![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have reverted today's two-minute hate on Koch Industries because it fundamentally misrepresents the data from the Center for Responsive Politics (Open Secrets). There is a disclaimer at the bottom of the page which states: "The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates." Therefore, the claim that Koch Industries is Inhofe's top contributor is incorrect. The PAC and individual donations from Koch Industries employees (aggregated) are Inhofe's largest contributor, but neither the company nor any of its individual employees are at the top. The PAC is the tenth largest PAC contributor, and while the individuals are the largest (as an aggregate), that does not equate to the company being the donor, as implied by the link in the reverted edit. Horologium (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Grouping a PAC and all of a group's members into an "aggregate" claim is silly -- in such a case the largest "aggregate" group is "registered Republicans." Making an artificial group, no matter by whom, is SYNTH at best.
Collect (
talk) 21:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Which source says this? It seems like a bit of a reach. Will Beback talk 18:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Note [3] individual contributions from 13 other groups topped the Koch employee contributions. Single largest group is "retired." "Health professionals" is pretty high on the list as well. Unless the article for some reason must mention Koch and no one else, I suggest this page also be added. Reliable source relevant to campaign contributions. I trust, of course, that the reason for the current mention has nothing to do with pushing the "Koch" connection into every possible article on Wikipedia. Collect ( talk) 20:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Beback|talk]] 00:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize to the Wikipedia editor community for my recent conduct on this article. Reviewing the chain of events, my original mention of the Koch brothers was not supported by the citation I used, and then the various reversions and revisions (with accompanying snarky edit descriptions) were no better. It's no excuse, but I think I was suffering from some displaced anger caused by chronic pain. Like I said, no excuse, just a feeble effort at explanation. I've recused myself from this article, and I don't edit any other climate change or Koch-related articles, so hopefully I will be of no more trouble on this matter. No barometer of intelligence ( talk) 20:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
(od) So what is the reason to not add? 99.181.132.75 ( talk) 04:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The article engages in the fallacy of false equivalence in this section by giving equal credence and attention to Inhofe's position on climate change denial: "On the other hand, Inhofe's view on climate change have been praised by Australian geophysicist and climate change skeptic Bob Carter, who says that Inhofe "has been instrumental in making sure that some of the other side of the story on climate change remains in the public domain"
There are not two equal sides to the climate change "story". There is scientific consensus among tens of thousands of scientists, and there are a handful of marginally-qualified skeptics. This does not merit equal coverage or emphasis.
The page should be edited to sound less like a piece of low-quality cable TV "he-said, she-said" journalism and more like a real encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.244.123 ( talk) 00:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
External links, CongLinks template, change to washpo = gIQASu669O 184.78.81.245 ( talk) 03:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The link that backs up his claim of "Separation of Church and State" being the biggest hoax ever is broken, and since it is the only source that seems to claim this, I think the line "Inhofe had previously stated that Global Warming is "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state," should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concchambers ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
And here I was happy that such an assertion could certainly have not been made by a U.S. senator. Thanks for updating the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concchambers ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The following defense-related line was tacked on the the end of the Taxpayer-Funded Travel section.
“ | In 2012, Inhofe said that Obama's plan for "developing a new stealth bomber" meant "terminating the next-generation bomber" | ” |
It should be moved to an appropriate section (even if newly created) or deleted. Arbalest Mike ( talk) 00:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Since this article is protected, I want to inform the administrators who edit this page that today (November 11, 2013), Inhofe's son was killed in a plane crash outside Tulsa, Oklahoma. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaKardii ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This article needs to be written to provide a neutral point of view of the Senator. This article is written from a liberal and critical ppoint of view, very different than articles about liberal senators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.22.24.23 ( talk) 04:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The article is 'locked', but should be edited from a non-biased point of view. For example, highlighting his stance on marriage, and saying his is 'hostile' to Gay issues is very biased. Rodchen ( talk) 00:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
And what would you say otherwise? He hates "gays"? He is anti-gay in the same way that southern whites were anti-black in 1900... it's really pretty simple... He is probably one of the most bigoted people currently in politics. Stevenmitchell ( talk) 05:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the first thing that ought to be done to unbias the article and make it encyclopaedic is to have the name of the article reflecting his formal name. This should be not a campaign advertisement which it currently is. That goes for any politician that is listed in an encyclopaedia by their "buddy name". Jim is his "election name", I take it? Is it the name his handlers have given him to personalize him? It was what they do in the state of New York... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 05:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The opening lines of that section read "Inhofe, former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, does not believe that human activities cause climate change,[33] despite consensus of scientific opinion that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities.[34] In The Republican War on Science, Chris Mooney stated that Inhofe "politicizes and misuses the science of climate change".[35]" Those last two lines add a completely unnecessary left-winged commentary on Mr. Inhofe's view on climate change, using a VERY anti Republican document as a source. Regardless of your stance on Mr. Inhofe and his views, this is not appropriate in an unbiased publication, and I believe they should be removed. To avoid starting a war, I decided to make a post here. A politician's wikipedia page is NOT the correct place to discuss Climate Change or its validity. Kude90 ( talk) 22:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree on proposing removal of "... despite consensus of scientific opinion that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities..." This is neither a true nor factual statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.126.170 ( talk) 18:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot of things wrong with Dave souza's recent additions to the "Environmental issues" subsection, the most notable being that it's way, way, way too detailed (and therefore unencyclopedic). A whole soapbox-y paragraph devoted to the rhetoric used in a single speech by a flamethowing veteran senator is, in my view, blatantly against WP:BALASPS. I don't see anything especially noteworthy about this speech. The fact that the paragraph has to rely on the GPO transcript is evidence of its non-noteworthiness. Then in the next paragraph we have a 5-line quote (waaaay too long) sourced to a broken link at Tulsa World. I don't understand how any of this content adds to the section. In my view both paragraphs should be removed. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to extend this much. Common Dreams looks a bit questionable as a source, and the sequence is rather unclear. The following indicate that the "hoax" amendment was the first vote:
"Senate Votes 98-1 That Climate Change 'Is Not A Hoax'". NBC News. 21 January 2015. Retrieved 26 January 2015.{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link) Goldenberg, Suzanne (22 January 2015).
"US Senate refuses to accept humanity's role in global climate change, again". the Guardian. Retrieved 26 January 2015.{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link) Guess we could add on at the end, cited to NBC: An amendment stating "Climate change is real; and human activity contributes to climate change" was supported by 59 votes to 40, but failed to reach the 60 needed to pass. However, I've not found how Inhofe actually voted on that, so it's less personal. . .
dave souza,
talk 11:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I've
started
removing points that are inadequately sourced that seem to lack broader coverage. One particular paragraph,
Inhofe, while indicating he believed there were uncertainties related to climate science and that mandatory
emissions reductions would have an adverse impact on the
U.S. economy, voted on June 22, 2005 to reject an amendment to an energy bill that would have forced reductions in emissions of
greenhouse gases and created a mandatory emissions trading scheme.<ref: Associated Press. Senate Defeats Move to Cap Climate Gases. June 22, 2005, repeated by
NBC News.
ia incoherent, the source seems to only give it a passing mention, and it doesn't look very significant so I'll remove it. Please advise and provide secondary sources if you think these should be reinstated. . .
dave souza,
talk 20:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
As long as we acknowledge that the Senator's own office is a terrible source for information:
Hcobb ( talk) 20:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The phrase "conservative media such as Fox" is unnecessarily contentious and similar phrases would be rejected if they labeled other media outlets as being "liberal". The wording in its current state is already a modification of what is found in the source. Finally, when you revert someone's edit, you should explain why instead of just saying to discuss it in the talk page.-- HerbSewell ( talk) 20:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on
WP:BLPN and
WP:CFD the category was deleted.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 16:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jim Inhofe. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The comments regarding marriage is very biased toward the left. Why does it say 'he is hostile to gay rights'. It should say 'he is a supporter of traditional marriage.' Or does Wikepedia now even not even pretend to be 'unbiased'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.36.45.123 ( talk) 04:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This issue has not yet been addressed. Rodchen ( talk) 01:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It is my opinion that "hostile to gay rights" and "supporter of traditional marriage" are not the same things and should not be considered interchangeable.
Joetho (
talk) 06:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Joe
I'm a bit puzzled. The article says that Inhofe served in the U.S. Army in 1957 and 1958. Spending a period that ranged from under 2 months to less than two years would be very unusual in those times. There was no active draft, as the Korean conflict was long over. He wasn't married during the period, so a hardship discharge would be improbable. So why was his hitch so short? In those days, many enlistees washed out in boot camp, the initial 3-month training. I unsuccessfully tried to access the cited article by going to the Association of the U.S. Army website by use of its internal website browser, since the reference as posted in Wikipedia had a broken link. When I tried to access the article from the posted link, I got a message that the site was untrusted. Finally, the article says that Inhofe was trained as a pilot by the U.S. Navy. It doesn't reflect Navy service, however, and I can't imagine that they trained civilians to fly, an extremely expensive proposition. Can anyone explain these anomalies? Activist ( talk) 11:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I am confused as to his military service. The bio says he served in the army as a specialist. But, under the pilot incident, it says he was trained to fly by the navy. IAmBecomeDeath ( talk) 04:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
There is apparently more to his “military story” than what is publicly known. In 1958, two years was the minimum enlistment. Thus, he was likely separated early for one of several potential reasons. Considering that he wields significant power as the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), this is significant. CarlitosCorazon 13:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharleyHart ( talk • contribs)
Senator Inhofe is not ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public works committee. Having attended a few committee meetings myself, and after checking http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home Senator David Vitter is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. -- 16:44, 18 November 2014 2601:b:5800:1a63:ec9f:382a:3e89:fc58
Just noticed that at the top of the page in the table his military service is 56-58 and in “Early Life” it’s listed as 57-58. Unable to correct due to edit locking. Vizier Jafar ( talk) 02:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jim Inhofe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A September 16 edit deleted the entirety of a Controversy entry concerning an episode in 2010 when Inhofe landed his plane on a closed runway, endangering several airport workers. The supposed justification was poor sourcing, but the episode is well documented. At most, a notation questioning the source (or calling for additional citations) was needed; wholesale deletion is unjustified, and the deletion should be reverted. 66.167.32.176 ( talk) 02:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/us/15inhofe.html https://www.avweb.com/news/faa-investigating-senator-inhofes-closed-runway-landing/ https://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/report-inhofe-landing-plane-scary-053250 66.167.32.176 ( talk) 15:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. A ten-year-old non-judicial administrative ruling that has not been challenged is not a "Controversy". It is
WP:UNDUE to retrieve the prior text.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 18:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have reverted today's two-minute hate on Koch Industries because it fundamentally misrepresents the data from the Center for Responsive Politics (Open Secrets). There is a disclaimer at the bottom of the page which states: "The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates." Therefore, the claim that Koch Industries is Inhofe's top contributor is incorrect. The PAC and individual donations from Koch Industries employees (aggregated) are Inhofe's largest contributor, but neither the company nor any of its individual employees are at the top. The PAC is the tenth largest PAC contributor, and while the individuals are the largest (as an aggregate), that does not equate to the company being the donor, as implied by the link in the reverted edit. Horologium (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Grouping a PAC and all of a group's members into an "aggregate" claim is silly -- in such a case the largest "aggregate" group is "registered Republicans." Making an artificial group, no matter by whom, is SYNTH at best.
Collect (
talk) 21:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Which source says this? It seems like a bit of a reach. Will Beback talk 18:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Note [3] individual contributions from 13 other groups topped the Koch employee contributions. Single largest group is "retired." "Health professionals" is pretty high on the list as well. Unless the article for some reason must mention Koch and no one else, I suggest this page also be added. Reliable source relevant to campaign contributions. I trust, of course, that the reason for the current mention has nothing to do with pushing the "Koch" connection into every possible article on Wikipedia. Collect ( talk) 20:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Beback|talk]] 00:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize to the Wikipedia editor community for my recent conduct on this article. Reviewing the chain of events, my original mention of the Koch brothers was not supported by the citation I used, and then the various reversions and revisions (with accompanying snarky edit descriptions) were no better. It's no excuse, but I think I was suffering from some displaced anger caused by chronic pain. Like I said, no excuse, just a feeble effort at explanation. I've recused myself from this article, and I don't edit any other climate change or Koch-related articles, so hopefully I will be of no more trouble on this matter. No barometer of intelligence ( talk) 20:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
(od) So what is the reason to not add? 99.181.132.75 ( talk) 04:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The article engages in the fallacy of false equivalence in this section by giving equal credence and attention to Inhofe's position on climate change denial: "On the other hand, Inhofe's view on climate change have been praised by Australian geophysicist and climate change skeptic Bob Carter, who says that Inhofe "has been instrumental in making sure that some of the other side of the story on climate change remains in the public domain"
There are not two equal sides to the climate change "story". There is scientific consensus among tens of thousands of scientists, and there are a handful of marginally-qualified skeptics. This does not merit equal coverage or emphasis.
The page should be edited to sound less like a piece of low-quality cable TV "he-said, she-said" journalism and more like a real encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.244.123 ( talk) 00:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
External links, CongLinks template, change to washpo = gIQASu669O 184.78.81.245 ( talk) 03:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The link that backs up his claim of "Separation of Church and State" being the biggest hoax ever is broken, and since it is the only source that seems to claim this, I think the line "Inhofe had previously stated that Global Warming is "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state," should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concchambers ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
And here I was happy that such an assertion could certainly have not been made by a U.S. senator. Thanks for updating the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concchambers ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The following defense-related line was tacked on the the end of the Taxpayer-Funded Travel section.
“ | In 2012, Inhofe said that Obama's plan for "developing a new stealth bomber" meant "terminating the next-generation bomber" | ” |
It should be moved to an appropriate section (even if newly created) or deleted. Arbalest Mike ( talk) 00:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Since this article is protected, I want to inform the administrators who edit this page that today (November 11, 2013), Inhofe's son was killed in a plane crash outside Tulsa, Oklahoma. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaKardii ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This article needs to be written to provide a neutral point of view of the Senator. This article is written from a liberal and critical ppoint of view, very different than articles about liberal senators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.22.24.23 ( talk) 04:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The article is 'locked', but should be edited from a non-biased point of view. For example, highlighting his stance on marriage, and saying his is 'hostile' to Gay issues is very biased. Rodchen ( talk) 00:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
And what would you say otherwise? He hates "gays"? He is anti-gay in the same way that southern whites were anti-black in 1900... it's really pretty simple... He is probably one of the most bigoted people currently in politics. Stevenmitchell ( talk) 05:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the first thing that ought to be done to unbias the article and make it encyclopaedic is to have the name of the article reflecting his formal name. This should be not a campaign advertisement which it currently is. That goes for any politician that is listed in an encyclopaedia by their "buddy name". Jim is his "election name", I take it? Is it the name his handlers have given him to personalize him? It was what they do in the state of New York... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 05:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The opening lines of that section read "Inhofe, former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, does not believe that human activities cause climate change,[33] despite consensus of scientific opinion that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities.[34] In The Republican War on Science, Chris Mooney stated that Inhofe "politicizes and misuses the science of climate change".[35]" Those last two lines add a completely unnecessary left-winged commentary on Mr. Inhofe's view on climate change, using a VERY anti Republican document as a source. Regardless of your stance on Mr. Inhofe and his views, this is not appropriate in an unbiased publication, and I believe they should be removed. To avoid starting a war, I decided to make a post here. A politician's wikipedia page is NOT the correct place to discuss Climate Change or its validity. Kude90 ( talk) 22:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree on proposing removal of "... despite consensus of scientific opinion that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities..." This is neither a true nor factual statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.126.170 ( talk) 18:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot of things wrong with Dave souza's recent additions to the "Environmental issues" subsection, the most notable being that it's way, way, way too detailed (and therefore unencyclopedic). A whole soapbox-y paragraph devoted to the rhetoric used in a single speech by a flamethowing veteran senator is, in my view, blatantly against WP:BALASPS. I don't see anything especially noteworthy about this speech. The fact that the paragraph has to rely on the GPO transcript is evidence of its non-noteworthiness. Then in the next paragraph we have a 5-line quote (waaaay too long) sourced to a broken link at Tulsa World. I don't understand how any of this content adds to the section. In my view both paragraphs should be removed. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to extend this much. Common Dreams looks a bit questionable as a source, and the sequence is rather unclear. The following indicate that the "hoax" amendment was the first vote:
"Senate Votes 98-1 That Climate Change 'Is Not A Hoax'". NBC News. 21 January 2015. Retrieved 26 January 2015.{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link) Goldenberg, Suzanne (22 January 2015).
"US Senate refuses to accept humanity's role in global climate change, again". the Guardian. Retrieved 26 January 2015.{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link) Guess we could add on at the end, cited to NBC: An amendment stating "Climate change is real; and human activity contributes to climate change" was supported by 59 votes to 40, but failed to reach the 60 needed to pass. However, I've not found how Inhofe actually voted on that, so it's less personal. . .
dave souza,
talk 11:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I've
started
removing points that are inadequately sourced that seem to lack broader coverage. One particular paragraph,
Inhofe, while indicating he believed there were uncertainties related to climate science and that mandatory
emissions reductions would have an adverse impact on the
U.S. economy, voted on June 22, 2005 to reject an amendment to an energy bill that would have forced reductions in emissions of
greenhouse gases and created a mandatory emissions trading scheme.<ref: Associated Press. Senate Defeats Move to Cap Climate Gases. June 22, 2005, repeated by
NBC News.
ia incoherent, the source seems to only give it a passing mention, and it doesn't look very significant so I'll remove it. Please advise and provide secondary sources if you think these should be reinstated. . .
dave souza,
talk 20:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
As long as we acknowledge that the Senator's own office is a terrible source for information:
Hcobb ( talk) 20:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The phrase "conservative media such as Fox" is unnecessarily contentious and similar phrases would be rejected if they labeled other media outlets as being "liberal". The wording in its current state is already a modification of what is found in the source. Finally, when you revert someone's edit, you should explain why instead of just saying to discuss it in the talk page.-- HerbSewell ( talk) 20:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on
WP:BLPN and
WP:CFD the category was deleted.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 16:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jim Inhofe. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The comments regarding marriage is very biased toward the left. Why does it say 'he is hostile to gay rights'. It should say 'he is a supporter of traditional marriage.' Or does Wikepedia now even not even pretend to be 'unbiased'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.36.45.123 ( talk) 04:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This issue has not yet been addressed. Rodchen ( talk) 01:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It is my opinion that "hostile to gay rights" and "supporter of traditional marriage" are not the same things and should not be considered interchangeable.
Joetho (
talk) 06:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Joe
I'm a bit puzzled. The article says that Inhofe served in the U.S. Army in 1957 and 1958. Spending a period that ranged from under 2 months to less than two years would be very unusual in those times. There was no active draft, as the Korean conflict was long over. He wasn't married during the period, so a hardship discharge would be improbable. So why was his hitch so short? In those days, many enlistees washed out in boot camp, the initial 3-month training. I unsuccessfully tried to access the cited article by going to the Association of the U.S. Army website by use of its internal website browser, since the reference as posted in Wikipedia had a broken link. When I tried to access the article from the posted link, I got a message that the site was untrusted. Finally, the article says that Inhofe was trained as a pilot by the U.S. Navy. It doesn't reflect Navy service, however, and I can't imagine that they trained civilians to fly, an extremely expensive proposition. Can anyone explain these anomalies? Activist ( talk) 11:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I am confused as to his military service. The bio says he served in the army as a specialist. But, under the pilot incident, it says he was trained to fly by the navy. IAmBecomeDeath ( talk) 04:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
There is apparently more to his “military story” than what is publicly known. In 1958, two years was the minimum enlistment. Thus, he was likely separated early for one of several potential reasons. Considering that he wields significant power as the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), this is significant. CarlitosCorazon 13:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharleyHart ( talk • contribs)
Senator Inhofe is not ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public works committee. Having attended a few committee meetings myself, and after checking http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home Senator David Vitter is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. -- 16:44, 18 November 2014 2601:b:5800:1a63:ec9f:382a:3e89:fc58
Just noticed that at the top of the page in the table his military service is 56-58 and in “Early Life” it’s listed as 57-58. Unable to correct due to edit locking. Vizier Jafar ( talk) 02:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jim Inhofe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A September 16 edit deleted the entirety of a Controversy entry concerning an episode in 2010 when Inhofe landed his plane on a closed runway, endangering several airport workers. The supposed justification was poor sourcing, but the episode is well documented. At most, a notation questioning the source (or calling for additional citations) was needed; wholesale deletion is unjustified, and the deletion should be reverted. 66.167.32.176 ( talk) 02:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/us/15inhofe.html https://www.avweb.com/news/faa-investigating-senator-inhofes-closed-runway-landing/ https://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/report-inhofe-landing-plane-scary-053250 66.167.32.176 ( talk) 15:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. A ten-year-old non-judicial administrative ruling that has not been challenged is not a "Controversy". It is
WP:UNDUE to retrieve the prior text.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 18:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)