Talk:Dennis Kucinich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeDennis Kucinich was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 28, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Citation 27 does not support text[edit]

The text says "internal company memos in which company executives" but the content of the citation says the company CEO made that statement in a fundraising memo.

As do numerous other citations, but the people out to destroy him baked it all in. You should be ashamed of yourselves, but you're only puppets and can't understand a thing. Whatever: shame on you.

This factual problem should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.237.247 (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is now Citation 32, not 27... I went ahead and removed the whole bit about the internal memo since it's more about Diebold's history and their conflict of interest than it is about Kucinich's domestic policy voting record or a claim he made. Equant (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of alien-sighting?[edit]

Why does this article not mention Dennis Kucinich's "encounter" with an alien? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmac27712 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC) it would take a jerk like him to see such--66.213.14.116 (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC) He said he saw a UFO, not an alien...idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.241.250.100 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, but that's no excuse for poor civility.Kcchief915 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah a UFO could be any type of plane you cant see clear or not know what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.130.69 (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why use the phrasing 'UFO' instead of something more innocuous? He is a politician, I am sure he knows that the acronym 'UFO' has connotations that could be detrimental to his reputation. I beleive he meant to use 'UFO' because he thought he saw an alien... an 'illegal alien'! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.204.242 (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Senate Bid[edit]

Does anyone know if hes seeking the Senate bid in 2010? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.130.69 (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis's brother Frank died June 30th, 2009[edit]

Could we add mention of the death of Dennis's brother, Frank J. Kucinich, Jr on June 30, 2009, of a heart attack? See: http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-kucinich-brother-passes-away,0,7667025.story http://www.woio.com/Global/story.asp?S=10626794 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.41.236 (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only Major Candidate[edit]

The article claims that Kucinich was the only 'major' candidate in the 2008 election who hadn't voted for the Iraq war. I guess Ron Paul isn't considered a 'major' candidate? What defines a 'major' candidate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.221.213 (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they meant Major Democratic Candidate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.130.69 (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you're right. And it has been corrected to reflect this.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subject vs. citizen[edit]

According to British subject#After_1983, Elizabeth Kucinich is likely technically a citizen, not a subject. Later on, the article states that "subject" is often used in UK legal discourse which leads me to wonder whether it's worth changing. My thoughts are it hinges somewhat on whether calling her a "British subject" is meant as an insult. matt kane's brain (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Health care Bill[edit]

Dennis is a whore who will sell out the nation for a ride on Air Force One. I hope it was a good ride, it will cost America over a trillion dollars. I hope that you are voted out!!!!! Jim Stewart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.223.76.195 (talk • contribs)

This is not what Talk pages are for. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. matt kane's brain (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Currently the article has this quote "Although his voting record is not always in line with that of the Democratic Party, on March 17, 2010, after being courted by President Obama, his wife and others, reluctantly convinced him to vote with his colleagues for the Healthcare Bill without a public option component. His wife had coincidentally been offered a position to work alongside Michelle Obama on her Childhood Obesity platform.[25][26]" Making a connection (or drawing attention to the "coincidence") between these news items which are, on the face of it, unrelated, and not jointly referenced by any single source, constitutes original research. Someone who is able to edit the page should remove the second sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpegden (talk • contribs) 19:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Honorable[edit]

Is that title standard for congressmen? I checked a few so far, and most don't have the title. I wanted to remove it but I thouhgt maybe I asked first. Likeminas (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it is correct. A web search for "proper titles for congressmen" finds a lot, including this: http://www.ita.doc.gov/ita_sec/Address%20and%20Salutation.htm Ccady (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an appropriate form of address for written correspondence; it may also be appropriate in terms of a formal introduction. In American practice, however, "The Honorable" is not commonly used as an honorific. Given the lack of the term in most Congressional profiles, I think it should be removed here. JasonCNJ (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, with Likeminas and JasonCNJ. Per consensus, it has been removed.--JayJasper (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 95 does not support text[edit]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR02977:@@@X does however. I can not change it, could someone else? Placeybordeaux (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Done. Ccady (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Carrier[edit]

Kucinich does not seem to have ever "carried" a gun, but rather he kept one in his house according to the source material. I have never heard the term "carried" to refer to the keeping of a gun in a house, and it seems a little misleading. Although a minor issue, could someone please fix this to match what the source actually provides? 147.9.188.96 (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Pit Incident[edit]

Does anyone here feel the olive pit incident(Kucinich is suing the congressional cafeteria for $250,000 after biting into an olive pit the required multiple surgeries) is significant enough to mention in this article. wikipedialuva (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC

I imagine it is newsworthy, so, yes. And I read it was $150,000. http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/01/public_eats_up_details_of_rep.html Ccady (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction about 2008 Presidential primary bid[edit]

The topmost section currently says "and being the only Democratic candidate in the 2008 election to have". That should say "and being the only Democratic presidential candidate in the 2008 election to have" for clarity. There were lots of dems who voted against the Iraq invasion, just none that subsequently ran in the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.118.149 (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public Letter of Support for Bradley L. Manning[edit]

February 2, 2011

The Honorable Robert M. Gates Secretary of Defense 1400 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301

Dear Secretary Gates:

This morning, The Washington Post reported that Pfc. Bradley J. Manning, the Army intelligence analyst who is accused of being the source of the WikiLeaks documents, was known by the Army to have had mental health problems even before his deployment to Iraq. "At Fort Drum, Manning balled up his fists and screamed at higher-ranking soldiers in his unit...." A "mental health specialist" recommended that he not be deployed to Iraq, "but his immediate commanders sent him anyway...."

In Iraq, evidence of his mental health problems accelerated. "[A] master sergeant who supervised Manning was so concerned about the private's mental health that he disabled Manning's weapon in December 2009...." "[I]n May 2010, Manning was demoted a rank for assaulting a fellow soldier...."

The Army ignored Private Manning's mental health problems before he was arrested for leaking the documents to WikiLeaks, and the consequences of that disinterest are now obvious. Since his arrest, the Army has reportedly treated Private Manning in a way that is almost certain to exacerbate his mental health problems.

In December 2010, Glenn Greenwald reported on the conditions of Private Manning's confinement at the Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia.

Since his arrest in May, Manning has been a model detainee, without any episodes of violence or disciplinary problems. He nonetheless was declared from the start to be a "Maximum Custody Detainee," the highest and most repressive level of military detention, which then became the basis for the series of inhumane measures imposed on him.

From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions. For reasons that appear completely punitive, he's being denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including even a pillow or sheets for his bed.... For the one hour per day when he is freed from this isolation, he is barred from accessing any news or current events programs.

In sum, Manning has been subjected for many months without pause to inhumane, personality-erasing, soul-destroying, insanity-inducing conditions of isolation similar to those perfected at America's Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado: all without so much as having been convicted of anything. And as is true of many prisoners subjected to warped treatment of this sort, the brig's medical personnel now administer regular doses of anti-depressants to Manning to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation.

On January 3, 2011, the Psychologists for Social Responsibility issued an "Open Letter" in which they protested the conditions of Private Manning's incarceration "based on the exhaustive documentation and research that have determined that solitary confinement is, at the very least, a form of cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment in violation of U.S. law." Their Open Letter quotes extensively from the findings of Dr. Craig Haney, "a psychologist and expert in the assessment of institutional environments...."

"Empirical research on solitary and supermax-like confinement has consistently and unequivocally documented the harmful consequences of living in these kinds of environments . . . Evidence of these negative psychological effects comes from personal accounts, descriptive studies, and systematic research on solitary and supermax-type confinement, conducted over a period of four decades, by researchers from several different continents who had diverse backgrounds and a wide range of professional expertise... [D]irect studies of prison isolation have documented an extremely broad range of harmful psychological reactions. These effects include increases in the following potentially damaging symptoms and problematic behaviors: negative attitudes and affect, insomnia, anxiety, panic, withdrawal, hypersensitivity, ruminations, cognitive dysfunction, hallucinations, loss of control, irritability, aggression, and rage, paranoia, hopelessness, lethargy, depression, a sense of impending emotional breakdown, self-mutilation, and suicidal ideation and behavior"

"To summarize, there is not a single published study of solitary or supermax-like confinement in which non-voluntary confinement lasting for longer than 10 days where participants were unable to terminate their isolation at will that failed to result in negative psychological effects."

Today's article states that the Army actually recognized that Private Manning had mental health problems, but deployed him to Iraq anyway. Once he was in Iraq, the Army reportedly did not adequately supervise him and allowed his mental health problems to fester. His sergeant recognized that Manning's mental health was so compromised that he took the unusual step of disabling Manning's weapon in a war zone.

Now, reports indicate that the Army has taken Pfc. Manning, a soldier with documented mental health problems, and confined him under conditions that are almost guaranteed to exacerbate his mental health problems. If true, the Army's treatment would obviously constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

If these reports are true, the Army must end the extreme conditions of Private Manning's confinement, and provide him with the mental health treatment that the Army recognized he needed even before his deployment to Iraq. At the very least, the Army must explain the justification for confining someone with mental health problems under conditions that are virtually certain to exacerbate those problems and explain the danger he now presents that only these extreme conditions of confinement can avoid.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Dennis J. Kucinich Member of Congress —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.49.241 (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Animal Welfare[edit]

Animal welfare isn't the same as animal rights. I would like to change the "Animal Rights" title to Animal Welfare, because that is what he is talking about in that regard. But the article is locked, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.90.67 (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Leaving aside the Welfare/Rights issue, the article is locked to IP editors. I see the article is indef protected and has been since May 2009 due to excessive vandalism. So, you need to register a user name to be able to edit this article. I strongly suggest you do so, as the simple act has many editing benefits. Oh, don't forget to sign your posts with 4 of these ~ signs. Again, welcome, and if you have further questions feel free to ask, including on my talk page. (The link to there is the middle of my own signature.) Jusdafax 23:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done His site actually addresses both "Animal Welfare" and "Animal Rights". Rostz (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redistricting[edit]

According to a Daily Show story, (approximately April 14th 2011) Kucinich's District will no longer exist due to redistricting. Any chance of adding this? WookMuff (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need a better source.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His district is "widely expected" to be eliminated at this point, so it can wait until the actual redistricting. Rostz (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Obama vote against invading Iraq as well?[edit]

The article says Mr. Kucinich was the only candidate in the 2008 election to vote against Iraq's invasion but Obama(who later won) was also opposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.123.207 (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obama was not a member of the U.S. Congress in 2003, when the war began. He may have been opposed to the war, but he would have been unable to vote either for or against. 69.140.70.68 (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kucinich criticised the Bush administration, not the Obama administration.[edit]

The article states that:

Kucinich has criticised the Obama administration for supporting the People's Mujahedin of Iran terrorist group in Iraq and other insurgent groups that have attacked the Iranian state.[96]

But the reference link 96 actually points to a letter sent by Kucinich to then president Bush on Apr 18, 2006.

So it should be:

Kucinich has criticised the Bush administration for supporting the People's Mujahedin of Iran terrorist group in Iraq and other insurgent groups that have attacked the Iranian state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander N (talk • contribs) 14:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks Rostz (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Military intervention in Libya" section makes assertions about the War Powers Act that are in dispute[edit]

In the section with the heading "Military intervention in Libya", it states:

"Kucinich objected to the 2011 military intervention in Libya missile strikes and questioned whether they weren't impeachable offenses. Kucinich questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for US participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone. He said Obama's action in Libya was "a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone", and claimed that failing to first seek approval of Congress was in violation of the Constitution, despite the fact that the president has authority to do so under the war powers act.[126][127][128]"

That last clause, "despite the fact that the president has authority to do so under the war powers act" is not objective. One solution might be to strike the clause altogether.

The objective observation is that a great controversy exists regarding exactly what the War Powers Act authorizes the President to do and even if it is binding at all.

The Executive branch claims they do not need authorization from Congress for the action in Libya, yet sometimes performs as if obeying it. The March 31, 2011 House Armed Services Committee hearing "Operation Odyssey Dawn and US Military Operations in Libya[1]" has testimony from Secretary of Defense Gates discussing the Executive Branch position. He essentially testifies that no President has obeyed it and this President does not consider it binding either, adding that NATO will be assuming command of the mission.

The Legislative branch, i.e. Congress, argues that the War Powers Act is law and only the Congress, through Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, has the power to declare war. They say the President is given authorization to engage United States Armed Forces in certain circumstances, defined explicitly in Section 2(c) of the War Powers Act, for sixty days after which he must obtain Congressional approval or withdraw forces. In the case of withdrawing forces, he is given 30 days to do so as practical for the safety of the armed forces.[2]

The current text on Wikipedia asserts the President had the authority to commence action in Libya under the War Powers Act. Some do argue the President is authorized to engage United States Armed Forces anywhere for any reason for up to sixty days, after which he must obtain Congressional approval, but that position seems to ignore Section 2 of the War Powers Act altogether.

If you are still uncertain about the lack of objectivity in the clause "despite the fact that the president has authority to do so under the war powers act", I encourage you to search govtrack.us[3] (or thomas.loc.gov) for bills related to Libya. Observe the variety of bills ranging from those that support the President's action, two that seek to modify the War Powers Act, bills to condemn the President's actions, to force the withdraw, and so on. Review the testimony in the House and Senate hearings and ask yourself if there is a Constitutional question here.

Given the quotes from Dennis Kucinich, I suspect he takes a strict interpretation of the whole body of text of the War Powers Act and I consider the clause "despite the fact that the president has authority to do so under the war powers act" to represent a biased opinion, as if to correct his misconceptions, and is overall lacking in the kind of objectivity I have come to expect from Wikipedia. I hope you will agree.

Thanks for listening.. Synaptic-axon (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Agreed, and the citation given was simply the text of the War Powers Act, making the assertion WP:OR. Rostz (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Operation Odyssey Dawn and US Military Operations in Libya". House Armed Services Committee. United States House of Representatives. Retrieved 3 June 2011.
  2. ^ [avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp "War Powers Joint Resolution of 1973"]. Current Law. United States Congress. Retrieved 3 June 2011. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  3. ^ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billsearch.xpd?q=libya. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

double[edit]

called it a "indisputable fact" that that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.8.223.113 (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Rostz (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Congressman Dennis Kucinich goes on Syrian TV to support Assad's method of repression of dissent with violence[edit]

US Congressman Dennis Kucinich has gone on Syrian TV (June 29, 2011) and said, among other things: [the Syrian TV clip can be seen at http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3008.htm] "From what I have seen, the [Assad] government shows a willingness to listen, and shows a desire to help the people, and to work with the people to bring about change." "The fact that you can have opposition meeting in downtown Damascus, openly. That’s important." This is probably very important, given what's going on in Syria, and given what is going on with the reaction of the international community and governments to Assad's extremely violent repression (and machine gunning) of protesters in town squares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.11.179 (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with (anonymous person) above that this Syria trip and the Syrian TV interview cited is a very important diplomacy event in Kucinich's geopolitical profile and is illustrative of his opinions and policy statements in a clear way. I think that people going to the Wikipedia entry on Kucinich should know how he characterizes the violence in Syria, and how he characterizes the relationship between the Syrian dictator Assad and the demonstrators. I went to Kucinich's own government house web site, and he characterizes what's been going on in Syria these past few months as: "The process of national dialogue which has now begun is a step in the direction of identifying necessary reforms." That someone who runs for president of the United States holds such views of Assad's machine gunning of protestors, is fairly important to know, one would think. I am no Wikipedia expert, so I defer to the veterans to come up with a wording that meets some consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.162.101 (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

shill for Gaddafi[edit]

On the floor of the intelligence chief's office lay an envelope addressed to Gaddafi's son Saif Al-Islam. Inside, I found what appears to be a summary of a conversation between US congressman Denis Kucinich, who publicly opposed US policy on Libya, and an intermediary for the Libyan leader's son. It details a request by the congressman for information he needed to lobby US lawmakers to suspend their support for the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) and to put an end to NATO airstrikes.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/08/2011831151258728747.html

As if this worthless bug of a congresman couldnt get any lower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.180.16 (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's called not supporting unnecessary wars regardless of media demonizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.194.33 (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so allowing Mass Murder is okay?--Lionheart Omega (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: the segment on Libya is incomplete[edit]

The segment on Kucinich dealings with Libya stop with Kucinich's statement that the letter proves nothing other than that the libyans read the Washington Post. However, that's not where the story ends. Kucinich has since stated that he WAS in contact with Libyan officials, had a long telephone conversation with the Libyan prime minister, and tried to arrange a personal meeting with Libya's prime minister [1]. --- 213.112.192.125 (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/31/1012266/-UPDATED-Secret-files-reveal-Dennis-Kucinich-talks-with-Qaddafi-Regime

Mayor of Cleveland[edit]

Kucinich was Mayor of Cleveland from 1977-1979 not 78-79. Someone correct that on the bottom of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.244.102 (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 13 January 2012[edit]

[copy of article text removed]

Not done: Please state succinctly what you want changed (change X to Y). —C.Fred (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So did he win? or lose?[edit]

Quote: "...is the U.S. Representative for Ohio's 10th congressional district, serving since 1997."

He is? But it looks like he lost. Please clarify.

Washington Post Headline: Rep. Dennis Kucinich suffers primary defeat in Ohio "...suffered a bruising primary defeat Tuesday as a new Republican-drawn congressional map threatened to end the career of one of the most colorful figures in Congress." "...a process that is making Congress a more sanitized, less colorful place."
--69.110.90.219 (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Edit request: Clarify pronunciation for the non-IPA layman[edit]

Although IPA is pretty standard on Wikipedia, could we consider throwing in a second pronunciation key or example in this case? Kucinich's name is very easily misread, and it's doubtful that the casual Wikipedia user wants to spend hours on the rote memorization of the IPA key just to get it right. Even trying to do a side by side reference of a word / name and the IPA key still confuses me.

That said, I think something along the lines of "koo-sih-nich" would be more easily understood by the average reader. There's no reason there can't be both the IPA pronunciation plus a layman example.

Thoughts? 98.86.117.86 (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2014[edit]

Citation 128 is dead. Here are two alternatives: http://beta.congress.gov/bill/108th/house-bill/5155 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hr5155 98.208.28.188 (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I replaced it with an archived version of the page instead, because the article directly quotes it. LittleMountain5 06:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2014[edit]

Please remove the 2008 steering committee for Dennis Kucinich's presidential campaign. It lists a bunch of names, Andy Junewicz, RFP advisor Michael Carmichael, there is no sourcing at all for this and i don't believe any of it is accurate.

This is for the wikipedia page titled Dennis Kucinich under the section 2008 Presidential Campaign. Placed28 (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 14:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2014[edit]

In the text above the Contents, I find this:

"After serving out the rest of his term, it was announced in mid-January 2013 that the former congressman ..."

I'll explain the problem and, at the end of the message you are reading, I'll have the requested change. I expect "After serving ... ," to be followed by reference to the person who served, but instead I find "it". So:

Please change "serving" to "he served".

128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done A classic dangling modifier. Thanks! Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove and edit links[edit]

The external link to K's congressional website is dead and should be removed. The link to his former campaign site should be renamed, while he is still using the site, he does not seem to be using it to run for anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.85.209 (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dennis Kucinich. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 16:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dennis Kucinich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 00:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

spouses -[edit]

Resune quote - "Spouse(s) Helen Kucinich (Divorced) Sandra Lee McCarthy (1977–1986) Elizabeth Harper (2005–present"

Married and divorced Helen Kucinich?! Marriage with Sandra Lee McCarthy also ended in divorce - as said in the text but not in the short resume. - Should be worked over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:88:6D1F:F600:94A7:FC5F:A573:981E (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done clpo13(talk) 16:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

was wiretapped[edit]

Hi all! Please add: "After the revelations of Wikileaks Vault 7 Kucinich disclosed the fact that he was wiretapped in 2011 and only learned about it after the Washington Times let him listen to the surveillance tape after he had left the U.S. House." Source:

Thanks. --87.159.120.157 (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. My sense of it is that you need to provide a wider range of non-ideologically-based reliable sources that demonstrate that this is worthy of being noted in the article, but it's up to the community to decide. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Dennis Kucinich. 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) 12:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dennis Kucinich. 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) 22:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dennis Kucinich. 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) 17:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kucinich 2018[edit]

Kucinich announced earlier today that his campaign for Ohio governor has begun. Just pointing it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.78.162 (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page is full of primary source content[edit]

I went through the whole article and removed 30,000 bytes of poorly sourced nonsense[1]. 95% of the sources were Kucinich's own website or citations to the text of legislation (these indisputably do not belong on politicians' pages). This was then promptly re-inserted into the article by someone who had no interest in actually reading the unsuitable content that was removed[2]. Please get rid of the crap. This Wikipedia page is not Kucinich's personal website. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's AGF and cool it on the personal attacks, eh? Just starting with the lead, your edit removed seven references, none of which were to Kucinich's website and all of which were to secondary sources. As you said, you removed 30,000 bytes and justified it with a simple "poorly sourced", but that included plenty of reliable secondary sources like MSNBC, Washington Post, Politico, and US News. Those 30,000 bytes contained far more than you implied in your edit summary or mentioned here.
Further, primary sources are sufficient for these sorts of claims. The problem isn't the sourcing; it's weight. If they haven't been covered in reliable sources (and that's an "if"; I don't know if it's true), should they be mentioned here? This requires discussion. Boldly deleting them is a fine way to start that discussion, but please, let's have that discussion and not attack people who undo your edits. -- irn (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing less controversial than removing primary sources from politicians' pages. A Wikipedia page for a politician should not be that politician's personal website. Please identify the material that you'd like to keep and which material you don't want to keep. It's impossible to get anywhere on this unless you actually put the effort into actually reading the Wikipedia page and explaining your precise problem with the content removals. This is one of the most egregious Wikipedia pages when it comes to primary source content, and you're fighting to keep it that way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the primary sourcing in this article is dramatically excessive. Most cites to the subject's own website, advocacy groups, etc., really should not be here. It's article bloat. If there is any particular material that folks think should be on her despite this kind of sourcing, I'm open to hearing it. Neutralitytalk 22:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With political positions, I'm sure 95% of those could be found on secondary-sourced articles and such. MB298 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Way to improve[edit]

1. Move political positions into one section. They are currently duplicated and covered in at least two sections.

2. Combine the House section and congressional campaigns sections. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re-elected to the House six times?[edit]

At the moment, the article says Kucinich was re-elected six times. By my count, it's seven ('98, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010), so I'm trying to figure out where my math is wrong. Robert K S (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source content (again)[edit]

One editor added primary source content to this article: Kucinich's positions on monetary reform and H1B visas. The sources for this content are three dead links: a link to Kucinich's old website, a link to a dead youtube video and a link to a dead Google video. These are WP:PRIMARY sources and thus unacceptable. When I was new to Wikipedia, I also mistakenly added primary source content to Wikipedia pages (and I made the very same and very wrong arguments that Roseohioresident made in the edit summary and on my talk page). Other editors at the time pointed out to me that this was wrong, just as I'm pointing it out to you guys. Not only is the content sourced to primary sources, but the links are dead and there's nothing verifiable about the content. I therefore promptly removed this content. Another editor then restored the content a few days later, arguing that "insisting on reliable secondary sources, when the subjects own words are quoted, would be seen as absurd".

Then today, one of my stalkers, AlaskanNativeRU, followed me here and indiscriminately reverted me, ludicrously citing "npov". The two other editors made good faith edits. AlaskanNativeRU's behavior on the other hand constitutes WP:HARASSMENT and is absolutely shameful.[3] Let's commence a completely pointless discussion as to whether we should include content sourced to three dead primary sources because AlaskanNativeRU is threatening to pursue sanctions against me otherwise.

We have discussed primary sources before on Kucinich-related pages: we discussed it on this page in January 2018[4] and earlier this month we reached a conclusion to delete the Political positions of Dennis Kucinich and to only "only merge well-sourced noteworthy content"[5]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes I have done no such thing, check out WP:AOHA and WP:Cool. Let's have a discussion about the related topic, the edit that 2 other editors and I left in the article. You should focus on discussing that rather than hitting the 3RR limit with 3 different editors, you know this. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're on thin ice. Go ahead, explain why you restored content sourced to three dead primary sources on a page that you had never edited before. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:NPA as well. If you see dead sources you shouldn't remove them, tag it as such and attempt to restore them. I believe the additions provide useful value that align with Wikipedia's policies. Let the other editors chime in as well. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how content based on three dead primary sources meet Wikipedia's WP:RS and WP:DUE requirements. Simply saying "I believe the additions provide useful value that align with Wikipedia's policies" does not cut it. You followed me to this page and reverted me. Substantiate your revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2018[edit]

Paragraph 2, sentence 2:

... "Kucinich was pit against 9th District incumbent Marcy Kaptur" ...

should read "pitted" not "pit" 154.5.178.170 (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done clpo13(talk) 23:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2022[edit]

Purpose of proposed change is to include the fact that Dennis's father was a union member.

Change "His father, a truck driver, was of Croat ancestry; his Irish American mother was a homemaker."

To "His father was Croatian, worked as a truck driver and joined the Teamsters. His mother was Irish and a homemaker.

Sources:

https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/politics/elections/cleveland-mayoral-election/cleveland-mayoral-candidate-dennis-kucinich-receives-endorsement-teamsters-ohio-drive/95-27ca7a4e-3bc0-4798-9c3c-bc16d132da0e Sull1753 (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: I left the "Croat ancestry" rather than changing to "Croatian." Of the universe (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to add a link to external links[edit]

I was about to add a link to the external links section, but I noticed that there was a note about that there. I tried to access the dmoz.org website to add a link there as instructed, but that site is malfunctioning and I was not able to access it. So, what I suggest is to add a link to Dennis Kucinich's Substack. This is where he posts his works. I thought the link to his substack would already be in the external links section, but instead I wound up having to do some searches to locate it. There are at least a couple of external links in the list which could probably be removed and replaced by this link. I think it is important for this link to be added because before today, I did not even know that he had a substack page. I think other people would like to know about his substack page. -- Ubh [talk... contribs...] 07:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dennis_Kucinich&oldid=1206475203"