Talk:Catherine Cortez Masto/Archive 1

Archive 1

Conflict of interest

I'm removing a recent addition that would appear to be from an editor with a conflict of interest and is nevertheless undue. There are a number of issues that Masto has been involved with as Nevada AG that warrant inclusion here, but the dismissal of a single employee and the alleged backdating of filings [1] is not one of them. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 21:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. I sensed some COI but was unsure. So I think your actions are the wisest move and I can support you. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A very interesting article

TheHill.com shows she is in a good position to win a Senate seat:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/273631-ten-senate-seats-most-likely-to-flip-in-2016

AstroU (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do you say that - the article lists the 10 seats most likely to flip, and in this case it would means Harry Reid's seat going GOP. Mikevegas40 (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Political positions sourced to campaign site

Safehaven86 (talk · contribs), as far as your recent revert, I believe it is necessary for the articles of prominent politicians to show their major political positions. Using their campaign website is actually good - we can be assured it is a position they believe in - and completely meets the guidelines in WP:ABOUTSELF. I don't think it's promotional - it's quite likely that a lot of voters will find this information to be a negative mark, depending on their political preferences. II | (t - c) 02:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If we use Facebook posts and candidate websites as sources, as was done here, how do we decide what to include? Candidates post lots and lots of things on their websites and social media sites. In order to determine what is worth including in an encyclopedia article, we need to focus on facts about the candidate that have been covered in WP:SECONDARY and independent sources, so we can be sure these facts are sufficiently noteworthy. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that you've shifted the conversation to center around WP:DUE rather than talking about reliability or promotionalism. We're looking at a BLP here, so citing directly to the candidate is actually safer than potentially misrepresenting their view with a risky third-party source. I think that whether or not it is given due weight is a fair question. In this case, it's showing a political position which is one of the most high-profile of the 21st century. For example, if you look at a website on the most popular environment issues of 2016, you'll see climate change listed. Do you really think it's worth debating about whether this is noteworthy? Whether or not a person's political position is covered specifically in the media is more of a function of whether or not that position is controversial. That doesn't mean the positions not highlighted by the media are not encyclopedic material. II | (t - c) 04:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

We should err on the side of including more information, not less. Particularly during an election season, voters need to be informed. As long as the information is correct and not defamatory, we have every right to include it. How does is Wikipedia better without this information?

We have followed the rules. The policy on secondary sources which you have cited states, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." This means that if no secondary source is available, it is okay to use a primary source when necessary. Narayansg

I think what Naravansg is getting at is that this is a digital encyclopedia (WP:NOTPAPER). In general, we include content which is encyclopedic. Senate candidates who are running to controlling the world's most influential economy are clearly notable, and their political positions are a major part of what people look to learn in an encyclopedia article. II | (t - c) 04:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Masto's campaign website, she lists four issues on her homepage: overturning Citizens United, protecting Medicare & Social Security, raising the minimum wage, and comprehensive immigration reform. On the "About" page, she lists job creation, trade protecting seniors, immigration, housing, equal pay, energy & environment, minimum wage, human trafficking, national security, LGBT discrimination, Yucca Mountain, Citizen's United, women's health, and education. FWIW, the two paragraph "energy & environment" section makes no mention of climate change or the Clean Power Plant. My point is that political candidates have lots of views, and when people want to know those views, they generally go straight to the source--the candidate's website. The Wikipedia article, on the other hand, shouldn't be a rehashing of someone's website, it should be an encyclopedic overview of the person's life. We can judge what's notable to include by what media outlets have covered and reported on. That is how we assess what is WP:DUE weight--what others have reported on, versus what the individual in question has said. Based on the numerous political issues she has opinions on (as evidenced by the list above), having a whole section, "Political stance", with one subheading, "Climate change," is not an accurate presentation. What I would support is adding some of her political positions, sourced to secondary sources, to the U.S. Senate campaign section (we could add the issues she has focused on while on the campaign trail, as reported in RS). Safehaven86 (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the article already highlights climate change as a major issue in Nevada - see this (UPDATE: looks like you added this). However, I disagree with your approach here - you're basically arguing that we should wait to add content until we've got a bunch of other content (see WP:COMPLETE). We don't wait till everything is complete to add content - we build it iteratively over time. At any point, we could reject content saying "oh, but X seems a bit more important", or "there might be a better reference" ... but we try not to do that because we recognize that people have different interests and content is expected to trickle in over time. II | (t - c) 23:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, we shouldn't wait to add content. My point is that there's plenty of content we can add at this time that is in reliable and secondary sources, so there's really no need to use the candidate's Facebook status as a source. When secondary sources are available, it's always better to use them, IMO, as it mitigates potential WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROMOTIONAL issues. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

High School?

Where did she go to high school? FloridaArmy (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)