Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
CFredkin (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
8,176 edits
→‎Vouchers for veterans: Maddow out, sticking with Rubio himself.
Line 68: Line 68:


: This source looks reasonable.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 19:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
: This source looks reasonable.[[User:CFredkin|CFredkin]] ([[User talk:CFredkin|talk]]) 19:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

:: On deeper inspection I don't think Maddow connected her research firmly enough to Rubio himself, so I'm sticking with his comments for now. [[User:Hcobb|Hcobb]] ([[User talk:Hcobb|talk]]) 15:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:55, 19 April 2015


Polls

An editor objects to some of the poll content, so I'm opening this section to discuss it.- MrX 14:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There will be literally hundreds of polls in the next 18 months - and the question is what weight we give to the earliest "crystal ball polls" at this point where keeping up with all of them would result in 80% of this BLP being polls. I suggest that the current polls are not of significant biographical value, nor of any sufficient long-term encyclopedic value for Wikipedia, and that including them all becomes an exercise in making Wikipedia into a newspaper and not an encyclopedia whose articles will be read a century from now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think including a current set of poll results is fine. We can add more later and then remove the ones that no longer matter. People looking for information on Rubio might well want to know about this issue, and the value of Wikipedia in this respect is that we can include it now without having it become a permanent element -- i.e., again, we can update and replace as necessary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, we should only include a few of the more notable polls. This type of information is encyclopedic, at least leading up to the 2016 election. I would agree that in 100 years these polls would be trivia, but I don't view Wikipedia content as static, so the poll summaries serve our readers now. - MrX 15:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In short - use Wikipedia as a newspaper and not as an encyclopedia. I demur - I feel we should produce actual encyclopedia articles and not be People Magazine or the like. Clearly your mileage varies but I feel if we know the polls are crystal ball gazing exercises, and we include them, we should also include Sydney Omarr's forecasts about the future. Collect (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe survey results are typically included in BLP's for politicians. Otherwise who decides which polls should be included? There will be literally thousands of polls conducted prior to the 2016 elections. Also I'm not sure why polling in NH should be emphasized. I believe survey results would be more appropriate in an article on the 2016 presidential nomination process.CFredkin (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there still objections to removing the poll results? If so, I've got some additional poll results I'm planning to add.CFredkin (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of further objections, I'm going to go ahead and remove the survey info.CFredkin (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive215#Marco_Rubio_et_al seems to not support adding polls before anyone has announced a candidacy. Collect (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:BLP/N is not a venue for sorting basic content disagreements and, given the low participation in the discussion, certainly cannot be used to create new content guidelines. The village pump is thataway→.- MrX 19:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this is far from the first time on Wikipedia this has arisen, and the general opinion is we can wait until the person is officially a candidate before adding masses of polls. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what your logic is, exactly. How does citing poll results make Wikipedia "a newspaper"? By your logic, we should remove all the pages dealing with Polling for the entire 2016 election. That makes absolutely zero sense. 169.231.57.3 (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


As a minimum bar for inclusion, I suggest that only polls which are mentioned in secondary sources be included in BLPs. This standard is often applied to other content (e.g. votes by politicians).CFredkin (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. That's a very reasonable criteria.- MrX 19:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From late 2012 to mid-2013, Rubio came in first in eight consecutive national polls among potential 2016 candidates, from such sources as Public Policy Polling, Harper Polling, Quinnipiac University, and Farleigh Dickinson University.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] A poll from the WMUR/University, tracking New Hampshire Republican primary voters' sentiment, showed Rubio at the top alongside Kentucky senator Rand Paul later in 2013, but as of April 18, 2014 he had dropped to 10th place behind other Republican contenders. The poll, however, also suggests that Rubio is not disliked by the primary voters, which could be positive for him if other candidates choose not to run.[9][10] In statewide polls, he has performed most prominently in his home state of Florida, alongside Jeb Bush,[11][12][13][14][15] and has also performed fairly well in Suffolk University polls in such states as Colorado, Michigan, and Minnesota.[16][17][18]

Refs

References

  1. ^ http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_1206.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.harperpolling.com/polls/national-poll-of-republicans
  3. ^ http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_011013.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_207.pdf
  5. ^ http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_4313.pdf
  6. ^ http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1876
  7. ^ http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/hillary/
  8. ^ http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_515Final.pdf
  9. ^ "Marco Rubio's long, hard fall in New Hampshire". The Wahshignton Exmaminer. Retrieved 20 April 2014.
  10. ^ "THE WMUR GRANITE STATE POLL THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE" (PDF). WMUR/University.
  11. ^ http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_FL_9512.pdf
  12. ^ http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_FL_011713.pdf
  13. ^ http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_FL_032113.pdf
  14. ^ http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_FL_611.pdf
  15. ^ http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=2063
  16. ^ http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/9_17_2014_marginals.pdf
  17. ^ http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/marginals_9_11_2014.pdf
  18. ^ http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/4_29_2014_marginals.pdf

Endorsements

are there Endorsements already?83.80.208.22 (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vouchers for veterans

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-candidates-eye-vouchers-veterans

Rubio is offering a major change in current policy. Why is this being censored out? Hcobb (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This source looks reasonable.CFredkin (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On deeper inspection I don't think Maddow connected her research firmly enough to Rubio himself, so I'm sticking with his comments for now. Hcobb (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F657197487

Leave a Reply