Talk:Bill Nelson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bill Nelson article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Protection

I'm protecting this until the troll goes away. john k 02:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, unprotecting. Now we can revert instead of deleting, since it has a history. john k 03:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV edits

Hi! I removed some inferences from the ratings he has been given that the reader could draw for himself, and which were basically not cited original research. Also, I removed the POV term "Partial Birth Abortion" and replaced it with the medial term for that procedure, Intact Dilation and Extraction (D&X). --BenBurch 18:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The term "Partial Birth Abortion" was the title of the legislation. It passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law. Using that term is therefore appropriate; even if the medical community doesn't use it, millions of others do. I would be willing to bet that if you pick 100 people at random off the street and ask 50 of them to explain "Partial Birth Abortion" and the other 50 to explain "Intact Dilation and Extraction," a lot more of the first 50 are going to know what you're talking about. Also, there are plenty of examples here at Wikipedia where information contained in the body of an article has been repeated in the lead, and you've defended at least one of them with remarkable resolution. Dino 01:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political actions and positions

This section should be devoted primarily to Nelson's own descriptions of his views, not partisan groups' characterizations of them. When one characterizes a politician's views via partisan groups' assessment of them, it violates both WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and thus WP:BLP. Nelson's views and actions need to be accessed from the Senate website and reliable third party sources, not partisan groups. This all should clearly go without saying, but apparently not. CyberAnth 10:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, no it doesn't. If we make it clear that "X group says Y" about him and X is a notable political group, there's no issue. JoshuaZ 04:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So, in your view, is it okay and responsible in a biography to sum up someone's views on an issue by exclusive reference to a partisan political organization? Yes or no? CyberAnth 05:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
CyberAnth, your above question to some extent shows why you've been running into so many problems. Not everything is a Yes or No question. In this case, noting what ratings someone has had from various partisan groups is relevant when attempting to summarize the individual's voting record. It is thus not unreasonable to mention how someone voted on some major bills and also indicate of the partisan groups which ones have favorable and which ones have unfavorable impressions. I do not know how much I can reiterate- the ratings are reliable sources for this purpose since all we are using them for is to discuss the ratings themselves. There is therefore no BLP issue, but at most an NPOV concern. JoshuaZ 05:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The yes or no dichotomy began by your insertion of the material. The action demonstrated that, in your view, it is okay and responsible in a biography to sum up someone's views on an issue by exclusive reference to a partisan political organization. That is poorly sourced material and is completely subject to WP:BLP. CyberAnth 05:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The way forward here is as I said above. Go to senate.gov and get his views in his own words and google news and get reports about his views. At that point, the partisan sources will not present an WP:Undue weight issue. CyberAnth 05:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, excuse me? One of the sources given is partisan, the other two sources are non-partisan. This hardly constitues summing up "someone's views on an issue by exclusive reference to a partisan political organization" Now, if you think there is a problem with the sourcing, I suggest that you go to google news and senate.gov. JoshuaZ 05:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, excuse me. Project Vote Smart is a collator of partisan information. Project Vote Smart places this right on the page:

Project Vote Smart does not evaluate or edit these descriptions.

AND

Keep in mind that ratings done by special interest groups are biased. They do not represent a non-partisan stance. In addition, some groups select votes that tend to favor members of one political party over another, rather than choosing votes based solely on issues concerns.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Bill_Nelson_Abortion.htm - yea, let's look at this. First, the text I keep removing says he voted YES when this "source" says he voted NO! Therefore the assertion is not verifiable - verifies as false. As for whether it is partisan, it clearly is, since it selected only NARAL to include in its evaluation of Nelson. Don't let neutral sounding URLs fool you. It is not just the prochoiceamerica.org type orgs that are partisan because they have a partisan name.

Removing it per WP:BLP.

Perhaps I will expand the article, but not tonight.

CyberAnth 06:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the particular website ontheissues may have issues (I'm not sure, although they use the NARAL ratings for abortion, they use the term "pro-life" to describe those with low ratings, and classically there are very high inverse correlations for ratings from groups who are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, making which one you use as your referrence actually not that relevant). As to the matter that our text doesn't reflect the source- that's easy to deal with, flip it. JoshuaZ 06:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
As to the matter of project votesmart, since votesmart correlates data from all sorts of groups, its descriptions can be presumed to be fairly non-partisan. JoshuaZ 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Does the article cite such from all groups or select only one? Thus, all the source is doing is being used as an intermediary, one that "does not evaluate or edit these descriptions" - all one is doing is citing the partisan source through VoteSmart, a source that "does not evaluate or edit these descriptions". See?
And do you or do you not agree that it is true you added material in violation of WP:V (the no, not yes vote) and then threatened to "report" me in part for for removing it?
Also, recall it is the burden of the person adding material to ensure it is adequately sourced, not the person removing it. You know this yet seem to want to enforce a private rule you hold on the contrary.
As for why I have so much trouble removing blatantly violative information from BLPs, it is related to that private rule and and many others like it. I should have been able to place my initial post in this section and that should have ended the matter. Because what I said was and is right. But no, I instead have have to spend six hours removing a mere three sentences.
No, the reason I have so much trouble is not for the reasons you think. It is because tribes of influential (= have the most free time on their hands) admins and editors have decided that WP policies say something other than what they actually say. They want to have loose reigns to make WP their playground for their own particular agendas, and people who follow strict and standardized interpretations of policies threaten that. So people like me must be stalked and rebuffed.
And worse, otherwise potentially responsible editors and admins get sucked into it all by peer pressure - a desire for "inclusion" in tribal "in-groups". The problem on WP is not so much the obvious trolls but the ones who make editing painful for other editors by repetitive questions, tendentious editing, private agendas hidden beneath yet lord of all arguments; immature teenagers and college students who view BLPs as their private political platform rather than a task requiring the utmost responsibility and mature outlook, all in recognition that words can be like flames and real lives can and sometimes really are ruined or at least permanently altered; people who fill up talk pages with nonsense, who see the truth of contrary arguments but refuse from selfishness to acknowledge them; who endlessly Wikilawyer the most obvious points, and enforce not the policies but the policies as they privately interpret them through the grid of their own private agendas. Most people like me are at Missing Wikipedians, many gave up much sooner, and many such people are enjoying the heck out of Citizendium, while some are taking their jabs at Wikitruth. The price that has been paid and will continue to be paid until something changes is a Project in the guise of an encyclopedia that cannot even be cited by 1st graders, lest high schoolers. Welcome to your Wikipedia.
CyberAnth 06:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What an incredible rant. Nevertheless, there was an element of truth somewhere in there and I have replaced the links to an obviously none-too-reliable partisan page with ones to the official voting records, and updated the text to reflect the latter. AvB รท talk 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gitmo

I'm surprised there's nothing here about his support for the Guantanamo detentions, given the ongoing controversy surrounding them. Koyaanis Qatsi 16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Son Charles Nelson

Various news outlets are reporting on the recent sentencing/probation of Nelson's son Charles. I don't know that we need anything about this in the article, but right now the article only mentions a son named "Bill Nelson Jr." I'm guessing this is the name that Charles usually goes by, but since he is all over the news now as "Charles Nelson" we might want to clarify his name in the article (giving the full name but also the nickname is probably the way to go). Thoughts?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)