From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

+ On May 23, 2005, Warner was one of fourteen moderate Senators to push through a compromise on the Democrats' use of the judicial filibuster. Under the agreement, the Democrats still have the right to filibuster a Bush Supreme Court nominee in an "extraordinary case", and the three most conservative Bush appellate court nominees (Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen and William Pryor) would receive a vote by the full Senate.

Source this please-- Tznkai 22:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Supporter of capital punishment?

Is Warner supporter of capital punishment? I never heard he spoken in favor it. Yes, he vote for rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals, but also voted for require DNA testing for all federal executions. 83.24.248.162 20:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Not that this directly answers your questions, but Virginia tends to be a very death penalty-friendly state, usually ranking second in execution rates after Texas. Given that Virginia loves capital punishment and Virginia loves John Warner, I would surmise that John Warner loves capital punishment. Citation needed. -- BDD 21:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Not only does that not answer the question, it is also fallacious reasoning. VA Governor Kaine opposes the death penalty [1] yet he was elected with a comfortable majority [2], so it is possible to be loved by the death-penalty-loving people of Virginia and still be opposed to the death penalty. Malatinszky 18:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Veterans

He is one of the few World War II veterans left in the United States Senate

Yes. But irronicaly in current Senate serving more II WW vets than Vietnam Vets.

Vietnam Vets in Senate:

WW II Vets:

Warner's views

This article makes it seem like Senator Warner is more socially liberal than many Democrats. Is this really accurate? I think there needs to be some mention of issues he supports that are more in line with the mainstream of the Republican Party. 19:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Elected, not appointed

The article previously stated Warner was "appointed" in January 1979. That is incorrect. He was not appointed to office; he was elected to office. I have edited accordingly. 71.185.74.177 12:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Nonsensical sentence

This current sentence in the article does not make any sense at all: "On August 26, 2007 while on NBC's Meet the Press, Warner stated that he and President Bush has observed while driving by the crosses of Arlington Cemetery." I cannot fix it, because it doesn't make sense, and I cannot guess what was intended. :( Harvard yarrd —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:21, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

It now makes a (weak) sort of sense, with the commas in place. It would be altogether better IMO if this and the following sentence were removed. (I get the image of a hopping liberal: "Bush lied! Bush lied!") In any event, I have changed "falsehood" (good grief!) to "hyperbole" -- AVGbuff 09:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Incorrect Statement about 2nd-longest serving VA Senator

John Warner may or may not be the second-longest serving VA Senator, but he is not the second-longest serving VA Senator behind Senator Byrd, because Senator Byrd is not from Virginia. I don't know how to correct this. For example, some choices are:

- "John Warner is the second-longest serving U.S. senator, behind Senator Byrd of West Virginia" - "John Warner is the second-longest serving Virginia senator, behind [TBD]" - "John Warner is the longest serving U.S. senator in Virginia history"

I can't vouch for any of the above, I just know what is in the article is wrong.

198.151.13.15 15:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Colin McRae 198.151.13.15 15:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC) reply

List of Congress Members Who Haven't been divorced?

With all the pedophiles and prostituting Congressmembers in the news these days, it may seem inoccuous to ask, but how many Congress Members have not only not gone to prostitutes of either sex, but have also not even divorced? I remember the discussions of Gingrich serving divorce papers on his wife in the cancer ward in the hospital, but I don't recall anyone broadening the question to ask, who really has at least maintained the appearance of being monogamous? At least for trivia and curiosity sake, it would be interesting how many have, and how many have divorced once, twice, thrice, etc... It would be fun to see how this has changed over time. I strongly suspect all this divorce (and heterosexual and homosexual prostitution) was not formerly so popular in the Congress, but, that is only a suspicion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvard yarrd ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

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 :)

  • "gulftimes-09-17" :
    • {{cite news|title= Veterans’ defiance a nightmare for Bush|date=[[2006-09-17]]|url=http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.aspx?cu_no=2&item_no=108178&version=1&template_id=46&parent_id=26}} Gulf Times. The other WWII veterans in the Senate are [[Daniel Inouye]] (D-HI), [[Daniel Akaka]] (D-HI), [[Ted Stevens]] (R-AK) and [[Frank Lautenberg]] (D-NJ).
    • {{cite news|title= Veterans’ defiance a nightmare for Bush|date=[[2006-09-17]]|url=http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.aspx?cu_no=2&item_no=108178&version=1&template_id=46&parent_id=26}} Gulf Times

DumZiBoT ( talk) 03:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Mark Warner

Mark Warner is not the incumbent until January 6, so don't show John Warner as having left office. Saberwolf116 ( talk) 18:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Saberwolf116 he has left office via the constitution and theirfore must be made a previous senator and I will do that today and if you do edit my edit out I will put it up for an act of vandalism period Bluedogtn ( talk) 19:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The article shows identical vote totals for both Warner and his opponents in the 1984 and 1980 senate elections. thisis highly unlikely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.20.221.71 ( talk) 20:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

KBE

Someone added the initials "KBE" to the lede of the article. John Warner was knigted by the Queen in 2009, and though he is permitted to use KBE after his name (rather than Sir), to my knowledge, he does not use those post-nominal initials in common usage. This washington post article quotes the Senator as saying he "would never try to use it for any self-aggrandizement," and he's "no longer interested in titles, accolades or praise."

The Manual of Style for biographies states you should only use the initials if they are from a country with which the person "has been closely associated." That may be the case, given the reasoning for his knighthood. But unless Mr. Warner begins routinely calling himself "John Warner, KBE", WP:COMMONNAMES seems to indicate we should leave the initials out. The knighthood has been added to the infobox, which I think is appropriate recognition of this honor. Thoughts? DCmacnut <> 14:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

the BAD economy

John, I hope your health is excellant because Washington and this country,needs a mega-ton of help. The likes of you and Goldwater aren't around D. C. anymore. Congress made a huge mistake when they bailed out the flying bridge of this sinking ship. One fixes the hole in the hull first. Its as simple as taht. I know most lawyers can & have complicated things: they're so good at going around in circles, using smoke screens, wasting paper and our most precious commodity, TIME. Personally, I'm running out of it ; my money and credibility have already gone. I'm in one hell-of-a fix. I feel confident though, that George Allen will help this situation, if our country can hold out that long. What would your opinion be on that endorsement? Of course a real housecleaning would help,too. Back to the basics is my motto and to learn from past mistakes( I have a PHD from Hard Knocks College). Thank God I haven't lost my sense of humor. Oh and isn't that another issue I'd like to address! Taking GOD out of things did, indeed, make things much harder than was necessary. The world castrophies says to so much. He's speaking loud and clear. Our earthquake here in Mineral and the hurricane coming tomorrow are getting a little close to home & up there in Washington. We all should be in church or atleast on our knees, thanking him & pleading for his unending GRACE. Thank you for listening or atleast reading this personally. Sincerely, Carolyn Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolyndavis ( talk • contribs) 13:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Warner. 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.

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 08:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Warner. 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 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 06:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on John Warner. 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}}).

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) 09:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Succession Box as 6th Husband of Elizabeth Taylor

I have restored the Succession Box indicating that Senator Warner was the 6th Husband of Elizabeth Taylor. The other six husbands have this succession box, so Senator Warner should have it too. For some reason this succession box keeps on being deleted. On the pages of the other six husbands (many of them highly talented individuals, whose accomplishments put anything that Senator Warner has done in the shade [read up on Todd-AO if you doubt that statement]) the Elizabeth Taylor husband succession box is no problem - it is only this article where it keeps on being deleted. Let's keep the Elizabeth Taylor husband succession box, okay? Jmkleeberg ( talk) 20:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC) reply

How can people be seen to be succeeding others as husbands?! Many of them are many years later. Succession boxes are for officeholders or winners of awards, not for tracking random people whose only connection is that they married the same person. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 16:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC) reply

What Happened During the Mid-1970s?

The article does not appear to say much of anything about what Warner did between leaving the Ford Administration on April 8, 1974, and his 1978 senate run, while hinting that he did nothing until after "Ford's defeat". This period includes when he married Taylor, so he may have been just being a retired, wealthy playboy but, if so, it should say so. Czrisher ( talk) 17:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:John_Warner&oldid=1217208264"