Jump to content

Talk:Scott Peters (politician)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

notability

I don't have time to expand this article right now, but Scott Peters is President of the San Diego City Council. San Diego has a strong mayor form of government, [1], meaning that the city council provides a check on the power of the mayor. San Diego is the second largest city in California and [List of United States cities by population|eighth largest city in the US] This year the San Diego City Council approved a budget of about 2.9 billion dollars [2]. If I do a google news search of scott peters san diego city council, I get 42 hits for the past month, and a regular google search brings up 418,000 hits. XinJeisan 19:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • In that case, I'm optimistic that somebody will take note of this article and expand it to include information that cements notability and also cites to verifiable reliable sources. Once that happens, it would be only appropriate to remove the notability template. Erechtheus 19:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that Peters is now a Congressman, shouldn't Scott_Peters just go right to his page and not to a disambiguation page? All of the Congressional representatives I've been looking up lately pretty much do this. Also, given that he's in Congress, the stuff about notability from 2008 looks weird - can that stuff be archived or removed as no longer relevant? I would do it but don't know what the standards are for making changes of this nature since I don't really edit much, so I'll leave it to someone else who knows/cares. gohlkus (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Amash amendment

An editor has twice now inserted an item into the article pointing out that Peters voted against the Amash amendment; the item has been twice reverted by two different people. We should discuss this here and not get into an edit war. Personally I think it is inappropriate to mention this one vote, which was just one out of of scores of votes he has cast, and which attracted no notice or coverage by Reliable Sources. Peters was one of 217 people who voted against the amendment. His vote was not determinative, nor was it in any way different from the votes of the other 216 Representatives who voted against it. There was nothing notable or newsworthy about it. Basically there is no reason to include this here, unless the editor is trying to make some kind of partisan or philosophical point about Peters. --MelanieN (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

ACA vote

User:Cfredkin recently added a sentence about Peters' vote in May 2013 not to overturn the ACA. The user has been adding this or similar language to many articles about politicians. I reverted it here and at several other articles as a trivial vote, because the same issue has come before the House more than 40 times, and the individual politician's vote on this one was not determinative. I felt this kind of item was particularly inappropriate here, when it became the ONLY vote listed in Peters' article. On other articles, where there was already a listing of the person's positions or votes and this vote was placed in context, I have not reverted it. Cfredkin promptly reverted my reversion (although per WP:BRD they should have left my reversion in place and come to the talk page). Rather than getting into an edit war I am bringing the issue here for discussion. Is it appropriate for the "Tenure" section to list only one vote, and that on a proposed-to-death bill on which his vote did not make any difference? Cfredkin claims it has significance because it was mentioned by a "reliable source", but that "reliable source" was merely reporting a a potboiler press release from the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the only reference to a vote that demonstrates the Representative's stance on the ACA in the article. It was significant enough to be referenced by reliable secondary sources. The fact that the issue has been voted on multiple times also attests to its significance. However I obviously don't think it would be appropriate to record all 40+ votes in the article. The fact that it's the only content in the Tenure section is irrelevant. Something would have to be first, and it doesn't preclude other content from being added.CFredkin (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Filner endorsement, call to step down

Should the subject's endorsement from former Representative and Mayor, Bob Filner, which was covered by at least three sources (UT, San Diego Reader, OB Rag), be included? Should the subject's call for Filner to step down in 2013, also be included, if the first is included?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Filner's endorsement can be included; it's not unusual to list endorsements. Subsequent call for Filner to step down is not relevant here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sources

I understand the the reasoning for the removal of sources under the concept of WP:BOMBARD, however, there was no bombardment as all the sources were kept under one reference footnote per WP:CITEBUNDLE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There were three different sources for the same fact under one reference link, including a full sentence quotation from each. That was overkill - made a minor endorsement appear far more significant than it was. I chose to keep the best source - a well known regional Reliable Source, namely the Union Tribune - and to leave out the quotation as clutter. The addition of two lesser-known local papers (actually the OB Rag is little more than a blog) added nothing to the article - especially since the fact they were citing was about as unsurprising as "the sun rose this morning"; it did not need multiple sourcing. BTW I notice you chose to leave out the fact that although Filner endorsed Peters, Peters declined to endorse Filner. --MelanieN (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
That can be included, but would be more relevant to Bob Filner than the subject of this article, however I don't think non-endorsements are significant, and thus would not support inclusion of the lack of endorsement on the Filner article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

American SAFE Act Vote

User:AETelluride recently added a sentence regarding Peters’ vote on the American SAFE Act, reading that Peters voted to “effectively halt the resettlement of refugees from Syria and Iraq to the United States.” This user has been adding nearly identical lines to the pages of others who supported the bill, including Raul Ruiz, Jim Costa, and Ami Bera, among other moderate California democrats. I’m going to remove it from Peters’ page for a few reasons. First, his vote doesn’t really stand out of the crowd: the SAFE Act was passed by nearly 80% of the House, including nearly 25% of all democrats. Peters vote was not determinative in the passing of this legislation and thus was not noteworthy in and of itself. Second, while the user has accurately sourced the fact that Peters voted “aye” on the bill, she/he has not properly sourced the claim that the legislation “halt[s] the resettlement of refugees.” This seems like an opinion of the editor rather than fact. The LA Times article even quotes Peters as saying that he supports the resettlement of refugees and that he believes the legislation won’t affect that. If the original editor (or anyone else) would like to write a new one-liner explaining the vote in neutral terms, and adding the significance of the vote on Peters’ personal career with sources from the local Union-Tribune (there are plenty, most by reporter Michael Smolens, I believe), that will be perfectly acceptable. However, the sentence in its current form is not up-to-snuff. PoliticoSanDiego (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scott Peters (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 00:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Peters_(politician)/Archive_1&oldid=1020773309"