Talk:Mike Gravel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Mike Gravel is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.

For Googlebot: Maurice Robert Gravel

Contents 1 Add and Edit this page 2 Pronunciation 3 Barnes Review 4 Recent Photo 5 Presidential Bid Status 6 American Free Press

[edit] Add and Edit this page

This page's traffic is probably going to increase significantly, especially over the next few days, and as a whole through the 2008 campaign (which this guy is sort of starting). This page should be added to and cleaned up - I'll try to do what I can.

He'll be 78 years old in November 2008. He has about as much chance of being elected as did Dennis Kucinich. John Broughton 19:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Does his age prevent a barrier? Ronald Regan was the oldest president during my lifetime, served two terms, leaving office as very popular, at least among Republicans, even though his handlers let him sleep through many of the big decisions THEY made.

I saw Dennis and Mike at the first Democratic Presidential Forum in Carson City, NV today. The only one missing was Obama, since he was candidating in Iowa today. Mike and Dennis were the most anti-war and domestic policy radicals there. I have long been a fan of Joe Biden, since I saw how he conducted himself as Chairman of the Judiciary Committe at the Clarence Thomas hearings. Joe has also acquitted himself well, even before he announced, and today was no exception. He was especially good at NOT criticizing other candidates, even though his plans are at considerable variance with theirs. User:W8IMP 00:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

I have a vague recollection that his name is pronounced with the accent on the second syllable. Does anyone have solid information one way or the other on the pronunciation? JamesMLane t c 05:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In a video I saw on his website, he pronounced it Grav-ELL with an accent. --12.217.121.245 16:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnes Review

We need to state what the Barnes Review is, otherwise it's a pretty banal entry. It's also a non-disputed fact that he did give the speech, it's on the Barnes Review website Makgraf 22:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In what way is this citation notable, other than as a guilt-by-association slur on Gravel? He didn't speak about the holocaust at all, and he has "repeatedly" (according to the article) stated that he does not share their views regarding it. This sort of thing seems very troubling in light of WP:BLP. csloat 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well there are two questions here: 1) should we report that he gave a speech at the conference and 2) should we mention what the conference was? My point above was about 2), there's no point in just mentioning the conference. But I think that 1) should stand as well. It was a very notable occurence, he got a lot of press for it and this was at a time where he wasn't in the news. Makgraf 04:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Photo

Would a more recent photo be a good idea, since the current one was obviously taken in the 70's or so, and, since he's running for President in 2008, perhaps a current photo should be used?Neal2028 03:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure we can use a current photo, if you don't mind violating someone's copyright, since there are no fair use photos of him after 1980. --12.217.121.245 08:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I know sarcasm helps everything. But other campaigns, like that of James Webb will gladly release a current photo to use. I don't believe that would be any kind of violation, as I'm sure you also know.Neal2028 03:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Somebody needs to find a source for the current photo as soon as possible, otherwise it will be deleted in 5 days. --Rory096 04:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this picture? Unless it violates a copyright somehow.67.167.93.51 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The photo on this page looks like the same one on bioguide.congress.gov, which is a how he appeared during his senate years. He has several other recent pictures on his own website.User:W8IMP23:21, 21 Febuary 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential Bid Status

I wonder if anyone can verify that he is indeed still a candidate for president as I've tried to ring his campaign office several times today and have not been able to get a reply, plus there are so far no volunteer contacts in any of the 50 states in the United States Harry Hayfield 17:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Visit his website and you will clearly see that he is a candidate. I saw him speak, live, (on Cspan, one of the best reasons to own a TV) at the first Democratic Forum in Carson City, Nevada. If you question his sincerity as a candidate, you need to see it. He also stated that he has very limited resources for a well-organized campaign. [User:W8IMP, Detroit]] 23:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Free Press

The American Free Press contains nothing on it's website that endorses Holocaust denial. So to paint them and the Barnes Review with the same brush is irresponsible. What evidence is there that this event was at all sponsored by the Barnes Review. It seems to me that it was solely and event sponsored by the AFP. The AFB believes in free speech for everybody, even holocaust deniers, that doesn't mean they endorse there viewpoints. Makgraf if you want to make the case that the Barnes Review is a holocasut denier publication fine, but you need to distinguish between them and the AFP. I personally think this entire sentence should be taken out of the article as it seems to be a fairly transparent attempt to imply guilt by association in regards to Gravel. However, I've learned at wikipedia that's better to be respectful of what other people have written and try and come to some mutual compromise rather than just reverting each other. If you'd be willing to write a more neutral version of this sentence I'd be willing to accept it. annoynmous 07:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have written a what I feel is a more neutral version of this section. Let me know how you feel about it. annoynmous 08:14, 26 February 2007 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your desire to compromise. I have two points. First, writing that the Barnes Review is "a journal that has published literature that endorses Holocaust denial" is kinda like writing that Time is a "a magazine that has published current affairs news". That's what Time is, it's a current affairs news magazine. Just as the Barnes Review is a Holocaust denial journal. So it seems tha the sentence should be more reflective of this. Second, I guess I am lumping the AFP in with the Barnes Review as they have the same address and the same founders and are very comfortable around Holocaust Denial. So I don't think it's "irresponsible" do this. Still, I'm willing to compromise on this because it seems like their sister publication takes on denying while they mainly expose more garden variety kooky anti-semitic theories. How about this: ""The event was co-sponsored by the Barnes Review, a journal that endorses Holocaust denial". Makgraf 19:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So would this be an okay wording? Makgraf 02:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure it would be fine. I guess that I was just worried that this was part of the "well he criticizes Israel so he must be anti-semtic" slur that you find. I like Gravel and I was just worried that if by some miracle he gets the Democratic nomination (which at this point is very unlikely) that someone will read this entry on wikipedia and say "Hey, he's a neo-nazi holocaust denier". However, from the research I did I guess it was an incident that got a fair amount of attention when it happened so I guess I'm okay with including it.annoynmous 04:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't really know anything about Gravel's foreign policy positions. Glad we could come to a compromise wording. Makgraf 06:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)