Talk:Mia Love

references are to interviews with subject herself

no 3rd party source. is this how wiki works?

Agreed. This article has serious neutrality problems, it reads like an ad written by Love's campaign. etothei (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged this for NPOV. Many of the quotes and references are Love herself, which is inappropriate on Wikipedia. Sentences like "Mia turned down an offer to appear in the Broadway show 'Smokey Joe's Café' that started two days before her marriage" and "She spoke of the lessons she learned from her parents, such as self-reliance and the importance of entrepreneurship" do not add relevant encyclopedic detail, but simply create a non-neutral image of Love's character. etothei (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Find sources then. As for using quotes by a person - that is not a POV issue as a rule. Anf fluff is now removed. Collect (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Haitian

Respectfully, I believe there is an error in the wording of the first sentence "Ludmya 'Mia' B. Love (born 1975) is the first female African-American to serve as a city mayor in Utah." Mia Love is an American born of Haitian parents, as the article later states. The only people who refer to themselves as "African-Americans" are the descendants of American slavery, a name they adapted during the Black Pride Movement. The children of Caribbean immigrants never refer to ourselves as "African Americans," but rather as [country name]-Americans (i.e. Haitian-American in Mayor Love's case), or as "Americans of Caribbean heritage/descent." This is the reason why Caribbeans had a movement starting last February to get their own box on the Census form (see four bullet points up from bottom http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/04/eye_opener_obamas_calls_for_su.html). I propose that the sentence be changed to "Ludmya 'Mia' B. Love (born 1975) is the first woman of African descent to serve as a city mayor in Utah." Amberblossoms (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

>The only people who refer to themselves as "African-Americans" are the descendants of American slavery --

> you are so right

The very first paragraph in the Wikipedia article on Barack Obama states "Barack Hussein Obama II (i/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office." He is not descended from American slaves (well, technically, he might be through his mother's side, but the genealogical evidence is a bit weak). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.25.61 (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Mia Love is not a hyphenated American, nor of "African" descent.

The complaint is raised that Mia Love, a personal friend, is not an African-American because her parents were born in Haiti. That is true, for two reasons. First, because her parents were born in Haiti, not Africa. Secondly, because Mia is loathe to be called a hyphenated American of any prior national affiliation. Mia was born in the United States. Those that call themselves African-Americans are almost exclusively members of the the Democrat Party, or any political association that is not of the Republican Party. Mia is a staunch member of the Republican Party. Members of the Republican Party, if a need for a label ever occurs, refer to themselves as Black Americans. Mia Love follows that custom.

Mia Love's ancestors lived in Haiti for many generations removed from the continent of Africa. To the extent that generations of those of "European", et alia, descent do not refer to themselves as such, neither is it correct to refer to Mia Love as of African descent. Again, a need for an ethnocentric label is a quality anathema to members of the Republican Party. UTresident (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see is that that sources call her "the first black woman to...". So completely removing it I thing would be wrong. However, some ideas at the Failed Wikipedia:African American discussion may work her. Perhaps change it to "Haitian-American". However, I dislike "Black-American".--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This article has Mia describing herself as "African-American." It is from 2004 though, and I'd be curious to know if there are any current media sources where she doesn't use that phrase. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what party she may or may not be in has anything to do with it, but if she doesn't identify as "African American" then it shouldn't be there, still no reason to bring partisanship into a manor like this, plus were you really trying to say she isn't of African "descent", not to be rude. but I have ask if you know what the word means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.104.4 (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

fixed?

I fix the text to remove the "African American" label. Is the tone OK now? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilingbandit (talk • contribs) 15:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Eliminate Department of Education and Energy?

Why does this keep getting edited, moved, and reworded? This is the actual line from the article, and it follows the paragraphs that discusses dismantling the black caucus....

The caucus isn't the only thing Love said she would dismantle in Washington. The departments of education and energy must go, she said. States, she said, should take back those duties along with health care.

Shouldn't it follow the paragrpahs from the same article where it talks about and she says...

If elected in November, Love would be the first black Republican woman in Congress and Utah's first black representative. She said she would join the Congressional Black Caucus in Washington, D.C., should she win.

"Yes, yes. I would join the Congressional Black Caucus and try to take that thing apart from the inside out," she said.

Though officially nonpartisan, the caucus has been more closely identified with the Democratic Party.

"It’s demagoguery. They sit there and ignite emotions and ignite racism when there isn’t," Love said. "They use their positions to instill fear. Hope and change is turned into fear and blame. Fear that everybody is going lose everything and blaming Congress for everything instead of taking responsibility."

It doesn't flow, and it's taken out of context when broken up as it's currently worded...the whole idea of her saying she wants to take apart the black caucus is in line with breaking up the dept of education and energy and from the same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.175.49 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Should we mention that Mrs. Love's husband is of European descent

I do not think this fact is mentioned in the article, and I am not sure if it is relevant or worth mentioning. This article http://newsone.com/346727/meet-mia-love-utahs-first-african-american-mayor/ makes that clear with its lead picture, and the earliest Deseret News article on her (from 2004, when she had been on the city council about 9 months) not only mentions that Mia and Jason are of different racial backgrounds, but discusses the way this effects the physical apparence of their children. The fact that she is married to a white man has not come up much in more recent coverage. In fact, thinking about it, the race of her husband is often left unstated, but we clearly have the sources for saying he is white/of European descent. I am not sure how best to phrase that, or where it should be place. I will try, but feel free to relocate it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• There was once a Deseret News article that discussed how some people reacted to Mia Love hanging out with her husband's white family and them wondering how she knew them. I believe this was an article in January 2005 leading up to Martin Luther King Jr. Day, but I may be wrong about the year and the exact reason for the article. I believe she was on the city council when it ran, but the article only incidentlally mentioned she was on the city council. I am only 90% certain it was a Deseret News article, I am 100% certain I read it. With Mrs. Love becoming such a popular topic in the Blogosphere, it is hard to hunt down pre-April 10, 2012 articles. I will try to find the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It is possible the article I am thinking of ran in the Provo Herald. Either way it was not about Mrs. Love, but about perceptions of race in Utah. I will continue trying to find it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Potentially first Haitian-American in congress?

Does anyone know if there have to date been any other Haitian Americans serve in congress? If yes, were they children of two Haitian immigrant parents, Haitian immigrants themselves, or more distantly removed from their Haitain roots?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

African-Americaness revisited

--- The Wiki for Colin Powell lists him as the son of Jamaican immigrants but also calls him 'African-American'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.46.32 (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Photo

The photo currently displayed is low quality, there must be some quality headshots out there, any objection to a change? Cavdoc (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but it can't be copyrighted, which is what most available images are. See WP:IUP for more details. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I found one and added it. Someone else can crop it out later. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

that looks a lot better, thanks for that! Cavdoc (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability of "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" vandalism on national news

Should we include the national news mention on this edit, which included the quoted language above?99.102.212.191 (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. Vandalism happens all the time on Wikipedia. And don't try to reinsert material that's been over sighted/deleted because it's degrading by including it in discussion headings, please. - Nunh-huh 16:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It was only hidden after the news went national. It seems your concerns and censorship of a quoted national news headline are self-serving and seek to further the interests of Wikipedia as an institution - and not to consider the notability of this event based upon its encyclopedic merit. I have to admit that I'm taken aback by your deletion and censorship of me directly quoting a headline read already by millions throughout the world.99.102.212.191 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with 99.102.212.191 and 76.6.218.158's sentiments. It should be included. 75.150.245.242 (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone knows racism doesn't matter when it benefits Democrats. Eric Holder proved that when he refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers. Evidently Wikipedia is reluctant to post anything that makes Democrats look bad.76.6.218.158 (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that now even the Talk page history has been scrubbed of any quotation of the internationally read headline regarding Wikipedia's term for Mia Love.99.102.212.191 (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a conspiracy or some other sort of similar BS. Stuff like this happens all of the time on Wikipedia and usually goes unnoticed. Part of this is a general philosophy where vandals should not be given any sort of special attention, as that is precisely what they crave. If they keep pushing against a brick wall and nothing happens and there is nothing to show for their effort, generally they go away. What is happening here on this page is just a bunch of idiots who will move on to the next big thing and eventually leave this page alone. Just ignore that this happened and be done with it. As for folks trying to make Mt. Everest out of an ant hill over the vandalism on this page (and that is perhaps overstating the reality here as that is insulting to ants and the size of their mounds), saying that vandalism happens on Wikipedia is a joke. It shouldn't even be news. Certainly editors who mention this in outside media sources are just sensationalizing something that really shouldn't even be mentioned at all. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If someone had made these comments about President Obama or some other black Democrat, I doubt you'd be taking it so lightly. Why do you trivialize racism?76.6.218.158 (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that you spend a couple of minutes at least (if not a few hours if you really want to see some nasty stuff) on the Barack Obama and George W. Bush articles on Wikipedia. Heck, I've had vandals write stuff far more insulting than the stuff said about Mia Love on my own personal user and talk pages. Don't go presuming my political leanings here either (you might be surprised). I'm just saying this is rather normal to Wikipedia. If something like that was put up and attempts to remove that kind of hateful speech were reverted consistently and admins on Wikipedia were defending hateful content like that, such content would be newsworthy. At the moment, that doesn't seem to be the case and in fact the admins on Wikipedia seem to have things well under control. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I'm the one who hid several offensive edits from the article's history, not User:Nunh-huh. This was a routine action that Wikipedia administrators do based on Wikipedia policy to protect biographies of living people (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for details). There is nothing political or conspiratorial about this - I simply removed offensive edits as I have done with countless other articles. When the offensive edits were repeated here on this talk page, I removed them as well. Wikipedia does not tolerate this type of behavior, and Wikipedia administrators will continue to protect this page and others from similar attacks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a philosophy on Wikipedia that extends to every article, called Revert, Block, Ignore. It means to block those who vandalize Wikipedia, revert their actions (undoing the vandalism) and deny them the recognition they're seeking by being vandals. The Barrack Obama article has been vandalized heavily in the past, and those edits were reverted and scrubbed as well, so this isn't treatment given only to subjects who belong to a particular political party. Volunteers at Wikipedia try to be careful with biographies of living people, because negative material reported about people can do real life harm. Any negative material that can't be backed up with a reliable source is removed, and anything that is seriously damaging is removed from even the history of a page to protect the article subject. This isn't about making any political party look bad, it's only about not causing damage to Mrs. Love, just as we try not to cause damage to any other living person. This is in accordance with our policy on biographies of living persons. -- Atama頭 18:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability

It appears the event has given the candidate a significant bounce in money:Slate The event is also rippling out on both sides of the ideological aisle:policymic. It's worth noting, especially as it has clearly generated more newsprint than any other event in her life save possibly for her speech.99.102.212.191 (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It was just routine vandalism, the same that goes on basically every minute on Wikipedia. It should not be in the article. 72Dino (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Its notability is dictated by reliable secondary sources. Fox News just gave it headline treatment here, and context:"Mia Love Wikipedia page vandalized with slurs" and used the incident to underscore their report that "The attack comes as Democrats and liberal media outlets criticize or downplay the GOP's effort at showcasing diversity at their convention in Tampa." 99.102.212.191 (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Salt Lake Tribune has also picked it up and mentioned it locally, stating, "her Wikipedia page was defaced with disparaging comments calling her a “sell-out to the Right Wing Hate Machine” and using a racial epithet."... as an aside it also noted that her "name was the top Google search term as of Wednesday afternoon."99.102.212.191 (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

While this Salt Lake Tribune article did mention the vandalism in this article, it was also a passing remark and certainly not the focus of the article. There is no reason to put any information about this vandalism into the article, although elaborating upon the general impact that the speech at the national convention may be of some value and certainly does need to be included in this article... perhaps even to a slightly larger degree than currently exists. I'm sure you can find some detractors of Mia Love that are of a slightly higher caliber than some random idiot vandalizing a Wikipedia page. Frankly, I find it simply indefensible that you would even include something like this. See also WP:UNDUE, which is Wikipedia policy that applies in this situation as well. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

ABC News local affiliate in Utah headlines with it, "Racial and sexist Wikipedia comments anger Mia Love supporters". It is the sole focus of the article, as were several of the others ref'd above. The Provo Utah Daily Herald also ran with it, ""After Love's speech .. her page on .. Wikipedia was edited to contain racial slurs and other degrading comments. "99.102.212.191 (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

@IP: It was run of the mill vandalism, and although the vandalism is getting some press coverage, it is not yet significant enough to be mentioned in the article. Yes, there are some press reports on it, but not every fact needs to be in the article. Articles are restricted to encyclopedic information. Some guidelines to bear in mind are WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:NAVEL. I'd recommend letting a month go by, and if in October 2012, with the benefit of hindsight, this looks like a major event in her life, then perhaps it could go in the article. But not today. --Noleander (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Routine vandalism. Not News. Seems that the media has enough to report than to talk about some minor vandalism, which was all removed within a few minutes.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Routine vandalism? It's a very large and widely reported event that has caused commentary on both sides of the ideological aisle - and reliable, notable secondary sources have written entire reports devoted solely to it, while numerous others have found it critical enough to include the event, and its after-effects, in still more reports. Over-riding the reliable secondary sources because you 'know better' what they should report is not an acceptable practice, nor is shunting it aside unless it's still a daily news event a month from now. 99.102.212.191 (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be to leave it out. I'm not quite sure why you are so adamant about including it, but you don't appear to have much support for having it in the article. 72Dino (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Its inclusion is warranted by the numerous reliable secondary sources that have deemed it noteworthy. Now the Salt Lake Tribune has written still another report which refers to the incident. It's an event of significance - irregardless of any attempts here by the locals to downplay it due to embarrassment and institutional protectionism. 99.102.212.191 (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. Read them, get to know them. They are your new best friend.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Throwing out acronyms does nothing, you're using those little cliched links as thought minimizing devices - you imagine that the mere mention of policy somehow forms an argument. I've presented numerous solid references and overcome specific objections as to "not the focus of the article, etc .. and I've offered reliable secondary sources that have placed the incident in the context of the candidate and the times. A serious , sober and well referenced argument has been made for consideration. No serious argument has been presented for ignoring the reality of the event.99.102.212.191 (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Out of a sense of thoroughness I've reread (I've read them numerous times now over the years) the entries you pointed vaguely to. You should have read them first yourself, there is no argument to be found there to deny inclusion of this significant event.99.102.212.191 (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The vandalism to this page has now become a notable event. I think there should be a section noting that the vandalism occured, but the comments themselves have no place on the article or the talk page. Just my two cents. Korentop (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Quincy Jones' VIBE magazine has now put the story out to a still wider audience, one younger and less political. MIA LOVE WIKIPEDIA PAGE VANDALIZED This article is currently featured on both the VIBE homepage & the News page.99.102.212.191 (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Utah Pulse has also now put it out to their readership in the business and governmental community: Love's Wikipedia Page Temporarily Defaced...99.102.212.191 (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

More reports, now from the entertainment press. Enstarz headlines their report: Mia Love Speech Hit With Slurs After RNC, Called 'Worthless' in Wikipedia Hack ....99.102.212.191 (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Digital Journal adds a new one:"These insulting remarks haven’t hurt the campaign, but rather it has generated support among Republican voters and Independents, who are contributing to ..."...99.102.212.191 (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to concur that the vandalism has become a notable event as it has now been featured in a large number of US national news stories. Is vandalism notable and SHOULD this incident be notable? Of course not... we revert thousands and thousands of vandalism hits a day, but this particular one has apparently taken off in the media. HOWEVER(!!!), I'm not convinced that it is suitable for inclusion based on WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS, this is something that I feel will have to develop a little longer before we know if it's something that will have a lasting impact. The WP:UNDUE argument is crap, though. You want to find the most POV person in a political article debate? Look for the person that is waving around the WP:UNDUE flag the most. Trusilver 16:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I still think it should be left out, noting that those who are sensationalizing this particular incident here on Wikipedia really are clueless about Wikipedia and its policies. Out of the billion plus people who have internet access, is it possible for one particular anonymous troll to have something hurtful or derogatory about any other random person? Absolutely. That is all that has happened, and for the sake of protecting Wikipedia I think it should stay removed as well without mention. That people who are long-time Wikipedia editors should perhaps try to educate these "mainstream" news publishers about the project and convince them to also ignore similar kinds of trollish behavior on Wikipedia perhaps, but it really isn't news. It also seems weridly self-serving to be talking about Wikipedia on Wikipedia (although I do know that the Wikipedia article exists too).

As for WP:UNDUE applying here, on the scale of things this is so minor and inconsequential I find that including even a single sentence about this incident to be far more coverage than it deserves. There are going to be a whole bunch of hateful things said about Mia Love over time, particularly if she gets elected to the U.S. House of Representatives or becomes involved in some other manner in Utah politics (just as likely even if she loses). What other forums have been used to make such racist comments, and can any of those comments be tied to anybody remotely worthy of note? If Barack Obama had said such a thing about Mia Love (or even Harry Reid), it would be noteworthy. If the user account who made the edit could be traced to the DNC or again something noteworthy, that too would be something worthy of mentioning. Some random nobody making a trollish comment that was almost immediately reverted and then furthermore had oversight applied to remove the comment from the page history altogether just doesn't seem to rise to the same level of comparison for notability worthy of being included in this article. That is the reason I think it is self-serving and applying undue weight in this article for what it represents. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with excluding any mention of the vandalism, for WP:NAVEL among other reasons. There are a lot of wikipedia articles that are vandalized, and if we start adding these navel gazing self-references every time such vandalism makes a splash in the news, we will start looking unencyclopedic. Wookian (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to concur. I deal with a lot of vandalism and a lot of vandals. This is nothing new or noteworthy here. We are an encyclopedia, not a news organization. Is anyone going to care about vandalism on her Wikipedia article in twenty-five years? No. There were more than likely be plenty of other things that she will have accomplished in her life that will be in this article, but some asinine vandalism by some anonymous IP isn't worth our time. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree on leaving it out, but let's make sure we are doing it for the correct reasons. Everyone here knows damn well that articles get vandalized on a near constant basis and that making a news article about one act of vandalism is a little bit on the absurd side. BUT... we don't make that call, or at least we shouldn't. We are in a unique position here that we all know how the project works and understand that irrelevance of one act of vandalism (zomg! WP:OR!). But, those outside the project know no such thing... and regardless of our own knowledge, this SHOULD be included if it overcomes certain criteria such as WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. In other words... WP:NAVEL should be overcome if the notability of the event warrants it. Right now? it's not happening. I'm not going to speculate on what it would take for that notability to be reached, because every scenario in my head is of exceptionally poor taste, but the possibility exists. Trusilver 00:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

When I see WP:NOTNEWS invoked, that seems to suggest the content should be moved over to the Wikinews sister website to Wikipedia. There certainly does seem to be content rising to that level where perhaps a more legitimate "news story" should be written instead of an encyclopedia article (and why that sister project was created in the first place). In this case, it wasn't even newsworthy. The noteworthy issue being raised at all here in terms of Mia Love and what should be in this article is the reaction to the speech she gave at the convention. Out of all of the places and possible websites and discussion forums that could be used to identify reactions to the speech (positive or negative), the only one that seems to be raised at all is a troll comment on Wikipedia? Is that the best anybody else can find? --Robert Horning (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Textbook case of bias & original research. Wikipedia editors find embarrassment in the generation of numerous articles across media from multiple categories devoted to or mentioning the degradation of this articles subject - and being experts on the ins and outs of Wikipedia pronounce that in their considerable expert opinion ... this is all much ado about nothing.

It is not the place of the vested parties here to censor reliably sourced notable events. By any measure the incident in question has had a significant impact - and is reliably reported to have had a significant impact on the congressional race that she is involved in and her own candidacies fund raising. It is the second largest subject in her national press behind only her speech before the R. convention and a significant portion of her local press from all major Utah newspapers and Utah publications.99.102.212.191 (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

A snippet from WP:BLP: "Avoid victimization: When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. [...] This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.".

I agree that the vandalism is well sourced, but for reasons of WP:NAVEL plus the WP:BLP notes above, which seem to apply directly herebe at least somewhat related to this case, this is a bad choice to expand the article at this time. In general Wikipedia is not about censorship; but we also are supposed to take WP:BLP's more seriously than general news media, so it's OK to refuse to gratify WP vandals with recognition, at least in the absence of an incredibly strong reason to do otherwise. Wookian (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Books & Review (a new category of media again) headlines their article on the incident, "Mia Love Speech: Recieves Twitter Support After Racist and Sexist Remarks .... 99.102.212.191 (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

College News also adds the incident to their report on Love's speech.99.102.212.191 (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I will repeat: What is notable here is not the vandalism on this page but rather the reaction to the speech... of which the vandalism was just one very minor part. For crying out loud, how often does a comment under an article on the New York Times ever get mentioned... particularly after it is removed by the website operator? This is no different and in fact I would dare say weaker still. This is a nonevent. Are any racists arguments on blogs, comment sections, or forums going to be mentioned here too? That other "media sources" are even mentioning this sort of speaks about their ignorance of Wikipedia than anything genuinely newsworthy or notable. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No one advocating wiki vandalism as a "notable event" is addressing the fact that if the wiki acknowledges the vandalism as notable, the vandals are rewarded and encouraged. If we react to vandalism by incorporating it into the targeted article in any form, we can only expect it to proliferate. Bustter (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

An exception to that which has been noted is when trollish behavior could be traced to notable people by virtue of the IP addresses that they used. BTW, I did do a quick IP trace (nothing fancy) and it led to what appears to be consumer ISP companies in Los Angeles and Chicago. That is sort of the danger if you use an IP address edit I should note too. Examples of this can be found on Vandalism on Wikipedia#Notable Acts of Vandalism. Having Steven Colbert literally taping his act of vandalism on-air and then broadcasting the action sort of rises to the level of notability. In fact is was the blatant vandalism of the John Seigenthaler article which led to the WP:BLP policy becoming adopted on Wikipedia. I'm not denying that there could be something from vandalism that could be notable, but in this case on this article about Mia Love? Please, let's be serious. It should also be something of an extreme even for Wikipedia which in this case certainly doesn't rise to that level of something exceptional or noteworthy. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles like [1] make it clear that there is some significance of the vandalism in terms of the overall post-convention notability. Maybe indeed there shouldn't be, and the press should know better, because any idiot can vandalize Wikipedia. But omitting all mention altogether? That seems overly self serving. Yes, I know that giving the idiot a forum only encourages him, but our #1 priority should be covering the topic, not avoiding vandalism. This is subtle, but it would be the same fundamental fallacy as if we deleted the article 'Penis' to avoid the inevitable tomfoolery it invites. I think that half a dozen words, sourced to a general article like the one I cite here, in the context of general post-convention reception, are warranted. Wnt (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This has no comparison to the Penis article. It isn't because of the contents of the remark, but because it wasn't even a noteworthy remark. What makes this particular incident anything special, other than a bunch of hacks trying to fill their articles or air time on radio broadcasts trying to prove that somebody in this world hates Mia Love? Is this really the only negative reaction to Mia Love's speech? --Robert Horning (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well that's a very good question. Why is it supposed to be newsworthy that she was hit with these comments on the free encyclopedia anybody can vandalize? Is it some elaborate means of garnering sympathy, or legitimizing antagonism, or a media-versus-net thing... I have no guess. We should cover such things and not try to analyze them, in the hope that sooner or later the causes clarify themselves. Wnt (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

As to the question of "What makes this event notable?" It's clear - it received national press as both the sole focus of, and in numerous other articles as a significant portion of, reliably sourced secondary sources across a wide swath of media in a number of diverse outlets, music, entertainment, books...just to name a few.

By any measure the incident in question has had a significant impact - and is reliably reported to have had a significant impact on the congressional race that she is involved in and her own candidacies fund raising. It is the second largest subject in her national press behind only her speech before the R. convention and a significant portion of her local press from all major Utah newspapers and Utah publications. (note that my ip address has changed, I previously wrote to this discussion above with ip:99.x ...)108.71.163.44 (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Is It Vandalism?

I'm not sure why we call it "vandalism." How can they be "vandals" when we essentially hand them a can of spray paint and show them the way to the boxcars?

I am constantly criticized when I quote Wikipedia on other sites, specifically for that reason -- we don't even try to vet our contributors. Understand that the criticism I get isn't that we don't try hard enough. It's that we don't try at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbone0106 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss this. Try the Village pump. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry about my quote. The lines involved seem pretty egregious. I guess you are right that acknowledging them gives power to those involved. I do think though some people have gone overboard in shouting vandalism. Some of the edits that have been tagged as "vandalism" were good faith if misguided edits. I would add a word of caution to tagging anything as "vandalism". Vandalism is deliberately provocative edits meant to disrupt content. Claims that there are lots of wikipedia editors with evil intent are not vadalism. They may be unjustified and unwise, but they are not vandalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"We don't even try to vet our contributors." Huh?

The vetting of what contributors do is done on the fly and is a part of the editorial process on Wikipedia by other contributors and volunteer editors, with some occasional help by volunteer "administrators" who help out from time to time in dealing with difficult contributors. The idea is that you are invited to contribute until you have proven yourself to be a problem rather than a permission based system that doesn't allow you to contribute until you have proven yourself in some other manner. Wikipedia as it exists today would not be here if a strong credential system was in place.

BTW, I agree that this whole discussion about vandalism in general needs to be ultimately moved to the Village Pump. If there is something explicit that needs to be talked about this particular article and some particular edit that somebody thinks was unfairly reverted or removed, raising those issues here on the talk page is entirely justified. Be specific about a particular edit and try to justify why that edit needs to remain in this article or why it needs to be deleted. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If the three edits by Toritrac that I reverted were not vandalism, I don't know what is. You can see his/her handiwork for yourselves in the page edit history. Methychroma (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Source statements

Make sure statements are well sourced. If there is a statement in the article that "Love will be the first x" it needs to have a source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Republican National Convention Speech

Here http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865561398/Mia-Love-speech-at-Republican-National-Convention-pitch-perfect-on-national-stage.html is a good Deseret News article on her speach. I am not sure how best to incorporate anything from it in the article. I will leave that to others who are better at incorporating material into articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Here http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/mia-love-gops-african-american-mormon-candidate-rocks-rnc/ is a what looks like a blog/opinion peace on her speach. I am not sure that saying she "energized the convention" is worth putting in the article. It seems a lot like presentist passing statements, but it might be worth noting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Upon reflection, she is seen as a Republican "rising star" ! Here is a quote from a day later: "And her speech was refreshingly positive, focusing on her experience as the daughter of Haitian immigrants."

• "My parents immigrated to the U.S. with ten dollars in their pocket, believing that the America they had heard about really did exist. When times got tough they didn't look to Washington, they looked within," Love told the audience. "So the America I came to know was centered in personal responsibility and filled with the American dream."
• "President Obama's version of America is a divided one -- pitting us against each other based on our income level, gender, and social status," she continued. "Mr. President I am here to tell you we are not buying what you are selling in 2012."
• Watch her whole speech: [2] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 August 2012

In External links, please move the parameter in the standalone IMDb template into the CongLinks template. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems minor and uncontroversial so  Done. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The race to Washington DC

Editors here are discussing 'notability'. What is most notable is that Mia Love is poised to be the first black Republican congressman in the history of the nation. Here's a current quote: Ludmya "Mia" Bourdeau Love is the mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, and the 2012 Republican Party nominee for the United States House of Representatives in Utah's 4th congressional district.

This is why people will be coming to Wikipedia to read about Mia Love. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you read section headings and not content. No one is questioning her notability. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

The good thing about America is that we can beleive whatever we want no matter what race, color or creed.. Mia, I salute you as a strong woman with great values and the fortitude to stand on the principles you live by... That's what makes being an American so great.. The haters can hate but the truth is, the group should not affect the individual liberties of any one person... If the grouop intimidates to change any individuals ideaoligy, that is intimidation and bullying and that is not what America is about.. Stay stong and thank you for your example of dignity and stregth... You are an American!!!! William Hall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.226.90 (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

My point was that a new section in the Article is needed. I understand the discussion here in TALK. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion that Ms. Love, if elected, would be "the first black Republican congressman" is incorrect. See African Americans in the United States Congress. Perhaps you mean that she would become the first female black Republican Member of Congress? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The term "first black Republican congressman" is of course a needless redundancy. The first African American member of congress was a Republican. Actually the first 20 or so African Americans in congress were all Republicans. At present there are two African American Republicans serving in congress, Allen West and Tim Scott.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Anchor baby" language

As Mother Jones has retracted their original claim, should the language be deleted from the article? Kelly ^hi! 15:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/55031749-90/love-mia-bourdeau-family.html.csp?page=2 Oct. 8, 2012 "Salt Lake Tribune" article includes comments based on an interview with Mrs. Love's father, Jean Bordeau, in which he presents the view that Mia's birth was the key to permanents resident status and eventual citizenship. Of course Mr. Borudeau may avctually have been wrong, and he might have been able to get enough information and evidence to get permanent status as a political refugree from Papa Doc Duvalier's atocratic regime before then, but the fact that he believes this, although my guess is he is probably right and would not have been able to convince the authorities without a citizen child, it is clear that this is the story that Mia was told from her earliest recollections and to imply that it is a late innovation as part of her campaign is questionable. It feels to me like these is too much attention being given to this issue in the article, and it comes off to me as unfounded accusations, but I am not sure how best to rewrite it to reflect the fact that all agree that this is clearly the story that Mrs. Love was given from her earliest recollection, and no evidence has been put forward that any imigration attorney disagrees with the assesment. So I think a shorter coverage of the issue would be in order, but I will leave figuring out how to do that to another.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Anochor Baby debate seems more an election rhetoric issue than a real issue about Mrs. Love's birth, so maybe the indepth coverage of statements about that should be moved to the section of the article on the 2012 congressional election.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

IP Comment

The bottom half of this article needs serious review. It's basically shameless self promotion. Also, this woman is not African-American. She is Haitian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.229.42 (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you point out where it says she's African American? I'm not seeing it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

In reply to first comment. Haitian people are from Africa before they were from Haiti, just like all the other black people in this part of the world (save a view Aboriginals). I understand a person identifying themselves as Haitian, as I have an adopted Haitian brother, I really understand it. But that doesn't change the fact that Haitians descended from Africans, like the rest of the African Americans. 173.18.208.35 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Candidate again

Love has announced she is running for congress in 2014. I half wonder if we should lock the article due to past vandalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother until it becomes a major issue. The larger issue is how to keep the two campaigns separate and what kinds of "rumors" to dismiss in terms of being reliable sources. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I hear congratulations are in order! --Mccommas2 (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

African-American again?

There has not been a consensus here that Love is not African-American. This article [3] from The Grio which mentions that Love would be the first Haitian American in congress, also calls her an African-American. The terms are not mutually exclusive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I would not take that article as a good indication of most things. The article cites Utah having only ever had 3 women represent it in congress as if that is below average. However, even with Utah's current 4 districts to Michigan's 14, for Michigan to have the same average, it would have needed 9 women in congress and it has only had 7. However, since this has only been the case for one election, a more comparable set of figures is that in 2010 it was 15 to 3, and 16 to 3 in the 1990s, and 18 to 3 in the 1980s. So probably Michigan should be closer to 15. As it is Michigan's current congressional delegation only consists of one woman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Mia Love black? Sort of. Is she African-American? No. She is a black Haitian American. In the United States, the term "black" has the connotation of being an African American, which she is not. This is not a matter of race, it is a matter of ethnicity. Is David Ortiz, the baseball player African American? No. Is he a black Dominican American (Hispanic/Latino)? Yes. Do African Americans speak French? No. Is Haiti in the Latin Union? Yes. Is it in the African Union? No. Her parents are immigrants from a Latin language speaking country, so to assume that you have found a consensus on this talk page to deem her as such when in fact the opposite is being said about her doesn't give you much ground to stand on does it? In fact, I'd like you to show everyone on this talk page where Mia Love herself is quoted referring to herself as an "African American", because below I have listed two references on how Haitian Americans feel about "incorrectly" being called an African-American. The news can talk, articles can write; that still doesn't make a black Haitian American an African American sorry. However, before she was voted into office, can I see her riding an African-American slogan to attract voters in that state to vote for her? Yes of course; but really that would be all it was. Only a politician would ever ride that lie to get themselves into office. (Shocker!) How many black Haitians live in Utah? I would bet if there are any black people living in Utah, by default it would probably be people of African American ancestry. Mia Love is no different than all the other Haitian Americans out there who know who they are ethnicity-wise. However, she would be an African American, if one of her parents was of African-American descent, but she doesn't. For the record, for all who is reading, Haiti is not an all black country. If you want me to I can provide about 500 Haitians who are not; who are actually known. So what does that say about the ones who aren't? In other words, NOT an all black country. We're in the 21st century with all this technology and a Haitian American is a difficult concept to grasp? It's really unbelievable. Plus, we have a wiki category for Mia Love, it's called an "American of Haitian descent." At least someone got it right. Cheers. Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Immigration and Religion in America: Comparative and Historical Perspectives edited by Richard D. Alba, Albert J. Raboteau, Josh DeWind pg. 328

Haitian Immigrants in Black America: A Sociological and Sociolinguistic Portrait By Flore Zéphir pg. 45 Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

[4] The Grio is correct, and it never refers to her as an "African American." Instead uses the term black and elaborates on her Haitian ancestry of her parents. In the article you provided, Mia is quoted as saying "I would join the congressional black caucus." Again not saying she is an African American. Only the title of your article refers to her as such and again is incorrect. The Grio has it's facts straight and that is a valid reference. ABC still refers to Native Americans as Indians! [5] Yeah, they are reliable... Savvyjack23 (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If you tally the consensus of this group, only one other user agrees with you by saying, doesn't change the fact that Haitians descended from Africans, like the rest of the African Americans. Again, not all derive from Africa and this "label" just because she is black, is not correct. Again this label defines ethnicity and not race. In fact, we all come from Africa! Are Aborigine from Australia not black and of African descent? Of course they are but it's been thousands and thousands of years since they migrated from the continent. What makes them any more African than a European? It doesn't get to 110 degrees in Europe like it does in Australia. To be politically correct they are referred to as "indigenous-Australians" by Australians, but black, not African. In this country, the American blacks kept the connotation as a sense of pride. A Haitian did not travel through their journey, nor did they endure their struggles for 200 years in this country. Like I mentioned before we have a category for this called "American of Haitian descent." We have facts to confirm that. Savvyjack23 (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

What African American (unless you are from the former French colony Louisiana) has the name Ludmya Bourdeau (later changed to Mia Love)? It's no wonder why we hear little of the progress made by Haitian-Americans, they are all incorrectly referred to as African American! And this was not a "tactical" move to attract votes? Come on, of course it was... Savvyjack23 (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And what does she call herself? — Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Black. A Haitian American. May I add that being both a Haitian American and an African American from two Haitian immigrant parents is impossible. Savvyjack23 (talk)

Reference: [6] Fox got it right. "Black, Haitian American." Savvyjack23 (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Voila! This article even talks about how she is mistakenly called African American and says she is black born to Haitian parents. Entitled: Utah's Mia Love Battles Stereotypes. [7] Savvyjack23 (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

[8] See under column: "Mia Love speaks..." It says, "She is a first-generation Haitian-American, a Mormon and a small-town Utah mayor. Love, who is black, is also running for Congress in mostly white Utah. If elected, she would be the first black Republican woman ever to serve in Congress…" This is her official website, and would only link information that is accurate about her. This whole page uses the words black...Haitian American...Haitian parents. Not once does it say African American anywhere. Savvyjack23 (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• The way we use African-American in Wikipedia, it means anyone born in the United States of African ancestry unless they proactively refuse to identify as such (an example of the latter is George Zimmerman). Mia Love has expressed a desire to join the Congressional Black Caucus and no one has questioned her right to do so. Thus she fits as being African-American. In most cases people in the United States use "black" and "African-American" interchangeably when referring to people in the United States. One of the categories Love is in Category:Africna-America Latter Day Saints essentuially functions as a nationality specific subsection of Category:Black Latter Day Saints. I do not think there is agreement to use African-American in a way that would consistently exclude Mia Love. This idea "Haitian Americans are not African-Americans" has not been applied in most cases of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Here [9] is an Atlanta Black Star article that twice identifies Love as African-American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• And here [10] is an NPR article that referes to Mia Love as African-American. In fact, probably more telling, this article illustrates that to many Americans "back living in Ameirca" and "African-American" are synonymous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No they are not interchangeable and this article explains why. [11] If you look at a census form it will say "Black OR African American." Not Black/African American. Savvyjack23 (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I also listed two book sources above on Haitian American heritage. You still can not show me a quote where she calls herself an African American. Enough. Savvyjack23 (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, the talk page on this is one sided in favor of her being a black Haitian American. That's good enough for a revert. Savvyjack23 (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• • No, it is not a clear consensus to not call her African-American. This is primarily your view, a view that has not been considered within the broader views of how these terms are used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
• I don't have to show a quote where Mrs. Love refers to herself as an African-American. I just have to show reliable sources that referred to her as an African-American, and NPR constitutes that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Been following this. From what I can see, both sides have made some good points. However, I think the fact that there are indeed multiple reliable sources which refer to Love as "African-American" are enough for Wikipedia to use this description in the article and in applicable categories. And as noted in a section above, there is this older article in which Love describes herself as "an African-American woman", so given that, I don't think we need to worry about any sort of self-identification BLP issues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Given the amount of disagreement over what category she falls in, should we defer to how she considers herself? I'm not certain this is a huge enough issue that the specific wording of her background changes the article in any major way. I mean, most Americans seem to believe that African American and black are interchangeable anyway, so I'm not sure that the way the article will be received by the VAST majority of readers is going to be different regardless of which term is used and those who are saavy enough to know the distinction can probably glean what she truly is through the rest of the context. I'm not sure the wording here is critical. Bali88 (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment While I'm not generally on board with the whole "African American" nomenclature, our own article on African American states African Americans "are citizens or residents of the United States who have total or partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa". Though her parents are from Haiti, her ancestors at one point did come originally from Africa. There are numerous references which call her African American. NPOV dictates that we report what references state, not our own opinion. I don't see what the problem is. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment In addition to the source I provided about Mia Love battling this stereotype and the book sources I have provided, Southern Floridan politican Yanatha Desouvre talks about this very same subject as well. [12] This next link is about a Seven Day Adventist voicing the same view [13] While I realize that African-American is to describe people of Sub-Saharan ancestry, the term itself African American was used by blacks who have been living in this country since slavery instead of the term black that was being used negatively (see:n-word). As I mentioned above, the census purposely says black OR African American on the checklist and not black/African American. Also, even some African Americans are disliking the term of their ancestors saying how they are 200+ years being removed from links to Africa. You can read that here [14]. This topic is more controversial as many African Americans may disagree; only used to make a point of being 200+ years removed from Africa. Also there are many Latinos who have clear African ancestry from the Sub-Sahara such as David Ortiz (from neighbor Dominican Republic) whom I mentioned earlier, and are not called African American, but are rather called black Latino or afro Latino as are Haitians who are from Latin America, however are usually called by their color instead of the "Latino" usage, such as black-Haitian, white-Haitian, even though technically they are hence the membership in the Latin Union. On a census form a black Dominican would check off Black or African American for race and check off Latino/Hispanic under ethnicity. Are they African American. No. Black? Yes. The same rule applies. Savvyjack23 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Comment Haitians while voicing their disagreement, the politicians also do not want to lose the African American votes [15]. Mia Love on the other hand just had to refer to herself as a black Haitian American and get involved in African American affairs to keep them both joint. She understand politics as she knows, she is black too and that is what really matters. If she was a white Haitian American, I would think it would be harder for her being a Republican. Savvyjack23 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• • • Comment To those of you who think it doesn't matter, maybe that is because it does not apply to you and you own lives and this has been the problem in the United States. To these people it matters. Haiti was only second to the United States at gaining its independence and first in Latin America. They are a country with their own history and diaspora. They have their own black identity, culture and own history month in the United States called Haitian Heritage Month that is in May. Savvyjack23 (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As an observer, Savvyjack23, it seems to me that consensus in this case goes against what you are advocating. The other editors who have commented here appear to be OK with the "African-American" descriptor being used. As I mentioned above, she has self identified as one here, so your request to get a self-reference seems to be satisfied. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. You might want to check all the comments above this section as well for a definite census. That article you provided was written in 2004 also before she won anything in politics. Since then she has said “We, as Americans, including black Americans and Caribbean Americans, are capable and smart. I don’t like the idea of the government viewing us as needing handouts. We all need the chance to show that we can work for what we want, that we are all hard-working Americans no matter what our background.’’ >>>Caribbean Americans<<<. [16] The reference that describes her as a Mormon mentions black Mormon not African American. I really do not understand the necessity to include African-American when black American can be suffice to fulfill both roles without bias or angering anyone (it is the safest bet don't you think?). I do not understand the need to push this issue when the majority of Haitians do not include themselves to be as such. Savvyjack23 (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Often when I'm having trouble finding a source for something or a photo that is suitable, I just email/facebook the person I'm writing about (or a family member or whatever) and ask them. Given that the basis for your argument is that she might find one word offensive, should we just email her and ask her? That seems like the best way to settle this. Bali88 (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Even if we could contact her directly, personal correspondence is unverifiable and therefore not permitted. We are not a primary source of information. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that she is black is not really something that anyone is likely to cite as original research...I don't think this is really the same as quoting her or somethingBali88 (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Savvyjack23: WP:CCC. Where are the users who agree with you? If they agree with you now, they should speak up. Otherwise, from what I can see, you're standing alone with that position. On the issue of the age of the article—you asked for a reference where she self-identifies as African-American—you didn't mention that it had to be after she was elected mayor. The reference was provided, and then you complained about its age. This amounts to moving the goalposts because you didn't like that someone scored. In any case, there are lots of post-election articles where sources identify her as A-A, so like others above, I really don't see what the issue is since we rely on these reliable sources, not our own knowledge and research. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Savvyjack23 that Love is black and Caribbean-American (or more specifically Haitian-American), and that to call her African-American is a sort of confusing and unhelpful lumping. What possible reason is there to insist on the less clear term? --JBL (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Simply because doing so reflects what is says about her in reliable sources rather than relying on our own knowledge, research, and classification systems. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above includes ample evidence of sources referring to Love by a variety of adjectives, including A-A and those that I mentioned. Thus, it is an editorial decision which, if any, of these terms to apply. Your explanation provides no reason to prefer one to another, while Savvyjack does. --JBL (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If that's true, then it's not an either/or issue. She can be described in any way that reliable sources describe her. It appears to me that Savvyjack is attempting to completely shut down the AA option. I'm fine with using AA and any other description that is commonly used by reliable sources. (But from what I can see Savvyjack's preferences involve some original research and not simple regurgitation of the terminology used by others w.r.t. Love. Above, Savvyjack wrote: "The news can talk, articles can write; that still doesn't make a black Haitian American an African American sorry." That comment demonstrates a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of how WP works, which concerns me.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• If people want to rename Category:African-American politicians, Category:African-American Latter Day Saints, and ultimately Category:African-American people to Category:Black American people, that should be done with a nomination at CfD, not by backhanded forced changes on categorization of an article on a politician who has not yet held higher than local office. Since we have proof that Mrs. Love self describes as African-American, that should suffice for categorizing her as such. On the issue of the census, it actually says something like "African American, Black or Negro", so the reason for the multiple terms is more coplex than any here have admitted. For what it is worth, one of the goals of that language is to try to discorage Egyptians from marking such. Whether the exclusion of Copts from being African-American really makes sense is another question, but considering how much some Pan-Africanists insist that the ancient Egyptians truly are African, and the clear connection of the Copts to the ancient Egyptians, I can see a strong argument that the censuses attempt to exclude Egyptians from being African-American is misguided. However, that is not really the issue here. I think it is clear that Mrs. Love counts as African-American, and if people have broader issues they need to take them up at broader points.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

So then citation Utah's Mia Love Battles Stereotypes, [17] should be kicked underneath the rug along with other passages I have cited. About the writer of this passage: George F. Will is one of today's most recognized writers, with more than 450 newspapers, a Newsweek column, and his appearances as a political commentator on ABC. Just to let you all know that this isn't just some other blog, and there's a reason why this story is out. Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see, we still have plenty of reliable sources that refer to her as African American, as well as plenty of sources that talk about her being of Haitian descent. I don't think we need to favor one over the other in categorization since both are verifiable through sourcing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We need a better political positions section

The section of Love's political positions is poorly written and at times written with a clear bias using the terminology of those who oppose her positions. It also lacks any consideration for the possibility that the postitions she expressed in 2012 may no longer be her views on some issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Updating

I just included a section on Love's appointment to the House Financial Services Committee. I also found this http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Mia-Love-John-Boehner-tea-party/2015/01/08/id/617304/ about her voting for Boehner as speaker. I am not sure it is worth including. Personally I have to wonder if this show of moderation will actually make Love a more viable candidate in 2016, but I have not yet found any sources that express that view. I am not sure how indepth we want to go on her votes. I have noticed in the past that some articles on members of congress, such as the Queen Mum (King Kwame the imprisoned's mother) Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick at one point gave unwaranted emphasis to one vote. So there needs to be a seeking for broadly written articles that avoid too much play-by-play building. This articles campaign section seems to suffer from signs of being built over time, and not being written all together and never being brought into a working narrative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

alleged campaign finance violations

NYT article today: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/us/politics/mia-love-campaign-fund-raising.html - doesn't seem quite ready for posting in the article yet, but something to watch for and include if it continues to be a broader part of the discussion. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Can we kill the Mother Jones section on the midges?

I think the somewhat-belligerent anonymous editor might have had a point: the section on the midges doesn't really add anything of significance, and exposes the article to perceptions of an anti-Love bias. Although it is cited properly, I think it violates WP:BECONCISE. I feel it gives undue weight to an incident that is less relevant and less important than the rest of the items in the article.

Thoughts? Trevdna (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)