Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:57, 25 July 2016

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 March 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Florida Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state): Long Island Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Long Island, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

About the removal of this article...

No, this article should not be removed since Tim Canova is a prominent newcomer in the Democratic party by now. It should, however, be rewritten as it reads a little bit like a propaganda piece.

--95.34.13.104 (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Canova's bio should be part of the discussion. However, the are statements of political position and perspective that are presented as facts, which they are not. This reads like a fundraising piece and is not worthy of Wiki. Kdfgpp (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Denial of access to voter info

A great many Misplaced Pages editors looked at this article because of its nomination for deletion. None expressed any reservations about the mention of endorsements and denial of access to the state party database of Democratic voters. In particular, the issue of denial of access was raised with respect to the national presidential campaign and after a great deal of publicity about it, that decision was soon reversed. The denials have brought the issue of party establishment partisanship favoring some candidates over others to high visibility, and it is therefore notable. Activist (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Debate resistance

I have deleted the language that inaccurately attributes the attribution of Wasserman Schultz's resistance to debates to Canova's campaign rather than solely to herself. The cite from the Broward-Palm Beach New Times was backed up by embedded video in the cited story and in the headline of the article itself. This is not a question of "He said, she ain't sayin'," but of established fact. There is readily available video of Wasserman Schultz on numerous occasions refusing to answer to simple, direct questions: Is she willing to debate Canova? In at least one such case, the same staffer who is seen in the New Times cite is seen pushing away a reporter's camera. Hoping not to clutter the article with numerous references to those videos, I have not used what is an appropriate but deleted characterization of her various responses, that she has "repeatedly" refused to respond directly to those direct questions posed by different reporters. Activist (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Greetings. I added the words "according to Canova's campaign website". This is not a "weaselly phrase" as you characterize it but quite the opposite: it reports facts. Until we have reliable, third-party sources explicitly reporting and corroborating Wasserman Schultz's "refusal to debate" we cannot be listing it as fact in a Misplaced Pages article. Misplaced Pages is not a political forum. Until such sources are found, we have to properly assign the source for the "not debating" claim. Labeling something as a "refusal" without the term being used by a third-party, reliable source is clearly a personal point of view. The only fact that we have is the Canova campaign claim. If we are to mention a "refusal" we are obliged to mention the source. Simple as that. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of the Broward Palm Beach New Times article. In the second paragraph, I read that Ms. Wasserman Schultz "has been roundly — and rightly — criticized for taking money from less-than-upstanding corporate industries like payday lenders." That's not the tone newspapers typically take. However, it might be reliable anyway; I'm not sure, so I left it alone.

Also, I don't think you'd be able to use the videos you mentioned to support the proposition that Ms. Wasserman Schultz is unwilling to debate Mr. Canova: putting aside reliability problems, it would be impermissible synthesis as you would be combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Rebbing 20:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The Broward-Palm Beach New Times is most definitely a "...reliable, third-party source." It is a well established weekly paper in south Florida, part of the Voice Media Group. It was originally part of the Miami New Times, founded in 1987, but split off in 1997. Both papers share the same editor and have won many prizes as have other publications in the small group. I'm more familiar with other papers in the group such as the L.A. Weekly, Phoenix New Times and Denver Westword all of which I've been reading for over a dozen years. As I'd noted previously, I did not get the information about her refusals to answer the debate question from the Canova campaign, but instead rather from the cited Broward-Palm Beach New Times article which is entitled a rather unequivocal Debbie Wasserman Schultz ducking questions about debating Tim Canova. I had also noted that a video clip of her statement to which the story referred is embedded in that newspaper story. Coincidentally, I was watching Hardball with Chris Matthews and his guests on MSNBC last night. During their discussion Canova was mentioned by name, as was the possibility that she might be removed before the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. This they said, was because of increasingly widespread upset with her DNC chair performance, and that this was likely to be a factor in their primary. Activist (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The article's title and meaning are clear—as is its partisanship with regard to Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If reliable, I believe this falls under WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like '(Author) says...' A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers." Rebbing 14:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Very Biased

This article reads like a pro-Canova piece of campaign literature. Needs a lot of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.18.14.65 (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and I concur in your changes, especially your removal of irrelevant material. Rebbing 21:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed the deletion about the importance of the two labor endorsements Canova has received. They are significant, as the citation for the source notes in its headline, because they were made despite considerable political establishment pressure, and also because they have large memberships. The CWA, with over 600,000 members, is about the 12th largest in the U.S. The NNU is fairly new, is growing rapidly, and has a membership of a little under 200,000. There are "national unions" with only hundreds of members, so the substitution is less informative than the original language. Activist (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed the union language back to my original edit. (sorry I forgot to sign it) I think calling them two of the nation's "largest unions" is very misleading language.Hashbron (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Florida articles
• Low-importance Florida articles
• WikiProject Florida articles
• C-Class New York (state) articles
• Low-importance New York (state) articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of people of Florida