Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Investing in the poor: What's your suggestion?
Line 165: Line 165:


::: So what is the alternate phrasing of Rubio's policies that I'm not seeing here? [[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk:Hcobb|talk]]) 14:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
::: So what is the alternate phrasing of Rubio's policies that I'm not seeing here? [[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk:Hcobb|talk]]) 14:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
::::As I said, not much can be extracted from that article since it's pretty vague and contains very little information. At the risk of sounding repetitive: if you want to say something about Rubio's "antipoverty proposal", you need to come up with a better source, preferably one about the issue in particular. Regards. [[User:Gaba_p|<font color="blue">Gaba</font> ]] <sup><font color="green">[[User talk:Gaba_p|(talk)]]</font></sup> 15:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:55, 19 July 2014

Template:BLP noticeboard



Changing "labelled" for "claim" against the sources

Editors Collect and Mosfetfaser have replaced the word "labeled" with "called" in the sentence:

Collect claimed that ""labelled" implies fact in Wikipedia's voice" while Mosfetfaser only claimed "disputed" which is hardly (not to say not) a reason for reverting an edit.
I explained that the word "label" is no more authoritative than the word "call" and furthermore, the word "label" is backed up by numerous sources:

  1. prompting Democrats to label him as a climate-science denier; National Journal
  2. label him a climate-change denier, the Florida senator brushed off a backlash labeling him as a climate-change denier; Politico
  3. OFA can use to support its labeling of Rubio as a "climate change denier."; PolitiFact
  4. Rubio said on Sunday, placing himself firmly in the "climate change denier" camp (...) Rubio is uncomfortable with that label; The Wire
  5. critics labeling him as a climate-change denier; LifeNews (a pro-life site also using the word; hardly a left-partisan source)

I'd like to ask any of these editors to please revert their edit based on these reliable sources or present their own sources for the use of the word "call". Regards. Gaba (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources you give do not support using a BLP for Climate Change Denier labelling of anyone at all. I suggest you note the ArbCom decision at this point. Collect (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh? Collect: please be clearer on what you are saying and please link the proper policy/ArbCom ruling you claim prevents us from using the word "label" but not the word "call" when all the WP:RS use the former. Regards. Gaba (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem ArbCom saw was that some editors were improperly abusing biographies of living persons by labelling them as "climate change deniers" etc. Cheers -- sorry you did not read that case, I think you would find the evidence and findings interesting. Collect (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We need to distinguish between Wikipedia labeling Rubio a "climate change denier", and Wikipedia noting that others have labeled Rubio a "climate change denier". The former is inappropriate; the latter is potentially appropriate, assuming suitable sources and attribution are provided. I find that much of the discussion here conflates these two scenarios in an unhelpful way. MastCell Talk 23:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collect let's try this one more time: please link the proper policy/ArbCom ruling you claim prevents us from using the word "label" but not the word "call" when all the WP:RS use the former.

MastCell as you can see in the article, the label "climate change denier" is clearly stated as assigned by others, not in WP's voice. Also please check the sources in place and do tell me if you believe either of them is not appropriate.
There is no reason to use the word claim when the sources use label. Unless either Collect or mosfetfaser present a policy/Arbcom ruling preventing this, I'll be restoring the proper word. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify for any other outside editors who are interested in this discussion: if I understand correctly, the proposed and disputed alternative to the word "labeled" is the word "called"—i.e. not, as Gaba says immediately above, the word "claimed". Is this understanding correct? Writegeist (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Writegeist yes, you are right. I believe I corrected the typo just before you made your comment. Regards and sorry for the confusion. Gaba (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • - a few opinionated sources labeling someone as something does not mean wiki has to report exactly that - wiki has more of a duty of care than biased opinionated sources - there are no republican sources or uninvolved peeps labeling him as whatever are there - no - it is only attacking opinionated biased sources - and that should either be explained or ignored - labeling is not a good position to report at all - try adding to the story that opinionated sources have attacked him or add his comments so as to correctly detail his position rather than just trying to demean him and degrade him using attacking opinionated comments without stating that is what they are - please consider also the words of the closer of the related war report - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=612641810 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A You are both arguing a completely different issue. This thread is about your change of "labeled" with "called". I note not you and Collect have failed to give any reasoning backing this change.
  • B You are incorrect. These aren't a "few opinionated sources", these are WP:RS and are in fact numerous. The coverage is significant enough that Rubio himself felt he had to go out on record and deny being a denier.
Seeing as neither editor gave a reason as to why we should go against the reliable sources presented which use the word "label", I'm going to re-instate the original edit. If you want to discuss the mention of Rubio being labeled a climate change denier, open a new section about that. Regards. Gaba (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with the use of the term "label" in this instance. I believe it connotes some sort of official designation which is not appropriate here.CFredkin (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter one bit whether we disagree since it's what the reliable sources say. We do not modify the information to accommodate our own perceived notion of what should be said. We are WP editors, not journalists. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We also don't get to cherry-pick subjective terms from non-neutral sources.CFredkin (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CFredkin only one source mentions 'Democrats' which makes your first edit incorrect at best, and you changed the word used by our sources with a summary of ce after I explained clearly why this is not acceptable. Now you've reverted again claiming talk discussion when you've provided nothing to explain your position on why we should not follow what the WP:RS say. Your last edit borders on WP:VANDALISM and I strongly advise you to stop. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CFredkin one more revert against sources. You've been warned in your TP. Please revert your last edit. Regards. Gaba (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly explained my objection to the use of the term "label" above. Your insistence that we must use the term "label" because it appears in a source, while also arguing that we can't attribute "climate change denier" to Democrats when it also appears in a source is hypocritical. The consensus in this discussion does not support your position. Please stop edit-warring. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As nothing "official" attaches to the word "label" in this usage (categorization), CFedkin's disagreement [1] appears to be based on a belief that's based on a premise that's false. Can we have it authenticated please? Also I don't understand CFedkin's implied assertion that "labeled" is more subjective than "called".[2] It would help to have clarity on that also. Writegeist (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm not implying that "label" is more or less subjective than "called". I'm just saying that "label" is subjective. Therefore the insistence that we must include it in this WP:BLP because it appears in a source is not valid.CFredkin (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? "Label" is subjective? What does that even mean? The sources are clear in using the term, even a pro-life source uses it which means partisan sources can't be claimed. You are not making any sense. Gaba (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CFredkin It does not appear in "one source" it appears in all of the sources I've presented above. They are all WP:RS and other than you not liking the term, there is absolutely no reason not to use the word that the reliable sources use. "Democrats" on the other hand does appear in only one source which makes your edit incorrect at best and purposely misleading at worst. You are free though to re-write that part to conform to sources about who used the label.
WP is not a democracy and votes with no reasons given to back them up don't trump over policies. The page history shows 3 edits of yours removing the word after I added it back this morning which makes you the one edit-warring (of course, you know this already). I'm asking you once again (after you've removed the warning from your talk page) to re-instate the word used by the sources. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page history also shows you restoring the term 4 times since June 12. Regardless, the National Journal attributes the "denier" claim to Democrats, Politico attributes it to "liberal critics", Politifact attributes it to OAS (a liberal/Democratic support group). I don't care which of those terms is used, but if you're going to insist that the term "label" appear with respect to the denier claim, then we're going to have to attribute the phrase to either Democrats and/or liberal critics. That's a reasonable expectation in my opinion.CFredkin (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above: You are free though to re-write that part to conform to sources about who used the label.. I never objected to this. If you do not care which term is used, why did you remove the sourced term 3 times? Go to the article, attribute it respecting the sources and put back the word backed by the WP:RS. Thank you. Gaba (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I mis-spoke in my previous post. I do prefer the term "called", but can live with "labelled" if it's attributed appropriately.CFredkin (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should bear in mind that the reason the sources use the term "label(led)" is because "climate change denier" has become a category in public discourse. That is to say, it is not necessarily the case that a partisan source is calling somebody else a derogatory name, though there will obviously be many people that have a negative association with "climate change deniers" due to their respective position on climate change. Considering that Rubio is politician, then obviously such public discourse in the media is something that Wikipedia should cover.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 22:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using credit card "material"

An editor, Veto118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has recently added a lot of material, some source, some not, to a bunch of bios of mostly politicians. Quite a bit of it was reverted by other editors as not being sourced or not really that notable. I removed the following: Rubio has come under fire for misusing the Florida State Republican Party's credit card for his personal expenses, which he eventually repaid.Wides-Munoz, Laura; Farrington, Brendan (5/19/2012). "Marco Rubio's Past Includes Political Vulnerabilities". Huffington Post. Retrieved 14 July 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help).

as not being really that noteworthy. Another editor readded it and I removed it again. I will defer to others, thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Story covered in HuffPost (Politics) (one more [3]), The Washington Post, PolitiFact, FoxNews (several times [4], [5]), NBC News, abc News, CBS News, Politico. "Not really that noteworthy"? Regards. Gaba (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gist is he used a party credit card and sought to avoid using it for "personal expenses" but paid those parts himself even though they were on a credit card. There was $15,000 which some felt he ought to have paid and which he thought were proper expenses for that card - which he paid upon it becoming an issue. The poor parts of the edit are "has also come under fire", and "eventually repaid" as there is no source which states that he intentionally violated any process, and "eventually" implies an excessive length of time. The reliable sources would support
Marco Rubio used a party credit card, and repaid questioned expenses of about $15,000 to the party. Personal expenses were paid by Rubio to the American Express account and had not been paid by the party.
Which is significantly different from the edit made. One might note that Rubio was not charged by any state or federal agency in the matter. Where no charges are filed, it is likely the authorities saw no crime. Collect (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, PolitiFact found that "not everything adds up" with regards to Rubio's claims, which they labeled "Mostly False". In particular, they noted that "the fact that there were purchases that appear to be personal, and were paid for by the Republican Party, undercuts his claim." ([6]). Your proposed text does not reflect the content of this reliable source, and in fact actively contradicts it. MastCell Talk 19:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually has it occurred to you that if a crime was committed that at least one of the investigations would have resulted in a charge of some sort? No? Years have passed. No charges. And Politifact did not, and does not, have the information found in the investigations. The amount of the purchases, which Politifact only says existed but makes no claim as to amount, is entirely consistent with Rubio paying $15,000 to cover any questioned purchases, and he never denied the much larger amounts which he had paid in a timely manner in the first place. This is the gist of what the articles actually state, and it damn well is what we are limited to.
And when you say Politifact said Mostly False you are errant -- the link you gave says Barely True and I suggest there is a slight difference between the words they used and the words you attributed to them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong (as Gaba points out below, PolitiFact changed its terminology from "barely true" to "mostly false", and my link makes this clear). But, as Gaba also points out below, it's irrelevant and a distraction from the content under discussion. MastCell Talk 17:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The edit by Veto118 is much closer to what is established by the sources given than Collect's version. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I count (correct me if I'm wrong) three editors including me who believe the original edit is better than the one proposed by Collect. Collect: neither you and certainly not WP are Rubio's lawyers. We do not argue on whether what he did was illegal or not, we report what the sources say. "And Politifact did not, and does not, have the information found in the investigations." and you know this how? "This is the gist of what the articles actually state, and it damn well is what we are limited to", that's your opinion which is not shared by the majority of editors here.

BTW MastCell is right, PolitiFact says verbatim Mostly False: "Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False." To recap, this is the edit that was removed:

  • Rubio has come under fire for misusing the Florida State Republican Party's credit card for his personal expenses, which he eventually repaid.

This is what I propose:

  • On 2010 Rubio was questioned after charges made to his GOP American Express card during his two years as House speaker for nearly $110,000 were leaked.[7][8] The records listed several personal items including grocery bills, wine and plane tickets for his wife. Rubio justified the charges as legitimate Republican Party expenses and said he personally paid American Express $16,052.50 for nonparty expenses.[9]

I believe this provides a lot more information on the issue while still keeping it short and it's heavily sourced. Let me know what you guys think. If no objections are raised, I'll put it up in the article. Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link MastCell gave says Barely True. One must not inaccurately represent the positions that Politifact had - if you give one, I suppose you must give both. Else we ill-serve readers utterly. Note the change was not with regard to Rubio [10] in case you somehow thought they made this change on this particular article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the link MastCell provided says precisely what I stated above: that the rating was changed to Mostly False after they changed their rating system (why that site changed the rating system is irrelevant). The article MastCell pointed to also clearly shows the Mostly False image right below the sub-title "Rubio says GOP credit card paid with "my money"". Rubio's claims are rated Mostly False in the article and that's that. Given that all of this has absolutely no relevance to this article whatsoever, why would you chose to waste editor's time with this is beyond me. Do you have any issues with the statement I proposed above? If so please speak up, otherwise I'll be adding it into the article. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources refer to $16,000 being at issue -- the use of "$110,000" and any implication that any wrongdoing occurred is not acceptable. No source suggests that "wine and groceries" were any significant part of the $16,000 at all. I have previsously stated what the sources actually support -- and this would be true if he were a member of any party in any nation n earth as far as I care. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, the AP article cites "nearly $110,000 in charges over 25 months" and notes that the expenses included "grocery bills and wine bought from a store near his Miami home". The CBS News source confirms that Rubio charged "more than $100,000... for expenses including grocery bills and plane tickets for his wife". You are wrong to say that the $110,000 figure is unsourced. You are wrong to say that "wine and groceries" is unsourced. It is problematic that you continue to argue over content without any apparent concept of what the sources actually state. I'm formally requesting that you stop misrepresenting these sources and participate more diligently and seriously. In particular, please read the cited sources before claiming that material is unsourced. MastCell Talk 18:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Collect: are you actually reading the sources? The HuffPost mentions the $110,000 amount and nearly all of the sources presented mention "over $100,00". That's the amount that was leaked and from that Rubio returned approx $16,000. "any implication that any wrongdoing occurred is not acceptable", what? So now you are demanding what should be in the article based on what you believe rather than what the sources report? Two sources comment on wine, grocery bills and plain tickets which makes this "No source suggests that "wine and groceries" were any significant part of the $16,000 at all", utterly irrelevant. What you presented earlier was rejected by the three editors participating in this discussion. That is: everyone involved but you. I'll await what the rest of the editors have to say about my proposal MastCell, Nomoskedasticity. Malerooster I know you stated you prefered to stay away but your input is of course welcomed too. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Thanks MastCell for the input. What do you think of the edit I proposed?. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have specific ideas that what is written in English is what the writer means. The Politifact judgment hinges entirely on whether the party was legally responsible for paying for an AmEx card which was contracted for by the party, and thus opined that therefore Rubio was incorrect in saying the amount of total personal expenses was "his money." I would note that absolutely nothing came of the bandied multiple investigations, and that therefore it is quite likely that the investigators found no criminal wrongdoing at all. The faux gravitas attached to the affair is far in excess of what others think of the affair -- basically that there were questioned categories of expenses amounting to about $16,000 and that no one has claimed that the party paid $100,000 of Rubio's personal expenses. I commend you to read the Politifact article closely to see exactly that point about who was responsible for paying AmEx. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First: do not insert your comments inside mine. Second: I'm tired of indulging you in this "Rubio's lawyer" game of yours and whatever it is you think you are doing by trying to misrepresent one article out of the 11 presented. Your constant WP:IDHT has become disruptive. I'll wait to see if other editors agree with the text I proposed above and if so I'll add it to the article. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, please accept that I did not intentionally disrupt your comments in any way and I find your accusations to be less than collegial. I trust you heard that. And your claim that I misrepresented the following:
Using the card for personal expenses was not explicitly prohibited, but personal expenses "were expected to be paid through a reimbursement, or in some cases directly to American Express," Betta said. There was no written policy on the use of the cards, Betta said.
Rubio, who had the card while he was a member of the state House leadership, used the GOP American Express to pay for both personal and party-related matters. A majority of the party-business charges are related to travel -- airfare, hotel, rental cars.
Under that rule, Rubio would not have been liable for any charges -- personal or business. So when Rubio says he paid back about $16,000 in personal charges, it's unclear if he had to, or if he would be penalized if he did not.
His money may have never been at stake.
And it is that last statement on which the Politifact article rests -- that because Rubio was not directly liable to Ame=Ex that he was wrong to say it was "his money" involved.
And although the card was under his name, American Express says that in general -- as long as a cardholder isn't violating the rules set out by the company -- it is the company (in this case the party) that is liable for the charges. And the cardholder (in this case Rubio) won't have his credit rating affected if the bill is not paid on time.
So there's little evidence that it was "his money," but more that it was really the party's. We rate his claim Barely True.
Again making clear the basis for the Politifact judgment was whether the Republican Party was the one responsible ultimately for payments to AmEx. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaba p: I think your proposed text is a reasonable reflection of the available sources. MastCell Talk 22:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I think it would be appropriate to proceed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{outdent} @Gaba, Hi, I was probably more reacting to reverting an editor whom seemed to have been editing articles with some sort of agenda and in fact there is a discussion about him at ANI(headed there next). Thanks for the links. I usually don't like editing political bios since they can get contentious over party lines but did jump in here. Again, I will probably defer to others in this case and I have seen both user Collect and Mastcell do a lot of editing of political bios, but they seem to "cancel" each other out :) Cheers and good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malerooster No worries. Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Investing in the poor

In what sense is this:

Rubio has called for investments to provide the poor with the skills they need to no longer be dependent on government aid. He has said that while this would not save money in the short run it would pay off in reduced poverty later.

Not an allowed neutral rephrasing of

"When I spoke with him, Rubio also stood by his own antipoverty proposal, acknowledging it would not save any money but suggesting it might in the long run since it would lift many out of poverty."

Hcobb (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In every sense? You've made a complete original interpretation of what the article says. "has called for investments", where does it say that? "provide the poor with the skills they need", where does it say that? "no longer be dependent on government aid", where does it say that? "not save money in the short run", where does it say "in the short run" or anything similar? If you want to mention this "antipoverty proposal" of Rubio, I suggest you track down an article about it since not much can be extracted from this one. Regards. Gaba (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plan wouldn’t save a dime in the short run — in fact, it would most likely increase costs
  • What sets Rubio’s thinking apart is his enthusiasm for a different approach to educating and training the young.

I.e. investments in skills, by spending money in the short run.

  • it might in the long run since it would lift many out of poverty

I.e. long term savings. Hcobb (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are fundamentally breaching WP:OR and WP:SYN by combining different statements to derive your own interpretation. That is not acceptable. The source does not support the statement you propose. I repeat: if you wish to say something about Rubio's "antipoverty proposal", you need to come up with a better source, preferably one about the issue in particular. Regards. Gaba (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree somewhat. You can perfectly add that content, but only if is fully attributed. Just rephrase accordingly, and keep the content. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the alternate phrasing of Rubio's policies that I'm not seeing here? Hcobb (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, not much can be extracted from that article since it's pretty vague and contains very little information. At the risk of sounding repetitive: if you want to say something about Rubio's "antipoverty proposal", you need to come up with a better source, preferably one about the issue in particular. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F617592527

Leave a Reply