Talk:Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Controversy Section

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

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

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

Thoughts?

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

Hi Fish nr, I concur that the section needs to be reworked, for the following reasons: a) it is a WP:COPYVIO taken essentially verbatim from this source; b) it is WP:UNDUE-ly detailed for a biography; c) to the point of being a WP:COATRACK; d) therefore failing WP:NPOV; e) and consequently failing WP:BLP.
On the basis of these issues, I am removing the section. Editors wishing to include a section on this subject, should develop phrasing which does not fail the policies & guidelines listed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I recommended reducing and neutralizing the content, but thanks to Ryk72 it is clear that the whole section is a copyright violation, so the only possible option is deleting it as he did. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryk72 for tracking that down. --Fish nr (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Allegations that Obama attempted to fire her

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110521221346/http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_dade/story/449521.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_dade/story/449521.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

CHAIR or CHAIRPERSON

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

So use "Chaiperson" or "Chair" depending on what their actual title is. Chairman/woman (which you're reinstating against consensus here) is not correct - it's not their actual title, and it violates the MOS. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed it to Chairperson & yet you still reverted. Also, why have you Chairman in the Tim Kaine article & Chairperson in the Donna Brazile article? GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I oppose "Chairperson" for Schultz because that is not, and never has been, her actual job title. Per pretty much every RS, she is the Chair of the DNC. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Why haven't you done the same for Kaine & Brazile? GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't watch and have never edited those articles so that's neither here nor there - but I'd caution you about assuming that this needs to be consistent across every article. Different individuals and orgs use different terms, we should go with what their actual title is and with what the RS say in each individual case. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Fyddlestix in this. This is actually a subtle issue. WP:MOS says we should use the form used most in reliable sources; if it's a tie, use the form preferred by the individual or group. I think "chair" is the common term for Schultz and "chairman" is the common title for Reince Priebus in media sources. I would like to see evidence of this, though, and welcome evidence contradicting this. GRR edit conflicts! MisterRandomized (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is Dean a Chair, Kaine a Chairman, Brazile a Chairperson & Schultz a Chair? GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've made changes to the Dean, Kaine & Brazile bio articles. In hopes of bringing consistency to these articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I would again caution you against assuming that consistency is the goal - maybe Kaine is described as "chairman" because that's how reliable sources like President Obama and the New York Times described him, and the title that he actually used? The same is not true for Schultz. You need to have some flexibility here. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if reliable sources are inconsistent, and predominantly used "chair" for Schultz and "chairman" for Kaine, we need to follow the sources. I enjoy consistency too, and hate the word "chairperson," but policy takes precedence, and we should follow common usage, at least where there is a most common form. MisterRandomized (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

So should this specific article use Chair and Chairperson both or should it just pick one? (Currently it has both.) DeYoung9 (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

DNC Leak dump shows this page edited by DNC

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

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

Lawsuit over DNC Chair role: BLP issues?

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

It is referenced info, and Wikipedia is not censored. I believe it should be restored.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe it should not be restored until it receives significant coverage in mainstream sources.- MrX 02:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

DUEWEIGHT isn't grounds for removal without consensus - per:BRD I've restored your removals save the lawsuit. Nothing there is so poorly-sourced it violates BLP. D.Creish (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes in a BLP it is. And please don't use misleading eit summaries as you did here [1]. That version, as can be seen here, does NOT have consensus. And this is a BLP, so it goes. Encyclopedia articles are not meant to be political hit pieces.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:D.Creish that the referenced criticisms should be restored. This isn't supposed to be an advertisement for DWS.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It's crappy referencing though (blogs and opinion pieces). That's not good enough in a BLP, *especially* for a controversial person such as Debbie. This isn't suppose to be an attack page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that blogs and opinion pieces aren't suitable sources for statements of fact in a BLP. Which sources and statements are you referring to? D.Creish (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Significant changes require consensus. It's clear we don't have it here. My edit restored the July 17th version with minor copy edits (compare diffs), which was stable for about a month. Please observe WP:BRD and don't edit war, especially considering this article is subject to discretionary sanctions.. D.Creish (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not "specific changes" that require consensus, it's "controversial material in BLP" that requires consensus. This is a BLP issue. Please stop trying to turn this article into a political hit piece.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Also WP:BLP takes precedence over "stable for a month" (is that a joke?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent things. You quote "specific changes" as an apparent reference to a comment I never made. Your earlier comment argued DUEWEIGHT was criteria for immediate removal per BLP, when by policy it's not. Now you say I'm turning this into a hit piece by restoring long-standing, sourced content, added by multiple editors, none of whom were me. This isn't conducive to article improvement. D.Creish (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok "significant changes". Same thing applies. Likewise "stable for a month" (i.e. somebody sneaked it in a few weeks ago when nobody was looking) is not "long-standing". And the sourcing is crap. And it's undue weight. And this is a BLP:

"Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself."

But DUE WEIGHT is only ONE of the problems here.

You are NOT suppose to restore content which has been challenged on BLP grounds until you get consensus. So please self revert and let's continue this discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You're conflating two policies. One is WP:BLPREMOVE, which outlines the criteria for immediate removal of content in a BLP, notwithstanding consensus, 3RR or other restrictions. The material you removed did not meet those criteria (and DUEWEIGHT is not one of them.)

The other is general WP:BLP policy where DUEWEIGHT is clearly important. If there are claims in the article you feel are UNDUE we should discuss them here, establish consensus for removal, then remove. So, can we start that process? D.Creish (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss the nuances of BLP with you, but first you need to self-revert your edit, as it does violate BLP (and discretionary sanctions).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

D.Creish, I see that you had been notified of discretionary sanctions way back in October, so you actually made those edits with full knowledge that you were breaking the rules. Had I caught it earlier I would've taken this straight to WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Threats and bullying are not how we resolve disagreements. Again: please specifically identify the content and/or sources you object to so we can discuss. D.Creish (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

There's no threats or bullying. Just pointing out the fact that you had been notified of discretionary sanctions previously, yet chose to break article restrictions anyway.

I'm going to ask you one more time to self-revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

More sources:

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah and all of them shit. Another red flag that this should not be in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Copious sources were supplied, as requested. Vulgarity does not diminish their reliability. The Daily Caller might be challenged, given the Menendez episode, but certainly not the other three. Activist (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No, these sources are not reliable and "shit" is a generous term. RT is not reliable. Dailycaller is not reliable. Erc. "browardpalmbeach", I have no idea what that is but you need better than that for contentious material in a BLP. UPI might be fine except it doesn't support the text, which violates WP:UNDUE anyway.

Your wording is very clearly POV too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The regular award-winning Broward-Palm Beach New Times is one of the larger papers in Florida. Activist (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional source for lawsuit. I'm not familiar with the Observer: http://observer.com/2016/06/debbie-wasserman-schultz-served-class-action-lawsuit-for-rigging-primaries/ D.Creish (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Please note:

• You made the following series of edits on July 23rd, removing established content sourced to the NY Times and Bill Moyers, among others [diff].
• I challenged those edits via reversion to the stable version from July 17 [link to July 17 version] [link to diff comparing July 17 version and my version].
• Despite the instructions above requiring "firm consensus on the talk page" before reinstating your edits, you made no talk page posts addressing any removal except the lawsuit [link to talk page post addressing lawsuit] and reinstated your removals [link]

I have no problem participating in an RFC related to your requested removals but I think the first step should be to discuss those removals and attempt to gain consensus here. So, can you point to the specific claims and/or sources you take issue with (as I suggested above)? D.Creish (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the referenced criticisms and fleshed out information about the lawsuit should be restored. We could have an RFC.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The content was not "established". In fact, there's no such thing on Wikipedia.

You have it backwards. Please read the notice again. By removing the text I have challenged it. That means you cannot restore without firm consensus.

On that note, it's sort of ridiculous for you to say I made "no talk page posts addressing my removal" since I'm the one who started this section.

If you have no problem with the RfC, please restore the proper section (my challenge) and start the RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

My diffs above show the sequence of events clearly. D.Creish (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Once again, by removing objectionable content (which was NOT "well established", whatever that's suppose to mean) I was clearly challenging it. Per restrictions imposed by the discretionary sanctions, you were not suppose to reinsert it without obtaining firm consensus. You did not. The restriction says that we need to restore the version of the article without the challenged content and then try to work out consensus about how to resolve it. That should be done first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

And again, I'd like to point out that lawsuits can be filed by anyone for any reason. Just because a lawsuit has been filed does not make it noteworthy. As an analogy, there is currently a lawsuit alleging Donald Trump raped someone ([2], [3]). Do we have that in the Donald Trump article? No, and we shouldn't. Because just because a lawsuit has been filed doesn't mean anything. This case is not quite as bad, but the same logic applies. It's a BLP. Unless something actually happens with this lawsuit, it shouldn't be in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I really think this needs to be restored. This lawsuit is not about gossip; it's about her conduct as DNC chair, which has led to her resignation and the ongoing discontent among Democratic voters. Let's have an RFC if you disagree. Wikipedia is not censored.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

One person's gossip is another person's lawsuit. The lawsuit did not lead to her resignation. Not sure where you're getting that from. To restore it you need firm consensus. I suggest starting an RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you not the only editor who disagrees and keeps removing referenced information? Are you sure you don't have a close connection to DWS?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I already told you, DWS got me into Pokemon Go. Now. Please stop being ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s:, @D.Creish:, Four editors, including myself and 71.182.237.133, have restored this edit after Volunteer_Marek's autonomous removals. All four believe it definitely belongs in the article. VM, asked at one point for more sources. Five were quickly provided, including UPI, which has been around for 99 years. VM called them all "shit." VM's definition of "consensus" seems to be derived directly from "Through the Looking Glass": "The word means what I want it to mean. Nothing more, nothing less." VM claims "The lawsuit did not lead to (the DWS) resignation," but its a strawman argument: No one claimed it did. Her departure was based on a wide aggregation of complaints about her "imperious" conduct, more accumulating and airing every day. A better and quite remarkable sense of that process can be found here: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-debbie-wasserman-schultz-226352 A consensus does not consist of one person, even if that person is VM. Activist (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

These editors are exactly the ones you canvassed on your talk page to help you in your edit war [4]. That's not "consensus", that's tag-teaming and canvassing. I posted this to BLPN and there the editor agreed with me [5]. This is also a BLP issue, so to restore this content you need firm consensus. In fact, controversial material should not be included if challanged. Again, one more time, you can start an RfC to try and obtain such consensus. But until you do, this stays out.

And yes, three of the five sources you posted were shit, one was way obscure, and the fifth didn't actually support the text. This has already been explained.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I just noticed that User:Activist in this message on their talk page [6] pinged several users to alert them about the presence of the disagreement above. They pinged users who could reliably be expected to support them in this discussion. They also mentioned me, but instead of ping-ing me, they used my username. In fact, my username was mispelled, which, if done purposefully, suggests that s/he did not want me to notice their canvassing.

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

The editors pinged were all active participants; I don't believe you can "canvass" active participants. That's supported by first line of the appropriate notification section: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors..." D.Creish (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

That was pretty clearly a "please help me in edit warring" kind of notification.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems OK to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, since you were one of the people canvassed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't add this

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

• Here's another source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.156.248 (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Is she a superdelegate?

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2016

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

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

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

DWS speech, gaveling in Philly

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

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

References

It's one of many small events in her life that is just not that significant. Will the media be covering it in a week? A month? A year?- MrX 00:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe this should be included. It's not news; it's far more significant than Melania Trump's two lines.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The chair of a party being booed, forced to resign and prevented from gaveling in the convention is unprecedented in modern politics. I don't see how that could be described as a "small event." D.Creish (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I restored the text for the following reasons: The reception DWS got when she spoke to the Florida delegation at the convention in Philly is very significant. Let me provide some context. She was met by a loud chorus of boos from the moment she opened her mouth until she left. This is why I think it's particularly important. Florida has 246 delegates. Of those, only 75 were Bernie's. He got only 28% of the votes in the primary. Of the Superdelegates, Hillary got 28 and Bernie two, with two uncommitted as of the last figures I can find. DWS should have been in very friendly company, given that she's still the DNC chair and was addressing her own state's delegation where this year she has met with her first primary opposition since 1992. She was staff to Peter Deutsch before being elected long ago to the state legislature. She's survived two congressional redistrictings. The reception yesterday (I watched it) was I think a bellwether. It's not just Bernie, and it's not just recentism. She's become a bipartisan and intramural lightning rod. Even the Wikileaks communications were misunderstood, in her favor. There wasn't an Alaskan anti-Hillary "counter event" (also characterized by the DNC as an "insurgency"), even though Bernie got 81% of the caucus votes there, but rather a specifically anti-DWS demonstration. Per the DNC emails, at least 20 delegates walked out on her keynote speech in Anchorage in May and the counter-event was paid for by attendees themselves, and it included prominent political actors from that state. Though apparently somewhat spontaneously assembled, it probably drew more people than the state convention, even though I understand that guests are welcomed at the latter. Many of her behaviors and positions have disturbed her constituents, from her support for fracking in the Everglades, the siting of for-profit prisons in her district and for that industry, a substantial contributor, itself, her opposition to a marijuana criminalization initiative that passed with 58% support in her district, and her advocacy for the TPP and the Payday Loan industry, for example. Activist (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

The Politico article is exhaustive and definitive and describes her reception as the culmination of behavior that has alienated her supporters and brought her to nationwide attention. It's more substantial than Howard Dean's scream in Iowa. It's the fumbling response by Michael Dukakis to the death penalty question. Historically, for her, it will likely be George H.W. Bush's "No new taxes," the perigee of her career. Activist (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

First, DWS isn't a presidential candidate, in case you haven't noticed. Second, you're responding to the notice that you're engaging in original research with a whole bunch of new original research. Show me the sources that compare any of this to Dean's Scream, Dukakis or whatever. Third, in carrying out your original research you're clearly WP:CRYSTALBALLing ("it will likely be").Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm beginning to understand. You're simply a victim of concrete thinking, of an inability to abstract. In addition, you think that others have meant what only you can deduce: You're the one attributing evil intent and conspiracies to anyone and everyone who disagrees with you on any point. It's your own WP:CRYSTALBALL you're consulting. I and others are not putting original research into an article. This is a TALK page. I'm trying to clarify why her rejection by her own Florida delegation was so unusual and important: The Sanders delegates were in a very small minority of those attending that meeting, "...in case you haven't noticed," as you so caustically and intentionally insultingly put it. When you ask for sources and you're given four or five, you simply dismiss them all as unreliable, as if the only one who can properly assess their reliability is yourself, and your sole, self-defining criterion for reliability seems to be whether or not you agree with the edit(s). I am reminded of that continuation of the Humpty Dumpty quote: "...the question is, 'Who is to be master?, that's all'." When you autonomously revert the posts of four others, its "edit warring" solely on their part, in your mind. I concede that there is nothing likely that will change your attitude, but I think an RfC is long overdue at this point, if we're going to get anything resolved. Activist (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I find your... statement, incomprehensible. I also don't appreciate your attempts at psychoanalyzing me or something. "Inability to abstract" is a personal attack. I've had plenty worse, but that's still what it is. Discuss content not the editor (for example, I haven't said anything about your peculiar choice of username).

And on the content, what you are proposing is exactly original research. I asked for sources above. You haven't provided them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, the criteria for reliable sources are not "properly assessed (for) their reliability" by myself, but rather are laid out in WP:RS. DailyCaller for example, is not a reliable source. But that's actually a side issue in this particular case - the issue here is whether this is notable and does it belong in a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Each of getting booed off-stage and canceling her plans to address the convention are material to document the collapse of DWS's career in politics. These events are notable and most certainly are news, and these are not original research, as noted by NBC News in the second source provided : "The anger over leaked emails showing DNC officials plotting against the primary campaign of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders boiled over Monday as Wasserman Schultz was greeted by boos and jeers at her home state's breakfast meeting." maslowsneeds🌈 05:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Again "collapse of DWS's career in politics" is both original research and crystal ballin'. There's no way it belongs in a BLP and there's no way it can be used to justify including material in a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

"Collapse of DWS's career in politics" is not original research. It is a representation of information already in the mainstream media. See Heckled offstage, Wasserman Schultz now seeks re-election (noting that the "furor over leaked emails" is "also providing fodder for her opponent in Florida's Aug. 30 congressional primary," noting, further, that, "Her opponent in Florida's Aug. 30 congressional primary is Tim Canova, a Nova Southeastern University law professor who tweeted Monday that 'DWS must be defeated in this election and removed from Congress. It's time to end her political career for good.'"). Again, the "collapse of DWS's career in politics" is not original research. You may personally dislike the state of DWS's career, but you cannot deny inclusion of RS information about how the mainstream media describes the state of DWS's career. maslowsneeds🌈 14:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Sun-Sentinel, DWS's hometown newspaper, reported that the circumstances of DWS's resignation from the DNC represented what amounted to a 180° turn in her political career : "Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Weston was supposed to be beginning one of the best weeks of her political career. Instead, she announced Sunday that she was resigning as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee," adding that, "Everything unraveled for Wasserman Schultz over a tumultuous 48 hours after WikiLeaks posted a treasure trove of emails," before noting that, "For Wasserman Schultz, the emails were a political disaster." Her career suffered "a political disaster." maslowsneeds🌈 14:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

No, "collapse of political career" is most definitely original research. You're interpreting primary sources and/or reading into secondary sources what they don't say. And you need more than one source that makes vague statements about her career to put this into a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

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

As already explained, by myself and others, there is no indication that this is a noteworthy enough of a event for a BLP. If indeed it turns out that this marks the end of her political career, as some here like to claim, than you can put it in here. In the future. But that hasn't happened yet and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL apply, and this is simply WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It most definitely does not violate BLP. It could potentially violate consensus but it's clear from the discussion above consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of inclusion. I ask Volunteer Marek to stop edit-warring and attempt to gain consensus prior to editing. "BLP" isn't a magic word that justifies edits against consensus. If you genuinely believe there are BLP-violating claims in the article and you can't gain consensus for their removal, take it to the BLP noticeboard. D.Creish (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes it does violate BLP if it's UNDUE and critical in nature. As to consensus, as has already been pointed out several times, several of the participants here were explicitly WP:CANVASSed here to edit war for this stuff. And there are other users, other than me who agree that this does not belong in the article. And btw, BLP requires FIRM consensus. Like I've already said several times, you need to start an WP:RfC or start a (another) discussion at WP:BLPN to include this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Lawrence Lessig is upset with DWS (or the DNC)

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

I haven't a strong opinion, either way. Lessig's attempted candidacy was unimpressive, less so than Lincoln Chaffee's, in my estimation. However, if the rules were changed to specifically exclude him, as he contends, that would be another matter entirely. It would be using an elephant gun to kill a mouse, and would not speak well for the judgment of those responsible. Activist (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

My view is leaning that it shouldn't be included in the article on Wasserman Schutlz, and instead on a different relevant page. q (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It fits right in there with the other criticisms. I don't see anyone giving any reason as to why it shouldn't be there. You are just saying it shouldn't. Why? Of course his campaign wasn't impressive; he was rarely included in the polls -- likely because the media doesn't want someone whose focus is ending money in politics, of which the media is the primary beneficiary, through campaign contributions that primarily go towards paying for ads -- polls which were required to be in the debates. Then when he finally was included in enough polls to meet the DNC's initial requirement, Schultz's DNC changes the rules. 24.206.176.226 (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I put the statements back in. I would support reorganization of this information, but not removal, unless placed in a related article. The entire "2016 Presidential election" section is currently about criticisms of DWS. This belongs with the other criticisms. Having a presidential candidate claim that you essentially cheated him in the primary race is no insignificant matter, especially given the recent email revelations that indicate that the DNC was actively trying to elect Hillary. Pulseczar (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't re-add the material to the article unless a consensus is reached to do so. See WP:ONUS and WP:CON.- MrX 16:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, just re-adding the material isn't proper. - On the actual topic, the section above that exists is a decision Wasserman Shultz made that is sourced. There is no sourced reference in the Lessig details that she made the decision, it is always listed as DNC. He does say in one article that he scheduled a call to discuss it with her, and she cancelled. I lean heavily towards this being on a DNC page and not her biography. I understand she was head of the DNC, but there isn't much to go on for inclusion on her page in my view. Perhaps I'm wrong, what do others think? q (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hired by Clinton?

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

Sorry but the media has repeatedly said she resigned as DNC chair and joined as honorary chair of the Clinton campaign on the very same day. This should appear in the lede.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Your justification for removal: most news sources don't mention it (Fortune is the only respectable news source that does) is incorrect. Here are a half a dozen major sources mentioning it:

• Boston Globe
• Washington Post
• NPR
• ABC
• NBC
• CBS

I'm not convinced that it belongs in the lede, however. D.Creish (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Important, but not so much to be in the lede. Activist (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it is.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd go with important, but not in the lede. q (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It's possibly worth a brief mention, but certainly not in the lead.- MrX 17:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not? Ledes of living people tend to include what their current roles are.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not so much a role as it is a consolation prize for someone having a really bad week.- MrX 18:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It does seem that way. It's very relevant to the fallout from the leaks (and included appropriately in that article's lede) and if her role becomes active and public as the campaign progresses we should include it, but for now I say leave it to the body. D.Creish (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Very SYNTHy without RS that discusses it in a way that establishes more than incidental significance. Such RS would tell us its importance and weight in WP. We don't have any such discussion in RS yet. I agree with OP. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

What utter rubbish. Synthi?? Not. 98.67.191.130 (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Most definitely not in the lede, and yeah this is WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

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

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

BLP vio/misrepresentation of sources

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

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

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

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

I find your edits highly problematic and most if not all of what you have deleted should be restored. Gandydancer (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That's nice, but you need to actually address the substance here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You've made a number of unilateral edits around this issue here and at the main article, some against consensus. There was also the BLPN discussion you started without notifying the participants here or anywhere else until I reminded you. Further I see you attempted to add discretionary sanction notices to this article, the main article and multiple, related articles apparently out of process. I have to agree with Gandydancer - this behavior is highly problematic. D.Creish (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

How on earth could a Discretionary Sanctions notice be "out of process?" It appears to me that some editors are revert warring to favor disputed material. If this continues, Admin attention will be required. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

According to Mr. X (see the link above) only administrators are allowed to place articles under discretionary sanctions. That is "how on earth" adding a DS notice to this talk page and others could be "out of process." Is Mr. X incorrect?

I do agree administrator intervention may be necessary. Edit-warring against consensus isn't tolerated anywhere. D.Creish (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Anybody may place the notice on a talk page, and everybody should heed it. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Well you have a long-term editor saying otherwise, so this needs clarification. Pinging @MrX:. D.Creish (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles cannot be placed under discretionary sanctions (for example 1RR) except by an admin. All post-1932 American Politics articles can be placed under discretionary sanctions by an admin. Placing a banner on a talk page suggesting that an article has been placed under discretionary sanctions when it hasn't is misleading. Anyone who disagrees with this is free to inquire at WP:ARCA.- MrX 23:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom placed the articles under DS. The notice is neither the imposition nor the enforcement, and any editor may post the notice. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

See WP:ARBAPDS. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people." In other words, any admin can place any article within the scope of this remedy under standard discretionary sanctions. Prior to this decision, Arbcom had to do it. Please inquire at WP:ARCA if you believe otherwise.- MrX 23:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

D.Creish, look. I'm a little confused about the issue myself. But either, if DS apply to this article, you're violating them by edit warring to restore contentious material which has been challenged, or if they do not, you're still violating WP:BLP by inserting contentious material about a living person into the article. Discretionary sanctions and WP:BLP are not mutually exclusive. In fact, DS is meant to complement our standard BLP policy. So please, stop re-adding this stuff. Either way, it's no good.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@MrX. That's incorrect. Any Admin may enforce by blocking an offender, but the imposition of the regime of DS was placed by Arbcom and is in force here. Trust me. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)