Talk:Tim Canova

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

About the removal of this article...[edit]

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

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

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

Denial of access to voter info[edit]

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

Debate resistance[edit]

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

Greetings. I added the words "according to Canova's campaign website". This is not a "weaselly phrase" as you characterize it but quite the opposite: it reports facts. Until we have reliable, third-party sources explicitly reporting and corroborating Wasserman Schultz's "refusal to debate" we cannot be listing it as fact in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a political forum. Until such sources are found, we have to properly assign the source for the "not debating" claim. Labeling something as a "refusal" without the term being used by a third-party, reliable source is clearly a personal point of view. The only fact that we have is the Canova campaign claim. If we are to mention a "refusal" we are obliged to mention the source. Simple as that. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical of the Broward Palm Beach New Times article. In the second paragraph, I read that Ms. Wasserman Schultz "has been roundly — and rightly — criticized for taking money from less-than-upstanding corporate industries like payday lenders." That's not the tone newspapers typically take. However, it might be reliable anyway; I'm not sure, so I left it alone.
Also, I don't think you'd be able to use the videos you mentioned to support the proposition that Ms. Wasserman Schultz is unwilling to debate Mr. Canova: putting aside reliability problems, it would be impermissible synthesis as you would be combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Rebbing 20:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Broward-Palm Beach New Times is most definitely a "...reliable, third-party source." It is a well established weekly paper in south Florida, part of the Voice Media Group. It was originally part of the Miami New Times, founded in 1987, but split off in 1997. Both papers share the same editor and have won many prizes as have other publications in the small group. I'm more familiar with other papers in the group such as the L.A. Weekly, Phoenix New Times and Denver Westword all of which I've been reading for over a dozen years. As I'd noted previously, I did not get the information about her refusals to answer the debate question from the Canova campaign, but instead rather from the cited Broward-Palm Beach New Times article which is entitled a rather unequivocal Debbie Wasserman Schultz ducking questions about debating Tim Canova. I had also noted that a video clip of her statement to which the story referred is embedded in that newspaper story. Coincidentally, I was watching Hardball with Chris Matthews and his guests on MSNBC last night. During their discussion Canova was mentioned by name, as was the possibility that she might be removed before the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. This they said, was because of increasingly widespread upset with her DNC chair performance, and that this was likely to be a factor in their primary. Activist (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article's title and meaning are clear—as is its partisanship with regard to Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If reliable, I believe this falls under WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like '(Author) says...' A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers." Rebbing 14:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very Biased[edit]

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

I agree, and I concur in your changes, especially your removal of irrelevant material. Rebbing 21:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the deletion about the importance of the two labor endorsements Canova has received. They are significant, as the citation for the source notes in its headline, because they were made despite considerable political establishment pressure, and also because they have large memberships. The CWA, with over 600,000 members, is about the 12th largest in the U.S. The NNU is fairly new, is growing rapidly, and has a membership of a little under 200,000. There are "national unions" with only hundreds of members, so the substitution is less informative than the original language. Activist (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the union language back to my original edit. (sorry I forgot to sign it) I think calling them two of the nation's "largest unions" is very misleading language.Hashbron (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an end to vandalism[edit]

@Bluestategirl:@Crrl333:@WillMorganSeattle:@Bluestategirl:@Montoya44:@MrWooHoo:@Rebbing Re: Notability. Such may be in the eye of the beholder of course, but in this case, the subject of the article, well known only in academic and progressive political circles beforehand, raised about $3 million in seven months in $20 average contributions, got over 43% of the vote in a district where the demographics greatly favored the officeholder and where the incumbent's name had been a household word for decades. He took on one of the most powerful members and most prodigious fundraisers in congressional history in a primary and turned it into one of the most watched congressional contests of the year, the results reported on by many major networks today (8/31/16). He mounted an impressive and substantial challenge despite her endorsements from Barack Obama and many other national figures, and got fundraisers held in the district attended by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Congressman John Lewis, Gabby Giffords, many prominent labor unions, etc., etc. Her campaign received roughly 2/3rds of a million from just a single SuperPAC, the Patriot Majority, which did intense polling, mailers, etc., to assure her rescue from her own foolishness. http://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2016/08/embattled-wasserman-schultz-getting-help-from-washington-super-pac-104456 As a result of attentiion to disclosures precipitated by his campaign and her inappropriately using what is mandated to be an impartial party apparatus for her own personal political advantage, she and her personal four top appointees at the DNC were forced to resign and she wound up being booed at the nominating convention by the same Florida delegation where she had been a "favorite daughter" at the end of 2015. Though it would be difficult to quantify, her behavior has indubitably damaged the campaign of Hillary Clinton herself, as the Florida stink adheres to the person who has given her the title of "honorary campaign chair." So notability is being questioned by an anonymous IP editor (probably from Lincoln, Nebraska), who, if actually so inclined, could likely find millions of articles about truly non-notable subjects with the click of a mouse, and whom we are being asked to credulously assume has not "in good faith" deleted wide swaths of extremely well-sourced material from the article in the past months under that editor's USER name. "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln," as the old saying goes, "...what did you think of the play?" Activist (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all great, but do you have a point about the actual article? And what "vandalism" are you referring to?? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the Wikipedia article here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians), the claim is that "Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted." While the position being primaried for is national, losers of primaries for HoR seats seem closer to the loser of a governor's race than say the loser of a Senate race. From that perspective, Tim Canova's notability comes solely from running against Debbie Wasserman Schultz in this election, not from anything prior (his academic career is not notable). While he may deserve a short blurb in her article, I think this would set a bad precedent going forward for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.199.80 (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DNC leak section[edit]

Re [1]

1. Kay is not in WaPo or Politico which are the 2 reliable-ish sources here. RawStory and the other thing are not reliable

2. There is no source which connects the people mentioned - Marshall etc. - to Canova.

3. Don't refer to other people's edits as "vandalism", that's a personal attack.

4. This is also a BLP issue since it enumerates several people

5. That edit violates the 1RR restriction present on the article.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, his academic career is notable, especially in his synthesis of law and economics. He's published dozens of articles in prestigious journals in four languages that I recall, in his home country and overseas. Articles on him have been sourced to overseas such as the Guardian. I was watching television yesterday and today and his race was covered in all three channels I watched: PBS News Hour, and regularly on MSNBC and CNN. This was an extremely high profile campaign.

The guidelines cited include Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role. For example, a small-town mayor or city councillor who was the first LGBT person ever elected to office in their country, or who emerged as a significant national spokesman for a political issue, may be considered notable on that basis. Note that this distinction may not simply be asserted or sourced to exclusively local media; to claim notability on this basis, the coverage must be shown to have nationalized or internationalized well beyond their own local area alone.

This is from New York City: News Wrap: Polls open in major congressional primaries In our news wrap Tuesday, polls opened in several high-profile primaries.

In Florida, Sen. Marco Rubio (R) appears poised to maintain his seat, while Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D) faces stiff competition from Tim Canova. In Arizona, Sen. John McCain (R) is expected to weather a tea-party challenge. Also, the Islamic State announced that leader Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani was killed in Syria. http://www.wliw.org/programs/pbs-newshour/news-wrap-polls-open-in-major-congressional-primaries_clip/

Wolf Blitzer interviewed Canova on Monday evening and the race got more attention statewide than did the two U.S. Senate races, more than McCain vs. Kelli Ward.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/politics/mccain-rubio-wasserman-schultz-face-tuesday-primary-tests

MSNBC has mentioned the race on numerous programs for days http://www.msnbc.com/stephanie-ruhle/watch/wasserman-schultz-s-faces-primary-struggle-753521219644

This campaign will no doubt leave a permanent mark on his opponents reputation and future. Activist (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's all great but it doesn't address ANY of the points I raised. Kay is not mentioned in the two reliable sources presented. No source connects Marshall etc. to Canova (so yeah, it's a WP:COATRACK). You should not call other editor's good faithed edits "vandalism". This is a BLP issue. You've violated 1RR on this article and need to self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Raw Story has been around for 12 years and is known to be a reliable and widely read news sources. You have seemed to in the past and here dismissed widely accepted RSS because you object to their coverage of issues. From the Wikipedia article on it:

The Raw Story has been reported on and featured in The New York Times, The Guardian, LA Weekly, the New York Post, the Toronto Star, The Hill, Rolling Stone, The Advocate, Roll Call,[2] and Mother Jones.[3] With an average 10.7 million readers per month (2015),[4] the site is described by Newsweek as, "Muck, raked: If you're looking for alleged GOP malfeasance, the folks at rawstory.com are frequently scooping the mainstream media."On August 4, 2008 the Online News Association announced that RawStory.com was a finalist in the 2008 Online Journalism awards in the "Liberal, Small Site" category for the story "The permanent Republican majority", about improper partisan influence in the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama. The Raw Story's original reporting has also been referenced by MSNBC's Ed Schultz and Lawrence O'Donnell, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Real Time with Bill Maher and Countdown with Keith Olbermann. It was also referenced in 2011 by The Telegraph newspaper, as being the news website that first revealed a contract had been awarded to Ntrepid by United States Central Command as part of Operation Earnest Voice, intended to deploy operatives to create fake online personas abroad.

Activist (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, provoked perhaps by this discussion, this quote springs to mind. From the Looking Glass:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.' Activist (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this rodeo before. When you didn't like coverage from the Miami New Times, long a respected news provider circulating within the district, you simply say it's not "reliable" by standards that don't seem to exist outside your solitary opinion. This article covers the matter rather thoroughly, but you simply deleted it from the article. On the other hand, you've inserted material, like a portrait of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, that don't belong there by any stretch of the imagination. You've recently inserted material into the article that only consisted of bare URLs, your cite for the source reading "None" for instance, and I laboriously completed them. We obviously need to submit this to a request for arbitration. At the same time you've failed to provide appropriate citations, you've savaged extensively and carefully researched materials that have taken hours to gather and appropriately edit and cite, that are very germane to the article. Activist (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the standards exist "outside my solitary opinion" and they're outlined in WP:RS. Miami New Times is a " a free weekly newspaper". It's one of those "alternative free weeklies" you can get in any sufficiently urban area. It's simply not reliable for anything to do with BLPs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" On the other hand, you've inserted material, like a portrait of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, that don't belong there by any stretch of the imagination" <<-- what the hell are you talking about? I didn't insert any portraits. Are you sure you're at the right article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for Raw Story it's been brought up at RSN before [2] [3]. It's not reliable for anything controversial. It's not reliable for anything to do with BLPs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP, Coatrack and Synthesis issues[edit]

I would like to explain my reversion here. Our policy on living persons WP:BLP, needs to be respected also for people who are not the subject of this article. Passages that reflect negatively on living people (if they exist), should be very well sourced, and written conservatively and neutrally. Further, any such material must be directly relevant to the subject of this article, and should not be given undue weight. This article mustn't become a coatrack to hold negative material about other living persons. In order to avoid problems with synthesis, sources that are not about the subject of this article, should not be used as sources in this article, especially in order to support inclusion of attacks on other living peoples. LK (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary from multiple sources on issues directly related to Canova's campaign - when most coverage of him concerns the campaign - is hardly a COATRACK. And for these particular claims we have accessible source docs to verify the claims, which is rare in any news reporting. In this case even more questionable sources would do but the ones we have (rawstory and miami new times) are quality. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "quality" sources don't discuss Canova at all. The two other ones, rawstory and miami new times are NOT "quality". They are not reliable. They are most certainly not reliable for anything BLP related.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Miami New Times not quality? Print circulation of 50K, 2 million web visitors/month and their editor won a Pulitzer. Top tier for a local paper, and we use local papers all the time. Is there anything proposed for inclusion sourced only to The Raw Story?
The RS rules aren't arbitrary - they were setup to make sure we don't repeat inaccurate information. When we have source docs to back up these claim, the involved parties admitting to the veracity of the source docs and several top people resigning in light of it - are you really suggesting this might be "inaccurate information" ? James J. Lambden (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was the Pulitzer for this particular story? Did the paper actually win the award? Did somebody working for the paper win the award? If so, why isn't this in the relevant Wikipedia article? Best I can make out, someone who ONCE worked for the paper, won the award LATER, when employed somewhere else. And their commentary on it [4] sort of illustrates why they're not reliable.
Now, yes, the RS rules aren't arbitrary. So why not follow them and find a better source for the info in question? If indeed the text is accurate then it shouldn't be too much of a problem finding additional actually reliable sources to back it up. Again, this is a BLP issue. Same for "having source docs" - not sure what that means, but it looks like you're saying we can interpret the primary source material ourselves. We can't. Definitely not in cases of living persons.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, I see, you're talking about the fact that the current editor of MNT won an award as part of a team while working for the Miami Herald. Which is great but it really says nothing about MNT's reliability.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Broken[edit]

Does anyone know how to correctly format the infobox at the top of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenatorFreedom (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of sources[edit]

In a 2016 interview with Glenn Greenwald, Canova says:

When I was a professor at the University of New Mexico, I threw myself into a grassroots campaign to get rid of felony disenfranchisement, and it was one of the great grassroots movements I’ve ever been involved in...And we had an opportunity because we had, even though he was a Republican governor, he was a libertarian governor, Gary Johnson, who was trying to end the war on drugs. We got a grassroots movement that lit a fire underneath him. We got Democrats in the state house, in the legislature, to pass legislation within two months, and Gary Johnson signed it. And that’s all it took, was two months of good organization and a lot of grassroots lobbying and New Mexico was no longer a felony disenfranchisement state.

Those claims by Canova do not match the claims in this bio cited to the Glenn Greenwald article: that Canova "worked with Libertarian Republicans, including former New Mexico Governor and 2016 Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson, to eliminate felony disenfranchisement." Canova clearly says that he was part of a grassroots movement that worked with Democrats. According to the Michigan Journal of Race and Law (which does not mention Canova as playing any role in the outcome), in New Mexico Senate and House Democrats voted to end felony disenfranchisement while Republicans mostly opposed them.

Care should be taken that claims made in the voice of Wikipedia reflect the RS we cite here to support them. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Canova&oldid=1216212497"