Talk:Jon Bruning

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Liberal views

Content dispute

Seeing as Bruning never said he was considering a run for U.S. Senate in 2014, and the media was only speculating that he was ever considering a run, I removed the section that stated that speculation as fact.Itsme2115 (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

One editor, under a couple of different names, has been removing content from the "Controversy" section of this article for going on six months now. The "disputed" content is more or less the following:

During a speech in August of 2011, Bruning compared welfare recipients to scavenging raccoons. Bruning said his comment might have been "inartful" but that he was trying to make a point about spending cuts being necessary.[13][14]

In August of 2011, the Omaha World-Herald reported that Bruning had purchased a lakeside house near the Platte River (valued at $675,000) in partnership with two Nelnet executives almost a year after he and his office had been accused of acting favorably toward the student loan company by not enforcing payment of a 1 million dollar judgment awarded to the State of Nebraska when Nelnet was under fire for alleged improper business practices.[15]

So, what do yall think: Are the editors who have restored the deleted content totally off base? Should we protect the page? Start an ANI? Something else? Arbor8 (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

So, what's happening? A month later and the same deletions are still being made (by IPs now) and still being reverted. As an uninvolved editor I came down on the side of keeping the material, but why is this still going on? I don't see any discussion of teh points. If there is concensus then semi-protect teh article to at least get rid of the IP deletions. Meters (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I see there is soem more recent discussion under another heading. Meters (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I support keeping this material. I added additional sourcing from Fox News and NY Times, which was reprinting from Associated Press. I am assuming that the now-blocked user West1806 will not claim left-leaning bias by Fox. I fully support semi-protecting this article to prevent more sock abuse, and I've contacted admin involved in West1806 SPI case about the recent IP activity. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

West1806

IP removing part of controversy section

70.184.221.180 keeps removing part of the "controversy" section with no summary other than the "Undid revision xxxxxxxxx by User:Example". That section has proper references to reliable sources and is neutral, so it's fine. 70.184, please stop removing that material, or at least provide a reason for it. David1217 ^{What I've done} 17:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

198.228.201.145 and 198.228.201.157 have done the same. Thay are recently back from 3 month individual blocks superceded by a range block, so I have warned them for using multiple IPs. Probably the same user as 70.184 but not enough history to be sure. Meters (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Add 174.19.83.253 to the list too. Meters (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Protection requested yet again. Meters (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how they IP hop like that. The IPs geolocate to different parts of Kansas and Nebraska. David1217 ^{What I've done} 04:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I see from earlier threads that this same edit war has been going on for nearly one year now. Can we make a case for calling the current IPs more socks of the indef'ed User:West1806? Some of the IPd are listed above but there are more all the time... they are pretty careful to only make 2 or at most 3 reverts per IP. Meters (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

They're too careful about using different IPs and not breaking 3RR to just be the politician's PR department... I agree, they're probably West1806. David1217 ^{What I've done} 15:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

(Undent) I am not the person who previously edited this article. I have never edited this article until just now. However, I use an iPhone, and people who use iPhones get their IP's shifted around a lot, and they sometimes end up sharing IPs with other people who they have no connection with. So, I hope that solves the mystery for you. I looked at the contribution history for one of the IPs I was using (out of curiosity) and that led me here. Incidentally, I suggest that you change the word "scavenging" to "highly intelligent" or "clever". Bruning explained that raccoons "are not stupid" which is why they are comparable to some people. Bruning's gaffe was bad enough; Wikipedia doesn't need to make it worse for him.198.228.201.158 (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, great! Happy editing! David1217 ^{What I've done} 03:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "scavenging" should not be used. One of hthe cited refs used it in their headline, but it does not appear that Bruning used it. On the other hand, it does not appear that he used "clever" either. "Not stupid" (which he did use) is not the same as "clever". I've changed it not to use either word (just "to raccoons") and I hope that is satisfactory to everyone. Meters (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Liberal views

Content dispute

West1806

IP removing part of controversy section

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Related Articles

Related Articles

https://web.archive.org/20111026164610/http://www.omaha.com/article/20110828/NEWS01/708289899/0

http://www.omaha.com/article/20110828/NEWS01/708289899/0#bruning-owns-lake-house-with-2-nelnet-officials

https://archive.is/20130216144617/http://omaha.com/article/20120208/NEWS97/702089861

http://omaha.com/article/20120208/NEWS97/702089861