politician..." is the standard wording and much cleaner; Fischer isn't an exception. If you want it changed, I'd recommend going to the WikiProject U.S. Congress so we can be consistent among all US Congress members articles. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 14:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he also reverted my standardisation edits on Ben Sasse and Pete Ricketts. WhatsUpWorld (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:REALTIME

could be set aside?

If no such discussion took place, then I submit that the putative "standard wording" is only something that's been found acceptable by most involved editors, not something that mustn't be varied from article to article. I'd further suggest that insisting on consistency among articles tends to suppress changes that might well make articles more reader-friendly and/or more consistent with Wikipolicy. — Ammodramus (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea of a discussion that has taken place. I've only really been editing these articles for the past year, but from I remember prior to that, that standard has been the "...is an American politician..." for at least a couple of years. Perhaps Therequiembellishere is a user to help here — they've been pretty active with these articles for a lot longer than I have.

I removed the recently added section about senator fischer supporting the Anti Israel Boycott Act. As far as I can tell, she is not the lead sponsor, but is rather just one of 47 (!) senators who backed it. Her support for this act has gotten no press coverage from reliable sources, and the only secondary source linked doesn't even mention her by name. It seems...suspicious that there'd be an entire section dedicated to a bill that hasn't even gone anywhere or approached being signed into law, for a senator who has gotten no coverage for supporting it. As such, I pulled the section. That said, if she becomes more vocal on this issue, it returns to the news, and her support gains traction in reliable sources, I'd be glad to add this content back in. GeauxDevils (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)