Misplaced Pages

Talk:Dave Brat

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BlueSalix (talk | contribs) at 19:45, 13 June 2014 (→Support deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:45, 13 June 2014 by BlueSalix (talk | contribs) (→Support deletion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

To-do list for Dave Brat: edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Priority * -- 04:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
WikiProject iconVirginia Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

POV tag discussion

I think there are some problems with the tone of this article. Specifically, it's not very objective. Obviously, more information about the professor will come out as the campaign develops. I don't mean to start an edit war, although that will obviously happen at some point - the man is a candidate for political office. I just hope that we can clean this stub up a little bit now to set the tone for later edits.

With respect, to say "Specifically, it's not very objective" is not to be at all specific. I can't tell if you think the page is biased in favor of its subject, or against him! So, how about really being specific? Nandt1 (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, unless some specific discussion is taking place, the tag should be removed. And, btw, "obviously, more information...will come out as the campaign develops" is not an argument supporting the claim of non-neutrality. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. We objectively compile the sources that are available now. If more information does come out (in reliable sources), then (and only then) could it be included here. Anticipating the possibility of such is not a reason to argue this article isn't neutral.--William Thweatt 02:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Concur with Nandt1 and William Thweatt. Unless something specific can be pointed to as being non-neutral, I really fail to see how the basic dry information presented so far is somehow not-neutral. Lestatdelc (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Is he really Catholic?

Is he really Catholic? He went to Princeton Theological Seminary, which is Presbyterian. If he is Catholic, that might be interesting to say what caused him to switch. And if he isn't, well the page should be fixed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.136.86 (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

His own website says he attends St. Mary's Catholic Church in Richmond, VA. 50.200.41.134 (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hope College is in the Calvinist tradition, but you need not be Dutch Reformed to attend. I'd assume one need not be Presbyterian to attend PTS (11 June 2014). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.84.247 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

His website says he "attends" a Catholic church, not that he is a member. Other media sources are reporting that Brat himself identifies as a Calvinist in a 2011 academic paper: http://int.sagepub.com/content/65/2/168.abstract Hope College is in the Dutch Calvinist tradition and located in a region with large historically Dutch and Calvinist populations. His surname is Dutch. Princeton is historically Reformed as well -- in the Presbyterian (Anglo-Scotch-Irish) wing of Calvinism, and it is the only ivy league seminary that has a key history with the rise of modern American Fundamentalism and Calvinism with major Dutch reformed contributors like Cornelius Van Til and Abraham Kuyper. I would guess Brat either recently became a Catholic or else goes to church with his wife who may be Catholic. Obviously this needs more research as the facts are being reported both ways online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.207.123 (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

More background info - http://www.themorningsun.com/government-and-politics/20140611/alma-native-now-in-the-red-hot-heat-of-publicity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.160.100 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Our text says his wife is Catholic, which would explain his attendance at a Catholic Church as well as Presbyterian. But the rest needs to be researched. Tvoz/talk 17:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Birthdate

Unfortunately you won't be able to see the link unless you have an Ancestry.com membership (or sign up for a free trial), but according to this record, David Brat was born on January 15, 1962: . All the details match up with this David Brat (not exactly a common name to begin with). Ancestry.com is quite reliable, but of course not infallible. An anonymous user from the Indiana Department of Education changed the birthdate in the article to July 27, 1964. Why? I have no idea (no edit summary). Maybe the editor knows Brat personally and knows his birthday. I do see the few news orgs willing to state an age for Brat give his age as 49 (not 52 as the 1/62 birthday would have it), but they don't cite their sources and may be making assumptions from the 1986 college graduation date. At any rate, I can at least link the 1/62 birthday with a reputable link. Any comments about making such a change? As it stands, there is zero evidence out there that I can find for the 1964 birthdate currently in the article. Moncrief (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

FamilySearch confirms January 15, 1962 as birthdate (squaring with his Glen Allen, Virginia residence).--Artaxerxes 18:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Wow, great resource! I'm going to change it back to 1/15/62 with that link. If someone thinks it's incorrect, they can provide evidence of their own. Thanks. Moncrief (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why Ancestry has that birthdate, but, as http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/latest-news/david-brat-stuns-house-majority-leader-eric-cantor/article_fe2fed12-f0f6-11e3-a6ea-001a4bcf6878.html, states, he is 49. Which means his birthday can't be in 1962. I can provide no web based evidence, but, well, he is a childhood friend. I'm pretty sure you'll find that it is 7/27/64. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.220.61 (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought your edit may have been something like that (personal knowledge), and I actually appreciate that Ancestry/FamilySearch could somehow be wrong. I'm not sure what to do at this point. How do you come by July 27th, from your personal memory? Moncrief (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, personal memory. I grew up in Alma. We went to the same church. Same middle school. As I said, a childhood friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.220.61 (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This Richmond Magazine interview with him conforms you're right about summer 1964. Ancestry.com fail. Moncrief (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Personal acquaintance: Any facts regarding a 1978 marriage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:464:C101:89F3:6208:181A:C4F6 (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed it. He would have been 14-16. Never mentioned in the NYT articles or Richmond Magazine. I think someone was playing around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.160.100 (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Implications

Primary upset of Cantor changes: 1) House leadership; 2) approach to immigration legislation; 3) Virginia political influence in House ; and, 4) national GOP texture/strategy/message—as well as adding to the counter-argument that money always determines who wins elections.--Artaxerxes 18:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I don’t know where we go now as a party. I’m very concerned that we may go all the way to the right, following Ted Cruz and the shutdown congressmen, and marginalizing us as a responsible governing party.

— Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.)

Creed

The bullet points in the Dave_Brat#Political_positions seems to me to be not appropriate content, unless these are referred in a secondary source. Cwobeel (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed these in the context of WP:NOR. If there is a source that describes the RPV's creed as referred to by Brat, we can re-ad based on that source. Cwobeel (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Editorializing

When we have both primary and secondary sources that describe Brat's essay, there is no need to editorialize. Just use the source and provide quotes when necessary. If there is any "POV", it is Brat's POV. Cwobeel (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@NazariyKaminski: This edit is nothing but infantile. The text and quote is obvious without the need to add "criticize". Be careful with your own "POV" in which you see shadows when there are none. Cwobeel (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for you to POV push. Your description left the impression that Brat was supportive of Hitler in someway, so was the WSJ article. There is a counterpoint article that specifically rebuts the WSJ article and when I have time I will edit the article to reflect these facts. I will edit the article as I see fit. You need to stop the POV pushing.--NK (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Cool it. The fact is that you don't know how to read a sentence. That sentence did not left any impression that he was supportive of Hitler. And you need to stop the WP:BATTLE attitude. It is really tedious and childish. Cwobeel (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Background

I think this should be updated. The citations from the Richmond Magazine (http://www.richmondmagazine.com/articles/dave-brat-republican-primary.html) and The Morning Sun (http://www.themorningsun.com/government-and-politics/20140611/alma-native-now-in-the-red-hot-heat-of-publicity) have quite a bit of background that is not yet included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.160.100 (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It should also be updated because the Washington Post has confirmed with Princeton that he did not attend their school, unless he attended under a different name or something akin to that. Updates forthcoming (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-update-the-cantor-upset/?id=624e2f5c-2d6b-4106-b65a-c4d9af55495b). Mlwlawson (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Does this guy warrant a page?

Is Dave Brat sufficiently notable? Yes, he defeated Cantor in the congressional primary, but that still only means he's a candidate for office. Perhaps it's better to wait until he's actually won? Otherwise, everyone who passes the goalpost of being selected as a congressional candidate would warrant their own Misplaced Pages entry. -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You raise a valid question in that Dave Brat fails a strict reading of our notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN. On the other hand, he is the first candidate ever to defeat a sitting House Majority Leader. That is a claim of notability far more powerful than a routine win of a party nomination in a primary election. So, I am leaning toward the judgment that this is an exception to the general rule. The thoughts of other experienced editors would be appreciated. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Defeating the sitting House Majority leader is unprecedented in American politics. Just on that basis, he is notable. Cwobeel (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Subject may fail WP:POLITICIAN (for now) but definitely meets WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog 04:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It does not fail WP:POLITICIAN, per point (3). Cwobeel (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think it's important we got this out of the way, regardless of outcome. Thanks. -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of positions

This sentence. "He supports cutting Social Security payments by two-thirds, " is not supported by the sources. Mother Jones says that it appears that he wants to cut SS payments by 2/3 and the video linked to that does not actually include what the question was, but he says that seniors today receive about 3 to 1 dollars that they put into the system and that he would like to over some time make this more fair, whatever that means. But we can't make statements of fact that go this much beyond what he actually is saying. Arzel (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Arzel, can you suggest alternate wording? Cullen Let's discuss it 06:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest that the original editor not include information not backed up by sources. I am going to remove that sentence as unsupported. Additionally, the line about the IRS is not completely supported either. Arzel (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with a motification and will develop it. The IRS is supported by a WP:PS and the WP:SS correctly comments on it. Stating that "mother Jones" says should be removed.Casprings (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The 2/3 cut shouldn't be in the article at all based on that source. The claim seems to based on a youtube video where Brat uses the example of elderly getting 3 dollars back for every 1 dollar they put in and then indicating there is something wrong with this. But this is not enough to state that he wants to cut 2/3 of social security. The MotherJones article is obviously a very polemic piece, the kind of source we are supposed to be very careful about, even with attribution. Iselilja (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I have added a number of more nuanced sources reporting on his views on Medicare and Social Security. Cwobeel (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Publications section has obvious error.

Publications section has obvious error. One of the publications listed has a date of 1966. It should be 1996. Thanks. Sajeffe (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You are correct Sajeffe, and I fixed it. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Political positions

I made a WP:BOLD edit to the political positions portion of this entry by sectioning it as is typical of biographies of politicians. While nicely summarized and written, it had become unwieldy and a bit rambling. The only substantive changes (if I missed something, accept my apology it was not intentional and please edit my error) made during this process were the following: (a) I added additional context to his Tea Party affiliation from recent articles that ran today in the Monitor and Politico, (b) I added his NSA position and term limits positions as sourced from WaPo, Vox and his campaign website, (c) I deleted the part that said something like "he contends that government has a monopoly on violence" or something silly like that. Monopoly on violence is a basic, Weberian concept in political science and, the way it was written, made it sound like Brat came up with it (the original source simply included it as part of an establishing statement by Brat within the context of a different point). Since this is a cornerstone concept it is strange and not useful to include in this article. It would be like if Brat said "When I go to Washington, D.C. I intend to oppose XYZ interests that are prevalent in our nation's capital" and we summarized it as "David Brat has claimed that Washington, D.C. is the capital city of the United States." BlueSalix (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the Tea Party section (well written, btw, thank you) to the Primary election section, were it belongs. Regarding his views on Government, it is a notable thing that a future Congressman hold Weberian thoughts, and given it is covered by a WP:RS, it is significant. I have restored it. Cwobeel (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It is most definitely not notable. There is not a single poli sci department at any university in America that doesn't teach the state monopoly on violence within the first week of a 100-level IR class. It is not "covered" by WP:RS, it is included as a contextual quotation describing one of Brat's essays. Here ], a WP:RS says that Rick Santorum said "We elect the president for four years, but I won't need four to turn this country around." On the basis of including this Brat bit we could add to Santorum's entry "Santorum has claimed the president serves a four-year term," which would be ridiculous, even though technically accurate. This is obviously a silly insertion, so I'm removing it. BlueSalix (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I think there is a big difference in these two examples. Clearly. Brat makes a point about the power of Government and his opposition to it like any other good conservative. Cwobeel (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a conservative/liberal position. This is a basic, cornerstone principle in political science. You will be extremely (extremely is too soft a word here, honestly) challenged to take a 100-level IR class at any university in the U.S., Canada, or the UK today where it is not a major theme of the course introduced within the first week of lecture. Including a prefunctory aside Brat made on a basic idea as a section of this article essentially elevates him to the level of a major twentieth century political philosopher. This doesn't need to be explained further; anyone who does not have the background or pedigree to instantly understand this should solicit input from a SME at the political science wikiproject prior to further edits on this topic. BlueSalix (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

First name

Would David or Dave be better in the article's title? I've heard both, but Dave seems more common. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It was originally Dave and someone changed it a couple of hours ago. I believe Misplaced Pages's policy is to go by whatever name the subject is most commonly known as, but I'm not sure how we'd go about determining that as I've seen both in equal measure (it really depends on the website - most mainstream media outlets seem to be going with David). -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Bloody hell, it's just changed again! It's flipped between Dave and David at least three times now. Can we please come to a consensus on this? -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
See new section below - the move to "David" should have been researched, discussed, and consensus reached before doing it. Feel free to comment below and when consensus is reached, that'll be the title - until other evidence surfaces. (And by the way, you really don't need the boldface.) Tvoz/talk 16:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I boldfaced it so that people would notice that there's a discussion up here (which obviously they / you didn't, if they / you started it again down there again). -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, also no need for the "they/you" - as you can see, I started the new section below and it was not to discuss which name is better (read what I said) but to address the meta issue - arbitrary moves without consensus - and to ask that future moves await agreement. That point is moot, as moves are now protected and if people want to talk about which title the article should have, they can follow the suggestion outlined below and get a consensus. Tvoz/talk 18:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It's what he calls himself on his campaign website http://davebratforcongress.com/

Yes, this should be settled now. Cwobeel (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Tea party

"Tea Party groups that offered Dave Brat zero support sure are thrilled he defeated Eric Cantor" by T. Beckett Adams; June 11, 2014.--Artaxerxes 11:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Reasons

Why he upset Cantor in primary race:

In primaries, the trick is always to get right the size of the universe. People say it was a low turnout election. Untrue. It actually was a fairly large turnout in his district, compared to normal, and compared to other primaries in Virginia. The higher turnout clearly worked against Mr. Cantor. My guess is his political operation counted on lower turnout."

— Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.)

There are many lessons to be learned from the Cantor-Brat race. For one, it’s worth reflecting on the fact that not only did Cantor easily out raise and outspend Brat by over $5 million to around $200,000 in campaign funds, but burned through a significant amount on lavish travel and entertainment instead of election advocacy. Federal Election Commission records show Cantor’s PAC spent at least $168,637 on steakhouses, $116,668 on luxury hotels (including a $17,903 charge to the Beverly Hills Hotel & Bungalows) and nearly a quarter-million on airfare (with about $140,000 in chartered flights)—just in the last year and a half!

— Lee Fang, The Nation

Religion?

This needs to be sorted out. The info box states unequivocally that he is Roman Catholic, but the article itself says he was raised Presbyterian; his wife is Catholic; and they split their time between the two churches. That doesn't sound like he is a Catholic to me. Especially in light of quotes like this (from ):

>Brat is not a new convert to religion, his dad said. His Presbyterian faith has always been strong.

Thoughts? Moncrief (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that there is conflicting evidence, perhaps it's simpler to state "Christian" until/unless Brat himself makes a definitive statement on the specific denomination to which he belongs. Also, this same discussion is also ongoing up near the top of the talk page, so you should consider merging this section with that one. -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Other sources say he is Calvinist. See personal life section. Cwobeel (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
There's a slight inconsistency there. It says: "They split their time between two churches. They are parishioners of St. Mary Catholic Church in Richmond. Brat also identifies as a Calvinist, and list affiliations with Christ Episcopal Church, Third Presbyterian, and Shady Grove Methodist." So doesn't that mean he actually attends four churches, not two? -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Presumably they attend Catholic Church because his wife is Catholic. The "also" refers to the Presbyterian. For now, I listed all four of his identifications, not his wife's, but more research and definitive info would be helpful here. Tvoz/talk 16:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That did not stick either. What to do? Cwobeel (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, apparently deemed "absurd"- although it is a summary of the article content which is what infobox should be. Next step, find more definitive sources. Not convinced that blanking it is the best approach, but it's better than the erroneous "Catholic" Tvoz/talk 17:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If we use self-definition, then we should use Calvinist as his religion. Cwobeel (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Long quotes are for the lazy

There is no need to add full quotes when as editors it is our job to edit judiciously to provide context and a summary of views. If there is a disagreement about a summary, these can be worked out in talk, but just plastering long quotes is lazy. Cwobeel (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not only is it lazy, it is just not done in Misplaced Pages articles of this sort. What is going on? Moncrief (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I have corrected it already; this was the full quote , and this the summary . Cwobeel (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Article name needs to be discussed, not just arbitrarily moved

The last move to "David" should have been discussed and agreed upon before doing it - I returned it to "Dave" because far more wiki links are to that page name, and sources seem to prefer it. I don't have a strong preference here - just returning it where it was in order to have some research, discussion, and consensus before making any move. Tvoz/talk 16:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is now move protected at the title Dave Brat. Anyone who thinks that another title is more appropriate should open a discussion using the {{Requested move}} template. That would allow consensus to be formed, and prevent move warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ed - I was going to ask for this. Tvoz/talk 18:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I made that move. At that time, very few news stories referenced Brat, and the ones that did used the name "David", not "Dave." It now appears that most stories are using the name "Dave", so I apologize if my page move was hasty. I was simply attempting to clean up what I thought was a simple mistake, by an article creator who, perhaps, was friends with Mr. Brat and had used "Dave" to title the page because of that fact. Again, my apologies. Lithistman (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Republican primary subsection

Okay, seriously. Section expansion is great, but not this:

From paragraph 3:

"Brat's campaign was not endorsed by national Tea Party groups."

From paragraph 4:

"Laura Ingraham stated that Brat could not get national Tea Party groups to take phones call from Brat, specifically FreedomWorks for America, Tea Party Patriots, and Tea Party Express. Brat received no funding from national Tea Party groups."

From paragraph 5:

"Brat did not receive endorsement from national Tea Party groups, though has been loosely connected by some with the Tea Party. Nonetheless, he has not self-identified as a member of that movement."

"Observing that Brat received no campaign donations from national Tea Party groups, the Washington Post concluded that 'the fact that Brat took off without the help of those organizations now makes it harder for them to claim his victory as their own.' "

I don't think we need to have three paragraphs tell us six times that he supposedly didn't get support from national groups. At all. One is fine. Rhydic (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Can you attempt to summarize all these sentences into one? We can keep all the sources if needed. Cwobeel (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
No kidding! It reads like it was written by a four-man committee of Brat's supporters and detractors. May I suggest ...
Although Brat received support from, and gave credit for his win to, local Tea Party groups in Virginia, he received no funding or endorsement from national Tea Party organizations. Brat has not self-identified with the Tea Party movement. Ron Rapoport, a political scientist at the College of William and Mary, has said Brat may be correctly identified as a "tea partier" only if the term is used as a catchall for "anti-establishment activist", while John Judis has opined that Brat could more correctly be described as a "right-wing populist." The Washington Post concluded that "the fact that Brat took off without the help of those organizations now makes it harder for them to claim his victory as their own."
The above deletes some text, but doesn't change the remaining from what's currently there except to alter "little funding" to "no funding," as per the source. BlueSalix (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
That is a reasonable summary, I suggest you make that edit and see if it sticks. Cwobeel (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that should be fine. I already did an interim edit to get rid of some of the repetition and help it flow a little better without dropping any references.Rhydic (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Is best friends with Stephen Colbert. 166.77.6.9 (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} 18:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

- This should be added as an "In Popular Culture section" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.47.115 (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

We would need to cite a reliable source for that, and none has been provided. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I have deleted parts of this article that are sourced to YouTube videos for reasons that should be all too obvious, as well as those sourced to op-eds and opinion columns and presented as statements of fact, as per WP:NEWSORG. BlueSalix (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"Brat attributed this electoral victory to God"

I've done a random sample of other congressional races and I can't find any electoral history sections that contain a summary of a candidate's victory speech. While we could obviously break with precedent if a candidate said something remarkably out-of-the-ordinary, it appears just about every American politician from both of the institutional parties invokes God or other religious imagery in a concession, victory, or apology speech. Why is this included? Can we delete it to bring this Bio into the normal structure for political bios? BlueSalix (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. From after-game comments, it appears that God roots for professional sports teams as well. Trivial and not worthy of inclusion. Cullen Let's discuss it 19:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I would disagree, given his strong positions on religion and Christianity in an economic and social context as a professor and as a politician (the very reason for this article), this is worthy of inclusion. Cwobeel (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Note that "Thank God we won" is different from attributing his victory to the supreme being as acting through his voters. Cwobeel (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
In addition to Fox News, this statement was also reported by the Wall Street Journal , for its obvious significance in the context of his political and philosophical underpinnings. Cwobeel (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It would be far more notable had he not thanked God. Remove as common trivia. Arzel (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
??? I don't think that is a valid argument, that is just your opinion and we need to base our arguments on what reliable sources say. Cwobeel (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The Fox News source has an obviously triumphal tone; the other sources are less clear whether Brat was using the God reference as a term of art, or a literal enunciation of a belief that a disembodied entity was concerned about variable social security tax rates in the U.S. and had supernaturally possessed the bodies of 7th district voters. Since Brat, in his other writings, has declared he believes in free will, it's reasonable to assume the former (term of art), but - ultimately - we can't assume either in the absence of a clearer description of intent from RS, and intent is the only thing that could possibly make this non-trivial. Deleted as per consensus. BlueSalix (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, what consensus are you referring to? We are having a discussion. Are you in any kind of hurry? Cwobeel (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
see WP:SNOWBALL BlueSalix (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There are a preponderance of sources, which can't be dismissed with an essay and that is not policy:

  • NBC News
  • Wall Street Journal
  • New York magazine
  • Urban Christian News
  • Time
  • Fox New2s
  • Hufftington Post
  • The Washington Post
  • World Magazine
  • The New Yorker

Cwobeel (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A preponderance of sources doesn't make something non-trivial. We have also not included the the even more frequently reported information that he was voted "Hottest Professor" at RMC or whatever. In 2 minutes on Google I just found 5 different RS providing Barack Obama's shoe size. And yet, Barack Obama's shoe size is not currently in the WP article Barack Obama. As per WP:SNOWBALL "the clause should be seen as a polite request not to waste everyone's time." Accept this gentle guidance in the spirit in which it is intended. BlueSalix (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If that many sources think it is important, it is important. One cannot and should not dismiss that number of importance. And I think it is different, in that he put more emphasis on God in his victory speech than others have. That is why multiple WP:RS picked up on it.Casprings (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
There are even more:
* Another from Fox News
* Fox News Insider
* CNBC
* CBS
* Catholic Online
* The Washington Post
* Breitbart News
* National Review
When conservative, liberal, and mainstream sources report on this, it is notable. Cwobeel (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any of these sources indicating it's important. This appears, in each instance, to be contextual text. It seems we have a majority of editors who agree that it's trivial and a passionate minority who think this is an important WP:POINT to drive home. BlueSalix (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
"And I think it is different, in that he put more emphasis on God in his victory speech than others have." Do you have a source for that or is it just your gut feeling? I just checked the transcript of his speech and the word 'God' was mentioned 3 times, the same number the USA's president used in his 2012 victory speech. BlueSalix (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
That's not the point. A passing reference to God is not what we have here. This is the way to look at this: Brat makes God quite central to his economic views, as well as his social views in his papers and essays. He uses references to God in his speeches in that context as well, and in several interview makes his victory attributable to God. Maybe the pointy issue here is not wanting to accept that simple fact, assume there is consensus for deletion, and revert without allowing a discussion to continue. Cwobeel (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
No, that's actually exactly what we have here. A WP:BIO of a politician is supposed to logically present the key pillars of a person's life history, not build a presence that ensures people perceive the politician as the kind of character we want, even if such characterization is perhaps accurate. BlueSalix (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with BlueSalix here. Just because something is mentioned in several (or many) reliable sources does not mean it's worth including in an article. This is particularly true when the article is about a living person, and even moreso when such inclusion seems to serve to paint said living person in a light that is potentially unflattering. Lithistman (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Political Views vs Philosophical underpinnings

The Political views section is now conflating Brat's philosophical underpinning to his politics based on paper and essays he published, as well as his more practical political positions. I suggest we split these two into different sections. Thoughts on this will be appreciated. Cwobeel (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I would say something like "philosophy" and followed by "Political Views" Would make it easier to read.Casprings (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I tried, but ... If we move all the academic stuff to Philosophy, we have left with nothing of value for the Economic policies sub-section. I guess we have to wait until the candidate expresses some more recent viewpoints. Cwobeel (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I tried a little reorganization. See what you thinkCasprings (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Works for me, thanks. I'll try and find some economic policy material that could be used. Cwobeel (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Too much detail and there's really no precedent for a "philosophical underpinnings" section in a bio of a sitting congressman, let alone a congressional candidate. This is an extreme level of WP:UNDUE. There is a very established flow and format for the biographies of American politicians. Further, I'm very concerned that there are two editors here passionately calling for a uniquely formatted and detailed biography to be created specifically for Dave Brat. Most members of Congress don't get more than 4 or 5 paragraphs in their bio. Brat isn't even in Congress and we're crowdsourcing a three-volume book here. BlueSalix (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
This unilateral, undiscussed and non-consensus restructuring of the article to devise a new and custom format, seemingly unique among politicians, just for Dave Brat, needs to be explained and addressed. These kind of major breaks from convention need to be discussed, not just barreled through. I'm considering undoing this. BlueSalix (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
This is not a biography of a politician. It is the biography of an Academic and a politician. That's the rationale for the reorganization. Cwobeel (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
As for your concern about the length of this article, remember Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. Cwobeel (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Another point, IMO, this is not a bio just about "a congressional candidate". It is about a congressional candidate that unprecedentedly unseated the Majority Leader of the House of representatives. That is the reason for the massive coverage, and the interest in this person. Think of the reader! Cwobeel (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
By word count this is close to 300% the size of the bio for George Nethercutt, who was the first person to unseat a sitting Speaker of the House in 130 years, a much more significant accomplishment. Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia is not an excuse to cram in every item of trivia one can dig up on someone. This entry is not being approached as an encyclopedia article, but as a scrapbook. Once we get the current RfC put to bed I'm going to go ahead and revert all these changes in the absence of consensus. BlueSalix (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I hope you meant if there is consensus. Cwobeel (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
There was no consensus to make these changes in the first place. They will be reverted in the absence of consensus. BlueSalix (talk)
Sure, there is always WP:BRD. Cwobeel (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The WP:BOLD essay does not speak to allowing the hijacking of an article through the creation of substantial changes to accepted conventions done without any attempt or effort at discussion. BlueSalix (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
It was the organization of the article into logical headings. Much of the content in one heading was on philosophy. Why not take that and make it a single heading? It makes sense for the content that is currently there.Casprings (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Brat attributed this electoral victory to God"

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the line Brat attributed this electoral victory to God, who he said “acted through people on my behalf.” be removed from the section "Republican Primary?" For ease of bookkeeping, please use the discussion section for prolonged discussion, and keep your opinions succinct and correctly placed in support/oppose.

Please don't change the framing of this RfC mid-way to the process Cwobeel (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Support deletion

  • Support After having reviewed the bios for every sitting member of the U.S. Congress from Virginia, as well as a random selection of other members of congress, I can find no evidence of precedent for including summaries of their victory speeches in the electoral history sections, despite - in several instances - a preponderance of RS coverage of such content in the 72 hours after election day. While breaking with precedent might be fine in the case of a truly outlandish or unusual statement in a victory speech, American politicians, celebrities, and sports figures seem to typically invoke a variety of religious declarations in their victory, concession, and apology speeches. Finding wide coverage of a victory speech in the 72 hours after election is unremarkable and this line will not stand the test of trivia/non-trivia two years from now. BlueSalix (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I also looked at well-known people that have thanked God...a lot, such as Tim Tebow, and don't see this kind of focus. Fact is, a lot of people thank God for all kinds of stuff, and there seems to be no reason to include such minor trivia. The fact that he has a master's degree in Divinity only makes it less notable. Why is this even an RfC? Arzel (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
It probably shouldn't be. We have two relatively new contributors participating in this article who share a very aggressive editing style. This seemed a good compromise to an inevitable edit war. BlueSalix (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Who are these two "new relatively new contributors", BlueSalix? Cwobeel (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It is not a newspaper. This is something that you would see in a newspaper to give the reporting some life. It is not notable. It is like when a World Cup player scores a big goal and then runs around and yelling "GGGGGOOOOOAAAALLLL!!!!!" It is great television such as ESPN's SportsCenter coverage but it is not something that should be put in David Brat's article for years. It is an attempt to discredit him. We know he believes in God because there has been a ton information jammed into the article about his work on religion and the economy. This particular comment does not add anything to his story that we don't already know. We don't have Hillary Clinton famous use of the phrase "I do not recall" in her articles, do we? No, we don't. His throwaway comment at the end of a long night is not notable and it is not encyclopedic.--NK (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The sentence is also redundant because there is a sentence earlier in the article that states Brat invokes God quite frequently. That earlier statement makes this one redundant. It places undue weight on one topic. Also, it pushes the article outside of NPOV.--NK (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
In the fourth paragraph about the Republican primary the article clearly states: "Brat ran an anti-establishment campaign criticizing government bailouts and budget deals while frequently invoking God and the Constitution in his speeches." This sentence is quite enough information about Brat's invocation of God.--NK (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify my own position, and I apologize for posting this here rather than the discussion section, I don't believe this is an attempt to discredit Brat. My support for deletion is solely based on a view that the line itself is trivial and turns this entry from an encyclopedia article into a scrapbook. BlueSalix (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per NK. It is also very clearly undue! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly support, per my explanation elsewhere on this page. Also,this discussion should actually be formatted as "support inclusion" and "oppose inclusion", since the burden of proof with BLPs is on those who wish to include challenged material. Lithistman (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You're correct, of course. I apologize this was incorrectly formatted. I'll make a note in the entry. BlueSalix (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Lithistman, I attempted to correct this but an aggressive editor chose to delete my corrective post to the Talk page. Having Talk content deleted/reverted by another editor is a first for me and puts me in uncharted territory so I'm going to capitulate to the more aggressive side on this one, as I don't know what the rules are here. BlueSalix (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose deletion

  • Oppose deletion as there are a preponderance of sources, and when conservative, liberal, and mainstream sources report on this, it is notable. This is not the case of a politician thanking God for a political victory, but rather, a politician that attributes his victory to the hand of God acting through voters, and based on the subject's background (a Master's degree in Divinity) and worldviews (see the section Dave Brat#Economic_philosophy), it is a notable aspect for his biography. Cwobeel (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • NBC News
  • Wall Street Journal
  • New York magazine
  • Urban Christian News
  • Time
  • Fox News
  • Hufftington Post
  • The Washington Post (local)
  • World Magazine
  • The New Yorker
  • Another from Fox News
  • Fox News Insider
  • CNBC
  • CBS
  • Catholic Online
  • The Washington Post (national)
  • Breitbart News
  • National Review
  • Oppose deletion. The strength of the media response tells us that the bit is noteworthy. As a policy-based argument, this is far more authoritative than an argument based on what other biographies don't have in them. Brat is not those other people; he is himself. The media coverage about Brat is what we go by. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion Since a large number (maybe a majority) of reliable sources reporting on his election victory also report this, it shows that it is notable and should stay in the article. Darx9url (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion Binksternet has it exactly right. Irrelevant what other bios say - this was not a throwaway line which would likely not have received the amount of coverage this did, and therefore would not be included. This has received a great deal of coverage - in a wide range of opinion as Cwobeel outlined - and it should stay. Tvoz/talk 16:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion from an outsider's perspective. - In this example, the quote isn't in dispute, is properly sourced and offers a window into the mind of the subject. While many athletes and policitians are quick to thank God for their success, it is rare when someone credits God with actual intervention, and is sincere in that belief. This wasn't a one off remark or slip of the tongue, it was a clear statement by someone who is devoutly religious, and is in fact quite learned in divinity, thus was aware of the implications of the statement. As he himself has made it clear that you can't separate him from his beliefs, using this specific quote gives the reader a true and accurate picture of his philosophy, in an extraordinarily concise way. Without question, it falls safely within our BLP guidelines and can not possibly violate WP:WEIGHT as it is core to who he says he is. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
So, you agree with Cwobeel that every single time he invokes God in public environment we will put the invocation into the article and when we do that we are not violating undue weight?--NK (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Your question is entirely too WP:POINTy to warrant a reply. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

  • "There are a lot of sources so we should include it." As stated in my support opinion, there are a lot of sources in the 72 hours after an election for virtually any candidate's victory speech. I just found (I'm not posting them here as we really need to work to avoid the discussion monopolizing via list-spamming that is trending up; I'm sure anyone can find them on their own), 42 different RS that, in the lead, mention that President Obama declared 'The Best is Yet to Come' in his 2012 victory speech. And yet, this is not included anywhere in the article Barack Obama. Simple inclusion in a wide variety of sources doesn't determine whether something makes it in WP. As Jimbo has observed, "Misplaced Pages is not a trivia collection." BlueSalix (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand your point, but it does not apply here. Brat's views on God, religion and economics is essential to his persona, and by him making such a statement (which by the way, it is quite striking) is a notable event that has value not just for the 72 hrs after his primary victory. It is a statement that encapsulates his worldviews and thus biographical. Cwobeel (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
"is a notable event that has value not just for the 72 hrs" -- Sounds like you have WP:CRYSTALBALL. BlueSalix (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I just have an opinion on the subject, same as you do. Cwobeel (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
uh huh BlueSalix (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Pardon me? if you can't or won't have a proper debate, why did you start an RFC? Just to waste editors' time? Here is an example of how this is being covered: So either he's a Douthatian convert, god help us, or his faith is all over the lot, which may account for his rather startling announcement last night that he won because God was speaking through the voters of the Seventh Congressional District of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Cwobeel (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate that articles on politicians tend to heat up quickly. Regardless, I'd like to ask you to please dial it back just a little. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure, BlueSalix, just don't uh huh me. It sounds quite dismissive when we are trying to having a debate. Cwobeel (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Can you dial it back just a little? "Uh huh" is a phrase used to provide neutral acknowledgment to a person, TTBOMK it is not commonly considered a secret, coded slur. No one here is out to get you. Thank you! BlueSalix (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
My bad. Table it to the fact that English is my third language. Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I am a native speaker of American English, and I saw the 'uh huh' reply as dismissive and insulting. You should not apologize. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Binksternet. Cwobeel and I amicably resolved our misunderstanding through dialog and discussion. Can I kindly ask you not throw gasoline on the embers? Feel free to review WP:DRAMA if you have any questions. Thanks so much, Binkster! BlueSalix (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You responded with an "uh huh" when you could have refrained from responding at all, which would have been the more respectful choice. Your opaque "uh huh" was insulting and belittling, despite your subsequent attempt to erase its negative influence here. The "dial it back" instruction was also insulting, as is the instruction to me to "review WP:DRAMA if you have any questions." Even when you apply some of the usual social niceties you are not actually being nice. Instead you are condescending. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Michael, Cwobeel and I amicably resolved our misunderstanding through dialog and discussion and put the matter to rest. I fail to understand why you feel the need to dig it back up; my reasonable confusion as to your intent makes my comment about WP:DRAMA absolutely appropriate. The editor interaction tool shows that, since our disagreement over the AfD for Live Wire Radio, the rate at which you join discussions of articles in which I was already participating has increased more than 400% (with a corresponding 100% rate of taking the opposite side of me in each discussion) so - while I thank you for your kind expression of extremely passionate interest in my activities - I respectfully request you keep your comments topical. If you decide you must have a forum to make personal comments about me, I implore you - out of respect for other editors - to at least limit the places you engage in these expressions so as to minimize its disruptiveness. Feel free to use my Talk page as a creative space to engage in personal commentary about me that is unrelated to Dave Bart. Thank you! BlueSalix (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
No problem, I'm also not a native English speaker so I appreciate there can often by confusion of intent when it comes to idioms. BlueSalix (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I will not say "support deletion" or "oppose deletion" as I see this as a false choice. As this biography develops, we should not be bickering about the comments he made immediately after beating Cantor. Instead, we should be working on the broader issue of how his religious beliefs influence his political philosophy. For example, he is reported to be a Catholic but seems to express distinctively conservative Protestant political ideas. We need to wait for reliable sources to address such contradictions, which I am confident that they will do. But I am concerned that a side show about his victory speech may detract from the bigger issue, which requires harder work from editors. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Cullen: We have been working on that as well, just read Dave_Brat#Economic_philosophy. I agree this is a distraction, the quote should stay and we all should move on and continue improving the article along these lines. (BTW, Brat self declares as a Calvinist, which is quite interesting) Cwobeel (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You phrased "...is reported to be a Catholic but seems to express distinctively conservative Protestant political ideas..." as if it were a contradiction. It's not. See for example Catholic Church and politics in the United States#Present day. (Now, professing Calvinism and being a Catholic...that's a contradiction!)--William Thweatt 03:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Not only a Calvinist, but a "fairly orthodox Calvinist"... . Cwobeel (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have formulated the statement as "distinctively Protestant conservative political ideas". I am well aware of the political convergence between Catholics and evangelicals in recent decades, especially on matters of traditional sexual morality, but this alleged Catholic Brat seems to be siding with the "Calvinists" in core theological areas where those faiths have differed deeply. I am sure that there will be much more to come from reliable sources, so won't speculate further. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I think Cullen has a point. He has been in national spotlight for about three days. We don't know what his religious beliefs are. We might know a bit about what he believes from his writings but those writings may or may not reflect what he believes today. All we can say for sure is that he is Christian so in that context his comment after a long day election day should not be a surprise to anyone. I also doubt that anyone has read all of his articles yet either. There are bigger issues concerning his belief system to pursue than whether we should repeat one comment on election night.--NK (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Quite the opposite. I don't think there is any other politician in the US that has written with so much vigor and dedication on their religious beliefs. Brat has religion and belief in God as his central leitmotif. Now, if he changes his religion beliefs now, well that would be very notable indeed. Cwobeel (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

NazariyKaminski may be unaware of the fact that removing content that is currently discussed in an RfC to see if there is consensus for removal is not a good practice. Cwobeel (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel may be unaware of the fact that in a BLP an editor must remove information if it violates BLP, by being redundant, not NPV, POV pushing, not encyclopedic, and not notable.--NK (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh God (pun not intended). How exactly does that sentence violates BLP? Cwobeel (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of this RfC was to avoid an edit war, which seems that you are intending to ignite. Note that an RfC is part of the dispute resolution process in Misplaced Pages, and designed to build consensus. Why ignore it? Cwobeel (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I will not edit war over this. Howver, I would ask NK to logically explain why it violates WP:BLP and why it needed to be removed or self-revert.Casprings (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Cwobeel that removing the words during this RfC is not appropriate, short of obvious BLP violations. But these are his words, therefore not defamatory, and no indication of how they might violate our BLP policies. Perhaps there are supporters of his who would prefer to not have this mentioned, but that's not how we write articles. No one said this is the most important thing, but it's a widely sourced fact and should be in. I too would like to see an explanation of how one editor sees this as a BLP violation, but absent that, the text should be returned to where it was when the RfC started, and when consensus is reached we should follow it. Also - there seems to be some misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE above. I don't see how that has anything to do with this - we're not over-representing a point of view or one side of an argument, we're quoting the words of the subject of the article. Please explain if I am missing something. Tvoz/talk 17:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
There is an obvious BLP violation. There is no need to repeat over and over again that Brat invokes the name of God. This particular mention of Brat invoking the name of God is redundant. But not only is it redundant it is an attempt to POV push and give the impression that Brat is a religious fanatic. It is uncalled for. There is an editor who is pushing for this second mention of Brat invoking the name of God who also wanted to place in the article the words The Holocaust and prognosticate as if Brat is attempting to be a modern day version of John Brown invoking the name of God and the wrath of God. I attempted to remove those words (holocaust and prognosticate) but it was after much effort because that editor would not allow the removal of two words that did not appear in the reliable sources in any manner. There is already a sentence in the article that talks about how Brat frequently invokes the name of God. In the fourth paragraph which describes the Republican primary the article clearly states: "Brat ran an anti-establishment campaign criticizing government bailouts and budget deals while frequently invoking God and the Constitution in his speeches." This sentence is quite enough information about Brat's invocation of God. There is absolutely no reason to talk about this fact again. Why do we need to repeat twice that Brat is known to invoke the name of God? It is an attempt to discredit him. Also, your statement that "Perhaps there are supporters of his who would prefer to not have this mentioned" does not apply in any shape, form, or manner because no one is arguing that the first mention of Brat's tendency to invoke the name of God should be removed. The sentence in the fourth paragraph of the primary section should stay in the article because it explains to the reader that Brat does, indeed, invoke the name of God frequently, but that last is enough. So your argument that those who oppose your viewpoint only do so that no one will notice that Brat invokes the name of God frequently is a false argument, a red herring if you will. The way that we do write articles, is not by waiving red herrings in the air, but is attempt to present the information with a neutral point of view. And mentioning Brat invokes the name of God frequently is presenting the information in NPOV. But stating over and over again everything that Brat invokes the name of God is not a NPOV. It is an attempt to discredit him and as such it is a violation of BLP. One mention of his frequent invocation of the name of God is enough. To do more violates BLP and is attempt to make this article a Misplaced Pages:Coatrack.--NK (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The word God is mentioned six times in the article. Two times in the Campaign section. One time in the title of an essay he wrote. That title is in the text. The rest are in sources and publications. The fact is, that God and his views on god have shaped his political thoughts, per WP:RS that have reported his own words and writing. That is a fair and accurate description of Brat, per WP:RS. The article does not imply he is a religious fanatic. However, it shows the influence of religion on his actions. That is fair and accurate. You cannot whitewash an article of religion from an article about a person where religion has played a central role in their life.Casprings (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Everything you just stated Casprings is true. But it is off point. Yes, God is a word that has been and must be used in this particular article about Brat. We cannot write an article about him without using that word. But I did not, in any way, state that we should remove the word God from the article. I did not, in any way, state that we should not talk about Brat's view on God. All of the information should stay in the article. So do not make straw man arguments. I was not stating we should remove all references to God from the article. What I am stating is a very simple, small proposal that we do not need to state in two different places in the article that Brat invokes the name of God frequently. The article already states that he invokes the name of God frequently. We do not have to mention that he said it on the night of his election victory. I'm only stating that we remove this one sentence. I never stated that we should remove all of the other mentions of God in the article. That is a false argument. No one ever said that. Focus on the topic of discussion here. The topic of discussion is the statement he made on election night. Once again, leaving out that one sentence will not, in any way, harm the article because the rest of the article goes into greater detail about his thoughts on God. Once again, no one is claiming that those references must be removed. The article, with that sentence in, appears to be not neutral. We state once that he frequently invokes God. That is enough. We do not have to state again that he invoked God on election night? Now, if he wins in November and he will invoke God on that night (assuming he wins) are going to put in that section of the article "Brat invoked God again on election night"? Are we going to state this in article every time he invokes God, where and when? Should we? No.--NK (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
if he wins, and again states that God acted through the actions of voters, and it is reported by a large number of sources, it will be surely included. Cwobeel (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
No, you are advocating the removal of something supported by a huge range of sources based on some belief that it makes him look like a "religious fanatic". The fact is, the quote is well within WP:BLP and there is no good argument that it isn't.Casprings (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. Costa, Robert; Vozzella, Laura; Fahrenthold, David A. (11 June 2014). "Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor succumbs to tea party challenger Dave Brat". The Washington Post. Retrieved 12 June 2014.
  2. see reference 45
  3. Portnoy, Jenna (11 June 2014). "Rep. Connolly: 'I'm struck with the irony of it'". Live Updates: The Cantor Upset. The Washington Post. Retrieved 11 June 2014.
Categories: