Talk:Paul Wellstone

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

Messages posted on day of death[edit]

Reportedly killed in plane crash this A.M. 10/25/2002

Let's slow down and take an hour to confirm this. --Ed Poor

Thanks for that glowing tribute, Cunctator. --Ed Poor

Early Life[edit]

First of all, whoever created this phony story of Paul Wellstone's upbringing as a preacher in the 1950's deserves to be kicked off Wikipedia. That's patently false -- and I did not appreciate having to clean up the vandalism.

Secondly, I made a minor edit to his Early Life. Paul was never "fired" from Carleton College in the 1970's. What happened is the Trustees considered firing him, but when his students protested and held a sit-in, they ended up giving him tenure. Wellstone became the youngest professor at Carleton College to ever get tenure. [Source: Professor Wellstone Goes to Washington by Dennis McGrath and Dane Smith.]

Death[edit]

I noticed that this discussion has fallen aside, but I think it's worth re-opening. Indications that the FBI had been tracking Wellstone are included on the site. But so should the vitriol directed towards Wellstone by the Bush Administration, as well as the similarity between his death and the death of other Democratic candidates on the eve of elections, such as Carnahan. There are also some discrepancies with reports about the FBI team on the site--according to official documents, they came from Duluth, although this document was not created until a few months after the crash-[1]. Earlier reporting indicated AFP had interviewed the Duluth FBI office, and was told the team came from Minneapolis, which means they would have left for the crash site before the crash occurred. I can't find the original AFP story, and it only comes up on semi-conspiratorial sites, but I think it is worth including as it is another side of this story-[2]. Mulder15 (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't mean in anyway to trivialize Paul Wellstone's death through this, since he was a great man and senator, but I think it may be worth noting that many people feel that he was assassinated. It is worth noting in the article I believe since this is quite a wide held view in Minneapolis by the left leaning politically active. One common thing I have heard a lot on was that they barely found any surviving pieces of the victims, which would be quite rare for a low flying and low speed airplane.161.225.1.12 02:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Provide sources with evidence if you would like to have murder allegations included. As far as your analysis, I believe you are incorrect about speculating about how much damage would occur in the situation as described. The low speed caused a stall, at which point the aircraft is not flying, it's falling like a rock. - AbstractClass 01:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have read everything Fetzer wrote about the crash as well as the NTSB report, most of the supporting reports, the autopsy report and numerous news accounts. The claim above about the wreckage and bodies is baseless and not even the proponents oc the CT's say this. Much of the wreckage however was destroyed by fire. Lenbrazil (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"Because of the poor qualifications of the pilots, Wellstone's death is a popular subject of conspiracy theories in Minnesota." - is this really a proven fact? Everyone now knows that these pilots have "poor qualifications"?? Both of them??? Everyone seems to have known except Wellstone?? Why didn't anyone tell the poor fellow who he was flying with and not to fly with them??
"The final two radar readings detected the airplane traveling at or just below its predicted stall speed given conditions at the time of the accident." - who were the investigators of the crash? I've read so many different versions now, and cant find out why I should trust one version more than another. Can anyone clarify? 213.172.204.59 23:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The NTSB investigates all aircraft crashes in the United States. There should be only one "official" accident report from them. AbstractClass 01:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct the crash was investigated by NTSB the only conflicting accounts come from unreliable sources like Fetzer and Bollyn.Lenbrazil (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You shouldn't have to provide proof that there was a conspiracy to simply state that that a conspiracy theory exists. Mathchem271828 04:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

Wellstone moment[edit]

I was trying to find what is the meaning of the phrase, "wellstone moment" and ended up here. Should this article mention that politicizing the funeral was the origin of the phrase "wellstone moment" ?

Memorial service[edit]

"Mississippi Republican Senator Trent Lott, after being largely heckled by the crowd during his speech, left before the service was over."

It's my impression that while Senator Lott did attend the service (and leave early), he did not give a speech. (I was in the arena for the service, but I'm relying on my memory here, not on a definite written source.) Most of the VIPs, of both parties, sat together in one corner of the arena, some distance away from the main dias. They entered the arena shortly before the beginning of the service, when most of the crowd was already seated, and it was at this time that the Republicans were heckled--not while anyone was giving a speech. Four large screens hanging in the center of the arena were used to show live TV images of the event, and the cameramen focused in a rather informal way on the VIPs as they entered. Without those giant images, I don't think very many people in the audience would even have been aware that the VIPs were present, because they were part of a crowd of thousands, and took no part in the ceremony.

I would also like to question the use of the word "largely" in the sentence quoted above. While booing and hissing certainly occurred, it was not my impression that the crowd was all of one mind about this behavior.

The whole section on the memorial service need to be rewritten. I watched the entire service on TV and it more resembled a political rally than a memorial service. There is no mention in the article on Senator Lott being heckeled, and that there were beach balls bouncing around like a concert. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Backroom dealings[edit]

Just checking, but does the "backroom dealings" paragraphs seemed brutally honest or slightly conservative?

refs: Senator 'Softie', Washington Post

"An old leftie protester on campus, he grew to tolerate the chummy machinations of Congress and even came to relish the give-and-take of retail campaigning."

Paul Wellstone, 58, Icon Of Liberalism in Senate, The New York Times

"But he soon warmed to the ways of the Senate and became especially adept at the unusual custom of giving long speeches to an empty chamber."

"Backroom dealings" may not be best term. "Cloakroom politics" would be a better description.


I removed/replaced the following defunct external links:

--Minesweeper 09:10 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Murdered?[edit]

"On October 25, 2002, he was murdered at the age of 58 with seven others in a plane crash in northern Minnesota."

Murdered? Could you change it to killed? As far as we know, no one killed him. -anon

This article seems worth incorporating: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110102_wellstone.html "Was Paul Wellstone Murdered?" by Michael C. Ruppert on From The Wilderness Publications [1]JasonCarswell (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ruppert, Michael C. "Was Paul Wellstone Murdered?". From The Wilderness Publications.

Opposed all force?[edit]

I understand that Wellstone did vote for the use of force in Afghanistan: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00281

I don't think he ever claimed to be opposed to all force. He voted to use it against Afghanistan and against using it against Iraqi. He made the right call in both cases IMO.

Being opposed to all force unfortunately is unrealistic in this world. Should congress have rejected FDR's war declaration after Pearl Harbor? Gandhi advocated using non-violence against the Nazis [all least he did in the movie], that wouldn't have worked obviously.

Boschwitz letter[edit]

Some credit the upset defeat to a letter Boschwitz wrote to Wellstone days before the election, accusing him of being a "bad Jew" for marrying a Gentile and not raising his children in the Jewish faith. Wellstone's reply, widely broadcast on Minnesota television, was, "I guess Senator Boschwitz has a problem with Christians, then." Boschwitz, like Wellstone, is Jewish.

it been 15 years and I was in High school at the time but I think Bosch sent that letter to a Jewish group not Wellstone himself, why whould he send a letter to Wellstone? perhaps need to double check that 03:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Smith03 03:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC) smith03Reply[reply]

Yes, you're right--I think it was a fundraising letter.

Cheney & Memorial Service[edit]

In the paragraph that mentions Cheney at Wellston's (don't get cheeky here--he's not and was not a god Rossp 18:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)rossp) memorial, I added: Family members of the crash victims requested that Vice President Richard Cheney respect their wishes and not attend.Reply[reply]

Deceased persons in certain categories[edit]

Someone before me removed Wellstone from "pro-choice politicians" and then it was reverted. I am reverting for a different reason- should a dead person be included in a list such as that ? I will leva ethe others (such as Jewish Politicians, etc) until clarification. Jcam 01:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"justly or not"[edit]

This sounds like a gratutious introduction of POV; in this case, to characterize the criticism as unfair.

Or it is simply a redundant expression and weak writing. patsw 01:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"A" Liberal?[edit]

The word "liberal" is an adjective, not a noun.

Removing.

Robko626 14:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it's in my dictionary:

noun: a person of liberal views. • ( Liberal) a supporter or member of a Liberal Party. tej 02:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Depends on the capitalisation, I would strongly suspect. 'liberal' and 'Liberal' are two separate words. Badgerpatrol 12:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both Webster’s and American Heritage classify liberal (with a small ‘l’) as both an adjective and a noun, you’re just plain wrong "Robko". Make sure you're correct before making edits

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary/liberal http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/liberal

Lenbrazil 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

incumbent protection act of campaign finance reform[edit]

was Wellstones' baby,and was straight out aimed at silencing the NRA,as Wellstone himself stated on the floor of the Senate.I have added these facts to the article,and invite your help to expand this wonderful example of gun control legislation and subverting the Constitution.Saltforkgunman 05:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like somebody doesn't like the facts.Hey Ed.Give it up.The facts speak for thenselves.Saltforkgunman 02:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have attempted to craft an NPOV version, with citations, that everyone can live with. As noted in the addition, there were critics from all across the political spectrum critical of the Wellstone Amendment. Still, the Supreme Court upheld it, on a split vote. So, obviously, this could shift on the next challenge to a 4-5 vote, as the court changes. Yaf 03:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The conscience of the Senate."[edit]

At least three times, a passage has been reverted out calling Wellstone "the conscience of the Senate". The reason for this is that there is no attribution or context given. In the absence of attribution or context, it leaves the appearance that Wikipedia is characterizing Wellstone as "the conscience of the Senate", which is decidedly POV and non-encyclopedic. Now, if someone can come up with an attribution and context, that would be fine -- something like, "Congresman so-and-so, speaking at Wellstone's funeral, characterized him as 'the conscience of the Senate.'" Or whatever. Brandon39 04:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only Senator to Vote Against Iraq War During Reelection Campaign?[edit]

That just isn't true. Carl Levin and Jack Reed, just to name two, voted against the war and were running for reelection in 2002. Removing.

Yes, he wasn't the only Senator up for re-election to do so -- add Dick Durbin too. But he was the only one who was in a tough re-election fight. Durbin, Levin and Reed faced only token opposition, and unlike Wellstone, were not the White House's #1 target.

I suggest we edit it to say he was the only one up for re-election in a tight contest to vote against the war.

League of Women Voters[edit]

I don't think I'd characterize the League of Women Voters as a "special interest group". Aren't they pretty politically neutral? Appraiser 17:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Silencing the NRA[edit]

When I first began to put in the facts about Wellstones gun control antics, my edits were reverted by someone who was uncomfortable with the new text about his self described political heros.I then enlisted the help of an editor that is better at this than I am.He crafted a NPOV version that he thought everyone could live with.On JUN 08 06 USER Paulhogarth was evidently unable to live with the facts about the Senators remarks on the Senate floor and deleted the last sentence of the paragraph pertaining to the Wellstone Amendment.I reverted to include the NRA reference and one Badgerpatrol came along and reverted out the NRA reference, citing POV.

There is good news, ladies and gentlemen, the saltforkgunman has returned to fight for truth, justice, and the American way.I have put the last sentence of the paragraph back in.

Deleting sourced facts because the facts make the subject of the article look like a Commie looks like a cheap political trick, not good editing.I can not assume good faith on this one.There is no NPOV/POV issue here.There is only a revisionist liberal agenda going on here.

If you really feel that the NRA reference is POV, then reword the sentence so it doesn't look POV to you.But simply deleting my work will not cut it anymore.When I first came to wikipedia last winter, I said I wasn't going to engage in what I called 'retarded edit wars'. It looks as if I was mistaken.This is worth going to an edit war about.

How do I get in contact with the administration of wikipedia, so I can get them involved in this?

I will change the LVW to PETA, as it is more special intrest.

Other than that, have a nice daySaltforkgunman 18:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 'source' is a post quoting NRA lawyers on an NRA messageboard. There is no direct quotation of Wellstone on the Senate floor, and the NRA lawyer's interpretation of Wellstone's comments is hardly an impartial source. The last sentence should be removed unless a better source can be found. 24.225.86.217 05:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've searched and have been unable to find any reference to Wellstone stating that it was his intention to silence the NRA from sources other than the NRA itself or people quoting the NRA. The last sentence has thus been removed until better evidence can be procured. 24.225.86.217 05:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds like an excuse to me.The "source" is as good as any, since it comes from the most powerful lobbying group in the U.S.It would be hard to wrongly interpret Wellstones comments.Consider the word 'silence'.Saltforkgunman 18:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consider this. http://www.NRAILA.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=60

I have been looking for a different source, but so far can't find one.It still sounds like an excuse to me.Who else do you suppose it was aimed at?Saltforkgunman 02:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A blog is not a valid source. If Wellstone said it on the Senate floor, find the transcript and quote him. Appraiser 02:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Senator Wellstone actually used those words they would be in the Congressional Record. Major libraries have it. And if the NRA asserts that those words were used it should not be difficult for it to provide a citation. The NRA-ILA source did not claim that Sen. Wellstone actually stated he was trying to "silence" the NRA; that appears to be a characterization of his position. If something is represented as a quote there should be a citation to the actual words, not to a characterization of them by an advocacy group. And that applies regardless of the issue in question. Kablammo 04:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK Saltforkgunman 22:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Cover-Up Claims revisited (again)[edit]

I've seen claims like this one several places on the net: "69% of Minnesotans blamed a "GOP conspiracy" for Wellstone’s death." if this is an actual fact I would think it would be noteworthy if nothing only because of its historical value. I suspect local Minnesotean (?) papers would be the best source to verify such a claim. -- 213.172.204.59 23:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find it exceedingly unlikely that 69% of minnesotans think Wellstone was murdered (as discovered by any reputable polling organization). If that many people in Minnesota thought that as shown by on a sound poll and that is well sourced, then it may be noteable but if so it ought to be balanced with the fact that there was no evidence to this effect and was ruled out by the NTSB else it might add misleading credibility to a wild conspiracy hypothesis. I really find it hard to believe though and will be surprised to see a legitamate source. AbstractClass 02:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think whoever provided this fact should take it upon themselves to verify it if they want to add it to the page. Mathchem271828 04:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bush administration conspiracy theories have no references. Please add references to established sources before adding again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmoszman (talkcontribs) 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reference is a fringe newspaper. Please cite a source from an established University, or credited News Source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.143.70 (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleting this section is not vandalism. Having an ISBN book number and an article in a fringe news paper does not make this a credible source. It is one man's conspiracy theory. There was no credible findings that the Bush administration had anything to do with killing a United States senator. This type of information belongs on far left blogs and websites, not on an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmoszman (talkcontribs) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The quote is cited and is reliable in my opinion. The claim is not made in the article that the Bush administration or that Dick Cheney is responsible. It is notable and there are large numbers of people, not one person who are concerned about such issues. The point that is trying to be made there is that the untimely death raised lots of emotions and concerns, including this theory which is written by a respected academic, well known in the Minnesota community that Paul Wellstone helped. Keep in mind that to maintain a NPOV article mutiple perspectives are allowed. Preceding this short paragraph is a very long paragraph explaining and describing the investigation and circumstances of the crash. It is igven significantly more weight, for obvious reasons. Removing that paragraph, or the one you object to unbalances the article. Atom (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So by that knowledge we need a conspiracy theory for every news event that has ever happened. Taking out a fringe radical, unproven, and hate based conspiracy theory makes the article balanced? The fact that this article does not mention the fact that Anti War dove Paul Wellstone voted on EVERY military action Bill Clinton initiated makes it unbalanced.

He might have had good reason to. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The crash investigation should make it clear that the conspiracy theory is bunk. But a lot of people were suspicious, and it's only fair to address that rather than leaving it out and then having people asking, "What about this?" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Success has a thousand fathers, and failure is an orphan. So it goes. But at least we have two sterling candidates for the office now. And if you believe that one, I have a slightly used bridge to sell you. Some assembly required. :\ In any case, it's important to give voice to the conspiracy question. It might be worth emphasizing in the article, some gentle way, that the crash investigation is perfectly logical and reasonable, and that the conspiracy theory is based on nothing except connecting dots where there is no provable connection. In short, some published source countering the published source for the conspiracy theory. Small planes are notoriously dangerous. There is an endless list of celebrities who have died in small planes, typically due to a combination of weather problems and pilot screwups. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have a user who objects to your comments regarding Tmoszman. If you would consider striking them, it would be appreciated. Although Tmoszman has not complained, some people might say that calling someone a Bush supporter was uncivil. Atom (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point is that not believing in a Bush conspiracy theory does not make one a Bush supporter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namzso (talkcontribs) 06:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The short paragraph about an alleged conspiracy doesn't even begin to say that it is true - only that some people have raised the possibility. That fact is definitely true, and is backed up by the fact that at least one book has been published on the topic. To omit the paragraph would be biased, IMO.--Appraiser (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are thousands of books published on thousands of events. The book that is referenced is a self published book which is the equivalent of a college term paper that got a professional binding. There is plenty of criticism of President Bush which is valid, this stretches the imagination. If I had a theory that the plane went down because of super natural beings and then wrote a paper and went to kinkos to publish it, would it make the article?

That's one theory. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfound conspiracy theories actually spin this article left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namzso (talkcontribs) 02:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted your unilateral deletions because your deletions amount to censorship. The rumors were there. Feel free to search for a source that debunks those rumors (aside from the crash report, which pretty well debunks it anyway). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just reading Wikipedia:Verifiability where it says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." I think this speaks directly to what we're discussing here. The inclusion of information about murder theories does not indicate that the editors of this article believe them to be true, only that we have observed that theories have been put forth by others.--Appraiser (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been discussed on the talk page but it's still not right. See wikipedia rules on self published work: Book was self published, see wikipedia rules on self publishing http://en.wikipedia.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namzso (talkcontribs) 05:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your citation to the main page is useless in this discussion. I have posted an entry on WP:ANI on this topic. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR due to your having violated the 3-revert rule now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haven't you also violated the 3-revert rule? I also am posting to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namzso (talkcontribs) 14:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You and your socks reverted SIX times. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The rumor of a cover up or assasination are rumors. It was an incredibly sad loss and the rumors of a cover up only deserve mention in that they existed in the aftermath of his death. To have this in the article is insulting to the surviving family members. I voted for Paul Wellstone and still miss him in public life. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protected due to edit war[edit]

Per a complaint at the 3RR noticeboard, this page has been protected for three days. During that period please try to arrive at a consensus on Talk as to whether conspiracy theories ought to be mentioned here. There should be many parallel discussions in other political articles that might give a precedent. If your particular opinion is important enough to revert the article for, it should be worth your time to make a case for it here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The consensus is clear, it's one lone guy (under various red-links) that's opposing it. It's easy to tell from the narrow focus of his edits that he's pushing a Republican agenda. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And it is obvious that Baseball Bugs is pushing a liberal agenda? Does that make his better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namzso (talkcontribs) 17:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Examples of other similar situations[edit]

Thank you. Some other examples of unproven theories in WP biographies include:

--Appraiser (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When are rumors notable?[edit]

Edit warring about the assassination rumor has been discussed in an ANI thread. If the belief that Wellstone was assassinated was taken note of in any reliable source, it would have a stronger claim to being mentioned here. (Appraiser mentioned the Kennedy assassination, but Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories has a reference section that consists of real published books). Editors here should try to reach a consensus on whether the assassination rumor should be included in the article. (Someone coming to this Talk page from outside would not easily perceive any consensus on that point). I would welcome any critique of the existing sources or any search for better sources for the assassination rumor. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This blog [1] by itself is not considered a reliable source for the article, but it points to a couple of places for someone to look who feels like looking. It's from June 3, 2003, and reports that (1) that day's Minneapolis Star-Tribune discussed the conspiracy theories; and (2) Garrison Keillor also had mentioned it. All the more telling is that the blogger ridicules the theory, disparages liberals, and states that Wellstone had illegally failed to provide workers' comp for his employees. So while this blog is not admissible in wiki-court, it provides an interesting starting point for the researcher. FYI, that day's Strib is no longer available online, at least not for free. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two newspaper reports[edit]

Here are two newspaper reports from the period. The first was written during the NTSB inquiry, and *does* comment on the conspiracy theory. The second gives the NTSB's final report on the crash. I extracted a quote from each one.

Minneapolis StarTribune[edit]

http://www.startribune.com/politics/11763071.html
NTSB probe on Wellstone crash has strong focus on pilots, former investigator says
By Tony Kennedy and Greg Gordon, Star Tribune
22 February, 2003
Minneapolis StarTribune

... Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., says the NTSB's exhaustive investigative reports should dispel talk that the plane was sabotaged.

When Wellstone died just days before last fall's election, some liberals insisted it had to be part of a conservative plot to seize control of the narrowly divided Senate.

"I think the fund of information here should put aside the idea that there was a deliberate takedown of this aircraft," said Oberstar, the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. ...

USA Today[edit]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-11-18-wellstone_x.htm
NTSB: Pilot error caused Wellstone crash
USA Today 18 November, 2003
by Alan Levin

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) blamed the accident that killed Wellstone and seven others Oct. 25, 2002, on pilot error. It also found numerous problems at the charter company hired for the flight, Aviation Charter. The Federal Aviation Administration failed to sufficiently oversee the charter company, the board ruled. ...

EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Yes, you've hit on the nub of the issue. There was talk of conspiracy, and it has been debunked, but it's reasonable to point out that it was debunked - for one thing, it pre-empts someone later trying to claim there actually was a conspiracy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then in the paragraph could we add a line that says these rumors have not had any merit or have found to be untrue. The way the paragraph is written it sounds like there is some legitimacy to the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namzso (talkcontribs) 17:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not without citation, as that would be editorializing. However, you could cite one of the items above that debunks the sabotage hypothesis. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gone ahead and deleted the paragraph on the conspiracy theory. It had exactly one cite from a tangential source, and one uncited and weaselish, very BLP-violating quote attributed to Dick Cheney. YLee (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Electoral History[edit]

This looks like an ancient - and quite frankly hard to read - format to have Wellstone's electoral history in. I've updated it so it's in the new format, and so it's simplified (only containing major party candidates). However, since there is so much information in this section that isn't available anywhere else (there are no 1990 or 1996 Minnesota Senate pages on Wikipedia), I'm going to post all of the old data in the new format here. Brash (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2002 Minnesota U.S. Senate Election
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Republican Norm Coleman 1,116,697 49.53% +8.25%
Democratic Walter Mondale 1,067,246 47.34% -2.98%
Independence Jim Moore 45,139 2.00% -4.98%
Democratic Paul Wellstone 11,381 0.50% n/a
Green Ray Tricomo 10,119 0.48% n/a
Constitution Miro Drago Kovatchevich 2,254 0.10% n/a
Write-ins 1,803 0.80% n/a
Majority 49,451 2.19%
1996 Minnesota U.S. Senate Election
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Democratic Paul Wellstone 1,098,430 50.32% -0.12%
Republican Rudy Boschwitz 901,194 41.28% -6.53%
Reform Dean Barkley 152,328 6.98% n/a
Grassroots Tim Davis 14,139 0.65% -1.00%
Libertarian Roy Ezra Carlton 5,428 0.25% n/a
Resource Howard B. Hanson 4,381 0.20% n/a
Natural Law Steve Johnson 4,321 0.19% n/a
Socialist Workers Thomas A. Fiske 1,554 0.07% n/a
Write-ins 1,113 0.51% n/a
Majority 197,236 9.04%
1990 Minnesota U.S. Senate Election
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Democratic Paul Wellstone 911,999 50.44%
Republican Rudy Boschwitz 864,375 47.81%
Grassroots Russell Bentley 29,820 1.65%
Write-ins 1,851 0.10%
Majority 47,624 2.63%
1982 Minnesota State Auditor
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Republican Arne Carlson 55%
Democratic Paul Wellstone 45%
Majority 10%

Undue weight to fringe theory[edit]

I removed the following (which has already been re-added) because it is undue weight to a fringe theory. I am not going to edit war over this but hope that others can see that this violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.

The timing and circumstances surrounding the crash, along with inconsistent statements made by public safety officials and crash investigators, led to speculation that a government conspiracy was behind the crash. University of Minnesota Duluth philosophy professor Jim Fetzer wrote several articles and a book alleging that the crash had been engineered by the Bush administration.[1][2]


Thanks

This has already been discussed at length. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dameron, Eva (October 2005). "Author makes case for murder". Daily Lobo (University of New Mexico).
  2. ^ Fetzer, James H. (November 2004). American Assassination: The Strange Death Of Senator Paul Wellstone. Vox Pop. p. 202. ISBN 0-9752763-0-1.

RFC: Conspiracy theory[edit]

Is mention of government conspiracy theory violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE? The two references provided are from a New Mexico newspaper called the "Daily Lobo" and a book by the philosophy professor/conspiracy theorist, published by Vox Pop, an apparent vanity press publisher.

There is no doubt that the circumstances of his death led to speculation about possible causes other than the official one espoused by the NTSB. The references used are not there to put forth the view - only as examples that speculation occurred. And it is not fringe because quite a few Minnesotans still speculate about the causes of the tragedy.--Appraiser (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you looked at the WP:FRINGE guideline, which, in a nutshell states: "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."?
The Daily Lobo is probably not a major publication, and except for the conspiracy theorist James H. Fetzer's book published in a vanity press, I am not sure the guideline is being met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann arbor street (talkcontribs) 00:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did a quick Google and found these references:[2][3][4][http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29487][5]. The fringe theory is widely referenced, including mention in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Minnesota's largest newspaper. This article does not, and should not, claim that the theory is true, since the NTSB is more highly respected than the alternative theorists. But the alternative theories are notable enough that some mention should be made, providing the reader the opportunity to research the issue and reach his own conclusion. To delete the section would be exacting a disservice to the readers.--Appraiser (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd favor removing the citations to the Daily Lobo and to Fetzer's self-published book. It is OK to use articles like this one from the Minneapolis Star Tribune that mention various speculations, provided we don't go beyond the wording used in those press sources. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Strib article actually links to the Fetzer site, which might be sufficient for those who want to find out more about it beyond the general info in the Strib article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just read The NTSB Failed Wellstone, which is two or three clicks away from the star tribune article, and which presents an outstanding and interesting conspiracy theory--but I question whether it meets the Wikipedia guidelines. The star and tribune article clearly does meet reliable source and major publication guidelines vis. a vis. WP:FRINGE, but I am not sure it can be used as a rabbit hole to include other less reliable (though interesting) sources. I concur with Ed Johnston so far, but will continue to listen to others. Ann arbor street (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue is not whether the conspiracy theory has validity, but that it was being talked about. That's the point of the Strib reference. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I certainly didn't mean to imply that the theory had validity. As conspiracy theories go, it is an outstanding one, sure to be effective at getting those susceptible to believing strange coincidences are evidence of conspiracy to doubt the government. I don't put much stock into it, though. Ann arbor street (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has more theoretical credence if you start looking at other deaths of political figures around the time. Personally, I think it's hogwash. But it was being talked about. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what do you think of EdJohnston's proposal? Ann arbor street (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems reasonable. Maybe my response wasn't clear enough on that point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, somebody else want to take a stab at updating the article? Ann arbor street (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just read WP:FRINGE, and it is a bit ambiguous, but it seems to mainly be discouraging articles that are devoted to a particular fringe theory, rather than mentioning a fringe theory in the context of an article about someone who is clearly notable. --Bill Chadwell (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reply to RFC No. Anytime somebody prominent dies before their time, there are going to be conspiracy theories. That they have been mentioned in the context of somebody's death doesn't make them tasteful or relevant in an encyclopedic sense to the life of the senator. Absent a significant amount of belief, we shouldn't allow such mentions to detract from an otherwise fine biography. RayAYang (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the CT should be mentioned briefly Lenbrazil (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have tagged File:Wellstone_marker1_080713.JPG, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 01:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please remove the slander of the dead pilot(s).[edit]

"After the crash, three copilots told of occasions in which they had to take control of the aircraft away from Conry. After one of those incidents, only three days before the crash, the copilot had urged Conry to retire[20]. A few months before the crash, Conry told another pilot, Timothy M. Cooney, a childhood friend, that he had difficulty piloting and landing King Airs[21]."

This sounds more like hearsay. It actually IS hearsay. Conry could not have had "difficulties" piloting or landing the plane. He had thousands of hours as a pilot and The Beechcraft King Air is considered the easiest plane to fly in the world. Please remove the slander of the pilot(s). There is no probability that TWO pilots would ignore loud flightspeed warnings and loud stall warnings.

Furthermore tests in flight simulators which tried to bring a plane of the same type down, _could NOT bring it down due to low airspeed!. You would have to be in a coma as well as retarded beyond belief not to be able to fly this plane. Now please remove the slander of the dead pilots.

Response to the above[edit]

All those comments were sourced the fact that several witnesses tell similar stories adds to their credibility. Most biographies especially of dead people depend in large part on the recollections of people who knew them. According to Conry's widow Cooney was her husband's closest friend, he said Conry told him he had difficulty flying King Airs. According to his co-pilots he almost never was at the controls of KingAirs during his employment with the charter company.

As to your belief "There is no probability that TWO pilots would ignore loud flight speed warnings and loud stall warnings" There was and Eastern flight crash in 1972 in which neither pilot seems to have heard the altitude chime.

Also the NTSB performed simulations in which stall alarms did not give pilots enough warning.

Additionally the previous KingAir crash was also an Aviation Charter plane from the Twin Cities. The NTSB determined the stall alarm was turned off.The Wellstone plane was too badly burned to say either way.

As for the simulations it was not there objective to try to crash the planes but to test whether similarly experienced pilots should have been able to recover.

As to Conry flight hours he repeatedly exaggerated his flight experience LYING about it to his employer his colleagues and even his friends and even twice in court under oath! His was in court because he was tried civilly and criminally for FRAUD and was found guilty. He has duplicate logbooks with various discrepancies between them one had forged signatures. He claimed to have lost them but his wife "found" them after being served with a subpoena. The total hours in them were much less than the amount he claimed in a sworn affidavit he submitted to the FAA.

In any case most of his flying hours were accrued before a 12 hiatus from flying due to his prison sentence and poor eyesight and he probably only flew a very small fraction of the hours he logged with the charter company

Sorry "anonymous" I have extensively researched the crash and debated it with Fetzer apparently all you done is read a few of his articles or perhaps his crappy book.

Lenbrazil (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Washington Post: Wellstone Sprayed with Herbicide[edit]

http://cannabisnews.com/news/7/thread7851.shtml Notable because he developed multiple sclerosis. 94.222.190.18 (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

9/11 - world trade center[edit]

Didn't he have some doubt about the official 9/11 world trade center attack version or is that just a rumor? --41.150.201.159 (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Paul Wellstone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Paul Wellstone. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Wellstone. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Wellstone. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iraq War Vote[edit]

Wellstone was not the only senator facing reelection in 2002 to vote against the Iraq Resolution. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Carl Levin of Michigan also voted against it (all three won reelection that year). Though sourced, this claim is incorrect. Edit needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LunaticLarry (talkcontribs) 13:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wellstone quoted.[edit]

During a press conference this morning regarding the Minnesota rioting, Melvin Carter III, the mayor of St Paul, quoted Senator Wellstone as saying, "We all do better when we all do better." This article doesn't mention a similar quote nor is there a Paul Wellstone page at WikiQuote.

If there's a source for Wellstone saying it directly, it may be a good adjunct to this article as a contribution to our culture. If he gives a citation for the quote (ie. "As so-and-so once said, 'We all do better when we all do better.'"), that would be good to know, too.

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]