Talk:Jim DeMint

Hi, I've been reading through this article and saw that the Business career section is very sparse and is missing some information on Jim DeMint's early career and his transition into politics. I've drafted up a new version of this section, included here below. I'd like to have other editors review this addition because of my COI here: I'm an employee of The Heritage Foundation, where DeMint is now president. Please let me know if you have any questions about my suggestion. If it looks ok I would appreciate it if you could add it to the article for me. Below is the section (and revised section heading) I suggest:

Business and early political career

After graduating in 1981, DeMint returned to Greenville and joined his father-in-law’s advertising firm, working in the field of market research.^[1][2] In 1983, he founded The DeMint Group, a research firm with businesses, schools, colleges, and hospitals as clients.^[1] DeMint’s first involvement in politics began in 1992, when he was hired by Republican Representative Bob Inglis in his campaign for South Carolina’s Fourth Congressional District. Inglis defeated three-term incumbent Democrat Liz J. Patterson, and DeMint performed message-testing and marketing for Inglis through two more successful elections.^[3] In 1998, Inglis ran for the U.S. Senate, and DeMint left his firm to run for Inglis’ old seat.^[2][3]

I also recently posted a request on the talk page for James Carafano, a Heritage Foundation expert, which I would appreciate help with if someone has the time. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I can probably do this in a bit, but not for an hour or so (need to be off the computer, someone's coming to see me). This looks fair and neutral, in addition to verifiable. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making this addition, Muboshgu! I might have some other suggestions for this article later, so I hope you'll be able to look at those too. Thurmant (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've drafted another new section for this article that I would like for other editors to review. As my message above explains, I work for The Heritage Foundation, where DeMint is now president, and because of this COI I would like another editor to review and add this section into the article if it's ok.

The section I have prepared is to replace the existing U.S. Representative section, which is currently empty:

U.S. Representative

DeMint was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1999 and served South Carolina’s Fourth Congressional District until 2005, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate.^[1] His peers elected him to be president of his GOP freshman class.^[2][3] DeMint pledged to serve only three terms in the House, and in 2003 he announced his run for the Senate seat of outgoing Democrat Ernest Hollings in the 2004 election cycle.^[3]

The Washington Post and The Christian Post have described DeMint as a "staunch conservative", based on his actions during his time in the House.^[4][5] He broke rank with his party and powerful state interests several times: DeMint was one of 34 Republicans to oppose President Bush’s No Child Left Behind program and one of 25 to oppose Medicare Part D.^[2] He sought to replace No Child Left Behind with a state-based block-grant program for schools.^[3] DeMint also worked to overhaul Social Security by allowing the creation of individual investment accounts in the federal program. In 2003, DeMint sponsored legislation to allow people under the age of 55 to set aside 3 percent to 8 percent of their Social Security withholding income in personal investment accounts.^[3] DeMint was also the only South Carolina House member to vote for normalizing trade relations with China, arguing in favor of free trade between the countries. He also provided a crucial swing vote on a free trade bill regarding Caribbean countries. His votes led South Carolina’s influential textile industry to heavily oppose him in his subsequent House and Senate races.^[6][7]

I'm more than happy to answer any questions about this section. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we please get a reliable source for this statement:

notable for his staunch conservatism

It strikes me as possibly falling under WP:WTW.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi RightCowLeftCoast, I've seen several articles that describe DeMint as a "staunch conservative" or "very conservative". Here's a couple that might work as sources, and I've provided the full citation details in case these look good to you:

This The Christian Post article from December 2012, includes the following:

"DeMint, who is two years into his second six-year term, is a staunch conservative and has often run afoul of party leadership when he has demanded they hold the line on taxes and social issues."

Here's the details to add this source:<ref>{{cite news |title=Sen. Jim DeMint, Tea Party Leader Leaving to Run Conservative Think Tank |author= Paul Stanley |url=http://www.christianpost.com/news/sen-jim-demint-tea-party-leader-leaving-to-run-conservative-think-tank-86197/#ovSw781etArmQ3xZ.99 |work=The Christian Post |date=December 6, 2012 |accessdate=June 17, 2013}}</ref>

This article from The Washington Post, also from December 2012, describes DeMint as follows:

"DeMint, a staunch conservative who often clashes with party leadership, was reelected to a second term in 2010. He will depart before the new Congress is sworn in next month."

Information to add this source:<ref>{{cite news |title=Jim DeMint leaving the Senate |author= Rachel Weiner |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/12/06/jim-demint-leaving-the-senate/ |work=The Washington Post |date=December 6, 2012 |accessdate=June 17, 2013}}</ref>

If the above sources are ok, and the section otherwise looks good, would you mind adding the section to the article? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

We can state that the Christian Post and the Washington Post have called DeMint a "staunch conservative" while in his time in office, but as that is their verified opinion, rather than a value judgement made by Wikipedia, it can be included as a verified opinion. Please modify the wording accordingly and add the above references and I shall look over it once more. Afterwards, I don't foresee any issues with adding the revised wording, once presented.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, in the drafted section above I've added the sources and made a change to the wording as you suggested. Do you think this is ready to add to the article now? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Here is the diff showing the implementation of the suggested wording.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks RightCowLeftCoast! The new section looks great, thanks again for your review and making the addition. Thurmant (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've been busy elsewhere for a while but have still been working on ways to improve this article. I've drafted another section for this article that I would like to ask other editors to review. In case you are new to this talk page, I am an employee of The Heritage Foundation, where DeMint is now president, and because of this COI I don't want to edit the article myself. I'd like another editor to review and add this section if it's ok

The section I have prepared is to replace the existing Political positions section, which is marked with two different tags. The first tag says that the section is incomplete. I've aimed to update this section so that it is as comprehensive as possible, without being unnecessarily long. Second, I've turned this section into prose and the second tag requests.

Political positions

Jim DeMint is a member of the Republican Party^[1] and is aligned with the Tea Party movement.^[2] In 2011, DeMint was identified by Salon as one of the most conservative members of the Senate.^[3][2][1] He founded the Senate Conservatives Fund political action committee, which has contributed to the campaigns of other Tea Party candidates, including Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.^[4][5]

US economy and budget

Throughout his political career, DeMint has favored a type of tax reform that would replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax and, in addition, abolish the Internal Revenue Service.^[6] He has supported many changes to federal spending, such as prioritizing a balanced budget amendment instead of increasing the national debt limit.^[7] As a senator, DeMint proposed a two-year earmark ban to prevent members of Congress from spending federal money on projects in their home states.^[5] In 2008, presidential candidates John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama co-sponsored DeMint's earmark reform proposal, although it ultimately failed to pass in the Senate.^[8] In March 2010, DeMint's earmark reform plans were again defeated.^[9] In November of the same year, DeMint, along with nine other senators including Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, proposed another moratorium on earmarks which was adopted by Senate Republicans.^[10][11]

DeMint has also been a proponent of free trade agreements, advocated for the privatization of Social Security benefits, and in 2009 authored the "Health Care Freedom Plan", which proposed giving tax credits to those who are unable afford health insurance.^[12][6][13]

DeMint was opposed to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the bailouts during the automotive industry crisis of 2008-10. He also led a group of Senators in opposing government loans to corporations.^[14][15] He supports a high level of government accountability through the auditing federal agencies.^[14]

Clashes with Obama administration

In 2008, DeMint criticized Barack Obama for waiting eight months into his first term as president before appointing a new head of the Transportation Security Administration.^[16] After the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253 in 2009, DeMint stated that President Obama had not put enough focus on terrorism while in office.^[16]

Also in 2009, shortly after the Honduran military had overthrown Manuel Zelaya as President, DeMint visited the country to gather information.^[17] The trip was approved by Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, but opposed by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry. DeMint supported the new government, while the Obama administration favored Zelaya's return to the presidency.^[17]

Foreign policy

In 1999, DeMint voted against the NATO intervention during the Kosovo war.^[14] DeMint voted to authorize military force in Iraq in 2002.^[14] In 2011, DeMint voted in favor of Rand Paul's resolution opposing military involvement in Libya.^[2][14] He favors prevention of Iranian nuclear weapons over containment.^[14]

DeMint has also expressed concern about various United Nations treaties, such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Law of the Sea Treaty.^[18][19] DeMint has expressed opposition to the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 on the basis that granting amnesty to immigrants may cost Americans trillions in taxpayer dollars.^[20][21][22]

Social issues

DeMint identifies as pro-life, and also opposes research from stem cells derived from human embryos.^[23][24]

Let me know if you have any questions. I'm happy to help in any way I can. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I've incorporated your change. If anyone has objections they can feel free to revert me. Sperril (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I agree. I reverted. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a specific disagreement? Sperril (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I judge it to be an apologisitc write-up targeted to appeal to an ideological demographic. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's perfect, but I consider it an improvement over the current article from a readability standpoint. I'll give it a once-over later today when I have more time. Sperril (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Biosthmors. I'm available to help improve what you feel is problematic with this draft. Can you please provide some specific feedback on what you think should be changed? As for your comment about this draft being targeted advertising, I have done my best to write this draft to accurately reflect what the sources say about DeMint's political beliefs. Is there specific language I have used that makes you think this has been targeted to a specific ideological demographic?

I'm looking forward to your specific feedback. I'd like to work to reach an agreement here as the current section really is quite poor.

Sperril, thanks for returning to the page to join the conversation. Let me know what your specific thoughts are as well. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Thurmant, but I'm a volunteer. I assume you're getting paid for this as part of your work. If not, it aligns with your work so closely I don't think I could logically distinguish the two. As a volunteer, I've helped this page exist so a classroom can edit lately: User:Ituta/Course page. Maybe you'll find something helpful there. I could take up the job of getting specific if you paid me, but you're not specifically addressing what's wrong with the section yourself, first off. I think it's kind of crazy to expect me to. Does that make sense? I'm not trying to be rude. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Biosthmors. I understand that you are not trying to be unhelpful, but I'm afraid I can't do anything to alleviate your concerns with this section if you won't share them with me. Paying you for your opinions here would be inappropriate, so if you aren't interested in providing feedback that is no problem and I can see if other editors would prefer to review this section.

My goal here, as I mentioned up above, is to expand this section, since it is flagged as being incomplete, and to rewrite it in prose as requested by the other flag on the section. I'll check in again with Sperril to see if they have any suggestions or concerns and look to see if I can find another editor to join the discussion with an eye to addressing these two issues. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

And I could throw flags atop your version as well. How in the world would that be inappropriate for me to get paid when it's OK for you to get paid trying to influence public opinion here? You could pay me to rewrite the whole section, actually. How's that sound? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Biosthmors, I'm looking for editors to review this draft in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines for conflict of interest editing. COI editors like myself are advised to: "Get neutral, uninvolved, disinterested editors to review your suggestions." If I were to compensate you for your help here you would no longer be neutral, uninvolved or disinterested, which is why I said I felt it was inappropriate. As I said before, I have no problem looking for other editors to review this draft if you are not able to or would prefer not. Thanks. Thurmant (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for following best practices. I sincerely thank you. I'm saying that compensation would not sway me away from my editorial integrity to keep things netural. That's where a COI arises. I don't work for Jim DeMint, nor would I ever try to again. Plus you could pay me up front (I know that might sound ridiculous). I would just be compensated for my time in producing a netural output. It just seems unfair for you to expect volunteers to go above and beyond what you're doing (by explaining things in detail). Thanks for proposing a draft and trying to do things the right way. I just judge it to be a violation of the neturality policy. Do you think the other version is non-neutral? If so, how? That might be a better place to start a discussion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

My dislike of the current version has nothing to do with it's neutrality. It's presented as a list when it should be prose. Apparently, someone tagged it as such in January. I do not work for Heritage, I dislike DeMint, (I'm a center-left independent), and I'm certainly not getting paid to edit by anyone. The reason I took a look at this edit was because Thurmant posted to WP:COIN after not finding any replies on this talk page for a few weeks. Would you rather deal with me on this? I'll be happy to help. If so, what do you suggest? For starters, I agree that his political positions are targeted to a specific ideological demographic. He's a politician. Appealing to a targeted demographic is how he makes his living. Is it a content issue? Are things being included that don't belong? Are things not being included that do belong? Are issues being presented in a way that violates NPOV? In short, I don't believe this edit is the "final version" of that section. I simply believe it's an improvement in prose that creates a good framework for continued improvement. Sperril (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

And I don't think it's an improvement. I reject the notion that we should, as volunteers, be unpaid labor to discuss whatever someone with $ happens to want to fund us to discuss because of their external PR purposes. If Thurmant doesn't want to use money to show that he values people's time, then perhaps he could "pay" us in wiki-currency. We currently have 1069 articles in Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2006. I'm more interested in finding a technical solution to getting the English translation of the malaria article into the Swahili Wikipedia without the reference templates breaking—you know, something that might actually help someone. So If Thurmant wants volunteer time, I suggest they volunteer themselves to making some edits to fix unrelated pages to show us they actually value what we're trying to do here. How's that sound? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 06:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in discussing Thurmant. I am interested in discussing the article. You didn't revert him. You reverted me. Do you wish to engage in discussion, with me, about these changes? Sperril (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

--Just as an FYI, I've asked on the conflict of interest noticeboard for other opinions on this dispute. Sperril (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Great. Now we're discussing something someone from a political organization neither of us support wants us to discuss. Is that a good way to set priorities for a volunteer encyclopedia? But I'll make it constructive. First off, I have a neutrality problem with the title "political positions". I think it could be "policy and politics" or "policy" or "policy, politics, and positions". Some title other than one that misleads you into thinking providing a WP:SOAPbox is appropriate. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I started this thread, which discusses these issues more in depth, under another account. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't change the name of the section. It was already called "political positions." Sperril (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I just did. What do you think? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Some content already in the article, such as "Prior to the 2010 elections, DeMint founded the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), a political action committee that is "dedicated to electing strong conservatives to the United States Senate" and that is associated with the Tea Party movement", would fit under this new section heading, in my opinion. Interestingly enough, this was also partially in the proposed revision above: "He founded the Senate Conservatives Fund political action committee, which has contributed to the campaigns of other Tea Party candidates, including Rand Paul and Marco Rubio." Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I like the new section heading more than "political positions." Meeting the President of Honduras is not a political position. Nor is opining that the President of the United States lacks focus on terrorism. Are you in agreement that this section should become prose? If so, are you willing to walk through the edit that Thurmant suggested, (as it is already in prose format and seems to have some good references for what's there,) and see if we can get to a consensus version? Sperril (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Prose would be better of course, but I think we should focus on finding our own sources/making our own prose. I don't think the proposed text has a quality level that merits attention. I'm at a loss for why you think it's worth sorting through. Why should we bother? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Since this discussion has been quiet since the 25th I'm going to leave a message at WikiProject Biography/politics and government to see if any other editors want to join the discussion or review my proposed revision. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thurmant, I think it is odd what you say. It appears you think Wikipedia is an unlimited pool of volunteer labor that you should be able to corral. Am I mistaken? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved editor here, I tripped over this at the NPOV board. Editor Thurmant appears to be working in good faith - he/she is not merely pushing edits into the article him/herself, but asking other editors for their feedback and help. Proposing to leave a message at the WikiProject on this to get other editors to review the proposal seems entirely appropriate. I wouldn't characterize it as abusing volunteer resources. If editor Thurmant was merely pushing edits into the actual article, without discussion or requests for comments, that would be an entirely different matter. As a potential COI editor, the above seems like the correct path - engage other editors to vet changes, rather than just pushing edits into the article and hoping they 'stick'. Nobody is insisting that these edits go into the article, nor that they not be modified or adjusted. Blanket revert seems inappropriate if specific problems can't or won't be detailed. Two cents, offered.Anastrophe (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe, now that we're talking about what someone with $ wants us to talk about for their own PR purposes, why not have a real conversation? Do you find the proposed addition neutral? I don't. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm completely uninvolved in this. The name "DeMint' barely rings a bell, and I have a vague recollection that the Heritage Foundation is a conservative group. Therefore, since I'm unfamiliar with the material, I can't render an opinion about whether it's neutral or not. Regardless - identify the specific rationale for specific arguments you have with the specific parts of the material so that it can be addressed - otherwise it seems to be a revert based simply on who the editor is. Anastrophe (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Odd. In summary, there is no one engaging about the neutrality of the material but for some reason my volunteer labor is expected to do Thurmant's work. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying you will revert without any rationale beyond who the editor is that's proposing the edits? That's not how it works. Regardless of who Thurmant is or whether it is or is not paid for its work, we as volunteers are asked to collaborate in good faith, based upon the edits proposed not who the editor is. If you do not wish to collaborate with Thurmant, you don't have to - but then you're not in a position to blanket revert any and all contributions generated by that editor without providing a content-based rationale with specifics, not generalizations. I recommend that you step aside, and let other editors collaborate on this issue, and not revert edits based upon who the editor is, which is contra-policy. Me? I don't have a dog in this fight. But this looks a tad like an ownership issue. Anastrophe (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. Wow. There isn't anyone to collaborate with yet, because no one can justify the addition by explaining why it's a neutral addition the encyclopedia. I'd happily discuss the neutrality of the text if someone wanted to have that conversation. But if you're not going to discuss the neutrality issue, then I think you might be at the wrong page. I still don't understand why it should be a volunteer's job to explain, point by point, to a COI editor why they think their proposal isn't neutral. Especially if the other editor won't argue for why it is neutral. The only thing I've seen is that Thurmant said they tried "to accurately reflect what the sources say about DeMint's political beliefs". That's nice sounding, maybe, but too bad because Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPbox. The quote doesn't indicate anything about the reliability or potential cherry picking of the sources. It's not a serious defense of the material. But I'm expected to seriously rebut it? If that was the case all volunteers on the site would have time to do is serve the interests of PR professionals on talk pages. That is not a sustainable model. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What does "He favors prevention of Iranian nuclear weapons over containment" mean and why is this from a reliable source? What is the definition of containment in this case? Do some political actors favor containment? If so, where is a reliable source that says as much? Or is it a talking point? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Biosthomors, thank you for the feedback. As for the "On The Issues" source, I came across this page when I was looking over the current section. You'll see this source is already in use in the article, so I assumed it was reliable for use in my draft as well.

I chose to include this statement because it was the most recent statement of DeMint's political positions listed under the "War & Peace" section of this webpage.

This is not meant to be a "talking point", I was simply looking to cover a variety of noteworthy political issues he has been involved in or spoken on. If you'd like this removed from my suggested version I'm agreeable to that. Thanks. Thurmant (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That might not be the intent, but that's certainly how it reads unless you can defend the material other than saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when I ask why the source is reliable. Maybe you should go to the WP:Teahouse to ask about what makes sources reliable? Or you could read WP:RS. I'm having a hard time understanding why you think this type of content is appropriate to present to the volunteer community here for serious consideration. To me it is abundantly clear that the text you've proposed is a stinking pile of dog shit, generally speaking. All of my previous concerns about the content still stand. What say ye? Until you can defend the material, and until you understand how Wikipedia works, I don't understand why I should make believe that you are contributing in good faith. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Note 5 of Wikipedia:Verifiability reads: "Once sources that an editor believes in good faith to be sufficient have been provided, any editor who then removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Verifiability does not support removing sourced material and then requiring consensus to add it back it. Unless specific problems that would justify exclusion of the sourced material from the Wikipedia article are articulated, Sperril's 17:28, 20 September 2013 edit and the other source material removed after that from the article needs to be restored to the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I work on several articles in which just moving stuff done by a COI editor to the article really is extremely difficult, and I have long-argued that it's too much to expect editors to be able to vet complicated information, especially while legal battles are ongoing. I have spent endless hours researching for those articles and even still am aware of my shortcomings. But I just can't see the problem here. The re-write seems certainly to be an improvement and it does clearly show where DeMint stands on major issues. While it does take a few minutes to read the proposal, this is nothing compared to the amount of time I waste deleting vandalism and petty arguments in which, IMO, the opposing editor doesn't even bother to read my response but rather insists they are right even if they are unable to source their edits. Gandydancer (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Every edit stands or falls on its own merits and whether it complies with Wikipedia policies. I've reviewed the requested change line by line with the current bulleted list and find that it substantially and accurately restates the bulleted items already in the article. In my opinion, the requested restatement is NPOV. I will be adding it and removing most of the bulleted list and the related tags, momentarily. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done with a few rewordings and retaining mentions of abortion, school prayer and Obamacare. The bulleted item about undocumented immigrants is still in the body but I commented it out, not quite having made up my mind how to revise it (as written it sounds prejudicial to me). –  --72.66.30.115 (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I was away for a few days and didn't reply sooner. Thank you both so much for taking the time to review my request closely and compare it to the current version. I understand that it does require a bit of time and I'm very happy with the current version. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Thurmant. I was afraid Jim DeMint showed you the door after you missed a deadline on updating his article here (lol). I have to say that I'm embarrassed that you've run across some of the wiki-brothers who don't have a very good grasp of our NPOV policy. I thank you for your contributions, which clearly improve Senator DeMint's article. (Long live the Tea Party! and Don't fergit to smash the statists!). PS: Until a few days ago I was Mr. IP 72.66.30.115. Verizon changed my IP address over the weekend (probably 'cause I hadn't paid my bill!) to Mr. IP 96.231.113.61 (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You didn't intend to ignore the consensus that developed above, did you? Because that's effectively what you did. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Biosthmors! Getting paid yet? (Just kidding, man.) I'm not sure what consensus you're referring to. Can you be more explicit? It is not my intention to override consensus. If you are talking about the discussion in this section, Update for "Political positions" section, the consensus is overwhelmingly against you: Thurmant is against you, Sperril is against you, Anastrophe is against you, Jreferee is against you, Gandydancer is against you, and I am against you (I'm IP 72.66 and IP 96.231 because Verizon changed my number over the weekend). What am I missing here? No one presumes this is the "final" version, because there is no such animal on Wikipedia. If you find an error of fact, or POV wording, or whatever problem, then change it and it will be discussed here. (A large part of the problem has been that your complaints are not specific enough to act on). I'm still thinking about the immigration issue language, but we need to put it in terms that don't suggest that the Senator's favorite hobby is crucifying anchor babies. --96.231.113.61 (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You know what? I'll get specific with you without even being paid, that is, unless you're offering. Are you? ;-) The consensus Sperril and I developed about an appropriate section title. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing the entire section, not just the section title. --96.231.113.61 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the relationship between the two ambiguous to you? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No (but white man still speak in riddle). --96.231.113.61 (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is this useful? Where's the source? How do we know for what dates it was current? Why is this encyclopedic? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi there. As I've done before on this talk page I would like to share a suggested section with other editors for review. I'll explain again, I am an employee of The Heritage Foundation, where Jim DeMint is president, so I will not make any edits to the article myself. I would appreciate help from any editors who have the time or interest in reviewing what I've written. Please view this section as a suggestion. I'm open to adding or removing information as other editors see fit.

The section I've prepared is about DeMint's career in the US Senate. Currently there is no section of the article providing details on this part of his career. The Congress section only discusses his time in the House of Representatives.

Last month the section on DeMint's Senate career looked like this, but was removed by Biosthmors, as he explained above. I agree with him, this section wasn't right for the page and didn't provide any sources to confirm the information.

I've prepared this new information with "U.S. Senate" as the section heading. I did this because I put this together when there were separate sections on both his time in the House of Representatives and Senate, but now that there is the Congress section in the article it might make more sense to make U.S. Senate a subsection of this larger section. Again, this is just a suggestion, I'm sure there are a few different ways to add in a section on DeMint's Senate career.

Below is what I've put together. I used the old version as a starting point, so I've found sources to support the committee memberships that were mentioned there, but I did not include all the subcommittees he was on. It seemed like a lot of detail for a phase of his career that has ended. I've also added in a little bit of new information that I found while looking for articles about DeMint's Senate career.

This is by no means intended to be a complete overview of his whole Senate career, but I hope will work as a good start. My main goal here is to develop a section on this part of his career that other editors can add to as they see fit. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Senate

First term

In November 2004, DeMint defeated Inez Tenenbaum, South Carolina's education superintendent, to fill Ernest Hollings' vacated seat in the 109th United States Congress.^[1] For his first term, he was appointed to the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Joint Economic Committee, and the Special Committee on Aging.^[2] In 2006, DeMint began leading the Senate Steering Committee.^[3] DeMint also served as a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.^[4][5] In 2008, DeMint formed the Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee with the intention of supporting conservative candidates that may have otherwise been overlooked by the national party.^[6]

As a member of the 111th United States Congress, DeMint joined the United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.^[7] In 2009, DeMint was one of two Senators who voted against Hillary Clinton's appointment to Secretary of State, and the next year he introduced legislation to completely repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare.^[8][9] Later in 2010, he introduced another piece of legislation titled the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, which aimed to require congressional approval of any major regulation change made by a federal agency.^[10] At the end of his first term, DeMint was appointed to the Senate Impeachment Trial Committee regarding the impeachment of federal judge Thomas Porteous.^[11]

Second term

DeMint was reelected in 2010, at which time he became the highest-ranking elected official associated with the Tea Party.^[12] During the first year of his second term, DeMint released a letter signed by over 30 other Senate Republicans asking the supercommittee tasked with balancing the federal budget to do so within the next ten years, and without creating any net tax increases.^[13] In 2012, DeMint resigned his seat in order to become president of the Heritage Foundation.^[14]

 Done After reviewing your requested additions to the Congress section of the article, Thurmant, and after making a few additions to the refs and other minor changes, I have incorporated your request in the article. Thank you for helping improve the article by providing new, sourced, NPOV information. --96.231.113.61 (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for taking a look at this so quickly. The addition looks really good! Thanks again! Thurmant (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The DMOZ link appears extraneous. Perhaps DMOZ includes one or two links that are better than what we currently have, so should be listed themselves?

I don't know what encyclopedic value the external links to archived versions of his websites serve. Even when current, such sites rarely meet any WP:EL criteria other than ELOFFICIAL, so once they are outdated they should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim DeMint. 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/20120320122451/http://www.themediabriefing.com/people/jim-demint to http://www.themediabriefing.com/people/jim-demint

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim DeMint. 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/20120327171354/http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/sc-dems-asks-alvin-greene-to-withdraw-from-senate-race.php to http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/sc-dems-asks-alvin-greene-to-withdraw-from-senate-race.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The article needs more sources and, in some places, better sources. I have added inline tags. SunCrow (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed Wikipietime (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

https://www.newsweek.com/ive-changed-my-mind-about-china-america-should-too-opinion-1504210 Wikipietime (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to make it say "Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from South Carolina's 4th congressional district" rather than "Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 's 4th congressional district"? I've tried fixing it, but I have failed in doing so. Any advice?

The article should state that DeMint is a member of the Council for National Policy per the WaPo.. CNP works closely with the Conservative Partnership Institute. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)