Talk:David Valadao/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Poorest Member

Valadao, "poorest member" of Congress? How does that little tidbit add to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borninbronx10 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Renteria

According to the source provided, Amanda Renteria is raising money to run for this House seat. It doesn't say that she's Valadao's primary challenger. Regardless, her status is not relevant to this bio.CFredkin (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC) It is relevant to the article because it is slanted to depict VP Biden's visit as solely for the fund raising for Renteria. I personally viewed Biden standing with Valadao in parched Bakersfield farmland on the news the night of Biden's visit. [Peggy Miller] 09:59, 3 June 2015 (73.12.194.121 (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on David Valadao. 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) 13:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Valadao. 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, 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) 14:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Climate / drought views

That Valadao blames the Obama administration for droughts in California and rejects that climate change contributes to those droughts is WP:DUE. It's hard to dispute that these are important issues. And it was covered in a RS. In an edit removing the content, it's argued that this is not notable because Democrats in this region of California hold similar views, which I find a puzzling argument. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

There was an entire section titled “Environment” under “Political positions” and the only source in it was an article titled “Calif. Dems balk at Obama climate talk.” It’s an article (from 2014) all about how Democratic congressional candidates in three California swing districts reject President Obama’s argument that global warming caused historic California droughts. The only content about Valadao in the article is: “Valadao and other Republicans in the three tight races say climate change has nothing to do with the drought. They argue regulations promulgated by Obama’s administration are making the drought worse, and they’re using that argument to attack Democrats. In the Central Valley, Valadao hears every day about ‘people suffering due to environmental regulations,’ not climate change, said his spokesman Tal Eslick.’’ The content in our article was: “Valadao denies that climate change has anything to do with the drought that California began experiencing in 2011, blaming ‘environmental regulations’ instead.” There are so many issues here. First, it’s WP:UNDUE to have an entire subsection of this article based off of a passing mention in one source. Second, is this even a “Political position?” The article just says he disagreed with Obama’s arguments. Did he sponsor any legislation related to this, make any votes, make any official statements? It is also written in a weasel-like way. Saying “he denies that climate change has anything to do with the drought...” implies that climate change does have something to do with the drought. Is there anything about the scientific causes of the drought in the article? No, just the fact that Obama attributed the drought to climate change. Next, Valadao didn’t “blame ‘environmental regulations’ instead.” According to the article, he was among a group that argued that regulations are “making the drought worse.” Not causing the drought. The source doesn’t say what Valadao thinks caused the drought. Finally, why is “environmental regulations” in scare quotes? The term is never used in the source, and it isn’t a quote from Valadao. The content in our article read polemically, like whoever wrote it was trying to discredit Valadao for his views on climate change but couldn’t find any usable sources actually calling him a “climate change denier” or saying he “rejects the scientific consensus on climate change” so had to make a stretch by including this iffy content. Which, if it were really that notable, would be in the articles of the people the article is actually about—Amanda Renteria and Ami Bera. Marquardtika (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The Democrats mentioned in the article do not reject that climate change contributed to the drought – per the article, they just don't mention it. The Republicans mentioned in the article, including Valadao, explicitly reject that climate change contributed to the drought, arguing instead that the Obama administration caused the drought (to "worsen" a drought is to cause a drought, but I'm perfectly fine with using "worsened" the drought if that's the big concern). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@RedHotPear: see MOS:SCAREQUOTES. Nowhere in the source does the term "environmental regulations" appear, and it is not a quote of Valadao's. So, don't put it in quotation marks. That is one of the many issues I raised above that hasn't been addressed. Marquardtika (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Marquardtika: Actually, "environmental regulations" does appear in a quote from his spokesman, and I assure you that there was no intent to scare-quote. But I am content with a different framing as well. RedHotPear (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
If we use a direct quote, then it should be attributed to the speaker. This was part of a quote said by a spokesperson. I don't generally think quotes by politicians' spokespeople improve the encyclopedia. Marquardtika (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
A spokesperson speaks for the politician and is fine for inclusion in an article, but I do see how it may be better to attribute such a quote directly to the spokesperson rather than the politician. Either way, this current version after yours and Snooganssnoogans's most recent edits seems like a reasonable consensus to me. It is justifiable to mention the Obama administration, but it would be excessive to include a long quote about other Democrats' views in an article about Valadao. It is fine to draw out the most topic-relevant information from a source. RedHotPear (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I've added that it was President Obama who made the claim that global warming caused the drought. Without that context, it doesn't make sense. Marquardtika (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know.... the previous reference to the Obama administration was part of Valadao's perspective (his claim that Obama's regulations have worsened the drought), but this just presents Obama's view. To what Valadao attributes the droughts (or their effects) does not need Obama's opposing view to have relevance on its own. RedHotPear (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
If we include that Valadao says "climate change has nothing to do with the drought," wouldn't the reader wonder "did climate change have somethign to do with the drought? What did cause the drought?" It is useful to include the opposing viewpoint so we know what, exactly, is being disagreed upon. And that's it's a politician vs. a politician, not a politician vs. a scientist. Marquardtika (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the question you posed is perfectly valid for readers to have ("did climate change have something to do with the drought? What did cause the drought?"), and there was no implicit determination on the part of this article either way. While the "denies" version may have been a bit strong, the existing version (bolded below) before your edit just presents a position, and I have a hard time seeing how you are identifying bias in it. RedHotPear (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
According to The Hill, Valadao was among Republican candidates in three swing districts in California who said "climate change has nothing to do with the drought."
It's not as biased anymore since you removed this, but as you can see from the content you removed, the entirety of the content in the "Environment" section was originally added in a WP:POINTY way, as if to imply that stating a disbelief that climate change contributed to the drought was unscientific. Which is really kind of funny, because the source being used is all about how various Democrats did not tie climate change to the drought...nothing about that in their articles, uninteresting, move along...Marquardtika (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Right, I removed it per the poor sourcing. I maintain that your most recent edit was not quite necessary or relevant, but I will not insist on reverting it (though others may have stronger objections). I am looking forward to producing good content in the future collaboratively. RedHotPear (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

Ok, let's go through the sources one by one. The content is "He opposes same-sex marriage and voted to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act." First source is On The Issues. As far as I can see, there is nothing about gay marriage at that source. Also, On The Issues isn't generally considered to be a good source. Ok, second source is here. This is an article about how some conservatives signed an amicus brief supporting the constitutionality of gay marriage. It says "Congressmen Devin Nunes, David Valadao, Jeff Denham, and Kevin McCarthy did not sign the brief." It doesn't say whether Valadao supports or opposes gay marriage. Just that he didn't sign a particular amicus brief for a particular legal proceeding. Third source is here. I searched for Valadao's name in the article and it's not there. So I'm not sure what this source has to do with Valadao's opinion on gay marriage. The last source is a link to the text of a bill. Again, no mention of Valadao. So, again, what does it have to do with Valadao? We need sources that actually discuss Valadao. Marquardtika (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, the fact he didn't sing the brief with all the other pro same-sex marriage Republicans shows he doesn't support same-sex marriage. You can reword is as "does not support" instead of "opposes" if you want, but the content is the same. Regarding On The Issues, I don't know why you were unable to find it, but if you Ctf+F you'll see that it clearly states "Strongly Opposes topic 3:Comfortable with same-sex marriage". That's a link to a random discussion, in no way an official judgment of On the Issues, which is instead a valuable source and is owned by another reliable source, Snopes. [He voted that bill, you just needed to click the link to see the votes https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h6], the HuffPost articles describes the bill. But ok, I will include the vote page too. An important vote given by a Congressman is definitely relevant. Look, if you don't like the this Republican's stance on same-sex marriage, change his mind; don't change his record on Wikipedia.--Eccekevin (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
On The Issues infers that Valadao "Strongly opposes" the question "Comfortable with same-sex marriage" based on the stance of "Don't elevate gender identity as a protected class" which they link to this. That breakout page says "Don't elevate gender identity as a protected class" and says "Valadao voted YEA" and that the ACLU recommended a vote of "YEA." What does any of this have to do with gay marriage? Marquardtika (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I am with Marquardtika on this. Those are not reliable sources which establish Wikipedia entry worthy content. If there are articles discussing Valadao's position on gay marriage, then that is appropriate. But roll calls and website's like On the Issues which just catalog votes, are not what make an issue worthy of including in Wikipedia entries. Everything in that section requires stringing multiple sources and making inferences on someone's position, which is not what Wikipedia is for.Tchouppy (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
If votes are not relevant to a politician's page, I do not know what is. The vote on the constitutionality of DOMA and the brief on same-sex marriage are definitely relevant to this section.Eccekevin (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia standards require that a reliable source has reported on the issue. No reliable sources are reporting on this candidate's position on this issue, so it shouldn't be included in this article. That's just how things work here. Trust me, there are plenty of times I wish a reliable source would exist for me to include something in an article but it doesn't, so it gets excluded, especially if the content is challenged by another editor. The closest thing you have is a mention that the candidate did not sign a brief in support of something as evidence that the candidate is against the thing. That's an inference that you are not free to make here. Tchouppy (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Yep. We don't just catalogue votes taken. Politicians make hundreds if not thousands of votes in their legislative careers. State websites and Congress.gov document these votes. But Wikipedia doesn't catalogue votes. To show a particular vote is worth including, we need there to be reliable secondary coverage. So, for example, a newspaper writing about a politician's vote on a specific issue. Otherwise, why would we include some votes over others? We can't include all votes taken. You recently added a couple of particular votes, sourced to the voting roll call. Why those votes? Because you think they are more important than others? Well, that's your opinion. And that's not good enough here. That's why we need secondary coverage of votes to show which ones are worth including. Marquardtika (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Valadao/Archive_1&oldid=1024923721"