Talk:Orrin Hatch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial comments

I don't understand why this term needs to be capitalized. Could you explain Quadell? Cool Hand Luke

"Internet" is a proper noun. The word refers to the one and only Internet, so it is capitalized.

hypocrite

to point out that shortly after his "legal hacking" proposition, he was found to be running illegal software on his site... any objections to me adding it? IreverentReverend 7 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

If you add it just to make Sen. Hatch look like a hypocrite, I object. However, if you document how Sen. Hatch is influential in the arena of file sharing and added that as part of the ongoing discussion, I wouldn't object. You will want to expose Sen. Hatch's work and views on the topic and then add something like: "Opponents of Sen. Hatch's position on file sharing point out that he was running illegal software on his site. When this was discovered, he quickly remedied the situation." If you word it like you put it above, it makes you sound like you have something against Hatch, and so it'll get flagged as POV. Jgardner 7 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)

I was just thinking of adding a sentence or two pointing out the controversy. Of course I would try to stick to NPOV on the main page, but that doesnt mean I can't let my distain of the man show on the talk page ;-) IreverentReverend 7 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)

Quickly remedied the situation? Now that's POV in itself. Mr. Gardner, do you think that there is something influencing your opinion on Senator Hatch?--Folksong 19:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Another example of Hatch's hypocrisy is his position on term limits. In 1976, he ran against Frank Moss, claiming that, after 18 years in the Senate, Moss had "lost touch" with his constituents. Now, over 30 years later, Hatch is still in office! As for "losing touch," he makes proposals that would effectively destroy the Internet, is a software pirate and hacker himself, engages in questionable ethical practices, and supports legislation beneficial to his son's lobbying clients. Also, he virtually accuses the Democrats of treason in the 9/11 matter, failing to point out that George Bush was President for almost eight months before that happened, and the Bush was so scared that he hid for almost the entire day.

But wait, let's not be too hard on him. He is just a "good Republican" and cannot help himself.

John Paul Parks (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia, but I found this piece of information intriguing and felt I should share it. It is from the Wikipedia article for "Ephedra": "... makers of the best-selling brand of ephedra supplement, had received over 14,000 complaints of adverse events associated with its product; these reports were not provided to the FDA.[28][29] Senators Orrin Hatch and Tom Harkin, authors of the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act, questioned the scientific basis for the FDA's proposed labeling changes and suggested that the number of problems reported were insufficient to warrant regulatory action. At the time, Hatch's son was working for a firm hired to lobby Congress and the FDA on behalf of ephedra manufacturers." Righteoussurfergirl (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism

OK, I don't like mr.Hatch myself, but this is an encyclopaedia and here there are some silly NPOV problems. I just removed from the article the following sentences:

Hatch has always been on the forefront of limiting free speech. He has tried for years to change and alter the Constitution so that it would be rid of those horrible loopholes that the Founding Fathers allowed; these loopholes are known as "The Bill of Rights"

An example of such can be seen in his current incumbency; nearing his third decade as a Senator, he recently called 4,000 of his constituents "Nut cakes," thus proving that his is not only really old but also very out of touch with those he is meant to be serving, not demeaning.

They can be nice political satire, but they're of course vandalism here in WP. It's the second time I come here and I find vandalism on this page. Cyclopia 18:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that by "removing" one POV, you've inadvertantly added another POV. If you're going to mention that he ran under the pretense of cutting term limits, it is important to point out that he not only failed to pass such legislation, but he has actually been in office for nearly three decades. Sorry... i don't have a user name yet. 69.151.230.172

You're welcome to add this info, but in a neutral way. --Cyclopia 19:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

In case you are ever confused about the meaning of the word "smarmy" just listen to Orrin Hatch's "questioning" of a right-wing witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And, to view the basic nastiness of his soul, go back to the Anita Hill hearings to hear Hatch hint around about Anita Hill's "proclivities"--without a shred of evidence. Hatch and Alan Simpson were the Republican hatchet-men chosen to smear Anita Hill. Smearing enemies and "smarming" friends are jobs Hatch seems to relish. 198.107.63.34 17:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)DLF 1/12/06

More vandalism?

Im not very experienced in editing wikipedia, and although I disagree with several of Senator Hatch's views, it certainly appears that this article has been vandalised and is not in a neutral point of view, as seen in this paragraph

" Senator Hatch is all-about-money, having already collected $2 million from the rich and powerful. The alternative to politics-as-usual is Pete Ashdown who is running his campaign for a small fraction of that sum and is relying on "people-power" and personal freedom of speech rather than money-power that Senator Hatch relies on. "

Anyway, someone more knowledgable about editing wikipedia should probably fix this or at least make it neutral.

Upon reading the revisions it looks like it has been changed by this IP address 207.135.154.96 to be non-neutral, bashing Senator Hatch and favoring his political opponent, Pete Ashdown. This should probably be reverted to the previous version by TommyBoy.

Greater detail

I have added significant details from his earlier Senate career. I might be regarded as a partisan, since I handled his press in his first run for the Senate in 1976 and worked for him for most of the decade after, but I would note that I remained a registered Democrat and have had no direct contact with Hatch for nearly 20 years. All details I've added are readily verifiable, and significant omissions for a complete biography, especially for a guy who has been in the Senate for 30 years. For one example, there was no mention at all of his chairing the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, which has the greatest authorization responsibility of any Senate Committee (for labor, education and health issues).

As a Democrat, I agree that the 'Hatch is all-about-money' stuff is beyond the pale. Adding details instead of opinion will get around some of those issues.

Ed Darrell

Term Limits

There is a slight possibility I err, but I do not believe that term limits were proposed by Hatch in the 1976 campaign against Frank Moss, especially in the ad copy that I wrote. Hatch ran advertisement that said '18-years is too long,' but he stopped short of calling for term limits, hoping himself to be able to served quite a while. Edarrell 06:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

During the 1976 campaign Orrin Hatch said "What do you call a senator that has been in the senate 18 years? You call him home." Ironic, as Hatch will have been in the senate for 30 years now. He did make this statement, but I think a verified source with exact wording should to be found before it is put in this article. Nodekeeper 23:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My point was that Hatch did not directly advocate term limits. He argued that Sen. Moss was out of touch with Utah's political views. It may be a subtle distinction, but an important one. When the ad was made, we on the campaign staff joked that it might come back to haunt Hatch. Sure enough, in his second re-election campaign I was contacted by several people trying to find copies of that ad. My understanding is that is missing from the archives of the campaigns kept at the University of Utah Marriott Library (Western Americana, I assume), and also from Hatch's papers collection at Brigham Young University. Newspaper stories would indicate his advocacy, but term limits was not a serious issue of the campaign. Hatch's victory would be an effective limit on Moss's terms, we assumed -- and so it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edarrell (talk • contribs) 10:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Radiation Compensation

How did I miss this? There is no mention of Hatch's work to get compensation for citizens who were injured by nuclear fallout from our nation's atmospheric nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site. This work took a lot of Hatch's time and attention, and he focused some of his best people on the effort. The movement really got going after Hatch became chairman of the Senate Labor Committee in 1981, but he had worked diligently for the previous four years to get a bill through. The compensation bill didn't actually pass until 1987 or 1988. Between 1977 and 1988 Hatch held several hearings, pushed appropriations for researchers to find real answers, and generally acted like a liberal anti-nuclear activist on the issue.

Surely that deserves some mention.

See the reporting of Gordon Eliot White in the Deseret News of the times; and see, with warnings that he got little information from the Congress, Howard Ball's Justice Downwind.69.152.115.152 23:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Judge?

I noticed that Hatch is in Category:American judges - but I cannot find any mention of him ever being a judge. It isn't in this article or in the bio on his senate web site. Is the listing a mistake? GabrielF 01:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake; perhaps it's related to his reported desire to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court? I'm removing it. John Broughton 15:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Zappa

Frank Zappa has a song called "Orrin Hatch on Skies" ...Just an instumental.

Orrin & Mormons

With Orin Hatch endorsing Mitt Romney for President of the USA, can someone add what the Mormon religion has mean to Orin Hatch in his time as US Senator.

Has he attempted to submit bills etc esp for Mormons, etc.

And or does he support US Freedom of Religion ?

What role does he see Mormon's playing during the time some expect may be NOW, the Second Coming of God / Jesus to earth ?

What role at that time would he see for Mitt Romney ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.5.137 (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hatch has been very sensitive to religious discrimination and persecution throughout his senate career, a product of his understanding of Mormon history. For example, in health legislation, there is usually a provision that allows Christian Science practitioners to be compensated for their services, by Medicare and Medicaid for example. Hatch had at least one Christian Scientist in a high position on his labor staff, and they made sure each piece of health legislation did not shut out Christian Scientists.

He was embarrassingly tolerant of contacts from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, and he often spoke out against what he saw as a miscarriage of justice when Moon was convicted and imprisoned (tax evasion? I forget the charge.).

I suspect one might find an early career interview in which Hatch discusses what a lot of LDS Church members believe to be prophecy, that at some point the nation will face a crisis and that the "Constitution will hang by a thread," and that a Mormon would save the nation. Hatch was not opaque about his feeling it was his duty both to prevent such a crisis, but to be ready to act to preserve the country if the crisis could not be prevented. As with most Mormon politicians, I think Hatch regards his serving as a calling; Mormons often get callings to serve without a clear mandate on exactly what it is they are to do, other than do a good job.Edarrell (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Balanced Budget Amendment & anti-trust

From what I remember, Orrin Hatch led the Republican effort to push through the Balanced Budget Amendment. It seems this should be discussed in the article. Also Orrin Hatch led the anti-trust hearings on Microsoft as head of the judiciary committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.83.67 (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming

It is not controversial to criticize the prevailing fear mongering around global warming these days. Many do it and no one is surprised.

--Kfedup (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is controversial to deny global warming and to dismiss it as "fear mongering". That's a fringe position that's blatantly contradicted by the scientific evidence. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was until all the global warming scientists were proven liars. 138.162.128.52 (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Future direction for this article, to raise its quality

This article still looks to me as if it were put together by a very young person with little information about Utah or the Senate, and only cursory knowledge about Hatch. Of course, I'm biased, but I think the article can be filled out well in several areas.

Building the Republican Machine in Utah --

Up to about 1976, had one taken all votes cast in partisan elections in Utah, about 50% would have been Democrat, and about 50% Republican -- a holdover from the event early in the territorial history when LDS officials tried to persuade Congress the state was not a haven for pro-slave Democrats by showing split party registration - they went house to house, designating one house "Republican" and the next house "Democratic." This produced some interesting political splits among families and friends.

By 1976 there was a clear Republican undercurrent, but it had not borne fruit in long-time control of any part of the elected machinery. Gov. Calvin Rampton was retiring as a very popular politician, Utah's only three-term governor to that point. The U.S. Senate was split by party, as it had been through much of state history. The Congressional delegation contained two very popular Democrats. Democrats controlled both houses of the state legislature. Hatch was a neophyte, but very smart. Among other things he hired a savvy though very green campaign manager, a kid he had known in Pittsburgh, Mac Haddow (C. McClain Haddow). The campaign did a lot of "not Republican" things, like running ads in Spanish in the state's Spanish language newspapers, and asking Utah's Japanese community for support. The big differences came in organizing the party itself. Republicans in Utah were very independent. They did not do things like phone banks well, or often, at all. Hatch had to put together his own phone banks, which were manned by hundreds of active volunteers and very active. Hatch had to make his own ties with party officials in each of the 29 counties. Once elected, Hatch and Haddow purposely kept that machine oiled, and lent it to Republicans in a well-thought-out campaign to turn the state Republican so they wouldn't have to build the machine for each election. By the time of his second run, in 1982, that machine had already elected enough county commissioners, state legislature members and state-wide office holders that virtually the only Democrat left was Gov. Scott Matheson (who had also won in 1976).

Utah's solid Republican voting history since 1976 can be attributed in large measure to the work of Orrin Hatch and his campaign supporters.

Building influence in Washington and the Nation -- It took a little while for Hatch to get a firm footing, but in Washington he worked to extend the influence of Utah and his campaign machine. The appointments of NLRB members Bob Hunter and Jim Stephens, the appointment of Judiciary Committee aide Stephen Markman to the Supreme Court of Michigan, the appointment of "intern" Toni Novello to U.S. Surgeon General, and many other appointments, were demonstrations of Hatch's work in the tradition of Utah's Sen. Smoot, to make the Senate office an outpost of Utah and influential. The article has a major headline for the release of Dallas Austin; there is no mention of the hundreds of times he went to battle against the INS to get babies and toddlers from Central America admitted to the U.S. for life-saving surgery at the University of Utah. There is little mention of his work to support the fledgling law school at Brigham Young University. Oddly, there is no mention of the MX Missile "racetrack" plan for the Utah desert, nor how it ended up. His epic battles with and for labor barely get a mention. His use of the investigative arm of the Labor Committee for what might be considered parochial battles by some is only noted in passing -- but it played a key role in reining in the nation's atomic bomb development machinery that killed thousands of Utahns with radiation from atmospheric bomb tests. How about at least a mention of his work against industry and military in the Hill AFB Building 100 hearings?

Six terms in the Senate are difficult to boil down to a 5,000 word article, but it really needs to be done here. This article makes it look like the guy fell from the sky in 1976, and only resurfaces near elections. That's an inaccurate portrayal of his Senate career, and it sheds very little light on what happened and is happening in Utah politics, nor in Washington. Anyone living in the Hatch office would wonder how it happens that the Madsens, Cannons, Gardners, Oblads, Korologoses, Parrys, McGuinesses and others just fell out of the narrative, why there is so little discussion of issues where he dwelled for long periods of time (Illinois Brick antitrust case comes to mind, as do his dozens of hearings on the EEOC). What should be in an article covering 36 years of American political revolution and backlash? Where is that stuff?Edarrell (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

These sounds like good topics for an article on "History of Utah Politics", but not for an article on a specific candidate/politician. 174.101.136.61 (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Dellusion or lie?

Of course, the Constitution of the United States of America makes no assertions regarding polygamy. Does it make sense to insert a conditional or some sort of supposition as to whether Mr. Hatch was delusional, lying or deflecting questions regarding polygamy and the Mormon Church? Is it not correct that the Mormon religion abandoned its prophet's views on polygamy as a condition of being admitted as a State? - Gwopy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs) 07:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sen. Hatch Says Gays’ “Religion is Politics”

Reference from his quotation should be referenced from this article (if not already referenced):
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/06/sen-hatch-says-gays-religion-is-politics/
Native94080 (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Frank Moss

The article contains an un-sourced assertion that Hatch criticized Frank Moss for having lost touch with his constituents after serving so long. I've heard this before (as I recall, Pete Ashdown offered a $1000 reward for anybody who could find a contemporary source for it during the 2006 election), but I've never seen a good source. For the time being, I've put a citation needed tag on it. If no source exists, perhaps we should remove it? Jonathan Christensen (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Orrin Hatch/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Some mention of his advocacy of term limits should exist in the article. He did use it as an issue in 1976, and it has come up every election cycle since 1988 with good reason. Perhaps is should not be over emphasized but it has been ignored in the article. 67.182.219.81 (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Nuclear Issues, ¶ 2: writing needs clarification

In ¶2, sentence 3: ("Hatch's ferreting discovered a clause to pay at least $100 million to injured residents of Marshall Islands similarly to Utah citizens, and Hatch took the treaty hostage.")
Several things in sentence are unclear:
-- a clause in what? his own bill?
-- to pay $$ "... similarly to Utah citizens"; Not sure what you mean: is this something he criticized, or introduced?
-- what treaty? First mention of a treaty, as opposed to a statute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdzimet (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Constitutional Ban on Polgamy

There is not any thing in the United States Constitution or its Amendments that bans polygamy. I'll give everyone three months from today, June 10, 2011, to find some evidence to refute this statement. If no evidence is provided by that time, I will remove the reference to a Constitutional ban on polygamy from this Wiki. Engender (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Polygamy is banned by federal statute. Congress enacted the statute and used it to force Utah to ban polygamy as a condition of statehood.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"Controveries" section

The bit about the polygamy should be removed. It has nothing to do with Orrin Hatch's platform as a Republican Senator from Utah which has been his life for the last 35 years. This comment he made is not widely reported and did not rise to the level of a controversy. It was a comment, not a controversy. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Depiction in media

In RoB reid's comic sci-fi novel, Year Zero, Orrin hatch is portyaed as a central character, identified by name as well as with the moniker, "Senator Fido," suggesting that he serves as a lap dog to the music industries interest. I think this merits an inclusion in the depiction in the media section. -Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.52.202 (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Robert Shelby

The following 2 statements were recently added to this article:

Hatch also strongly supported Robert Shelby, President Obama's appointee, for Federal District Court Judge in 2012. Shelby subsequently overturned Utah's constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman in 2013.[48] Hatch highly lauded Democrat Shelby: "A man of keen intellect, Robert Shelby...has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the law."[49]

The first statement is sourced to an article that does not mention Hatch and is therefore not relevant to this article. The second statement is sourced to judgingtheenvironment.org, which is an advocacy site and not a reliable source. Please seek consensus at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard before attempting to use as a source. CFredkin (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin erased these statements concerning Hatch's appointees and clarifications regarding ENDA. Placing the context and relevance of mentioning Shelby (that he overturned the constitutional amendment 3 in Utah) does not require that "Hatch" is mentioned. It provides context to its relevance.

Second, seeking a better source is fine, but simply erasing the text is excessive and extreme. I have updated the source from Hatch's own website. Hopefully this will qualify as a reliable source in your estimation.

You also cannot string together Hatch's support for Shelby's judicial nomination and Shelby's subsequent overturning of the marriage amendment to claim that Hatch opposed the marriage amendment. That is WP:synthesis. CFredkin (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I have never and in nowise "strung together Hatch's support...for opposing the marriage amendment." I have never claimed Hatch opposes the marriage amendment. Shelby is a very important figure concerning LGBT issues in Utah. That Hatch supported him is news, relevant, and material. Previously you erased the addition because of a poor or uncited sourced. After that issue was fixed, you again eliminated it, now on the basis that the statement intimates that Hatch opposed Amendment 3. Nowhere in the statement is this claim made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth1seeker (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Shelby ruled against the marriage amendment is not relevant to a bio of Hatch. If you want to include it in the article, you need to find a RELIABLE source that makes that connection. Otherwise it's WP:synthesis.

Also, I should note that statements that are unsourced or poorly sourced can be removed from bios of living persons (per WP:BLP). Other editors are not responsible for finding sources for content that you want to include. CFredkin (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Finally, members of Congress make many votes during their tenures. Not all of them are significant or worth noting in their bios. If a vote is significant, it should not be difficult to find a reliable, secondary source that mentions it. CFredkin (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin:

1. As to your first point: Shelby's decision to overturn Amendment 3 likely constitutes one of the most significant stories of 2013, and potentially this decade. That Hatch strongly supported Shelby's nomination is entirely relevant and material. Because Shelby is not a household name, clarifying who Shelby is (the individual responsible for overturning the amendment) is useful. As such, I find little reason to find a reliable source that Hatch was against the Amendment because it is unnecessary. What is relevant is that Hatch strongly approved this individual, not that Hatch is against the Utah amendment.

2. You did not remove an "unsourced or poorly sourced" statement. You removed a statement whose source was the very Senator's at question. I never intimated that you are responsible for finding sources for content. I did say that eliminating a statement because of what you perceive is an inadequate source is extreme. You can say that it "needs a source" or a better source without eliminating. Your actions appear extreme and unhelpful. If the source is a problem, challenge the source, don't erase the entire statement.

3. Again, see point 1. Shelby's decision was one of the most important of this year, and Hatch's support for the nomination is by extension relevant. Second, I am not dealing with a "vote" as you claim. It was support for a judicial nomination that came largely at Hatch's behest.

4. Your reasons above do not explain why you eliminated the explanation of what ENDA does. The explanation of what ENDA entails was cited, relevant to the vote, and topical. Why did you completely erase that addition?

I am more than happy to engage in this discussion if you are willing to seek an accurate assessment of Hatch that is fair and well-sourced. However, eliminating additions even after they meet the criteria of well sourced (a United States government website, for example), because you feel they are not important is highly subjective. I hope that your ultimate motive is, like mine, to obtain accuracy, and not to prevent any additions that may be viewed by some as unfavorable to Hatch.

Truth1seeker (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to include a description of ENDA in the article, it should be reliably sourced (not one that you made up). CFredkin (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, since you've repeatedly cast aspersions on my motives here, I should note that I'm not the only editor who's been reverting your edits to this article. CFredkin (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear CFredkin:

As to your first point, I am dismayed and utterly confused how the brief description is not reliably sourced. I used the wikipedia entry itself and language it uses. If you prefer, I can include the actual Senate Bill language from S. 815. Please let me know which one will qualify from your perspective. It is time consuming to have to link a source, have you erase it, and to keep finding new ones. It would be preferable if you would just tell me what in your opinion qualifies.

As to your second point, I am not casting aspersions on anyone's motives. I am simply making the observation that you erase statements based on problems which, once fixed, you erase again, citing different or new problems. What this suggests to me is that the sources are not the problem as much as the content you find disagreeable.

To save us both time, please clarify:

1. Will you allow me to briefly describe ENDA using government documents as sources without erasing them?

2. Will you allow me to mention that Senator Hatch enthusiastically appointed and recommended Shelby for judicial nomination?

3. Will you allow me to mention why Shelby is significant, i.e. the judge responsible for overturning Utah's Amendment 3 that defined marriage as between one man and one woman?

Thank you for your consideration,

Truth1seeker (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to 1-3 above, as long as they're reliably sourced. Also, once again for #3, the source needs to mention Hatch as well. Thanks. CFredkin (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, if you can't find a reliable source for #3, then I believe #2 should go in a different section (perhaps one on judicial nominations). CFredkin (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, NB: if you'll notice a few lines below "LGBT Issues," a statement is made clarifying what a particular piece of legislation does. "One year later, he proposed the controversial INDUCE Act that attempted to make illegal all tools that could be used for copyright infringement if said tools were intentionally used for illegal copyright infringement." Like said statement, I included a brief description of what ENDA entails. Why did you not have similar problems with the latter statement if you disagreed with further clarification regarding ENDA?

Truth1seeker (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You've added the same description of ENDA as "creating protected classes" which is not supported by either of the sources you've provided. Please either update your description or your sources. CFredkin (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have included a law business journal article that specifically states "protected classes" as a creation of ENDA. Numerous other articles sight the same, but many of them have a left or right-wing slant. This article appears neutral and thus optimal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth1seeker (talk • contribs) 01:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. Looks good to me. I'm going to remove a couple of sources on the ENDA statement since they're superfluous. CFredkin (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

BCS??

One of Hatch's most visible crusades in recent years has been his fight against the Bowl Championship Series in College Football. Why no references here? --MahlerFan (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Still interested? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Education

There seems to be disagreement about whether or not this content should be included in the article:

On June 11, 2014, Hatch was one of 37 senators who filibustered the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinance Act, a bill sponsored by Senators Elizabeth Warren (MA) and Al Franken (MN) which would have allowed 25 million Americans to lower the interest rate on their older student debt.

References

I reverted an IP because their edit did not have an edit summary, otherwise I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other. I will note that the story was picked up on billmoyers.com.- MrX 15:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like a politically-motivated edit to me. What would that cost me, the taxpayer? What about these students carrying their own costs? What about giving preferential treatment to those who become community organizers, over those who become doctors? There is a lot to answer with such an edit-addition, and I don't think it needs to go in here. Of all the legislative actions, why pick and choose what goes in here? `` Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

President Pro Tempore of the US Senate

Recommend we wait until the Senate Republicans nominate him for president pro tempore, before mentioning his likely getting the job. Seeing as Republicans will have a majority in January 2015, their candidate will most likely be elected. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree.- MrX 23:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Today is September 22, 2019, and Chuck Grassley is President Pro Tempore of the Senate. However, a google learch of "president pro tempore 2019" says "President: The current President pro tempore of the Senate is Utah Republican Orrin Hatch. Elected on January 6, 2015, he is the 90th person to serve in this office. wikipedia.org" I'm not sure how to fix this this, so leave it to greater minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karin D. E. Everett (talk • contribs) 19:26, September 22, 2019 (UTC)

USA TODAY: Senator hatch wants to destroy peoples computer if they download shared material from the internet

Should this be added to the article page?

"Sharing music from the Internet once, or even twice, and you get a warning. Do it a third time, and your computer gets destroyed."

Hatch said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights."

Hatch received $7000 in donations for the music industry between 2004-2006.

"No one is interested in destroying anyone's computer," he said at one point.

To which Hatch replied, "I'm interested." He suggested a system under which people who illegally download copyright material would receive two warnings. On the third strike, their computer would be trashed, presumably by some virus that eats the hard drive.

Source:

---

• Senator takes aim (Hatch wants computer dead), __USA Today__, (June 18, 2003). http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2003-06-18-hatch-wants-computers-dead_x.htm
• Sen. Orrin Hatch Calls Pirate Bay Case a Win, Slams Canada Over Copyright Issues, __Game Politics__, (June 11, 2009).

Sen. Orrin Hatch Calls Pirate Bay Case a Win, Slams Canada Over Copyright Issues

• "Orrin Hatch wants to blow up your computer. Well, OK, he didn't say "blow up" exactly. The actual verb was "destroy." So I guess he'd be just as happy to see it melted into a steaming plastic heap or dropped from the top of a very tall building. The main point is that your computer ceases to exist." Leonard Pitts, Computer-destroying idea might have some merit, Chicago Tribune, (June 24, 2003).
  • MediaDefender, Inc. now (Peer Media Technologies) is a counterpiracy company that offered services designed to prevent alleged copyright infringement using peer-to-peer distribution. They used unusual tactics such as flooding peer-to-peer networks with decoy files that tie up users' computers and bandwidth.
• Holahan, Catherine (March 5, 2007). "Advertising to the File-Sharing Crowd" BusinessWeek. Retrieved on September 16, 2007. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120001282486582581.html__

Wikia6969 (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Orrin Hatch. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120104201145/http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-16/news/29666577_1_book-advance-lawmakers-student-loans to http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-16/news/29666577_1_book-advance-lawmakers-student-loans

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Historic committee assignments

As might be expected, in a nearly 4-decade life in the U.S. Senate, Hatch has served on many different committees. Shouldn't that be subject to at least a listing?

Missing that I know of are his assignments to the Select Committee on Small Business in his first term and later, and his work on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Is there a Wikipedia standard on this for U.S. Congress Members? Edarrell (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Orrin Hatch. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121011021812/http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=geolarson2&id=I052821 to http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=geolarson2&id=I052821

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

More Controversies

Hatch has certainly done more controversial things than are listed here.

1. Hatch worked with two brothers (Joe and Chris Cannon) almost as a so-called "king-maker" to facilitate legislation Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Act, 1999) and secure funding from that legislation for their purchasing of Geneva Steel in 1999. While nothing was done that could be ostensibly construed unethical, influence peddling is certainly germane.
2. Another example of influence peddling was Hatch's involvement with an R&B producer off on charges in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The CNN link, though no longer valid, provides date context:

* * * * * * * * * * * *

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/08/austin.arre...

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, a musician in his own right, helped secure the release of Atlanta R&B producer Dallas Austin from a United Arab Emirates jail after a drug conviction, the senator's office confirmed Saturday.
A Grammy winner who has produced hits for Madonna, Pink and TLC, Austin was arrested May 19 and convicted of drug possession for bringing 1.26 grams of cocaine into the UAE city of Dubai.
On Tuesday a court sentenced him to four years in jail and said Austin, 34, should be deported after serving the term. Hours later, Dubai ruler Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum pardoned and released Austin.
Beyond saying Hatch has "good relations with the ambassador and other good people in Dubai," his office gave The Associated Press no specifics about Hatch's dealings with the Dubai government.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

I would suggest this represents serious controversy, especially since it was not widely reported at the time, but rather was more of a "page 12" buried story. JeremyNLSO (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

His involvement with the (non-)regulation of dietary supplements is "controversial" in some quarters. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

“I have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars"

GOP Senator says it’s hard to fund $14 billion children’s health care program — then advocates for $1 trillion tax cut Fishlandia (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orrin Hatch. 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/20070323173346/http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Orrin_G._Hatch to http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Orrin_G._Hatch

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) 12:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Very biased bio on Orrin Hatch

Every chance to slime and smear Mr. Hatch was taken with this Wikipedia entry. This kind of crap will lead me to never rely on this piece of shit website because of obvious bias. Calling out Mr. Hatch's term-limits argument in 1976 in order to say he's a hypocrite now is rubbish. The heavy handed way you link his Paris Accord dissent to donations from oil companies is transparent and proves nothing. By the way, I have reviewed some of your liberal politicians and find no such treatment. Again, Wikipedia is NOW A CRAP SITE OF FAKE NEWS THAT SHOULD BE CLOSED DOWN if it can't be evenhanded. 71.11.156.244 (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)