Talk:Bob Casey Sr.

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

organ transplant controversy[edit]

I'm surprised there's so little mention of the issues around Casey's organ transplants. Casey was at the end of a long list of people awaiting transplants, then a young man suitable for a donor was mysteriously murdered in a way that preserved the important organs, then Casey was jumped to the front of the list. In the Delaware valley, there's considerable suspicion that money and political favors changed hands as a part of this process. Several less politically connected people died waiting for the organs that were pre-empted for Casey.

It seems like there could at least be a link to William Michael Lucas, the 34 year old who was beaten to death shortly before Casey needed his chest cavity refilled. Can't we at least make a small nod to the possibility of an outrageous abuse of power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.180.229 (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1992 convention section POV[edit]

This section is full of POV phrases like "important issue that won't go away" or whatever it is that it says. It implies that Casey's statement of support for the ticket was given before or during the convention, which it was not. He made that statement after the convention ended. Whoever wrote this section is either misinformed or seeking to push the POV that the Democrats are not tolerant of pro-life opinions. Croctotheface 08:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

editors should not be tricked by the spin candidates put on their actions. The statements about abortion are fully sourced in scholarly studies that Croctotheface must read before he edits them. Rjensen 09:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar with Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy? I'm pretty sure that implying that I am ignorant or are unqualified to call a spade a spade--that the text is POV--constitutes an attack. It is certainly not civil. The idea that any citation means something is "fully sourced" is not correct. I could put "YOUR MOM SMELLS!" and then a footnote; that doesn't mean it's appropriate for the article. "Abortion is a big issue that's not going away," or whatever it is that the sentence says, is clearly expressing an opinion. Putting a footnote after a POV sentence doesn't magically make it comply with WP:NPOV. And how can there possibly be a source for "abortion was not mentioned at the convention"? Nobody ever said ANYTHING about abortion? Nobody said "I'm proud that the Democratic party supports a woman's right to choose"? I find that hard to believe. And what's this about spin? Did Casey endorse the ticket or not? The statement in the article is from AFTER the convention is over. That's quite different from Casey having endorsed the ticket at the time he wanted to speak. Croctotheface 09:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the only scholarly study cited is a 1995 journal article, which, yes, I haven't read because it's not linked from here. However, if the title, "It's Abortion, Stupid," is any indication, it seems that the author has one very specific point of view, which should not be priveliged ahead of other points of view. The rest of the citations are newspaper articles and a book written by a Casey aide. And you still haven't shown me a source showing that Casey endorsed the ticket before he sought a speaking slot at the convention. Croctotheface 09:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the first page of the journal article, which I found here, the author is advancing the point of view that abortion was the most important issue of the 1992 election. He acknowledges in the abstract that it is a minority opinion, which is quite different from your assertion as to what "the scholarship" says. Citing one journal article as giving you carte blanche to say whatever you want in the article is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:V. Croctotheface 09:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm delighted that Croctotheface has now read one page of the major scholarly article on the topic. It was available to him long before he started erasing statements based on it. I hope he reads more before erasing ideas he dislikes. Let me explain Wiki's rule on POV: if there are multiple interpretations in the expert literature than ALL of major ones should be presented, with cites. It is a violation of Wiki rules to erase a major interpretation. Why hide information from readers? Rjensen 09:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's important to remain civil on Wikipedia, and I'll implore you again to do so. Your comments earlier suggested that "the scholarship" somehow unilaterally supported the version of the article you like. You now seem to acknowledge that "the scholarship", by which you actually mean a single journal article, represents a minority viewpoint. However, the text I removed was not particularly related to this viewpoint anyway. This diff shows the lines I deleted. None of them were sourced to the journal article that you regard (without explaining why) as "the majorly scholarsly article on the topic". One sentence said that aboriton was not mentioned at the convention (this is just factually incorrect--the Democrats highlighted their support for abortion rights) and talked about how it was "a major issue in the minds of voters that did not go away", which is not only written in a snide and non-neutral tone, it is not particularly informative either, as abortion is obviously an important issue, which doesn't really bear on this controversy anyway. It's not necessary to have a POV sentence saying so because it's obviously an issue in American politics. The next sentence I deleted talked about running Bob Casey Jr. for Senate in 2006 as a way to "defuse" the issue. This is also a POV statement, and a single Washington Post article is not sufficient to source it. It wasn't even clear whether the POV expressed in the sentence was that the Democrats wanted to "defuse" the abortion issue (unlikely) or the 1992 controversy that we're talking about (again, unlikely, I think they wanted to run Casey in 2006 because he was a good candidate). The fact that these ideas can be in dispute indicates that they are POV in the first place, and thus inappropriate for the encyclopedia. The last sentence I removed was a weasel worded commentary on later elections, which is not relevant and not even good writing. Croctotheface 09:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well there's a difference: I add material with citations, and Croctotheface deletes it. He does not provide citations that support his deletions. He admist he just now looked at the major scholarly article and then only looked at the first page, then falsely characterizes it. Sigh. Caset 2006 is the subject of multiple articles on how the national Dems intervened to defuse an issue that was hurting the party in Pennsy. The opinion of experts was unanimous yet Croctotheface wants to blank all that....notto add something different, but rather to add a blank space. Wiki is supposed to build on strength and reliable sources not weakness and fear.Rjensen 11:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

There was a request for a third opinion on the above issue, regarding the section called "Abortion issue 1992". It seems to me as though part of this section constitutes a "novel narrative" out of verified sources, which may be considered original research. Specifically, the last sentence in the first paragraph, which reads, "Finally in 2006 national Democratic leaders promoted Casey's son Bob Casey, Jr. for Senator as a way of defusing the issue; he won the Senate election." Looking at the cited article, the support of Casey Jr. was not to defuse tensions between Casey Sr. (who was, of course, dead) and the Dems, but between Dems and pro-life groups (e.g. the Catholic church). Additionally, the second half of the sentence before it, "but it was a major issue in the minds of voters that did not go away," seems unnecessary, given that it is a restatement of the opening sentence.

Perhaps the section could be retitled "1992 Democratic National Convention controversy," as that seems to me to be a more neutral term. There was a controversy, which is the notable and encyclopedic part. The fact that it was about abortion is secondary.

Finally, the second paragraph of the section (which doesn't really fit with either section title) seems unnecessary and is filled with weasel words instead of cited facts. Does Casey's pro-life stance deserve that much weight in the article? I think not, aside from the abovementioned controversy.

Please let me know if I can assist further in reaching a compromise on this issue. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 12:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the line "Abortion was not mentioned at the convention" doesn't seem to ring true. A more specific line, like "The party's stance on abortion was not debated at the convention" (or similar, preferably with a citation), would be better. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 12:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
good point. Rjensen 12:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→ (Third opinion, Edit conflict, posting anyway) I'm here in response to the Active disagreement posted on WP:3O. While studying the article in order to understand the context of the dispute, I noticed that a book authored by the subject in 1996 had been omitted. Perhaps it was an oversight. I added that.

The dispute here has two aspects: (1) references as such; (2) the text in which they are embedded. I'm not asking for recaps—some of the posts above are over-lengthy as it is.

Please note that following the claim that a user is misinformed or POV-pushing (diff) with the claim that one's own ignorance or lack of qualification has been implied (diff) is disingenuous. The latter mirrors the former, both from the same user. A plea for others to remain civil is not carte blanche for indulging in incivility onself.

In general, discussion on the talk page to reach consensus is vastly preferable to deletions and reversions. Except in cases of blatant vandalism, which this is not, a "revert first, remark later" approach is counter-productive and, as clearly stated in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, obstructs the Wikipedia mission of producing a neutral encyclopedia.

I don't know whether or not my observations have been helpful. In either case, please do let me know here: I have this page on my watchlist now. — Athænara ✉ 13:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for contributing to this brouhaha. I do not have any position on abortion (as far as Wikipedia is concerned, that is--my own beliefs are private), but I am trying to nail down history exactly as it happened. I believe the abortion issue seriously damaged the Dem party in Pennsy for years and that the national Dem leaders (Shumer, Reid) thought so too and tried to fix the problem by pushing Casey Jr in 2006; they were successful. I sharply disagree with one editor who seems to believe the abortion issue was not so important, and I tried to provide sources--like NY Times (1992), Washington Post (2007), New Yorker (2005), a memoir (2006), and a political science article (1995) that make the same points with detailed evidence. Rjensen 14:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're on the right track, Rjensen. — Athænara ✉ 15:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: Sometimes, one result of sharp disagreement between editors is over-citation: more references than an issue or event really justifies. So, you might reconsider now whether all of the citations previously called to the task remain necessary once the issue or event itself has been accepted as part of the notability of the subject. They might be; they might not. — Athænara ✉ 16:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that abortion is an important issue in American politics. (I do disagree that it was somehow a bad issue for the Democrats, and even if that were the case, I don't think that this section is the proper place to present arguments from both sides of that issue.) My objections to saying "abortion is a major issue that isn't going away" twice, as the section did, is that talking about abortion in that context supports one interpretation of why Casey was not allowed to speak. If the whole section talks about abortion this way, it could cause readers to think, "Oh, OBVIOUSLY the endorsement issue is just an excuse" where not talking about abortion in the rest of the section would leave that issue open for interpretation, which I think it clearly is. Croctotheface 18:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A prior version of the article contained this passage: " Convention organizers said all speakers had to pledge support for Bill Clinton ahead of time; Casey was quoted in the New York Times saying, 'I support the ticket. Period.'[3]" As I've since edited the article to indicate, Casey made that statement after the convention had ended. The way that the sentence was worded struck me as an attempt to imply something that was not true: that Casey had endorsed the ticket (which he had not) and that those who said he had not were lying. My mention of ignorance in this context was an attempt to be charitable, but in hindsight I regret the frustrated tone I brought into this discussion. That said, I find it troubling that Rjensen has basically maintained that the article can say whatever he wants it to, so long as he adds a footnote. My view of this controversy is that it's basically a "he said, she said" matter. We know the following: Casey wanted to give a pro-life speech, and he did not. Casey said that he was denied a speaking part because of his intended subject matter, while the Democrats said it was because he had not endorsed the ticket. As it is true that he wanted to talk about abortion and it is true that he had not endorsed the ticket, it's not clear which issue informed the decision, or if they both did, which had more impact. All we can really say for sure is that Casey said one thing, and the Clinton camp said something else. Mentioning things like "abortion is a big issue that isn't going away" serves to suggest that it was all about abortion. I also think that statement is so obvious that it doesn't need to be said outright, much like the "Hitler is evil" example on WP:NPOV. It's an opinionated statement, but it's just so universally agreed upon that it can masquerade as fact. Croctotheface 18:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Croctotheface, you're repeating very lengthy arguments which you had repeated more than once before. In addition, you're again attributing motives and intentions which should perhaps not be so attributed, do you see? Please don't do these things. — Athænara ✉ 19:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not aware of a policy or guideline against making long comments on talk pages. I fail to see why that should be frowned upon, as editors can choose to read comments in whole, in part, or not at all, and it doesn't affect the actual content of the encyclopedia. My goal with that comment was to return to a substantive discussion of the article, rather than a discussion of the discussion. Croctotheface 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the compromise posted by JaimeLesMaths. Removing excessive mentions of abortion, changing the title of the section (which I have already done) and removing the extended interpretation of sources that pertain to later PA elections. Croctotheface 19:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article reads much better now, and all statements appear to be appropriately phrased, sourced, and cited. I also think the sections in questions are now in compliance with WP:NPOV. Nice job, everyone. I think we could really get this to good article status soon. I'd be glad to continue working on it, but, for now, have some tea. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 06:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passage about 2006[edit]

There is currently a dispute about this passage:

Casey’s critics within the Democratic Party accused him of treason. The split over Casey's treatment in 1992 and more importantly over abortion policy hurt the Pennsylvania Democratic party for years until national Democratic leaders intervened and engineered the nomination of Casey's son, Bob Casey, Jr. for Senator in 2006; Casey Jr. defeated Santorum in a landslide.

In my mind, this passage fails WP:V, as it is not sourced, WP:NOR, as the notions about the impact is an extended interpretation of events, and WP:NPOV, as it seeks to explain that opposition to abortion is somehow the magic pill for Democrats to win elections in Pennsylvania. Croctotheface 02:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The passage is sourced, it is not an "extended interpretation" because it descibes what Casey's legacy was after his death. The real complaint is "that opposition to abortion is somehow the magic pill for Democrats" which is simply POV on the part of Croctotheface and that has no place in a history article. Rjensen 02:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What sources? I don't recall seeing any sources cited when your reverted my edits. The original third opinion made reference to deleting the similar passage in that version of the article becasue it was an extended interpretation of events. I agree with this assessment. Croctotheface 02:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the sourceshave now been inserted as requested. Please keep in mind that personal opinions "that opposition to abortion is somehow the magic pill for Democrats" have no place in Wiki. Rjensen 03:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of the sentence is much improved. Though I don't love the degree of focus it puts on the convention issue, I don't think it has the same verifiability, OR, and POV issues the prior version had, so I won't be continuing to tweak it. For the record, it is not my opinion that opposition to abortion is a magic pill. That was my characterization of the opinion being espoused by the prior version of the article, which I wanted to delete. Croctotheface 03:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have one minor quibble. The article now suggests that abortion is no longer as salient or divisive an issue in PA because Bob Casey Jr. was elected to the Senate. Is that really fair to say? It seems to wrap up the story in too tight a fashion, implying that Casey Sr.'s position in 1992 has been posthumously vindicated, which seems interpretive to me. Croctotheface 03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The national Democrats did believe they had to solve the abortion split to win Pennsyslvania. They did win in 2006, but Croctotheface is correct that it is too early to say if the issue will continue to be divisive. The article does not predict either way, nor should it. 03:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Abortion--undue weight?[edit]

I'm aware that Casey's opposition to abortion was an important part of his political career. However, I'm concerned that some of the recent edits to the article deal with abortion at the expense of other elements of his governorship. I appreciate effort to add more sources to the references section, but I'm very concerned that too many of them deal with abortion at the expense of everything else Casey did. Croctotheface 03:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to Croctotheface's dilemma is for him to add material on other topics. Please go right ahead. A good source, partially online is: Vincent P. Carocci, A Capitol Journey: Reflections on the Press, Politics, and the Making Of Public Policy In Pennsylvania. (2005) at excerpts online Rjensen 03:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, it's actually appropriate not to add factual material to WP articles because of concers such as undue weight (see WP:Undue weight). I don't necessarily advocate removing the two sentences added to the "Governor" section, especially as I may not be the person best suited to discuss such an issue after the disputes we've had over the other section. My goal here is more to call attention to the potential problem of having information on the abortion issue overwhelm the article and tilt it away from being about Casey and toward being more about his views and actions on a single issue. However, if it ends up being the consensus of WP editors that abortion is receiving undue weight, the best solution would probaly not be expanding the article so as to dilute mentions of abortion. If, for instance, 20 pages of abortion-related information were added, the best solution would not be to add 200 pages of non-abortion related information. This is an encyclopedia article, so brevity is a virtue. Croctotheface 03:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the scholarly articles, or at the popular blogs, ther overwhelming evidence is that Casey is linked to the abortion issue forever. Google gives 146,000 separate web sites with "Bob Casey" and "abortion." He certainly thought it was a big deal in his career, as have the reporters and scholars. "Undue" weight-- not when he fought it to the Supreme Court and won, and broke with other Dems (like Wofford) on the issue. Rjensen 03:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are more Google hits, 383k, for ("bob casey" -abortion) than ["bob casey" abortion], which gets 145k, not that number of Google hits is really a reliable indicator of much of anything. My point is that it is possible for an article on a man who strongly opposed abortion to focus too much on his opposition to abortion. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but I'm somewhat concerned that the trend could be toward such a situation. It would obviously be wrong to have the article begin, "Robert P. Casey vocally opposed abortion and was party to a landmark Supreme Court case on the issue. He also served as Governor of Pennyslvania." If the article emphasizes Casey's opposition to abortion at the expense of everything else he's done, that serves to devalue the rest of his life and career. Again, I'm not saying that this is happening now, but it is something to be mindful of for the future. Croctotheface 04:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question of whether Casey supported pro-choice candidates[edit]

A fierce pro-life advocate, Casey refused to campaign for any candidate who supported abortion rights - including his own lieutenant governor when he sought to succeed Casey.

I do not believe that this is true. Although I understand that Gov. Casey and Sen. Wofford had a falling out over the abortion issue, Casey did not have a strict policy about not supporting pro-choice candidates. In 1990, he actively supported pro-choice candidates for the State Senate, because his re-election was all but assured and he wanted to have a majority in both houses of the Assembly. (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=casey+flynn&scoring=t&um=1&sa=N&cid=8548281999164717)

And indeed, he appointed Wofford to Heinz's U.S. Senate seat with the knowledge that he was pro-choice -- Wofford told Casey he supported the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, and Casey in turn worked extremely hard for Wofford's election over former Gov. Dick Thornburgh (see: http://www.vincecarocci.com/excerpt14.htm). He withdrew his support (and all but ensured Wofford's defeat in 1994) after Wofford toed the Clinton line on parts of a federal abortion law that seemed to go directly against the intent of the PA Abortion Control Act.

Thoughts anyone? Bfoaz 02:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

What happened to the links? I was looking for the one that linked to themediareport.com and it's article on Casey and the 1992 Democratic National Convention that used to be here, but has since been removed. Bishop Joe 00:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try now--what's with Brettfern blanking the page? trezjr 20:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, it's back to its former good article quality, in my humble opinion. No idea why it was blanked in the first case. Bishop Joe 04:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Carocci" :
    • {{cite web | author=Vincent P. Carocci| title=A Capitol Journey: Reflections on the Press, Politics, and the Making Of Public Policy In Pennsylvania | year=2005| url=http://www.vincecarocci.com/excerpts.htm}}
    • The footnote to this story came years after Governor Casey's death. By 2005, the Governor's son, [[Bob Casey, Jr.]], had served two terms as Auditor General and had been elected State Treasurer the year before, crushing his opponent with over 3.3 million votes. Despite the younger Casey's pro-life views, National Democrats, led by [[Chuck Schumer]], heavily recruited him to run in the 2006 election against Santorum, by now the number-three Republican in the Senate. Casey went on to win a landslide victory over Santorum. <ref> Michael E. Barone, ''The Almanac of American Politics: 2006'' (2005) p 1424.

DumZiBoT (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Brooks bit shouldn't go in[edit]

As I've said in my edit summaries, this is a biography of Bob Casey. The convention controversy is one incident, and it is not more important than the rest of his life. It should not be expanded any further, and adding in "David Brooks says it's because he's pro life" would necessitate "Eric Alterman says it's because he wouldn't endorse" and on and on. It would bloat the section at the expense of the rest of the article. Consequently, we can just leave it at Casey says X, convention organizers say Y, cite some sources, and let the readers make up their own mind. Croctotheface (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

44th Govenor?[edit]

I believe this is incorrect. He was the 42nd Governor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Pennsylvania —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.104.56 (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defeated for "re-election"?[edit]

". . . the Democratic state treasurer was defeated for re-election."

Really? The same paragraph earlier says that the real Bob Casey "declined" to seek that office when he was term limited out of the state auditor position, which presumably is not the same as the state treasurer's job. Possibly what the "defeated" statement means is something like this: Partly because of the confusion over the Casey name on the Democratic Party side, the Republican nominee won the general election for state treasurer.

But can someone thoroughly familiar with the situation please clarify? Was the incumbent state treasurer defeated by the "other" Casey in the Democratic primary? What exactly happened? It may be that the statement is transparent to someone who already knows Pennsylvania history and politics. I don't, but perhaps I am not the sole one subject to being confused.

Rammer (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casey a pro-choice Republican?[edit]

Has this article been subject to some kind of vandalism? The intro ID's Casey as a pro-choice Republican, when in fact he was an anti-choice Democrat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidNYC (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CAT fund[edit]

There should be some mention of Casey's very unsuccessful CAT fund which Pennsylvania residents are still paying for 20 years after the program was canceled, turning $25 seatbelt fines into $109 tickets. The CAT fund is Catastrophic Accident something. The idea was to pay the medical bills of people seriously injured in auto accidents through a surcharge on traffic tickets. The program was canceled a few years after it started due to enormous cost but the surcharge remains today and will continue until the people who qualified for it at the time no longer need medical care, in other words, until they die (or somehow get transfered into Obama Care).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.103.235 (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert P. Casey. 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) 04:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert P. Casey. 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) 03:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I support the death penalty[edit]

I suppose this requires closing quotation marks, but then it does not have a reference as a direct quote. --2607:FEA8:FF01:4B63:19F:93C:9DF8:81D0 (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Casey_Sr.&oldid=1212141459"