Talk:Debbie Wasserman Schultz/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

"Wasserman Miscellany

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan called Wasserman Schultz's remarks about President Bush "uninformed accusations."

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:3Vkt7HZLOa4J:www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php%3Fid%3D1920+Wasserman+Schultz+&hl=en&client=firefox-a Photo of wasserman (pre-blonde) http://www.cnn.com/chat/transcripts/2000/11/29/fasanoschultz/schultz.wasserman.debbie.jpg

Big Daddy 06:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Bringing Balance

Since this article almost reads like campaign literature, to add balance I'm inclined to include what Randall Terry feels about Wasserman Schultz's involvement in the Schivo case. It is the concerted opinion of MANY that Wasserman Schultz was a villain in this case, yet that view has been ERASED from this article. Big Daddy 04:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

For example, The Concerned Women of America, a woman's group that dwarfs NOW in size says that Wasserman is known for her "hostility to a culture of life."


http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:zDgIIp-Y7dkJ:www.cwfa.org/articles/7711/CWA/life/+Wasserman+Schultz+schiavo&hl=en&client=firefox-a

"The proposed sentance is not NPOV ("dwarfs"). The comparison in size to an uninvolved third party is also irrelevent. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


1) Quit stalking me. 2) That wasn't the proposed sentence, so you are in violation of AGF.I merely mentioned their size to support usage of a quote from them as a legitimate source for this article. 3) The proposal was to bring balance to this article by providing quotations from some who don't think she's a 'rising star.' You know, kinda like they do at EVERY conservative site which interjects slams to praise at a ratio of 9:1? How come, for this liberal democrat, that ratio is reversed? Hmmm...no POV here. NO sir. 4) Calling NOW an irrelevant 3rd party is factually inaccurate, if you did your research, you'd know that Wasserman is a LONG TIME MEMBER of NOW. 5) Repeat step one.

Big Daddy 14:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree...

...that the article is too boosterish. But what exactly do you want added? Please don't dump so much text into the talk page. Be clear about what you're wanting added, and we can talk about it. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Katefan, since you took credit for writing this article on your userpage, shouldn't you have already been all over this? Since you say you agree with me here, I'm gonna defer and allow YOU to be the first to offer suggestions as to how it can be more balanced.Big Daddy 13:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the initial article. It's since been expanded significantly by someone who obviously thinks she's a good representative. All the information is properly sourced, so I'm not suggesting it be removed, though it is a bit boosterish. If I knew of criticisms of this woman I'd be glad to add them, but I don't personally. If you do, by all means let's hear what you're proposing. That's how Wikipedia works. If you'll articulate what she's been criticized for that you think is article-worthy, I'll be glad to help you include it in an NPOV fashion. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind it having some 'boosterish' qualities but, to be a solid encyclopedia article, it ought to provide a little context. Now, to be fair, the article does say she is very liberal. We might want to include the fact that she's a long time member of NOW and that she is opposed by conservative women's groups and vehemently opposed by conservatives in general for what some would say was her 'strident posturing' in the Terry Schiavo case.
Give me a little more time on this. I've included a whole bunch of her more controversial quotes above. Perhaps the way to start is to have a section called 'controversial statements' and just list a half dozen or so. If nothing else, I think it will give people a chance to more clearly locate her politically. How does that grab you? Big Daddy 07:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, if there are statements for which she has been criticized that are significant enough to be included, then we can have a "Criticisms" section. But we can't just cherry-pick statements WE think are controversial and regurgitate them, because that would be asserting our opinions on the matter. If there is a published source that has been critical of some of her words or actions, that we can summarize in the article. But we can't just take a quote of hers, deem it controversial and start a laundry list. See what I mean? · Katefan0(scribble) 16:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's pretty fair. The LAST thing I want to do here is treat Debbie in the unconscionable way Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Karl Rove etc have been treated. I don't know if the political right is as heavily invested in the cottage industry of personal destruction right now as is the left. Although, there is MRC to counter Media Matters and Drudge to counter Huffington. Perhaps the right got burned out after Bill Clinton! lol! But, given her somewhat in-your-face approach during the Schiavo matter, I think she's probably garnered her fair share of political enemies. OTOH, she probably also picked up a lot of rave reviews as a gutsy advocate. In my view, both sides should be acknowledged proportionately. (But NOT sourced from Democratic underground or Free Republic. lol!)Big Daddy 07:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to answer this, I hadn't seen that you had replied -- you're probably right though I don't know of any criticisms personally... I'm on deadline now but will look in a bit. It may be a little difficult because at the end of the day she's still a freshman lawmaker and doesn't really attract that much attention, even though it appears that she's being groomed for the Dem leadership. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Daily Show Reference.

Does anyone have evidence to supoort the reference about the Daily Show skit involving the subject of this wiki? Folajimi(talk)

i saw it lol

Debbie on russian lang.! --212.48.201.204 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Recusal controversy

Should we mention the controversy over her stated refusal to campaign for Raul Martinez, Joe Garcia and Annette Taddeo, even though she's a co-chair of the DCCC? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely. That's the reason I came to this page. I've been reading about it everywhere. You have my vote for inclusion. I think it should be added in the Campaign 2008 section, considering she's the co-chair of the DCCC campaign committee to "turn red districts blue" and she's supporting "red" candidates. Seemes appropriate to me given the coverage. Agrippina Minor (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a good article on it. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-forum19wassermansbmar19,0,3730308.story


"Wasserman Schultz's Controversial statements

Wasserman Schultz seems to be very, very liberal. Some of her comments ought to be included to give people an understanding of what she's all about.

For example: "WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: What Congress is doing right now is taking this country so far to the right that we are going to go completely over the edge." http://64.233.167.104/search? I added a quote to the article from Politico.com and also provided a link under references . The quote was from her 9/13/2008 apparence on cbs Face the Nation wherein she deemed Sarah Palin's statements to date to be and obvious Clift Note performance. Ms Wasserman Schultz said that she, hersrlf had cribbed from Clift notes for High School book reports and could recognize devious epistemology --Mcumpston (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC) q=cache:aL6PMxIJ5IIJ:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7517565/+Wasserman+Schultz+schiavo&hl=en&client=firefox-a

""It is particularly hypocritical when you have people who say they advocate on behalf of the defense of marriage, to now insert themselves in between a husband and his wife."

This quote may not seem that 'controversial', but it affirms the template of her as a strident Barney Frank type Democrat (in fact her and Frank were like peas in a pod during the Schiavo debate.) Calling republican's 'hypocrites' is boilerplate stuff, but negatively conflating opposition to gay marriage with sympathy for a disabled woman in the shiavo case is kinda nutty.Big Daddy 05:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"My opponent proudly supports the fundamentalist conservative agenda of the right wing of the Republican Party, "http://asp.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/CandidateProfile.aspx?ci=1934&oi=H

2000 Presidential Elections "What is really disconcerting is that the Republicans don’t seem to care that there are thousands of voters' votes that have not been counted, and if they are not counted, it will be their fault." http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:b1HXaG6YodMJ:www.cnn.com/chat/transcripts/2000/11/29/fasanoschultz/+Wasserman+Schultz+&hl=en&client=firefox-a

2000 Presidential Elections"The Florida Legislature forced what it wanted, rather than listening to the people on Election Day." ibid

"The President demonstrates yet again how out of touch he is with mainstream America."http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:yBmSteNArJUJ:www.planetwire.org/details/5375+Wasserman+Schultz+&hl=en&client=firefox-a

Didn't like the way she was greeted in Congress; “What happened today... was a silencing of Democracy in America,” http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:E_4AqSlvHzMJ:www.rhcomic.com/+Wasserman+Schultz+&hl=en&client=firefox-a Big Daddy 06:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"She fought for legislation protecting women, seniors, and children"?!

Some of her opponents could well have said she fought against these people with the bills she pushed. This needs more neutral language. I'd change it myself but I seem to change almost everything you add and I don't want you to think I'm doing it to be antagonistic. Also, can you please sign in to make changes and etc.? Wikipedia has a semi-policy that states you should sign up for an account before making substantial changes to existing articles. It's easier to communicate with a discrete identity than with an IP. Katefan0 19:07, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

    • Hi. It's me. I will use this account from now on. I was not aware of that policy. I will not take it personally if you feel a need to make my language more neutral. How 'bout: As legislator, her legislative goals were mainly aimed at protecting women, seniors, and children. I understand you are a reporter. I will not object to you changing the language of information that I may add. --Justy329 19:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Excellent, thanks so much. I think that would be fine, or even something as simple as just changing the verb "fought," that word as a verb is fraught with a certain meaning ... it could be as simple as changing it to "She was involved with ...... blah blah blah issues." Katefan0 16:23, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
        • The interaction between you two is a model of the attitude of good WP editors. -- 98.108.205.33 (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Who ever changed her place of birth previously...

I just recently changed the Congressman's place of birth from ""Hell"", ""Hell" to the appropriate ""Long Island"", ""New York""

I am not a Democrat or a Liberal and I find this kind of debasement to be unproductive... For the propose of full disclosure, I am a member of the ""Constitution Party""

Sushi08241982 - 17:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Two Small changes

I made two small changes. The first is to the photo. I have went to her House site and found one that is better. I have also replaced Jewish Bible with Tanakh, since the latter could be offensive to Jewish people. See [1] on what to call the OT/HB/Tanakh/Tanach. - Hoshie/Crat 06:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Hoshie. Katefan0 16:46, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

What?? Do either of you know any Jews? As a person who knows Jews quite well, I can assure you nobody in the mainstream Jew community finds it offensive. In fact, you will almost never hear a modern day Jew say Tanakh. Reform Jews in particular go out of their way to describe it among themselves as the Jewish Bible. The closest thing to a "controversy" or "hurt feelings" would be how you describe the first 5 books. Christians would call it the Pentateuch and Jews the Torah. The Torah is THE book, the central book of the belief system and as such depending on the context the appropriate term needs consideration.

Talk about the success of the Holocaust Industry, lol! Non-Jews going out of their way to find "offense" and then going out of their way to defend. What a world! As I write this, I'm looking at both my Blue, clearly labeled "Jewish Bible" JPS version and my red JPS, and I quote, "The Jewish Study Bible." GegenIsrael (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The term "Old Testament" is not equal to "Tanakh"

Many Jews find the pharase "Old Testament" to describe their scriptures as offensive. Especially in light of the writings atrributed to Paul of Tarsus (emphasis added)

Heb 8:6 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.
Many Jews say that their YHWH (or Hashem as they would say) is perfect, got it right the first time and never required a "New Testament". They call these Hebrew Scriptures the Tanakh and so when talking about Jews using non-Christian Scriptures the term "Old Testament" is a pejoritive.--Wowaconia 18:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Again, a non-Jew acting all Reverse Anti-Semitic. "Old Testament" is not a pejorative. Do you know what that term means? If Jews really felt that way (and I would agree that a large segment might) then classical Anti-Semitic arguments would prevail, and frankly Antisemitism would be valid. Jews and Christians would be enemies. But since, mainstream Judaism would not agree with you, thankfully there is hope.

In addition, your argument is some type of theological "hurt" feelings rather than the genuine difference between the two. That is, the Tanakh and the Christian Old Testament do not possess the same books (very close but no cigar). That argument is the only rational one you could propose. Your theological argument is also improper as Jesus himself stated that he came not to change the law but add to it; ergo, the OT is perfectly valid with the associated inference that the Jews are also perfectly valid. Remember too, early Christians were primarily Jewish (for the first 100-150 years Christianity was a sect of Judaism; those Jews were obligated to perform the understood Mitzvot of the time). Paul's statement regarding "superiority" is about the covenant and not the Jew people. Jesus is alleged to have established a new covenant so that all people are included, not just the Jews. It isn't about "superiority" of one group vs. another in the social supremacy sense of the term, e.g., class-ism, racism, oligarchy, etc.GegenIsrael (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Defacement - Need for protection of page

Ms. Wasserman Schultz's page keeps being defaced, most recently by replacing her official congressional picture with the picture of a man's foot. Given her position as Chairwoman of the DNC, her page should be protected from anonymous defacement. Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You should make that case here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Completely Biased Article

This article is completely biased and has no information that is even remotely negative. This needs to be flagged as biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.161.2.10 (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to propose specific changes backed by reliable sources, if you want anyone to take your claim seriously. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Class Project

I am editing this page for a class. What sections do you think need the most work? I am going to focus on editing her background related to her representation of different cultures and genders. I will also be editing her campaign for 2012 and her voting history. Any suggestions are appreciated. Thank you Katemolly (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a list of sources I will use to edit this cite. Brownstein, Ronald. "Leadership Brawl Could Draw in Wasserman Schultz - Billy House - NationalJournal.com." NationalJournal.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 June 2012. <http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/leadership-brawl-could-draw-in-wasserman-schultz-20120620>. Kurtz, Howard. "Barack's Bodyguard." Newsweek 159.6 (2012): 16. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 June 2012. Martha T., Moore, and TODAY USA. "GOP in struggle to find a feminine voice." USA Today n.d.: Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 June 2012. Mueller, Melinda A. "Gender Differences In The 2006 House Elections: The Effect Of Gender On Campaign Messages About The Iraq War." Thomas Jefferson Law Review 31.1 (2008): 53-88. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H.W. Wilson). Web. 24 June 2012. Palmer, Barbara, and Dennis Michael Simon. Breaking the political glass ceiling: women and congressional elections. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print.

Smooth, Wendy. Intersectionality in Electoral Politics: A Mess Worth Making. Politics & Gender, 2 , 2006 pp 400-414 Stone, Kurt F.. The Jews of Capitol Hill a compendium of Jewish congressional members. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press, 2011. Print. Do these seem relevant to this page? Katemolly (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


I will be adding information about Debbie Wasserman Shultz based on research for the class Women in American Government. Here is a summary of the changes being made and an updated works cited.

Information about Wasserman Shultz’s position of Chair of Democratic National Committee has been edited. I added a section on Health Care Reform and her stance. I added a section on Immigration and her stance. I added a section on Representation and how Wasserman Shultz’s is an example of intersectionality through her beliefs and voting record. The section on the 2012 elections has been edited to add more information about running mate and campaign finances. Lastly, I have added more general information about Wasserman Shultz in the introduction section.

Works Cited "Bill Summary & Status Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)." THOMAS (Library of Congress). N.p., n.d. Web. 29 June 2012. <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d112:FLD003:@1%28Rep+Wasserman+Schultz+Debbie%29>. "Biography | Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz | Representing the 20th District of Florida." Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz | Representing the 20th District of Florida. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 June 2012. <http://wassermanschultz.house.gov/about/biography.shtml>. Boyle, Matthew. "Debbie Wasserman Schultz 'getting booted' as DNC chair | The Daily Caller." The Daily Caller. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 June 2012. <http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/25/report-debbie-wasserman-schultz-getting-booted-as-dnc-chairwoman-after-november/>. Brownstein, Ronald. "Leadership Brawl Could Draw in Wasserman Schultz - Billy House - NationalJournal.com." NationalJournal.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 June 2012. <http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/leadership-brawl-could-draw-in-wasserman-schultz-20120620>. "Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Statement on President Obama’s Speech on Immigration Reform | Democrats.org." Democrats.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 June 2012. <http://www.democrats.org/news/press/chair_debbie_wasserman_schultzs_statement_on_president_obamas_speech_on_imm>. "Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Wisconsin and the women’s vote - She The People - The Washington Post." Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 June 2012. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/debbie-wasserman-schultz-on-wisconsin-and-the-womens-vote/2012/06/05/gJQA9OEcGV_blog.html>. "Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Representative 2012 | OpenSecrets." OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 June 2012. <http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=N00026106&newMem=N&cycle=2012>. "Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL20] - GovTrack.us." GovTrack.us: Tracking the U.S. Congress. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 June 2012. <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/debbie_wasserman_schultz/400623>. Katemolly (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Katemolly. Thank you for your contributions. I've reverted the series of changes you've made for several reasons. Firstly, her name is spelled Schultz with a "c". Also, the {{Educational assignment}} and {{WAP assignment}} templates are meant to be used on the talk pages, not on the articles themselves. You added some text to the lead of the article. The lead is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article (see WP:LEAD) and should only include information that is presented elsewhere. Aside from that, your assertions regarding intersectionality struck me as original research and synthesis (see WP:OR and WP:SYN for the relevant guidelines). Including language calling Representative Wasserman Schultz a "cheerleader" is undue (WP:UNDUE) as is unsubstantiated rumors of her departure from the DNC. These are some of the issues I saw from the get go. Please bring changes to the talk page first in the future. Gobōnobo + c 03:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

2012, Oct 22: Statements on White House Kill List

A few different contributors (including me) have attempted to add content about her recent statements regarding the White House's list of individuals targeted for killing by drones (i.e. the "Kill List"; maybe there's a better name?) This content has been removed three times, once by a bot, and twice manually. I don't understand why this content shouldn't be part of the article. User Alexf wrote that "It is unencyclopedic, defamatory, POV and YouTube is not RS." I don't know what "unencyclopedic" means, but to me it seems like a clear statement on an important policy question: namely, Rep Schultz denied knowing about the program when questioned by a journalist in a public forum. I don't think it is defamatory, since it is not false: it merely factually reports on her public statements. Similarly, it does not seem like POV. Yes, it is my POV that (a) this White House program is significant, and (b) the public positions of members of Congress on this program are also significant. However, we always need to express our opinions about what is significant enough to mention. Personally I find her views here more significant than her position on the Schiavo case, but surely we can all agree that they are at least worth mentioning. Also, I don't know what "YouTube is not RS" means, but her statements here have also been covered elsewhere, including in the Guardian. Would the changes be acceptable if they included more links? I didn't want to add more text to the article than necessary, and the youtube link seemed more germane than the secondary coverage. Finally, the second revision stated "bad source link," which I also don't understand. Should the link be formatted better? If so, why not simply correct that? I am also confused about why the deletion was labeled a minor revision.

In short, I'd like to restore some version of the paragraph, and if people disagree, then perhaps we can discuss that here. Thanks. Aram.harrow (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: Not hearing anything, I revised the article again, according to the latest version from 41.177.83.131. I'd like to hear from those who think this is bad idea, so let's discuss here. Aram.harrow (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that this information provides any encyclopedic content on Schultz, her position or her views. One of the sources doesn't even mention the subject of this article, and to be honest it looks like a WP:POVPUSH that insinuates something negative about the subject yet provides no real context or definitive facts that show what the subject's actual views and position are. This is an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper, and truly, it reads more like gossip. Dreadstar ☥ 02:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I really don't understand the knee-jerk drive to delete this content over and over. This is a news story that has been reported on by reliable sources as newsworthy. It is quite stunning that DWS claimed to not know about the kill list. If you want to write a version of this story that avoids whatever POV you think the facts contain, okay, otherwise I think these deletions should be reverted.PStrait (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing 'knee-jerk' about it, this is a WP:BLP, and as such has very strict content requirements; additionally, I very carefully explained my objection above. Your POV that this is some kind of 'stunning' claim doesn't mean we need to add this unencyclopedic content. Dreadstar ☥ 20:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just being dense or misreading something, but I don't see where you explained why it was encyclopedic. What is the specific standard you are applying? I don't see how this story differs from others that aren't on the page. It's noteworthiness was made apparent in the various news outlets that picked up the story, and, are you really saying it isn't noteworthy that the chairperson of one of the two major parties was unaware of one of the most controversial foreign policy issues of the day? I don't really see how there is a POV here that isn't neutral. Sure, it isn't flattering to DWS, but it doesn't really speak to any ideology or partisan interest...PStrait (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you provide the sources you'd like to use for this? So far, we have a source that doesn't even mention the subject of this article, which violates WP:OR, and one from a tabloid that doesn't meet the WP:BLP threshold. Dreadstar ☥ 15:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't realize that no one posted a real source for this. How about this or this or this or this or this or this? PStrait (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually I just realized you said that Salon is a tabloid. You seriously think that Salon is akin to the National Inquirer, the example given in the BLP policy article? You seriously think this is an issue that is likely to be libelous? I mean, there's a video, national pundits like Glen Greenwald, and no one is claiming it isn't true...PStrait (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
While I don't think it is as low in the reliability category as is the National Enquirer, I would still like to see higher quality sources. If this is such an important subject, then there should surely be higher grade sources than a so-called "smart tabloid' as Salon.com says it is. This is a BLP after all. The BLP threshold isn't libel, it is to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Which makes me wonder if we have an article on this 'noteworthy' story (e.g. White House Kill List or Drone Kill List)? If it's that notable, then we should have an article on it, then we can figure out what to add in this BLP about it. Surely there have to be higher quality sources per BLP, and a sufficiency of sources so the subject of White House Drone Kill List has it's own article. I can't seem to find a reference to it in Barack Obama or Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration, is it in there somewhere? Also, I wouldn't agree with the use of a blog either. Dreadstar ☥ 20:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of the policy is to avoid controversial potentially libelous information, the kind of thing that is from a source not known to be reliable. That is clearly not what is going on here. The American Journalism Review calls Salon a "preeminent independent venue for journalism." The Guardian is obviously not a tabloid -- we can at least agree about that, no? and Glen Greenwald was named by Newsweek one of America's top ten op-ed journalists. Though usually referred to as the 'kill list,' the white house officially and euphamistically calls it the Disposition Matrix. I'm assuming good faith here, but is your argument really that there is any chance that this story isn't factually accurate or noteworthy? The Guardian story has an international audience and has been shared on social media sites several thousand times, a small fraction of its overall readership. I really just don't understand what the overriding objection is to mentioning this event in the article.PStrait (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I was merely asking for high quality sources per BLP along with some indication as to why this is significant enough to include; so thanks for finding a couple of sources that are better than Salon.com; and thanks for finding Disposition Matrix. Odd that someething of this significance is unmentioned in Barak Obama's article, one has to really dig for it. Let me read through these sources and we can figure out what to add to this article. It would be nice if there were some real news on what her position is here. Dreadstar ☥ 21:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. I agree that it is curious that the issue is low on our radar (as well as everyone else's -- lots of people don't seem to be as aware of the issue as you'd expect given what it is. I don't necessarily think that in this article the story needs to be much more than a sentence or two-- I just think it should be mentioned. It would be nice if DWS issued a clarifying statement or something, but I suspect that institutional forces at work at the DNC make it unlikely that the issue gets voluntarily brought up in public. PStrait (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd disagree that anything should be included in this article on Wasserman Schultz and the kill list given the source we have at this point. The reality is that there is no information. Schultz is asked a question which she says she knows nothing about. End of story. There is no information. To suggest or imply that Schultz did have information, should have information, or is lying about what she knows unless firmly supported by reliable sources that directly support the content we use means we have wandered into the land of speculation and WP:OR, a big no no and even more so, if that's possible, in a BLP in an encyclopedia. Different for a journalist of course who may try to make connections not in the source but this isn't journalism.(olive (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC))

??? The "no kill list"? Her answer to this question was the central subject of an article in the Guardian. It isn't our place to decide that that coverage was wrong and therefore shouldn't be mentioned. But separately, suppose you are correct that DWS knew nothing about the White House kill list-- the argument made in the Guardian is precisely that, that her lack of knowledge on that issue is frightening. What problem do you have with the Guardian article? Why isn't it a reliable source, in your mind? PStrait (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I think I’m with Olive on this, she hits on one of the concerns I had about this being unencyclopedic material and a type of WP:NOTNEWS gossip-style speculation. I was hoping there would be more to the new sources found. I looked carefully through all those sources; basically what we have is a youtube video being commented on in opinion pieces and sources that do not meet WP:RS WP:BLP standards. Essentially we have Schultz being asked a kind of a stunningly strange question to which she answers "I don't know what you're talking about," then these attack or opinion pieces proceed to speculate that she was lying or ignorant. The youtube video itself is a Primary Source at best and Original Research at worst. It concerns me that the video appears to be some kind of attack or ambush journalism by an obviously biased group and then repeated by what appear to be other biased groups. It also concerns me that the 'reporter' in the video is so aggressively attacking her, then walks away making insulting comments and calling her names after she leaves. It's entirely unprofessional.
We need to tread very carefully because of the article's status as a BLP. I'm less inclined to include the coverage in the Guardian it because it's an opinion piece. Stuff like this requires impeccable sources. Opinion pieces might be mentioned as such, but not as "factual" for the matter asserted. If it's not in the Economist, NYT, Der Spiegel, Washington Post, or some similarly highly regarded newspaper, I say leave it out. Too much risk with a BLP to just cite it to what's been found so far.
We need much higher quality sources for this, and I would extend that to say it needs to really delve into Schultz’s actual opinion and not just speculation that we repeat here in a manner that makes it look like a WP:POVPUSH for negative information to be added to this BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 02:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a way to write it up (and again, I'm only talking about a sentence or two) that isn't POV pushing. Whether or not Greenwald's criticism is fair or whatever, what is noteworthy is that he made a big deal about it in the Guardian. We wouldn't be writing about the youtube video (I agree that would be OR), but about the news story. I disagree that we need to delve into Schultz's "actual opinion," unless she has an official actual opinion. The relevant point is not that she is clueless about the kill list (it seems to me fairly implausible that she actually was clueless about the kill list and far more likely that her "ignorance" was an intentional PR move-- but in either event speculation on our part in any direction is inappropriate) but that her response to the question generated a news event in which she was directly called out in the headline of an op-ed written by one of the top ten American opinion journalists in an internationally read newspaper.PStrait (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
And I disagree, as I've explained above. There's nothing encyclopedic in repeating this speculation; it adds nothing of value, it just makes a negative implication that isn't backed by any facts. She's asked a question in an obviously biased attack/ambush style, then someone speculates on the whole thing. Dreadstar ☥ 03:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
We have one very highly-opinionated opinion piece (to make a point) about a politician who says she doesn't know anything. There is no information here. Basically, we are looking at content that could be worded something like, Wasserman Schultz according to an opinion piece should know something but she doesn't so, (according to the single opinion piece), she's not very bright or maybe she's lying or.... This is a BLP. Per WP:WEIGHT, for starters, we don't have enough sourcing from mainstream press to even consider adding something like this. We have only one opinion piece so per 'weight' we could be at fault if we try to add content. This is on the line of opinion and gossip and has no place in BLP where we must tread with care or risk harming a living person. There is no justification as far as I can see for adding content on this.... even one line is one line too much when we have nothing to report.(olive (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC))
We seem to be going in circles, and I'm not sure either of us will figure out how to persuade the other. The idea that it would we would "risk harming a living person" in this context -- a national politician who fields questions from reporters about things like this for a living, and who already was openly mocked in an international newspaper by a top 10 national opinion journalist... I mean, seriously, you think a single line mentioning the controversy poses some sort of risk of harm? If there was any 'harm' in this, how would it not have already happened when this became an international news story? When I read statements like this, I feel like we aren't even on the same planet. So, I will bow out. I don't care enough, and I don't understand why there is such a visceral reaction to mentioning an event that was clearly newsworthy because we, the wikipedia editors, feel that the story should never have occurred in the first place. I'm sure there is some kind of miscommunication and I'm not understanding your point, but you've explained it several times so I don't know. It sounds absurd to me. For the record, I think this story *obviously* should be mentioned in a line or two (especially given the other kinds of things that are in this story, the application of the undue weight policy here is simply risible in my opinion). But if I'm the only person who thinks so, then I'll defer to the consensus. But if no one else cares to weigh in on this debate on the side of inclusion, I will respectfully withdraw, and in the meantime I'll reread these policy articles to see if I can get some sense of where you are coming from. PStrait (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Remarks about Gov. Scott Walker

Rep. Wasserman's negative remarks about Walker made national headlines. Does this qualify as a controversy that should be added to her article? I'm leery of creating controversies where they don't really exist, but many, many Wiki pages have "controversy" sections over public statements that did not generate anywhere near the level of national coverage.TJ&TheAmericanWay (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

She's been in the news quite a bit recently, and it hasn't been positive. Republicans have condemned her domestic violence analogies and some prominent Democrats are reportedly eager for her to go away. See the following articles:
- From Politico Democrats turn on Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- from The Washington Post: Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s awkward day with party leaders
- from Sunshite State News: Debbie Wasserman Schultz Draws Fire for Domestic Violence Comparison on Rick Scott
These issues can and should be addressed in the article. Majoreditor (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving criticism of Lessig decision to new section

While criticism and controversy of public figures is well notable, i'm not sure it should be in the header summary but should rather be a section on it's own.

--Patbahn (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

LED opposition to Schiavo?

I respectfully disagree with an anon's edits saying Wasserman Schultz has LED the opposition to the Schiavo case in Congress. I am a congressional reporter on Capitol Hill and I can tell you that she has not LED the opposition -- a freshman does not LEAD much of anything. Anyway, that being said, this anon clearly feels that she has, so I'd like to see proof that she has LED the opposition. I don't want to get into an edit war with anyone, but if the anon can't prove their statement I will once again change the edits. Katefan0 16:19, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

If not for the trio of South Florida representatives: Wasserman-Schultz, Davis, and Wexler, the measure to provide relief for Mrs. Schiavo would have passed by unamious consent. Wasserman Schultz decided to stand up and say NO. At the press conference on capitol hill, she was the second one to talk. She was the second speaker on the house floor to speak on her side. She was also the second-to-last speaker for her side, the last to speak before Whip Stoyer spoke. As a state legislator, Wasserman-Schultz had to deal with this case. Therefore, she provided fellow Democrats with appropriate evidence pertaining to the case. She impressed many, many democrats on message boards with her convincing remarks. She was the first representative to point out the hypocrpicy of the other side, by showing that when Bush was Gov. of Texas, he signed a law allowing for termination of life, even over the objections of parents.

I know she's a freshman. That's what made her actions to lead the opposition so memorable. She was on all three news networks speaking. Debbie Wasserman Schultz had the courage to lead the fight against DeLay's measure when most were afraid to do so. justy329

  • (Looks like Justy329 is the same as the anon user.) Respectfully, once again, this does not prove that she was the LEAD. There were many people who spoke against the bill, many people who issued press releases and held press conferences (who were more senior than her) and spoke about the issue. I am unconvinced. I also question how unbiased you can be about this article, since you have inserted several POV statements (which I have removed), not to mention these two links to movie files of her speaking that you added today. Katefan0 20:10, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have added a Request for Comments from other Wikipedia users on the RFC page. Katefan0 20:46, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

This article shows how Debbie led the fight against Congress' tactics to intervene in Schiavo case: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-cwasser22mar22,0,5767540.story?coll=sfla-news-sfla I kindly request you remove npov tag. Thanks

    • That's better than nothing, but I am still not convinced. The Sun-Sentinel is covering this story as a local paper would. Papers without a national reach often play up the involvement of their local delegation because that's what their readers want to read about. Show me a national story that says she led the opposition and I would remove my objections. Also, can you please sign your comments? It's easy, just type the tilde sign four times and it will fill in everything for you. Thanks. Otherwise it gets confusing. One more thing -- you never answered me, but are you on her staff or otherwise involved with her office? Katefan0 21:48, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been the face of the few Democrats willing to stand up against DeLay's tactis. She has been on Today, FoxNews, CNN, and MSNBC. Debbie was the only speaker except for those managing the debate to SPEAK TWICE DURING THE SPECIAL SCHIAVO SESSION. Is the Miami Herald a "national newspaper?" http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/11196972.htm

Read this: "Sitting in the drive-through lane of a McDonald's in Washington, D.C., U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was still fuming Monday over Congress' intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo.

During three hours of debate late Sunday night, the freshman Democrat distinguished herself by repeatedly challenging those who tried to misstate the facts surrounding Schiavo's health."

Debbie has been one of the few Democrats quoted in the New York Times about this matter. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/national/22bush.html

I do not work for Debbie or her staff. I just happen to be a political junkie. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a rising star. History will remember it was her leadership, knowledge and "chutzpah" during the Schiavo affair that catapulted her fame and influence. --24.184.16.201 23:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Normally I'd say yes, Miami is a national paper, but since this is happening in Florida I'd say in this instance, not really. Would prefer to see a big non-Florida paper that refers to her as "having led the opposition." I agree that she's been a strong VOICE in the debate, but the leading one? Her fuming in the drivethru, speaking twice during the session, being quoted in the NYT etc., doesn't make her the lead on the issue, because other people have done the same. Anyway, but I would support a sentence something like: "WS was heavily involved in protesting Congressional involvement in the Schiavo case, including..." and then cite some of the things she did that are pretty ballsy for a freshman. Can you live with that? Katefan0 23:10, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

    • I added this quote from the Miami Herald, "During three hours of debate late Sunday night, the freshman Democrat distinguished herself by repeatedly challenging those who tried to misstate the facts surrounding Schiavo's health." If you wish, you may remove the word "led" and remove the NPOV tag. Make I ask why you are so commited to this Debbie Wasserman Schultz page? --24.184.16.201 23:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Beyond a general desire to have Wikipedia be the best, most trustworthy source of information it can be, I suppose because I'm the one who created the page originally. I'm also a reporter who covers Congress for a living so this is my bread 'n butter. Thanks for being a good sport while we've debated. I agree that WS so far has been impressive for a freshman, but I am committed to the article remaining unbiased. Also if at some point you come across some source material that says she led the debate, I'd want the page to reflect that. Katefan0 23:20, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • I thank you for contributing to this site. I actually set up a whole page devoted to Debbie, also. I thought her real name was "Debra." So, if you check the history, you will find a few months ago that LOTS of information was added to merge the two article into the correct one we have today. In any event, I will go ahead and make the changes we agreed on. --24.184.16.201 23:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Experience not clear

How many years and terms of experience in congress does she have?????-65.170.106.249 —Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 20 February 2007‎

30 something working group

Instead of a text dump from their website (which could be considered a copyvio), I added a link to the site for anyone interested enough to find out more on their own, and paraphrased what the working group is about. Katefan0 17:16, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

    • Thanks for that. I just corrected that the 30 something group is more about just Social Security, it talks about issues facing younger people in general. --24.184.16.201 17:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't mean to sound like a bitch, but almost every substantial addition you make to this article seems to have some sort of POV problem; I think you are too close to this person to be neutral perhaps. Just something to think about. I have an issue with this statement:

" Veiled negative references to Wasserman Schultz's Judaism. "?!

This piece says "her opponent Margaret Hostetter made veiled negative references to Wasserman Schultz's Judaism. "

But what exactly were those 'veiled references'?? You know, it wasn't too long ago that a Washingtonian got fired for making racist comments when all he did was use the word 'niggardly'!!

You should either SPELL OUT the supposed anti-semetic comments and let the reader decide or leave this charge out. It seems very 'smeary' to Margaret Hostetter, not entirely relevant to the article and lacking any verifiability. - 04:55, 14 September 2005 BigDaddy777 (talk)

Hearing on Limits of Executive Power: Debbie W. Schultz

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's questions during the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the constitutional limits of executive power. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQScXo7lawQ&feature=related Oversight by the congress in the first 6 years was noted for its absence. Presidential signing statements, and provisions of law, have been close to 1100 and interpreting law. A line item veto in government. Historical context. Unpresidented use in volume and audacity. Impeachment is a remedy and also the withholding of appropriations. Bruce Fein suggests control through the purse. - 08:48, 27 July 2008 RoddyYoung (talk)

Issues: Chair of the Democratic National Committee

It has come to my attention that this section of the article has several issues. I don't believe that neutrality has been established here. Please discuss the problems below: -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

As noted on my talk page, I recently reached the same conclusion about overall NPOV that you mention above, but that's not the issue here. The immediate issue is the contested addition of a paragraph that, even without the BLP issues, needs to achieve consensus under BRD. The fact that these are contentious BLP claims clearly not supported by a reading of any of the listed reliable sources makes their removal mandatory. Cleaning up the rest of the section is a longer effort.
ETA: Again copying from my talk page to expand on the "clearly not supported" description: While an op-ed by an aggrieved candidate is not a reliable source, the others would be – if they actually said anything like what was added. Which they don't. For starters, it's highly unlikely, even before reading them, that Huffington Post and Guardian writers were so prescient as to be able to criticize her fall 2015 actions in articles written in 2011 and 2012. And, not surprisingly, reading the articles shows that they didn't. Similarly, I find no mention of Chuck Todd calling for her resignation in the Daily Kos article cited for that claim, and no evidence that Hillary Clinton criticized her for anything, let alone supposed mistreatment claimed by Lessig, in the Washington Post article. I acknowledge not having listened to the entire 47 minute NYT interview with Obama on the Iran nuclear agreement, but given the lack of accuracy in the other citations, the actual topic of the interview, and the absence of any mention of Wasserman Schultz in the NYT's article covering the interview, there is scant reason to find that claim any more credible than the others.

2600:1006:B161:D0D4:DDF:6999:A965:B6F6 (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you quickly specify BLP and NPOV? --TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 07:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand exactly what you're asking. Can you clarify please? 2600:1006:B161:D0D4:DDF:6999:A965:B6F6 (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, neutral point of view and bibliography of living persons -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
From my NPOV, I believe that the specified section needs subsections, such as "Controversies" or "Criticisms." Again, I do agree with you that part of the section is op-ed-like. Can you revise without removing all the information? -TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Even though you'll see them peppered throughout the project, "Criticism" and "Controversy" sections are somewhat deprecated (not sure if it's a guideline or an essay) as magnets for non-neutral additions.
As to the Lessig paragraph, it's not that it reads like an op-ed; it's entirely based on an op-ed written by Lessig himself. This type of advocacy piece is not considered RS for a BLP (and most likely not for facts in general). With none of the other sources even mentioning the issue, there's not really a lot to salvage. Unless someone comes up with some secondary coverage of the "dispute", that paragraph really has to go. 2600:1006:B161:D0D4:DDF:6999:A965:B6F6 (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the information. The IP makes a good point that sources from 12 can not support information about 15. Gain consensus before adding again. -- GB fan 09:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Controversy Section

The entire section desperately needs a rewrite. It reads like an angry editorial against Wasserman Schultz and her role in the 2016 Primary. For example: "Debbie Wasserman Schultz has not only abused the power of her office to stack the deck for her favored candidate, but has overwhelmingly failed as leader of the DNC. In addition to losing the 2014 midterm elections for both U.S. House and U.S. Senate seats, Schultz has also run her party’s finances into the ground."

As it stands, there is no way this section passes neutrality requirements.

Much of the controversy section is covered in the section about her tenure as Chair of the DNC and I would recommend further consolidating it down.

Thoughts?

Fish nr (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fish nr, I concur that the section needs to be reworked, for the following reasons: a) it is a WP:COPYVIO taken essentially verbatim from this source; b) it is WP:UNDUE-ly detailed for a biography; c) to the point of being a WP:COATRACK; d) therefore failing WP:NPOV; e) and consequently failing WP:BLP.
On the basis of these issues, I am removing the section. Editors wishing to include a section on this subject, should develop phrasing which does not fail the policies & guidelines listed. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree, I recommended reducing and neutralizing the content, but thanks to Ryk72 it is clear that the whole section is a copyright violation, so the only possible option is deleting it as he did. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Ryk72 for tracking that down. --Fish nr (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Debbie Wasserman Schultz. 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Allegations that Obama attempted to fire her

Can someone add verbiage to the section saying that anonymous sources on politico reported that Obama was going to try to fire her but was deterred from doing so by threats of calling him misogynistic and anti-semetic? This allegation needs context. Most importantly the information that the chair of the DNC is not appointed by the sitting president so that Obama does not have the power to fire her. A short explanation of how the DNC chairperson is selected ( by vote of the 440+ member democratic national committee ) goes a long way to deflating that conspiracy theory.

Also noting that the shape of the accusation is archetypal of complaints about political correctness would be nice as well. Insisting without evidence that a woman or minority is incompetent and then explaining their position as being held under threat of being called a bigot is a stock scaremongering story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaikenW (talk • contribs) 19:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't add this

Ohio U.S. Representative, Marcia Fudge, was chosen to replace Schultz as chair of the 2016 Democratic National Convention after Schultz was discovered to have had a bias against Democratic Presidential nominee, Bernie Sanders, as revealed by internal documents released by Wikileaks.[1]

Is she a superdelegate?

Is she a superdelegate?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2016


The title is obscene and inappropriate. It is misogynistic as well. Note that this is a protected page; whoever made this edit should lose his privilege.

168.159.213.211 (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted, vandal blocked, and only admins can move the page now. --NeilN talk to me 17:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

CHAIR or CHAIRPERSON

Why are we having inconsistency on these recent DNC & RNC leaders? Some are using chairperson & yet only chair is being pushed here. GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

So use "Chaiperson" or "Chair" depending on what their actual title is. Chairman/woman (which you're reinstating against consensus here) is not correct - it's not their actual title, and it violates the MOS. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I changed it to Chairperson & yet you still reverted. Also, why have you Chairman in the Tim Kaine article & Chairperson in the Donna Brazile article? GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I oppose "Chairperson" for Schultz because that is not, and never has been, her actual job title. Per pretty much every RS, she is the Chair of the DNC. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Why haven't you done the same for Kaine & Brazile? GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't watch and have never edited those articles so that's neither here nor there - but I'd caution you about assuming that this needs to be consistent across every article. Different individuals and orgs use different terms, we should go with what their actual title is and with what the RS say in each individual case. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Fyddlestix in this. This is actually a subtle issue. WP:MOS says we should use the form used most in reliable sources; if it's a tie, use the form preferred by the individual or group. I think "chair" is the common term for Schultz and "chairman" is the common title for Reince Priebus in media sources. I would like to see evidence of this, though, and welcome evidence contradicting this. GRR edit conflicts! MisterRandomized (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Why is Dean a Chair, Kaine a Chairman, Brazile a Chairperson & Schultz a Chair? GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I've made changes to the Dean, Kaine & Brazile bio articles. In hopes of bringing consistency to these articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I would again caution you against assuming that consistency is the goal - maybe Kaine is described as "chairman" because that's how reliable sources like President Obama and the New York Times described him, and the title that he actually used? The same is not true for Schultz. You need to have some flexibility here. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if reliable sources are inconsistent, and predominantly used "chair" for Schultz and "chairman" for Kaine, we need to follow the sources. I enjoy consistency too, and hate the word "chairperson," but policy takes precedence, and we should follow common usage, at least where there is a most common form. MisterRandomized (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
So should this specific article use Chair and Chairperson both or should it just pick one? (Currently it has both.) DeYoung9 (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Tag-teaming and canvassing to subvert the standard process of consensus

I just noticed that User:Activist in this message on their talk page [2] pinged several users to alert them about the presence of the disagreement above. They pinged users who could reliably be expected to support them in this discussion. They also mentioned me, but instead of ping-ing me, they used my username. In fact, my username was mispelled, which, if done purposefully, suggests that s/he did not want me to notice their canvassing.

This is a textbook example of improper WP:CANVASSing, followed by tag-team reverts. This sabotages the process of consensus, leading to false notion of consensus. And all of this in support of reinserting text which runs afoul of WP:BLP, and which ignores the discretionary sanctions present on the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The editors pinged were all active participants; I don't believe you can "canvass" active participants. That's supported by first line of the appropriate notification section: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors..." D.Creish (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
That was pretty clearly a "please help me in edit warring" kind of notification.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems OK to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure, since you were one of the people canvassed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

DNC Leak dump shows this page edited by DNC

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13236 - Not much else to add, but we should be vigilant about neutrality. q (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11669 TeeVeeed (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because it is an article about an extremely prominent and notable person who has been the subject of increasing media coverage for months. Activist (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about deleting the article, and even if someone proposed that, it wouldn't happen. Members of Congress are notable. Jonathunder (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuit over DNC Chair role: BLP issues?

The info removed here does not have sufficient sourcing nor is it appropriate, per WP:DUEWEIGHT, for a BLP. People file frivolous lawsuits all the time. If something actually happens with these lawsuits, then we can put this in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It is referenced info, and Wikipedia is not censored. I believe it should be restored.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe it should not be restored until it receives significant coverage in mainstream sources.- MrX 02:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
DUEWEIGHT isn't grounds for removal without consensus - per:BRD I've restored your removals save the lawsuit. Nothing there is so poorly-sourced it violates BLP. D.Creish (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes in a BLP it is. And please don't use misleading eit summaries as you did here [3]. That version, as can be seen here, does NOT have consensus. And this is a BLP, so it goes. Encyclopedia articles are not meant to be political hit pieces.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with User:D.Creish that the referenced criticisms should be restored. This isn't supposed to be an advertisement for DWS.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
It's crappy referencing though (blogs and opinion pieces). That's not good enough in a BLP, *especially* for a controversial person such as Debbie. This isn't suppose to be an attack page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree that blogs and opinion pieces aren't suitable sources for statements of fact in a BLP. Which sources and statements are you referring to? D.Creish (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Significant changes require consensus. It's clear we don't have it here. My edit restored the July 17th version with minor copy edits (compare diffs), which was stable for about a month. Please observe WP:BRD and don't edit war, especially considering this article is subject to discretionary sanctions.. D.Creish (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not "specific changes" that require consensus, it's "controversial material in BLP" that requires consensus. This is a BLP issue. Please stop trying to turn this article into a political hit piece.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Also WP:BLP takes precedence over "stable for a month" (is that a joke?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Please don't misrepresent things. You quote "specific changes" as an apparent reference to a comment I never made. Your earlier comment argued DUEWEIGHT was criteria for immediate removal per BLP, when by policy it's not. Now you say I'm turning this into a hit piece by restoring long-standing, sourced content, added by multiple editors, none of whom were me. This isn't conducive to article improvement. D.Creish (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok "significant changes". Same thing applies. Likewise "stable for a month" (i.e. somebody sneaked it in a few weeks ago when nobody was looking) is not "long-standing". And the sourcing is crap. And it's undue weight. And this is a BLP:
"Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself."
But DUE WEIGHT is only ONE of the problems here.
You are NOT suppose to restore content which has been challenged on BLP grounds until you get consensus. So please self revert and let's continue this discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You're conflating two policies. One is WP:BLPREMOVE, which outlines the criteria for immediate removal of content in a BLP, notwithstanding consensus, 3RR or other restrictions. The material you removed did not meet those criteria (and DUEWEIGHT is not one of them.)
The other is general WP:BLP policy where DUEWEIGHT is clearly important. If there are claims in the article you feel are UNDUE we should discuss them here, establish consensus for removal, then remove. So, can we start that process? D.Creish (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy to discuss the nuances of BLP with you, but first you need to self-revert your edit, as it does violate BLP (and discretionary sanctions).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
D.Creish, I see that you had been notified of discretionary sanctions way back in October, so you actually made those edits with full knowledge that you were breaking the rules. Had I caught it earlier I would've taken this straight to WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Threats and bullying are not how we resolve disagreements. Again: please specifically identify the content and/or sources you object to so we can discuss. D.Creish (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
There's no threats or bullying. Just pointing out the fact that you had been notified of discretionary sanctions previously, yet chose to break article restrictions anyway.
I'm going to ask you one more time to self-revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

More sources:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/06/30/Bernie-Sanders-supporters-sue-Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz-DNC-for-fraud/7411467293953/

https://www.rt.com/usa/349277-sanders-lawsuit-wasserman-schultz/

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/more-than-100-bernie-sanders-donors-sue-debbie-wasserman-schultz-for-fraud-7883715

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/29/100-bernie-bros-file-class-action-lawsuit-against-debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc/

71.182.237.133 (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah and all of them shit. Another red flag that this should not be in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Copious sources were supplied, as requested. Vulgarity does not diminish their reliability. The Daily Caller might be challenged, given the Menendez episode, but certainly not the other three. Activist (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
No, these sources are not reliable and "shit" is a generous term. RT is not reliable. Dailycaller is not reliable. Erc. "browardpalmbeach", I have no idea what that is but you need better than that for contentious material in a BLP. UPI might be fine except it doesn't support the text, which violates WP:UNDUE anyway.
Your wording is very clearly POV too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The regular award-winning Broward-Palm Beach New Times is one of the larger papers in Florida. Activist (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Additional source for lawsuit. I'm not familiar with the Observer: http://observer.com/2016/06/debbie-wasserman-schultz-served-class-action-lawsuit-for-rigging-primaries/ D.Creish (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I've added the discretionary sanctions notification up above. It clearly states:

Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.

There is no such consensus for the "criticism" section nor the "lawsuit" parts. I have challenged it. You cannot restore it without obtaining firm consensus or otherwise you may be subject to blocks or topic bans (see WP:AE). In fact you've already violated these sanctions, but, since nobody seems to have been aware that they apply to this article, we'll start with a clean slate.

If you do wish to work on establishing a firm consensus I suggest starting an RfC (WP:RFC) on both of the issues of contention.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Please note:
I have no problem participating in an RFC related to your requested removals but I think the first step should be to discuss those removals and attempt to gain consensus here. So, can you point to the specific claims and/or sources you take issue with (as I suggested above)? D.Creish (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the referenced criticisms and fleshed out information about the lawsuit should be restored. We could have an RFC.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The content was not "established". In fact, there's no such thing on Wikipedia.
You have it backwards. Please read the notice again. By removing the text I have challenged it. That means you cannot restore without firm consensus.
On that note, it's sort of ridiculous for you to say I made "no talk page posts addressing my removal" since I'm the one who started this section.
If you have no problem with the RfC, please restore the proper section (my challenge) and start the RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
My diffs above show the sequence of events clearly. D.Creish (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Once again, by removing objectionable content (which was NOT "well established", whatever that's suppose to mean) I was clearly challenging it. Per restrictions imposed by the discretionary sanctions, you were not suppose to reinsert it without obtaining firm consensus. You did not. The restriction says that we need to restore the version of the article without the challenged content and then try to work out consensus about how to resolve it. That should be done first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

And again, I'd like to point out that lawsuits can be filed by anyone for any reason. Just because a lawsuit has been filed does not make it noteworthy. As an analogy, there is currently a lawsuit alleging Donald Trump raped someone ([4], [5]). Do we have that in the Donald Trump article? No, and we shouldn't. Because just because a lawsuit has been filed doesn't mean anything. This case is not quite as bad, but the same logic applies. It's a BLP. Unless something actually happens with this lawsuit, it shouldn't be in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I really think this needs to be restored. This lawsuit is not about gossip; it's about her conduct as DNC chair, which has led to her resignation and the ongoing discontent among Democratic voters. Let's have an RFC if you disagree. Wikipedia is not censored.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
One person's gossip is another person's lawsuit. The lawsuit did not lead to her resignation. Not sure where you're getting that from. To restore it you need firm consensus. I suggest starting an RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Are you not the only editor who disagrees and keeps removing referenced information? Are you sure you don't have a close connection to DWS?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I already told you, DWS got me into Pokemon Go. Now. Please stop being ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s:, @D.Creish:, Four editors, including myself and 71.182.237.133, have restored this edit after Volunteer_Marek's autonomous removals. All four believe it definitely belongs in the article. VM, asked at one point for more sources. Five were quickly provided, including UPI, which has been around for 99 years. VM called them all "shit." VM's definition of "consensus" seems to be derived directly from "Through the Looking Glass": "The word means what I want it to mean. Nothing more, nothing less." VM claims "The lawsuit did not lead to (the DWS) resignation," but its a strawman argument: No one claimed it did. Her departure was based on a wide aggregation of complaints about her "imperious" conduct, more accumulating and airing every day. A better and quite remarkable sense of that process can be found here: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-debbie-wasserman-schultz-226352 A consensus does not consist of one person, even if that person is VM. Activist (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
These editors are exactly the ones you canvassed on your talk page to help you in your edit war [6]. That's not "consensus", that's tag-teaming and canvassing. I posted this to BLPN and there the editor agreed with me [7]. This is also a BLP issue, so to restore this content you need firm consensus. In fact, controversial material should not be included if challanged. Again, one more time, you can start an RfC to try and obtain such consensus. But until you do, this stays out.
And yes, three of the five sources you posted were shit, one was way obscure, and the fifth didn't actually support the text. This has already been explained.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at Marek's block log, he's been banned a lot of times for Harassment and Edit Warring. Don't let this dude bully you. If you go to WP:AE you might be able to get him banned again for some of these quotes:

  1. Incivility: "These editors are exactly the ones you canvassed on your talk page to help you in your edit war"
  2. Incivility: "three of the five sources you posted were shit" "all of them shit"
  3. RT, according to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is considered as reliable as CNN and BBC: "these sources are not reliable and "shit" is a generous term. RT is not reliable. Dailycaller is not reliable."
  4. Assuming Bad Faith: "Your wording is very clearly POV too"

It looks like for the last 7 days this editor has been disruptive. Since there are so many of you that are being bullied you have good reason to bring this up to ARBCOM. Disruptive editors like him need a block before they learn their place, and by continuing your arguments with him, you are just giving him a free pass to harass others. All of the information that he removed needs to be re-added.

Lawrence Lessig is upset with DWS (or the DNC)

The content that begins "Democratic presidential candidate Lawrence Lessig similarly charged that the Wasserman Schultz's DNC..." does not belong in this biography in my opinion. It is essentially based on sources written by Lessig himself, critical of the DNC. I would like to hear what other editors think.- MrX 00:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't a strong opinion, either way. Lessig's attempted candidacy was unimpressive, less so than Lincoln Chaffee's, in my estimation. However, if the rules were changed to specifically exclude him, as he contends, that would be another matter entirely. It would be using an elephant gun to kill a mouse, and would not speak well for the judgment of those responsible. Activist (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
My view is leaning that it shouldn't be included in the article on Wasserman Schutlz, and instead on a different relevant page. q (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It fits right in there with the other criticisms. I don't see anyone giving any reason as to why it shouldn't be there. You are just saying it shouldn't. Why? Of course his campaign wasn't impressive; he was rarely included in the polls -- likely because the media doesn't want someone whose focus is ending money in politics, of which the media is the primary beneficiary, through campaign contributions that primarily go towards paying for ads -- polls which were required to be in the debates. Then when he finally was included in enough polls to meet the DNC's initial requirement, Schultz's DNC changes the rules. 24.206.176.226 (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I put the statements back in. I would support reorganization of this information, but not removal, unless placed in a related article. The entire "2016 Presidential election" section is currently about criticisms of DWS. This belongs with the other criticisms. Having a presidential candidate claim that you essentially cheated him in the primary race is no insignificant matter, especially given the recent email revelations that indicate that the DNC was actively trying to elect Hillary. Pulseczar (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Please don't re-add the material to the article unless a consensus is reached to do so. See WP:ONUS and WP:CON.- MrX 16:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, just re-adding the material isn't proper. - On the actual topic, the section above that exists is a decision Wasserman Shultz made that is sourced. There is no sourced reference in the Lessig details that she made the decision, it is always listed as DNC. He does say in one article that he scheduled a call to discuss it with her, and she cancelled. I lean heavily towards this being on a DNC page and not her biography. I understand she was head of the DNC, but there isn't much to go on for inclusion on her page in my view. Perhaps I'm wrong, what do others think? q (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hired by Clinton?

The line about her "joining the Clinton campaign" seems POV to me -- she was given an unpaid, honorary position, which hardly warrants a line in the lead: most news sources don't mention it (Fortune is the only respectable news source that does). I'm deleting the line, posting my reasoning here in case this is debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCFleming05 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but the media has repeatedly said she resigned as DNC chair and joined as honorary chair of the Clinton campaign on the very same day. This should appear in the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Your justification for removal: most news sources don't mention it (Fortune is the only respectable news source that does) is incorrect. Here are a half a dozen major sources mentioning it:
I'm not convinced that it belongs in the lede, however. D.Creish (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Important, but not so much to be in the lede. Activist (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it is.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd go with important, but not in the lede. q (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It's possibly worth a brief mention, but certainly not in the lead.- MrX 17:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Why not? Ledes of living people tend to include what their current roles are.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not so much a role as it is a consolation prize for someone having a really bad week.- MrX 18:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It does seem that way. It's very relevant to the fallout from the leaks (and included appropriately in that article's lede) and if her role becomes active and public as the campaign progresses we should include it, but for now I say leave it to the body. D.Creish (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Very SYNTHy without RS that discusses it in a way that establishes more than incidental significance. Such RS would tell us its importance and weight in WP. We don't have any such discussion in RS yet. I agree with OP. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
What utter rubbish. Synthi?? Not. 98.67.191.130 (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Most definitely not in the lede, and yeah this is WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2016

Please change "preceded by" on DNC chair from Donna Brazile to Tim Kaine.

http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/wasserman-schultz-to-lead-dnc-052605 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Kaine


Babyjames52 (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Would need a rationale why the interim chair should not be listed in the infobox Cannolis (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

BLP vio/misrepresentation of sources

The sentence that begins with: "She has been criticized for her handling of a data breach of the NGP Van system..."

First, at the very least that would need to be attributed. Criticized by whom? The way it's written right now, with the inline citation at the end, it reads like she's being criticized by the NY Times which is of course not the case.

Second, this isn't even in the article. The article is about the argument between the DNC and the Sanders campaign after the Sanders campaign illegally hacked and "searched and stored proprietary information from Mrs. Clinton’s team during a software glitch with an important voter database". The fact that this isn't mentioned creates a POV problem.

I am removing this as a BLP violation, although if properly rewritten to adhere to the source, then it can be put back in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I find your edits highly problematic and most if not all of what you have deleted should be restored. Gandydancer (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
That's nice, but you need to actually address the substance here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
You've made a number of unilateral edits around this issue here and at the main article, some against consensus. There was also the BLPN discussion you started without notifying the participants here or anywhere else until I reminded you. Further I see you attempted to add discretionary sanction notices to this article, the main article and multiple, related articles apparently out of process. I have to agree with Gandydancer - this behavior is highly problematic. D.Creish (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
How on earth could a Discretionary Sanctions notice be "out of process?" It appears to me that some editors are revert warring to favor disputed material. If this continues, Admin attention will be required. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
According to Mr. X (see the link above) only administrators are allowed to place articles under discretionary sanctions. That is "how on earth" adding a DS notice to this talk page and others could be "out of process." Is Mr. X incorrect?
I do agree administrator intervention may be necessary. Edit-warring against consensus isn't tolerated anywhere. D.Creish (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Anybody may place the notice on a talk page, and everybody should heed it. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Well you have a long-term editor saying otherwise, so this needs clarification. Pinging @MrX:. D.Creish (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Articles cannot be placed under discretionary sanctions (for example 1RR) except by an admin. All post-1932 American Politics articles can be placed under discretionary sanctions by an admin. Placing a banner on a talk page suggesting that an article has been placed under discretionary sanctions when it hasn't is misleading. Anyone who disagrees with this is free to inquire at WP:ARCA.- MrX 23:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Arbcom placed the articles under DS. The notice is neither the imposition nor the enforcement, and any editor may post the notice. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
See WP:ARBAPDS. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people." In other words, any admin can place any article within the scope of this remedy under standard discretionary sanctions. Prior to this decision, Arbcom had to do it. Please inquire at WP:ARCA if you believe otherwise.- MrX 23:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
D.Creish, look. I'm a little confused about the issue myself. But either, if DS apply to this article, you're violating them by edit warring to restore contentious material which has been challenged, or if they do not, you're still violating WP:BLP by inserting contentious material about a living person into the article. Discretionary sanctions and WP:BLP are not mutually exclusive. In fact, DS is meant to complement our standard BLP policy. So please, stop re-adding this stuff. Either way, it's no good.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@MrX. That's incorrect. Any Admin may enforce by blocking an offender, but the imposition of the regime of DS was placed by Arbcom and is in force here. Trust me. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
That makes no sense, but believe whatever you want. I have no interest in arguing about it.- MrX 00:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Editors can bone up on it here and here: [8] [9] SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of how discretionary sanctions actually apply to this article, I'd like to focus on the issue at hand, which is that these edits are a BLP violation, a portion of them (the "honorary chair" part) obviously has no consensus, while the other part has no "firm consensus". Which means that until such is established they should not be in the article, whether one invokes the BLP policy or the application of DS. Additionally, to the extent that some discussion has been had at WP:BPLN [10] the agreement is that these are in fact problematic. Now. We can revisit BLPN or, alternatively, the editors who wish to include this material can initiate a WP:RfC to establish this "firm consensus". But, per policy, in the meantime, this material simply should not be in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

VM: Regardless of how you construe it policy does not allow a single editor to make increasingly prohibitive demands on a consensus of the rest. D.Creish (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually both BLP and DS do in fact require firm consensus for contentious material. So yes, I can make such demands. But I am NOT making "increasingly prohibitive demands". All I'm asking is that you satisfy policy, no more and no less. In fact, I have repeatedly suggested how you should go about that - start an WP:RfC or initiate another discussion at WP:BLPN. That's not "prohibitive" in the least. That's standard procedure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Marek has made 14 edits to this article since July 24, and has clearly violated the 3 revert rule multiple times, which states that you cannot make more than 3 reverts in less than 24 hours to any article (with the exception of getting rid of "contentious material" which this is not since there are so many reliable source talking about it). This user has a very very very long block log for harassment and edit warring.

Volunteer Marek is not going to stop being disruptive and is clearly Not here to help build an encyclopedia. Since there are at least 5 users, by my count, that are trying to improve the article while being harassed and bullied through edit warring by someone who has a long history of both behaviors, everyone should just go to arbcom and get this person another ban (probably month long, if not indef) since they are a long term disruptive editor.

This user is going to continue disruptively editing the article until a registered user takes this to arbcom. My post does belong in wikipedia because the talk page is used to improve the article, and since this editor is harassing everyone then we can't improve the article until Marek (whose edits consist of nothing but deleting other people's information) is blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.160.241 (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Not even gonna bother responding to this nonsense, especially since even the few edits that they have made seem to indicate this is a sock puppet of a banned user who's only here to pursue a personal grudge.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
"was "booed off stage"" and other minor derogatory content is undue, given that the situation with resignation was already described on the page. This look to me like grave dancing and putting unimportant and derogatory information on the page specifically to disparage the person and therefore goes against WP:BLP. Hence my removal. Note that I have fresh eyes here as someone who never edited this page before and generally not interested in US politics (these elections though are indeed something special). My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Then I guess you haven't seen this? Quote: "The speech was met with boos and a negative reception among the crowd." – after Cruz didn't endorse Trump in RNC convention. These two cases are pretty similar: both are top politicians who received similar treatment, for different reasons. Politrukki (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Uh.... DWS wasn't running against Clinton. Cruz was running against Trump. The situations are not similar at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

"Booed off stage" is stating a notable fact with numerous citations from well respected and reliable secondary sources. If it was "she sucks and people hate her" that would be derogatory and unimportant. Anyways, I gave Marek a warning for violating 3RR twice. If he does it again just go to the Edit Warring Noticeboards and make a post reporting him if he edits this page at least 3 times in 24 hours again. Also if he stays just under 3 reverts in 24 hours it is still considered edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.160.241 (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"Booed off stage" is not a subjective statement. It was a notable enough event to have been reported by major news organizations. I see no problem with mentioning it. It can be added back as long as it's referenced and it's deemed significant. Majoreditor (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
It's gratuitous. And trivial. It doesn't really add anything of substance to an encyclopedia article. This is a BLP. You can't put controversial material into a BLP without strong consensus. One more time: start an RfC. Go to BLP/N. In the meantime, please stop putting this stuff in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The "booed off the stage" incident was a major event of the news cycle and received major attention in the press. It is also directly relevant to her resignation. Also - and let me be clear - including it is NOT a violation of BLP. That she was booed off stage is not in contention, it's an actual fact and one that analysts and reporters deemed very significant. You don't have consensus to remove well-sourced material, and I urge all editors to respect 3RR. Majoreditor (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. (Personal attack removed) Gandydancer (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. This information is well-sourced and should be included. Gandydancer (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • An important event to be included in BLP was her resignation. The "booed off the stage" is something to be reported by news, not something to be included in encyclopedia or a BLP of a notable person. Or at least it appears this way to someone who is not interested too much in US politics like myself. If someone was notable only for being booed off the stage, then yes, maybe. But she is not. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
It's significant that the booing off the stage contributed to her turning over the gavel and not appearing before the delegates to open and manage the convention. Majoreditor (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
This is WP:Recentism, a BLP violation or the both. I am sure this stays on the page only because of elections. That would be fine if the page was about election campaign by a candidate (we have such pages). However, this is undue on the BLP page, and I am sure this will be removed at some point later if anyone cares about BLP rules. My very best wishes (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
It's neither. This event may likely be written up in the history books and is certainly one of the more noteworthy elements of the convention. Based on the comments on this talk page a majority of editors seem to agree. Majoreditor (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
This event may likely be - or this event may likely NOT be. We don't know. You're WP:CRYSTALBALLin'. Until those history books come out, WP:NOTNEWS applies, this is a WP:BLP and the event is not notable and possibly damaging to the subject. So, unless you get firm consensus - do I have to say it again? Start an WP:RfC - it stays out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
A standing party chair not gaveling in the party's convention is unprecedented. Substantial coverage of the "booing" which caused it and the event itself in almost all major sources makes it notable. A single sentence summary in a long biographical article is not at all undue. The discussion so far and the number of editors who've reverted your removal show consensus is against you. Edit-warring does not change that. D.Creish (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
If you are so certain, then start an RfC, go to WP:BLPN, let's get uninvolved editors involved and we'll see. In the meantime stop biolating WP:BLP, like in this edit [11]. Is that really that hard to understand? I mean, it's starting to look like the only reason you're refusing to try to determine consensus via proper channels (RfC or BLPN) is because you actually know, that this "conensus" that you keep claiming doesn't really exist.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk page consensus is fine on it's own. If you're the only one here who feels extra steps are necessary you should take those extra steps, no one's stopping you. Four separate editors have restored the text. A better first step might be for you to attempt to explain why an event unprecedented in the history of the DNC is non-notable. D.Creish (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
There's no talk page consensus and I am not "only one here". The burden of proof is on those who want to insert controversial material into a BLP. So no, you're the one who needs to start an RfC. Again the fact you're evading the responsibility suggests very strongly that you know no such consensus will be reached. "Unprecedented" is your own personal opinion".Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no BLP violation. These are the first three sources I opened after searching "Debbie Wasserman Schultz" on Google News today:

I've covered politics for a long time. That is one of the most painful moments I have ever witnessed. – Chris Cillizza in The Washington Post, 2016-07-31 (commenting a tweet where Andrea Mitchell says DWS was "booed off the stage")

When she tried to address Florida party delegates at the start of the Democratic National Convention last week, she was booed off the stage. – Drew Gerber in Forward, 2016-08-01

After her disastrous Florida delegation breakfast in Philadelphia on July 25 where she was booed, she stayed largely out of the spotlight and only appeared in friendly venues, such as a “thank you” gathering and an event organized by a Jewish group. – Amy Sherman in Miami Herald, 2016-08-03

All three mention that DWS has kept low-profile due to the incident. I don't think we have a WP:NOTNEWS or WP:UNDUE problem – as long as we keep things short. Politrukki (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Those are good points, Politrukki. It merits a brief mention but there's no need to go into excessive detail. Majoreditor (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no consensus to include, and I would be opposed for the reasons already explained above. While the resignation and the reason for resignation are notable (and they are properly included), these minor details are not. My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you calling the boo-ing a minor detail or not gaveling in the convention, or both? I don't see how the gaveling is minor and at the same time unprecedented. I'm also having a hard time characterizing what a veteran political reporter called "one of the most painful moments I have ever witnessed" as too minor to include. D.Creish (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
This is not an article about Mr. Cillizza and his memorable moments. SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what I can say beyond what D.Creish has already said, but I really just do not understand the objections to including this information. I follow American politics very closely and this fact most certainly will go down as a major incident in this year's presidential campaign. Gandydancer (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

DWS speech, gaveling in Philly

Following content was removed citing NOTNEWS so I'll put it there for now and see how we feel about inclusion later. Darmokand (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Speaking before the Florida delegation in Philadelphia, Wasserman Schultz was "booed off stage". Shortly thereafter, it was announced that Wasserman Schuldz had 'abruptly' cancelled plans to gavel open the convention.[2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ "Marcia Fudge To Replace Wasserman Schultz As Chair Of Democratic National Convention". Daily Caller. July 24, 2016. Retrieved July 24, 2016.
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/25/debbie-wasserman-schultz-booed-dnc-fbi-email-hack
  3. ^ http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.733180
  4. ^ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/25/debbiewasserman-schultz-draws-boos-cheers-florida-delegation-breakfast/87523924/
It's one of many small events in her life that is just not that significant. Will the media be covering it in a week? A month? A year?- MrX 00:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe this should be included. It's not news; it's far more significant than Melania Trump's two lines.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The chair of a party being booed, forced to resign and prevented from gaveling in the convention is unprecedented in modern politics. I don't see how that could be described as a "small event." D.Creish (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I restored the text for the following reasons: The reception DWS got when she spoke to the Florida delegation at the convention in Philly is very significant. Let me provide some context. She was met by a loud chorus of boos from the moment she opened her mouth until she left. This is why I think it's particularly important. Florida has 246 delegates. Of those, only 75 were Bernie's. He got only 28% of the votes in the primary. Of the Superdelegates, Hillary got 28 and Bernie two, with two uncommitted as of the last figures I can find. DWS should have been in very friendly company, given that she's still the DNC chair and was addressing her own state's delegation where this year she has met with her first primary opposition since 1992. She was staff to Peter Deutsch before being elected long ago to the state legislature. She's survived two congressional redistrictings. The reception yesterday (I watched it) was I think a bellwether. It's not just Bernie, and it's not just recentism. She's become a bipartisan and intramural lightning rod. Even the Wikileaks communications were misunderstood, in her favor. There wasn't an Alaskan anti-Hillary "counter event" (also characterized by the DNC as an "insurgency"), even though Bernie got 81% of the caucus votes there, but rather a specifically anti-DWS demonstration. Per the DNC emails, at least 20 delegates walked out on her keynote speech in Anchorage in May and the counter-event was paid for by attendees themselves, and it included prominent political actors from that state. Though apparently somewhat spontaneously assembled, it probably drew more people than the state convention, even though I understand that guests are welcomed at the latter. Many of her behaviors and positions have disturbed her constituents, from her support for fracking in the Everglades, the siting of for-profit prisons in her district and for that industry, a substantial contributor, itself, her opposition to a marijuana criminalization initiative that passed with 58% support in her district, and her advocacy for the TPP and the Payday Loan industry, for example. Activist (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with User:MrX, this is not newsworthy enough for a BLP. And Activist, we don't base Wikipedia articles, especially BLPs on some random persons original research (especially when it's mostly irrelevant to the issue at hand).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The Politico article is exhaustive and definitive and describes her reception as the culmination of behavior that has alienated her supporters and brought her to nationwide attention. It's more substantial than Howard Dean's scream in Iowa. It's the fumbling response by Michael Dukakis to the death penalty question. Historically, for her, it will likely be George H.W. Bush's "No new taxes," the perigee of her career. Activist (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
First, DWS isn't a presidential candidate, in case you haven't noticed. Second, you're responding to the notice that you're engaging in original research with a whole bunch of new original research. Show me the sources that compare any of this to Dean's Scream, Dukakis or whatever. Third, in carrying out your original research you're clearly WP:CRYSTALBALLing ("it will likely be").Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm beginning to understand. You're simply a victim of concrete thinking, of an inability to abstract. In addition, you think that others have meant what only you can deduce: You're the one attributing evil intent and conspiracies to anyone and everyone who disagrees with you on any point. It's your own WP:CRYSTALBALL you're consulting. I and others are not putting original research into an article. This is a TALK page. I'm trying to clarify why her rejection by her own Florida delegation was so unusual and important: The Sanders delegates were in a very small minority of those attending that meeting, "...in case you haven't noticed," as you so caustically and intentionally insultingly put it. When you ask for sources and you're given four or five, you simply dismiss them all as unreliable, as if the only one who can properly assess their reliability is yourself, and your sole, self-defining criterion for reliability seems to be whether or not you agree with the edit(s). I am reminded of that continuation of the Humpty Dumpty quote: "...the question is, 'Who is to be master?, that's all'." When you autonomously revert the posts of four others, its "edit warring" solely on their part, in your mind. I concede that there is nothing likely that will change your attitude, but I think an RfC is long overdue at this point, if we're going to get anything resolved. Activist (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I find your... statement, incomprehensible. I also don't appreciate your attempts at psychoanalyzing me or something. "Inability to abstract" is a personal attack. I've had plenty worse, but that's still what it is. Discuss content not the editor (for example, I haven't said anything about your peculiar choice of username).
And on the content, what you are proposing is exactly original research. I asked for sources above. You haven't provided them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, the criteria for reliable sources are not "properly assessed (for) their reliability" by myself, but rather are laid out in WP:RS. DailyCaller for example, is not a reliable source. But that's actually a side issue in this particular case - the issue here is whether this is notable and does it belong in a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Each of getting booed off-stage and canceling her plans to address the convention are material to document the collapse of DWS's career in politics. These events are notable and most certainly are news, and these are not original research, as noted by NBC News in the second source provided : "The anger over leaked emails showing DNC officials plotting against the primary campaign of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders boiled over Monday as Wasserman Schultz was greeted by boos and jeers at her home state's breakfast meeting." maslowsneeds🌈 05:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Again "collapse of DWS's career in politics" is both original research and crystal ballin'. There's no way it belongs in a BLP and there's no way it can be used to justify including material in a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
"Collapse of DWS's career in politics" is not original research. It is a representation of information already in the mainstream media. See Heckled offstage, Wasserman Schultz now seeks re-election (noting that the "furor over leaked emails" is "also providing fodder for her opponent in Florida's Aug. 30 congressional primary," noting, further, that, "Her opponent in Florida's Aug. 30 congressional primary is Tim Canova, a Nova Southeastern University law professor who tweeted Monday that 'DWS must be defeated in this election and removed from Congress. It's time to end her political career for good.'"). Again, the "collapse of DWS's career in politics" is not original research. You may personally dislike the state of DWS's career, but you cannot deny inclusion of RS information about how the mainstream media describes the state of DWS's career. maslowsneeds🌈 14:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, the Sun-Sentinel, DWS's hometown newspaper, reported that the circumstances of DWS's resignation from the DNC represented what amounted to a 180° turn in her political career : "Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston was supposed to be beginning one of the best weeks of her political career. Instead, she announced Sunday that she was resigning as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee," adding that, "Everything unraveled for Wasserman Schultz over a tumultuous 48 hours after WikiLeaks posted a treasure trove of emails," before noting that, "For Wasserman Schultz, the emails were a political disaster." Her career suffered "a political disaster." maslowsneeds🌈 14:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
No, "collapse of political career" is most definitely original research. You're interpreting primary sources and/or reading into secondary sources what they don't say. And you need more than one source that makes vague statements about her career to put this into a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Not only has Wasserman Schultz's career taken a nose-dive due to her mismanagement of the DNC, but so have those of the leadership she oversaw at the DNC. This week, Chief executive Amy Dacey, Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda resigned from their posts in the wake of the revelations in the publishing of the DNC emails by WikiLeaks. This is material to Wasserman Schultz's mismanagement of the DNC. maslowsneeds🌈 11:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing content per WP:BLP

@Volunteer Marek: would you kindly explain how this content you removed violates BLP policy? The cited content is supported in sources, they are definitely reliable and none of the claims are exceptional. The Guardian and USA Today even have a short video of the event. Politrukki (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

As already explained, by myself and others, there is no indication that this is a noteworthy enough of a event for a BLP. If indeed it turns out that this marks the end of her political career, as some here like to claim, than you can put it in here. In the future. But that hasn't happened yet and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL apply, and this is simply WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
It most definitely does not violate BLP. It could potentially violate consensus but it's clear from the discussion above consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of inclusion. I ask Volunteer Marek to stop edit-warring and attempt to gain consensus prior to editing. "BLP" isn't a magic word that justifies edits against consensus. If you genuinely believe there are BLP-violating claims in the article and you can't gain consensus for their removal, take it to the BLP noticeboard. D.Creish (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, yes it does violate BLP if it's UNDUE and critical in nature. As to consensus, as has already been pointed out several times, several of the participants here were explicitly WP:CANVASSed here to edit war for this stuff. And there are other users, other than me who agree that this does not belong in the article. And btw, BLP requires FIRM consensus. Like I've already said several times, you need to start an WP:RfC or start a (another) discussion at WP:BLPN to include this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
With respect, Volunteer Marek, so far you have explained nothing. You are the only one who has removed this content per WP:BLP, and you have done that without specifying what exactly your "good-faith BLP objection" (as in WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE) is. I may or may not agree that this content should be excluded per WP:UNDUE or WP:NOTNEWS, but that is different discussion. Please cite the specific parts of WP:BLP which, in your opinion, prohibit inclusion of this material, to let others address your BLP concerns. Then let's move on. Politrukki (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Politrukki. I also feel that content does not violate WP:BLP. For the same reasons. High-quality & reliable sources are included. And none of the claims are exceptional. In addition to that, that content balance nicely with the other also valuable viewpoint in the same section. Francewhoa (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiLeaks external links in the body

Per WP:EL Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article. Could someone either (a) remove WikiLeaks external links from the body, (b) put them in ref tags or (c) explain why "normally" doesn't apply here? Because I can't. Politrukki (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You were right to remove them. WP:ELNO clearly applies, and so does WP:BLPSPS. We don't include damning links to a low-quality primary source, especially one which had violated numerous laws in obtaining the material (assuming it's authentic), and we certainly don't do it in a WP:BLP.- MrX 11:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like I was clearly wrong...sorry for the extra work I caused. Gandydancer (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
WikiLeaks publishes material. You are engaging in slander and libel by accusing WikiLeaks of breaking any laws in collecting the information. WikiLeaks' sole known role was as publisher. If you have material information that proves that they had a role greater than just mere publisher, you should publish that. Otherwise, by leaving your comment up, you expose Wikipedia to slander and libel accusations.maslowsneeds🌈 18:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I struck my lay legal analysis. I've also opened a discussion at WP:BLP/N about violations of WP:BLPSPS and WP:ELNO, which you seem to have ignored. @Maslowsneeds:, you apparently ignored the edit notice which says "must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining firm consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.". Please self-revert or I will raise the issue WP:AE.- MrX 19:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the record. maslowsneeds🌈 19:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Please lay off the personal attacks and assume good faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure, and thank you to Govindaharihari for removing the links.- MrX 19:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Fully protected for two days

Reminder that this article is under WP:1RR. --NeilN talk to me 00:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion of section about DWS aversion to debates

This section regarding the issue of debates should be considered for inclusion, as modified. Somebody is going around vandalising this page, with the seeming intention of puring information that is not flattering to DWS. I reverted the deletion, but again the section got edited/deleted, and I could not save this amendment due to an active editing conflict, even though this pages is reportedly under monitoring for repeated vandalism.

For months, Rep. Wasserman Schultz repeatedly refused to respond to direct questions about whether or not she would be willing to debate Canova, indicating she was focused only on the presidential campaign.[1] She relented, three weeks before the election, at first agreeing to a 15-minute debate on live television on Sunday morning, August 14. Canova had held out for longer debates and the two eventually agreed to debate for an hour.[2][3] Whereas Wasserman Schultz agreed to one debate, she ignored Canova's calls for multiple debates.[4][5]
New Times Broward-Palm Beach is a "an alternative weekly newspaper" and these are clearly editorials. Not particularly well written ones at that. You can't use that in a BLP. Please read WP:BLP and WP:RS.
Second, this debate thing is of local interest only, so even if there were some serious sources, it would be WP:UNDUE. Incidentally, the Miami Herald, which is a reliable source, actually wrote that it was Canova who refused to debate. Anyway, the debate will happen soon or has happened, it will be over, and the world will go on and no one will care. This is simply *not that important* to the biography of DWS. So there's no reason it should in there
More generally, this article should not be used for the purposes of the political campaign which is what it looks like is going on. The article is being used to attack a candidate in an election. That's a pretty serious violation of Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. Also WP:NOTHERE.
Finally, please stop making personal attacks (like calling other people's good faithed edits "vandalism"). I already asked you once [12]. This is me asking you for the second time to cut it out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
So, the answer was to purge all of the information, becasue you deemed one source to be an alt weekly ? Each report in that secion built on the last, and the facts are cross-attested by each successive press report. The information is not of "local interest," bc this is information about DWS's Congressional reelection race. The issues in the Congressional campaign, including the issue of debates, are material to DWS, since this is her Congressional campaign. maslowsneeds🌈 11:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your edit summary, the article was locked because you and VM were edit warring on an article with a clear 1RR restriction. I even notified you about that and you thanked me for "correcting the record", something you've also said to editors who you seem to think are whitewashing the article. Your battleground mentality is becoming an obstacle to collegiate discussion on this article. clpo13(talk) 16:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Debbie Wasserman Schultz ducking questions about debating Tim Canova, Broward Palm Beach New Times, Jerry Iannelli, May 12, 2016. Retrieved 12 May 2016.
  2. ^ Debbie Wasserman Schultz ducking questions about debating Tim Canova, Broward Palm Beach New Times, Jerry Iannelli, May 12, 2016. Retrieved 14 August 2016.
  3. ^ Debate tiff ends: Canova, Wasserman Schultz agree to spar on TV, Miami Herald, Amy Sherman, August 11, 2016. Retrieved 14 August 2016.
  4. ^ O'Brien, Cortney (2016-08-16). "Wasserman Schultz Proves She's Still Afraid of Debates". Town Hall. Retrieved 2016-08-25.
  5. ^ Man, Anthony (2016-08-11). "Wasserman Schultz, Canova continue debate gamesmanship". The Sun Sentinel. Retrieved 2016-08-25.
I wasn't edit warring with anybody. After I saw that my edit was undone by the other contributor, I brought my issue to the talk page -- for an open discussion. I want to also point out that I couldn't save my edit, because there was a conflict by somebody else editing that section, so I bought the issue to the talk page. Either way, bringing the issue here was the reasonable action to take. By bringing to the talk page the issue of the DWS's aversion to debates, I was hoping to get guidance from other contributors about how, because one source in this section was questioned by the other contributor, the entire section about debates was gutted. (What actions did the other contributor take to discuss his edits, prior to making his purges ?) The various sources for this section, which I was trying to augment, build upon each other. Each successive article attests (or incorporates) facts from the prior articles. So, even if one source was weaker than the rest, collectively, the facts are made certain by this collection of sources. It's not reasonable to gut this section over unfair criticism of one source, when the facts are referenced amongst other sources, as provided or agumented. Plus, the issue of debates is material to DWS's reëlection race. I apologise if I spoke out of turn with you. It seems there are a lot of edits being made now with the effect of shilling, so I am sorry if I drew that conclusion about your message. But if the gutting of articles, like this one, are allowed to stand, then the impact does cross over into shilling. That should not be being allowed on Wikipedia is my bottom line point. maslowsneeds🌈 19:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
First, no, the entire section was based on an unreliable source, with another being used to source tangential and unimportant facts. Second, you really really really need to stop making personal attacks on other editors like "It seems there are a lot of edits being made now with the effect of shilling" or calling other editor's edit vandalism or accusing them of working for a political campaign or in edit summaries such as this [13]. This is the last time I'm going to ask you to cease this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

2016

IMO the outcome of the primary election belongs in the first paragraph which talks about the primary race. I don’t see the connection or chronological order, if you will, between Mr. Canova’s FEC complaint and Ms. Wasserman Schultz’ win. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

STOP REVERTING CONSTRUCTIVE EDITS PEOPLE

It is not vandalism. We have no need for a link for something like campaign material. It is easily referenced and found on the internet with a search. Please you have added campaign and fluff material back in that has no place in an encyclopedia. This is fact based. Also, no need to name her parents three times and tell us she was in this after school activity. The article read like a fluff piece and you blanketly reverted all edits is vandalism. If a link was broken then you fix it. Thank you for your help today (SARCASM) You say use the talk page , yet I see nothing here regarding all the vandalism/reverted edits. I am undoing them. USE TALK PAGE.2602:306:CE98:1510:4CEF:D74C:D98C:4A0E (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. Your bold edits have been challenged, so now a discussion needs to happen in order to find consensus. clpo13(talk) 16:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course there's material related to campaigns, since much of her career has involved campaigns. You are going to have to make a much better argument for removing material than calling it "campaign and fluff material". For example, why would you remove content about a bill she introduced? I don't object to removing the Peter Deutsch material since it's unsourced. Some of the other material that you removed is negotiable, but most of it is well sourced so it would be a matter of WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 16:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Preceded by Tim Kaine

She was preceded by Tim Kaine, Donna Brazile was only a 1 month interim. Gumbyrocks (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC).

She was acting chair, 'though, and it shouldn't matter for how long. At least that seems to be the general consensus here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
I changed it back to "Donna Brazile" once because that seemed to be the consensus here and because Tim Kaine's infobox says "Succeeded by Donna Brazile (Acting)", but I have no opinion of my own. Politrukki (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Debbie Wasserman Schultz. 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) 22:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Debbie Wasserman Schultz. 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) 18:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Restored valid text - DWS, not DS

A search for Debbie Wasserman Schultz showed almost half a million hits. A search for "Debbie Schultz" showed two: A woman in Seattle and another in Austin, TX. The two dates restored are important, rather than the conflated one, per the same search. Activist (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

IT staffer

Hi, User:Volunteer Marek! You removed referenced content about her IT staffer, but the President of the United States has tweeted about it. There are also plenty of RS we could add. I think this should be included. Do we need an RfC for this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The president tweets a lot of things, many of which are demonstrably untrue. Coverage in major RS is the benchmark here, and we'd need lots of significant coverage in unbiased sources for it to merit inclusion in her BLP. Even then it's questionable imo. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
What he or she said.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: @Fyddlestix: @Zigzig20s: What the president does or doesn't do is irrelevant. His actions speak for themselves and are without credibility. However there are reasons why this situation should be included and why it is not a BLP vio, I believe. DWS hired the couple, retained them even as the revelations of the scandal amplified and all the other joint House employers dumped them. She argued over and tried to retrieve evidence lawfully obtained by the Capitol Police. She is reported to have rashly tried to intimidate the CP from proceeding with further investigation, and may have tampered with evidence. Serious crimes appear to have been committed by the couple that affect the House of Representatives and its credit union. If DWS had not hired them, they wouldn't have had access to that illegitimately obtained, considerable funding. I think we should retain it or alternatively submit it to a RfC. Activist (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I oppose including this content which is about a person who is not the subject of this biography. No objection to starting an RfC.- MrX 13:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Is there anything any of us need to do to conduct this RfC? I'm not as familiar with initiating the process as I might be. Thanks. Activist (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Done. See below.- MrX 14:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz/Archive_1&oldid=1142369073"