Talk:Dave Brat/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV tag discussion

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

With respect, to say "Specifically, it's not very objective" is not to be at all specific. I can't tell if you think the page is biased in favor of its subject, or against him! So, how about really being specific? Nandt1 (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, unless some specific discussion is taking place, the tag should be removed. And, btw, "obviously, more information...will come out as the campaign develops" is not an argument supporting the claim of non-neutrality. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We objectively compile the sources that are available now. If more information does come out (in reliable sources), then (and only then) could it be included here. Anticipating the possibility of such is not a reason to argue this article isn't neutral.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 02:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Nandt1 and William Thweatt. Unless something specific can be pointed to as being non-neutral, I really fail to see how the basic dry information presented so far is somehow not-neutral. Lestatdelc (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Is he really Catholic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birthdate

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

FamilySearch confirms January 15, 1962 as birthdate (squaring with his Glen Allen, Virginia residence).--Artaxerxes 18:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, great resource! I'm going to change it back to 1/15/62 with that link. If someone thinks it's incorrect, they can provide evidence of their own. Thanks. Moncrief (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

This Richmond Magazine interview [2] with him conforms you're right about summer 1964. Ancestry.com fail. Moncrief (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Implications

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

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

— Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.)

Creed

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

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

Editorializing

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

@NazariyKaminski: This edit [3] is nothing but infantile. The text and quote is obvious without the need to add "criticize". Be careful with your own "POV" in which you see shadows when there are none. Cwobeel (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for you to POV push. Your description left the impression that Brat was supportive of Hitler in someway, so was the WSJ article. There is a counterpoint article that specifically rebuts the WSJ article and when I have time I will edit the article to reflect these facts. I will edit the article as I see fit. You need to stop the POV pushing.--NK (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Cool it. The fact is that you don't know how to read a sentence. That sentence did not left any impression that he was supportive of Hitler. And you need to stop the WP:BATTLE attitude. It is really tedious and childish. Cwobeel (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Background

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

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

Does this guy warrant a page?

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

You raise a valid question in that Dave Brat fails a strict reading of our notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN. On the other hand, he is the first candidate ever to defeat a sitting House Majority Leader. That is a claim of notability far more powerful than a routine win of a party nomination in a primary election. So, I am leaning toward the judgment that this is an exception to the general rule. The thoughts of other experienced editors would be appreciated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Defeating the sitting House Majority leader is unprecedented in American politics. Just on that basis, he is notable. Cwobeel (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Subject may fail WP:POLITICIAN (for now) but definitely meets WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It does not fail WP:POLITICIAN, per point (3). Cwobeel (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think it's important we got this out of the way, regardless of outcome. Thanks. -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of positions

This sentence. "He supports cutting Social Security payments by two-thirds,[32] [33]" is not supported by the sources. Mother Jones says that it appears that he wants to cut SS payments by 2/3 and the video linked to that does not actually include what the question was, but he says that seniors today receive about 3 to 1 dollars that they put into the system and that he would like to over some time make this more fair, whatever that means. But we can't make statements of fact that go this much beyond what he actually is saying. Arzel (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Arzel, can you suggest alternate wording? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that the original editor not include information not backed up by sources. I am going to remove that sentence as unsupported. Additionally, the line about the IRS is not completely supported either. Arzel (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with a motification and will develop it. The IRS is supported by a WP:PS and the WP:SS correctly comments on it. Stating that "mother Jones" says should be removed.Casprings (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The 2/3 cut shouldn't be in the article at all based on that source. The claim seems to based on a youtube video where Brat uses the example of elderly getting 3 dollars back for every 1 dollar they put in and then indicating there is something wrong with this. But this is not enough to state that he wants to cut 2/3 of social security. The MotherJones article is obviously a very polemic piece, the kind of source we are supposed to be very careful about, even with attribution. Iselilja (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added a number of more nuanced sources reporting on his views on Medicare and Social Security. Cwobeel (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Publications section has obvious error.

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

You are correct Sajeffe, and I fixed it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Political positions

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

I have moved the Tea Party section (well written, btw, thank you) to the Primary election section, were it belongs. Regarding his views on Government, it is a notable thing that a future Congressman hold Weberian thoughts, and given it is covered by a WP:RS, it is significant. I have restored it. Cwobeel (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It is most definitely not notable. There is not a single poli sci department at any university in America that doesn't teach the state monopoly on violence within the first week of a 100-level IR class. It is not "covered" by WP:RS, it is included as a contextual quotation describing one of Brat's essays. Here [[4]], a WP:RS says that Rick Santorum said "We elect the president for four years, but I won't need four to turn this country around." On the basis of including this Brat bit we could add to Santorum's entry "Santorum has claimed the president serves a four-year term," which would be ridiculous, even though technically accurate. This is obviously a silly insertion, so I'm removing it. BlueSalix (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a big difference in these two examples. Clearly. Brat makes a point about the power of Government and his opposition to it like any other good conservative. Cwobeel (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a conservative/liberal position. This is a basic, cornerstone principle in political science. You will be extremely (extremely is too soft a word here, honestly) challenged to take a 100-level IR class at any university in the U.S., Canada, or the UK today where it is not a major theme of the course introduced within the first week of lecture. Including a prefunctory aside Brat made on a basic idea as a section of this article essentially elevates him to the level of a major twentieth century political philosopher. This doesn't need to be explained further; anyone who does not have the background or pedigree to instantly understand this should solicit input from a SME at the political science wikiproject prior to further edits on this topic. BlueSalix (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

First name

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

It was originally Dave and someone changed it a couple of hours ago. I believe Wikipedia's policy is to go by whatever name the subject is most commonly known as, but I'm not sure how we'd go about determining that as I've seen both in equal measure (it really depends on the website - most mainstream media outlets seem to be going with David). -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Bloody hell, it's just changed again! It's flipped between Dave and David at least three times now. Can we please come to a consensus on this? -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

See new section below - the move to "David" should have been researched, discussed, and consensus reached before doing it. Feel free to comment below and when consensus is reached, that'll be the title - until other evidence surfaces. (And by the way, you really don't need the boldface.) Tvoz/talk 16:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I boldfaced it so that people would notice that there's a discussion up here (which obviously they / you didn't, if they / you started it again down there again). -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, also no need for the "they/you" - as you can see, I started the new section below and it was not to discuss which name is better (read what I said) but to address the meta issue - arbitrary moves without consensus - and to ask that future moves await agreement. That point is moot, as moves are now protected and if people want to talk about which title the article should have, they can follow the suggestion outlined below and get a consensus. Tvoz/talk 18:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

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

• As does the media:
• CNN
• Washington Post
• Fox News
• MSNBC
• see: WP:COMMONNAME and the examples like Bill Clinton, Bono etc.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 18:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Tea party

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

Reasons

Why he upset Cantor in primary race:

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

— Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.)

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

— Lee Fang, The Nation

Religion?

This needs to be sorted out. The info box states unequivocally that he is Roman Catholic, but the article itself says he was raised Presbyterian; his wife is Catholic; and they split their time between the two churches. That doesn't sound like he is a Catholic to me. Especially in light of quotes like this (from [5]):

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

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

Given that there is conflicting evidence, perhaps it's simpler to state "Christian" until/unless Brat himself makes a definitive statement on the specific denomination to which he belongs. Also, this same discussion is also ongoing up near the top of the talk page, so you should consider merging this section with that one. -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Other sources say he is Calvinist. See personal life section. Cwobeel (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a slight inconsistency there. It says: "They split their time between two churches. They are parishioners of St. Mary Catholic Church in Richmond. Brat also identifies as a Calvinist, and list affiliations with Christ Episcopal Church, Third Presbyterian, and Shady Grove Methodist." So doesn't that mean he actually attends four churches, not two? -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

That did not stick either. What to do? Cwobeel (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Sorry, I reverted that. In the cited source he self-identifies with various Christian denominations including Catholic, Presbyterian, Episcopal and Methodist. "Calvinist" is not a religion; it is a Christian teaching or philosophy that is invoked to a greater or lesser extent in various denominations (and is particularly associated with Presbyterianism). IMO his religious affiliation is too complex to be summed up in a single word - except perhaps simply "Christian". --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

yes, agree. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I was going to suggest this. A lot of articles are nonspecific about a person's denomination even when it is known, so "Christian" should be fine since it serves as an accurate catchall anyways. Rhydic (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I made it "Christian" - with a tag to see the talk page before changing it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Long quotes are for the lazy

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

Not only is it lazy, it is just not done in Wikipedia articles of this sort. What is going on? Moncrief (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected it already; this was the full quote [6], and this the summary [7]. Cwobeel (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Article name needs to be discussed, not just arbitrarily moved

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

The article is now move protected at the title Dave Brat. Anyone who thinks that another title is more appropriate should open a discussion using the {{Requested move}} template. That would allow consensus to be formed, and prevent move warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ed - I was going to ask for this. Tvoz/talk 18:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I made that move. At that time, very few news stories referenced Brat, and the ones that did used the name "David", not "Dave." It now appears that most stories are using the name "Dave", so I apologize if my page move was hasty. I was simply attempting to clean up what I thought was a simple mistake, by an article creator who, perhaps, was friends with Mr. Brat and had used "Dave" to title the page because of that fact. Again, my apologies. Lithistman (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Republican primary subsection

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

From paragraph 3:

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

From paragraph 4:

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

From paragraph 5:

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

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

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

Good point. Can you attempt to summarize all these sentences into one? We can keep all the sources if needed. Cwobeel (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No kidding! It reads like it was written by a four-man committee of Brat's supporters and detractors. May I suggest ...

Although Brat received support from, and gave credit for his win to, local Tea Party groups in Virginia, he received no funding or endorsement from national Tea Party organizations. Brat has not self-identified with the Tea Party movement.[32] Ron Rapoport, a political scientist at the College of William and Mary, has said Brat may be correctly identified as a "tea partier" only if the term is used as a catchall for "anti-establishment activist", while John Judis has opined that Brat could more correctly be described as a "right-wing populist."[33] The Washington Post concluded that "the fact that Brat took off without the help of those [Tea Party] organizations now makes it harder for them to claim his victory as their own."[34]

The above deletes some text, but doesn't change the remaining from what's currently there except to alter "little funding" to "no funding," as per the source. BlueSalix (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a reasonable summary, I suggest you make that edit and see if it sticks. Cwobeel (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that should be fine. I already did an interim edit to get rid of some of the repetition and help it flow a little better without dropping any references.Rhydic (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2014

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

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

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

We would need to cite a reliable source for that, and none has been provided. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

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

Inclusion of "Brat attributed this electoral victory to God"

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

Agreed. From after-game comments, it appears that God roots for professional sports teams as well. Trivial and not worthy of inclusion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree, given his strong positions on religion and Christianity in an economic and social context as a professor and as a politician (the very reason for this article), this is worthy of inclusion. Cwobeel (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that "Thank God we won" is different from attributing his victory to the supreme being as acting through his voters. Cwobeel (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In addition to Fox News, this statement was also reported by the Wall Street Journal [8], for its obvious significance in the context of his political and philosophical underpinnings. Cwobeel (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be far more notable had he not thanked God. Remove as common trivia. Arzel (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

??? I don't think that is a valid argument, that is just your opinion and we need to base our arguments on what reliable sources say. Cwobeel (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The Fox News source has an obviously triumphal tone; the other sources are less clear whether Brat was using the God reference as a term of art, or a literal enunciation of a belief that a disembodied entity was concerned about variable social security tax rates in the U.S. and had supernaturally possessed the bodies of 7th district voters. Since Brat, in his other writings, has declared he believes in free will, it's reasonable to assume the former (term of art), but - ultimately - we can't assume either in the absence of a clearer description of intent from RS, and intent is the only thing that could possibly make this non-trivial. Deleted as per consensus. BlueSalix (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what consensus are you referring to? We are having a discussion. Are you in any kind of hurry? Cwobeel (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

see WP:SNOWBALL BlueSalix (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

• NBC News [9]
• Wall Street Journal [10]
• New York magazine [11]
• Urban Christian News [12]
• Time [13]
• Fox New2s [14]
• Hufftington Post [15]
• The Washington Post [16]
• World Magazine [17]
• The New Yorker [18]

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

A preponderance of sources doesn't make something non-trivial. We have also not included the the even more frequently reported information that he was voted "Hottest Professor" at RMC or whatever. In 2 minutes on Google I just found 5 different RS providing Barack Obama's shoe size. And yet, Barack Obama's shoe size is not currently in the WP article Barack Obama. As per WP:SNOWBALL "the clause should be seen as a polite request not to waste everyone's time." Accept this gentle guidance in the spirit in which it is intended. BlueSalix (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• If that many sources think it is important, it is important. One cannot and should not dismiss that number of importance. And I think it is different, in that he put more emphasis on God in his victory speech than others have. That is why multiple WP:RS picked up on it.Casprings (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There are even more:

* Another from Fox News [19]

* Fox News Insider [20]

* CNBC [21]

* CBS [22]

* Catholic Online [23]

* The Washington Post [24]

* Breitbart News [25]

* National Review [26]

When conservative, liberal, and mainstream sources report on this, it is notable. Cwobeel (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any of these sources indicating it's important. This appears, in each instance, to be contextual text. It seems we have a majority of editors who agree that it's trivial and a passionate minority who think this is an important WP:POINT to drive home. BlueSalix (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"And I think it is different, in that he put more emphasis on God in his victory speech than others have." Do you have a source for that or is it just your gut feeling? I just checked the transcript of his speech and the word 'God' was mentioned 3 times, the same number the USA's president used in his 2012 victory speech. BlueSalix (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not the point. A passing reference to God is not what we have here. This is the way to look at this: Brat makes God quite central to his economic views, as well as his social views in his papers and essays. He uses references to God in his speeches in that context as well, and in several interview makes his victory attributable to God. Maybe the pointy issue here is not wanting to accept that simple fact, assume there is consensus for deletion, and revert without allowing a discussion to continue. Cwobeel (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that's actually exactly what we have here. A WP:BIO of a politician is supposed to logically present the key pillars of a person's life history, not build a presence that ensures people perceive the politician as the kind of character we want, even if such characterization is perhaps accurate. BlueSalix (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with BlueSalix here. Just because something is mentioned in several (or many) reliable sources does not mean it's worth including in an article. This is particularly true when the article is about a living person, and even moreso when such inclusion seems to serve to paint said living person in a light that is potentially unflattering. Lithistman (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

BlueSalix, when you invoke WP:SNOWBALL to claim there is consensus that the item should be deleted, and when you say "It seems we have a majority of editors who agree that it's trivial and a passionate minority who think this is an important WP:POINT to drive home", I have to wonder what discussion you are looking at? Right now the "vote" is running: 8 in the "delete it" column and 14 in the "include it" column. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Political Views vs Philosophical underpinnings

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

Agreed. I would say something like "philosophy" and followed by "Political Views" Would make it easier to read.Casprings (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried, but ... If we move all the academic stuff to Philosophy, we have left with nothing of value for the Economic policies sub-section. I guess we have to wait until the candidate expresses some more recent viewpoints. Cwobeel (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried a little reorganization. See what you thinkCasprings (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks. I'll try and find some economic policy material that could be used. Cwobeel (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Too much detail and there's really no precedent for a "philosophical underpinnings" section in a bio of a sitting congressman, let alone a congressional candidate. This is an extreme level of WP:UNDUE. There is a very established flow and format for the biographies of American politicians. Further, I'm very concerned that there are two editors here passionately calling for a uniquely formatted and detailed biography to be created specifically for Dave Brat. Most members of Congress don't get more than 4 or 5 paragraphs in their bio. Brat isn't even in Congress and we're crowdsourcing a three-volume book here. BlueSalix (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This unilateral, undiscussed and non-consensus restructuring of the article to devise a new and custom format, seemingly unique among politicians, just for Dave Brat, needs to be explained and addressed. These kind of major breaks from convention need to be discussed, not just barreled through. I'm considering undoing this. BlueSalix (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not a biography of a politician. It is the biography of an Academic and a politician. That's the rationale for the reorganization. Cwobeel (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

As for your concern about the length of this article, remember Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Cwobeel (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Another point, IMO, this is not a bio just about "a congressional candidate". It is about a congressional candidate that unprecedentedly unseated the Majority Leader of the House of representatives. That is the reason for the massive coverage, and the interest in this person. Think of the reader! Cwobeel (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

By word count this is close to 300% the size of the bio for George Nethercutt, who was the first person to unseat a sitting Speaker of the House in 130 years, a much more significant accomplishment. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia is not an excuse to cram in every item of trivia one can dig up on someone. This entry is not being approached as an encyclopedia article, but as a scrapbook. Once we get the current RfC put to bed I'm going to go ahead and revert all these changes in the absence of consensus. BlueSalix (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope you meant if there is consensus. Cwobeel (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus to make these changes in the first place. They will be reverted in the absence of consensus. BlueSalix (talk)

Sure, there is always WP:BRD. Cwobeel (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The WP:BOLD essay does not speak to allowing the hijacking of an article through the creation of substantial changes to accepted conventions done without any attempt or effort at discussion. BlueSalix (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It was the organization of the article into logical headings. Much of the content in one heading was on philosophy. Why not take that and make it a single heading? It makes sense for the content that is currently there.Casprings (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Brat attributed this electoral victory to God"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result: Include reference to Brat attributing his victory to God.

In the voting sections of the RfC, 9 editors opposed inclusion of the material in the article and 16 supported its inclusion. There were fair arguments on both sides but, all said and done, the central question was one about WP:UNDUE and editorial judgement. Since no-one was talking pure nonsense, I don't think there's much in this case for a closer to do except respect the numbers.

Lower down in the RfC, there is discussion about whether to use a blockquote rather than the inline attribution previously in the article. However, this discussion was dominated by users who had voted for inclusion of the material, possibly because users who had voted for exclusion had, by this time, realised that the main argument was lost, and so were no longer paying attention to the discussion. This is only my speculation, of course. But I think it means that the conclusion of the discussion should be taken with a little caution.

So, while there is consensus to use a blockquote, editors who may wish to continue the discussion with alternative proposals about how to handle that material should not be prevented from doing so.

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

Support deletion

• Support After having reviewed the bios for every sitting member of the U.S. Congress from Virginia, as well as a random selection of other members of congress, I can find no evidence of precedent for including summaries of their victory speeches in the electoral history sections, despite - in several instances - a preponderance of RS coverage of such content in the 72 hours after election day. While breaking with precedent might be fine in the case of a truly outlandish or unusual statement in a victory speech, American politicians, celebrities, and sports figures seem to typically invoke a variety of religious declarations in their victory, concession, and apology speeches. Finding wide coverage of a victory speech in the 72 hours after election is unremarkable and this line will not stand the test of trivia/non-trivia two years from now. BlueSalix (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support It seems undue and a non-standard approach to this BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support I also looked at well-known people that have thanked God...a lot, such as Tim Tebow, and don't see this kind of focus. Fact is, a lot of people thank God for all kinds of stuff, and there seems to be no reason to include such minor trivia. The fact that he has a master's degree in Divinity only makes it less notable. Why is this even an RfC? Arzel (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't be. We have two relatively new contributors participating in this article who share a very aggressive editing style. This seemed a good compromise to an inevitable edit war. BlueSalix (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Who are these two "new relatively new contributors", BlueSalix? Cwobeel (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a newspaper. This is something that you would see in a newspaper to give the reporting some life. It is not notable. It is like when a World Cup player scores a big goal and then runs around and yelling "GGGGGOOOOOAAAALLLL!!!!!" It is great television such as ESPN's SportsCenter coverage but it is not something that should be put in David Brat's article for years. It is an attempt to discredit him. We know he believes in God because there has been a ton information jammed into the article about his work on religion and the economy. This particular comment does not add anything to his story that we don't already know. We don't have Hillary Clinton famous use of the phrase "I do not recall" in her articles, do we? No, we don't. His throwaway comment at the end of a long night is not notable and it is not encyclopedic.--NK (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is also redundant because there is a sentence earlier in the article that states Brat invokes God quite frequently. That earlier statement makes this one redundant. It places undue weight on one topic. Also, it pushes the article outside of NPOV.--NK (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

In the fourth paragraph about the Republican primary the article clearly states: "Brat ran an anti-establishment campaign criticizing government bailouts and budget deals while frequently invoking God and the Constitution in his speeches." This sentence is quite enough information about Brat's invocation of God.--NK (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify my own position, and I apologize for posting this here rather than the discussion section, I don't believe this is an attempt to discredit Brat. My support for deletion is solely based on a view that the line itself is trivial and turns this entry from an encyclopedia article into a scrapbook. BlueSalix (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support per NK. It is also very clearly undue! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly support, per my explanation elsewhere on this page. Also,this discussion should actually be formatted as "support inclusion" and "oppose inclusion", since the burden of proof with BLPs is on those who wish to include challenged material. Lithistman (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You're correct, of course. I apologize this was incorrectly formatted. I'll make a note in the entry. BlueSalix (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Lithistman, I attempted to correct this but an aggressive editor chose to delete my corrective post to the Talk page. Having Talk content deleted/reverted by another editor is a first for me and puts me in uncharted territory so I'm going to capitulate to the more aggressive side on this one, as I don't know what the rules are here. BlueSalix (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You keep calling me "aggressive", which is not cool. As for the burden, read the policy: The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material, and "burden of evidence" links to WP:BURDEN which means that the material needs to be verifiable. We have met the burden of proof already by the preponderance of sources. Cwobeel (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't delete my Talk page contributions and replace them with your own ever again. This is absolutely unacceptable. You never remove another editor's comments, and removing them to replace them with your own is so over-the-top it's not even covered in WP:TPOC. Your behavior to-date has been extremely questionable. In the spirit of deescalation I'm not taking this to ANI, but you seriously need to cool it. BlueSalix (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You are changing an RFC's wording while it is active. I will be reverting back to the original. Feel free to take to the WP:AN/I. If you change it again, I will take it to WP:AN/I. There have been a number of aggressive comments here and reverts on the actual page that have been uncalled for. It may be time to get some more eyes on the conduct on this page and the articles page.Casprings (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You didn't revert it to the original, Casprings; "Please don't change the framing of this RfC mid-way to the process" is not in the original version of the RfC. You have added this to the RfC. I'll assume this is an error on your part and give you an opportunity to revert/remove that, if you like. Or we can take it to ANI, which is probably for the best as I'm getting the feeling this is where all this will end up anyway. Your choice. BlueSalix (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

His comment is fine and is under the original language. It provides a message not to change the wording, because in the editors opinion, such a message was needed. You had no business removing it and I have restored it. It is up to the other editor to remove it.Casprings (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

As per Cwobeel's comment in ANI and decision to revert his edits to the RfC, as per my request, the matter is closed. BlueSalix (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Do not include as "thanking G-d" is found in many thousands of statements by many thousands of people. Nor would we add he "thanked all the volunteers" as a specific mention in such BLPs. It is a tad formulaic, and thus of nugatory import to the BLP. This article is supposed to be of some encyclopedic value which, alas, I do not see in this particular claim. Collect (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support deletion This sort of content is trivial and not encyclopedic. Articles about politicians should be about their politics, not who they did or did not thank for helping them get elected. What's next, what he had for dinner the night he won. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Arguments based upon, "well a lot of news reports mentioned it" are utterly unconvincing. Just because a factoid (and make no mistake, this IS a factoid) appears in multiple reliable sources does not make that factoid non-trivial. Lithistman (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support deletion' as recentism and per WP:UNDUE. Instaurare (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose deletion

• Oppose deletion as there are a preponderance of sources, and when conservative, liberal, and mainstream sources report on this, it is notable. This is not the case of a politician thanking God for a political victory, but rather, a politician that attributes his victory to the hand of God acting through voters, and based on the subject's background (a Master's degree in Divinity) and worldviews (see the section Dave Brat#Economic_philosophy), it is a notable aspect for his biography. Cwobeel (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• NBC News [27]
• Wall Street Journal [28]
• New York magazine [29]
• Urban Christian News [30]
• Time [31]
• Fox News [32]
• Hufftington Post [33]
• The Washington Post (local) [34]
• World Magazine [35]
• The New Yorker [36]
• Another from Fox News [37]
• Fox News Insider [38]
• CNBC [39]
• CBS [40]
• Catholic Online [41]
• The Washington Post (national) [42]
• Breitbart News [43]
• National Review [44]
• The Economist [45]
• The Melbourne Daily Star [46]
• Religion Dispatches Magazine [47]

• Oppose deletion Please show me another example of a fact being mentioned by the number and wide range of WP:RS and being excluded in the article.Casprings (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion. The strength of the media response tells us that the bit is noteworthy. As a policy-based argument, this is far more authoritative than an argument based on what other biographies don't have in them. Brat is not those other people; he is himself. The media coverage about Brat is what we go by. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion Since a large number (maybe a majority) of reliable sources reporting on his election victory also report this, it shows that it is notable and should stay in the article. Darx9url (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion Binksternet has it exactly right. Irrelevant what other bios say - this was not a throwaway line which would likely not have received the amount of coverage this did, and therefore would not be included. This has received a great deal of coverage - in a wide range of opinion as Cwobeel outlined - and it should stay. Tvoz/talk 16:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion from an outsider's perspective. - In this example, the quote isn't in dispute, is properly sourced and offers a window into the mind of the subject. While many athletes and policitians are quick to thank God for their success, it is rare when someone credits God with actual intervention, and is sincere in that belief. This wasn't a one off remark or slip of the tongue, it was a clear statement by someone who is devoutly religious, and is in fact quite learned in divinity, thus was aware of the implications of the statement. As he himself has made it clear that you can't separate him from his beliefs, using this specific quote gives the reader a true and accurate picture of his philosophy, in an extraordinarily concise way. Without question, it falls safely within our BLP guidelines and can not possibly violate WP:WEIGHT as it is core to who he says he is. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

So, you agree with Cwobeel that every single time he invokes God in public environment we will put the invocation into the article and when we do that we are not violating undue weight?--NK (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Your question is entirely too WP:POINTy to warrant a reply. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC) No. That is your personal opinion only. That is not a fact. Just say you don't want to answer my question. Please do not try to intimidate other editors in a discussion by stating they are violating some Wikipedia rule when they aren't. I was attempting to have a conversation with you. That is what this page is for. I asked an on point question and you fly out at me that I am disrupting Wikipedia. I did not do any such thing. And, yes, I know you are an admin. But that does not mean that your personal opinion is correct. I asked you a simple question with the hope to get information from you about how you felt about this topic right here on this page. Unbelievable.--NK (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion Good arguments either way but given the preponderance of media coverage it mirrors the media and provides insight for the biography. -- GreenC 21:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion I think the argument to eliminate the material that we are discussing hinges on an evaluation of the quality of the material in this sort of article and what it contributes to the article. But I don't think we should be weighing, calculating, and judging a simple piece of material or at least not to the extent that this discussion suggests. (There is no argument for omitting this material on WP:BLP grounds.) This is something widely reported by the likes of The Economist, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and other good quality sources. I think our default position should be for the compiling of material that seems to contribute to the requirements of a biography. Our default position should be for inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion (I am confused, since it appears the comment was deleted from the article while this discussion was going on.) There is no reason to censor this comment, which he clearly did say and has not retracted, and which was very widely reported. As noted above, he did not just "thank God" as many people do - he declared that God had been responsible for his victory. (Headline in the WSJ: "Economics Professor Who Beat House Majority Leader in Virginia Primary Attributes His Victory to God".) There are undoubtedly many people who believe this is literally true, given how unexpected his victory was and how lopsided the odds against him appeared to be. There are undoubtedly many others who admire him for saying it. I am baffled by those who claim it is some kind of BLP violation to report this, based on their own unsupported WP:OR claim that it makes him look bad or "like a religious fanatic". I doubt if the subject himself would agree with that assessment. Bottom line, politicians are responsible for what comes out of their mouths. If a politician says something this notable, Wikipedia's job is to report it, in a neutral way. That includes making sure that the source cited is neutral and does not put any particular interpretation on the comment; also I think it would be inappropriate to report any reaction to or analysis of his statement. --MelanieN (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion of this widely cited comment made by a very high-profile politician. There is no BLP violation whatsoever, and the relevant policy is WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The reading public has a right to know, and that is why it is widely reported, and that is why Wikipedia has policies that mandate its inclusion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion -- the extent of coverage means it is not "undue" at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion — For the same well put reasons that MelanieN articulated above. I would also add that this news (that he is not thanking god for his victory but claiming god intervened and made his victory occur) will be relevant to how some Virginia voters will view and vote in his bid for the Senate seat (some supporting him because of his religious convictions and others opposing him for the same reasons) and the balance of separation of church and state is an important and ongoing issue within United States politics and culture. Lestatdelc (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion I'm not sure what we would gain from deleting the information. It's well-sourced and relevant considering his background and what he believes and according to WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I don't know how including it is going to horribly damage Wikipedia's credibility and reputation. Melanie and Ubikwit are correct. Rhydic (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion. A single line representing a fact agreed many reliable sources and contested by none cannot possibly be undue weight, as that's the minimum that can be written about it. If the article section is too long, then it is long enough for its own sub-article which can include the line. The summary that remains here does not need to include the line, but there is no policy reason at all for removing this well-sourced fact from this encyclopedia entirely. This is not a paper encyclopedia with limited space and deadlines; there is no reason to artificially limit the amount of knowledge we include in this encyclopedia. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Deletion- I don't see a reason to not include it. I hear others mentioning other articles and not seeing similar. I don't see that as relevant. This article is an individual article with it's own talk page for discussion. This also doesn't seem to be a drive by reference. It doesn't seem generic like "In God we trust". There was a significant media response.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Deletion. I'm writing this from the other side of the Atlantic, so I trust you'll forgive me if I've misunderstood. As I understand it, the great majority of US politicians invoke God during their campaigning and in their subsequent claims of victory. So in general these ritual invocations have no significance and need no more be mentioned than one would mention that the candidate is breathing. However, my understanding is that in this case the candidate made a more explicit and unusual claim about how and why God acted, and that this has provoked unusual media comment. Since this is unusual, I think it fair to mention it. RomanSpa (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• "There are a lot of sources so we should include it." [Response] As stated in my support opinion, there are a lot of sources in the 72 hours after an election for virtually any candidate's victory speech. I just found (I'm not posting them here as we really need to work to avoid the discussion monopolizing via list-spamming that is trending up; I'm sure anyone can find them on their own), 42 different RS that, in the lead, mention that President Obama declared 'The Best is Yet to Come' in his 2012 victory speech. And yet, this is not included anywhere in the article Barack Obama. Simple inclusion in a wide variety of sources doesn't determine whether something makes it in WP. As Jimbo has observed, "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection." BlueSalix (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point, but it does not apply here. Brat's views on God, religion and economics is essential to his persona, and by him making such a statement (which by the way, it is quite striking) is a notable event that has value not just for the 72 hrs after his primary victory. It is a statement that encapsulates his worldviews and thus biographical. Cwobeel (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"is a notable event that has value not just for the 72 hrs" -- Sounds like you have WP:CRYSTALBALL. BlueSalix (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I just have an opinion on the subject, same as you do. Cwobeel (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

uh huh BlueSalix (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me? if you can't or won't have a proper debate, why did you start an RFC? Just to waste editors' time? Here is an example of how this is being covered: So either he's a Douthatian convert, god help us, or his faith is all over the lot, which may account for his rather startling announcement last night that he won because God was speaking through the voters of the Seventh Congressional District of the Commonwealth of Virginia.[48] Cwobeel (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that articles on politicians tend to heat up quickly. Regardless, I'd like to ask you to please dial it back just a little. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, BlueSalix, just don't uh huh me. It sounds quite dismissive when we are trying to having a debate. Cwobeel (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Can you dial it back just a little? "Uh huh" is a phrase used to provide neutral acknowledgment to a person, TTBOMK it is not commonly considered a secret, coded slur. No one here is out to get you. Thank you! BlueSalix (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

My bad. Table it to the fact that English is my third language. Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of American English, and I saw the 'uh huh' reply as dismissive and insulting. You should not apologize. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Binksternet. Cwobeel and I amicably resolved our misunderstanding through dialog and discussion. Can I kindly ask you not throw gasoline on the embers? Feel free to review WP:DRAMA if you have any questions. Thanks so much, Binkster! BlueSalix (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You responded with an "uh huh" when you could have refrained from responding at all, which would have been the more respectful choice. Your opaque "uh huh" was insulting and belittling, despite your subsequent attempt to erase its negative influence here. The "dial it back" instruction was also insulting, as is the instruction to me to "review WP:DRAMA if you have any questions." Even when you apply some of the usual social niceties you are not actually being nice. Instead you are condescending. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Michael, Cwobeel and I amicably resolved our misunderstanding through dialog and discussion and put the matter to rest. I fail to understand why you feel the need to dig it back up; my reasonable confusion as to your intent makes my comment about WP:DRAMA absolutely appropriate. The editor interaction tool shows that, since our disagreement over the AfD for Live Wire Radio, the rate at which you join discussions of articles in which I was already participating has increased more than 400% (with a corresponding 100% rate of taking the opposite side of me in each discussion) so - while I thank you for your kind expression of extremely passionate interest in my activities - I respectfully request you keep your comments topical. If you decide you must have a forum to make personal comments about me, I implore you - out of respect for other editors - to at least limit the places you engage in these expressions so as to minimize its disruptiveness. Feel free to use my Talk page as a creative space to engage in personal commentary about me that is unrelated to Dave Bart. Thank you! BlueSalix (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I'm also not a native English speaker so I appreciate there can often by confusion of intent when it comes to idioms. BlueSalix (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I will not say "support deletion" or "oppose deletion" as I see this as a false choice. As this biography develops, we should not be bickering about the comments he made immediately after beating Cantor. Instead, we should be working on the broader issue of how his religious beliefs influence his political philosophy. For example, he is reported to be a Catholic but seems to express distinctively conservative Protestant political ideas. We need to wait for reliable sources to address such contradictions, which I am confident that they will do. But I am concerned that a side show about his victory speech may detract from the bigger issue, which requires harder work from editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Cullen: We have been working on that as well, just read Dave_Brat#Economic_philosophy. I agree this is a distraction, the quote should stay and we all should move on and continue improving the article along these lines. (BTW, Brat self declares as a Calvinist, which is quite interesting) Cwobeel (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You phrased "...is reported to be a Catholic but seems to express distinctively conservative Protestant political ideas..." as if it were a contradiction. It's not. See for example Catholic Church and politics in the United States#Present day. (Now, professing Calvinism and being a Catholic...that's a contradiction!)--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 03:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Not only a Calvinist, but a "fairly orthodox Calvinist"... [49]. Cwobeel (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have formulated the statement as "distinctively Protestant conservative political ideas". I am well aware of the political convergence between Catholics and evangelicals in recent decades, especially on matters of traditional sexual morality, but this alleged Catholic Brat seems to be siding with the "Calvinists" in core theological areas where those faiths have differed deeply. I am sure that there will be much more to come from reliable sources, so won't speculate further. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Cullen has a point. He has been in national spotlight for about three days. We don't know what his religious beliefs are. We might know a bit about what he believes from his writings but those writings may or may not reflect what he believes today. All we can say for sure is that he is Christian so in that context his comment after a long day election day should not be a surprise to anyone. I also doubt that anyone has read all of his articles yet either. There are bigger issues concerning his belief system to pursue than whether we should repeat one comment on election night.--NK (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. I don't think there is any other politician in the US that has written with so much vigor and dedication on their religious beliefs. Brat has religion and belief in God as his central leitmotif. Now, if he changes his religion beliefs now, well that would be very notable indeed. Cwobeel (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect Cwobeel, you honestly don't think there is any other politician in the US (of all places) that has "written with so much vigor and dedication on their religious beliefs?" Every politician in America is "God this, God that" 24/7. What about Ron Lewis, Emanuel Cleaver, William H. Hudnut III, Jesse Jackson, etc.? BlueSalix (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

How many politicians do you know that attributed an electoral victory to God as acting through his voters? Why do you think that it has been reported so widely in all press liberal, conservative, religious, and foreign? Cwobeel (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You made an erroneous statement (never "any other politician") and I corrected it. If you would like to respond to my correction that's fine, but I'm not going to do the moving target thing. Thanks! BlueSalix (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Cwobeel may be unaware of the fact that in a BLP an editor must remove information if it violates BLP, by being redundant, not NPV, POV pushing, not encyclopedic, and not notable.--NK (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh God (pun not intended). How exactly does that sentence violates BLP? Cwobeel (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this RfC was to avoid an edit war, which seems that you are intending to ignite. Note that an RfC is part of the dispute resolution process in Wikipedia, and designed to build consensus. Why ignore it? Cwobeel (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I will not edit war over this. Howver, I would ask NK to logically explain why it violates WP:BLP and why it needed to be removed or self-revert.Casprings (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Cwobeel that removing the words during this RfC is not appropriate, short of obvious BLP violations. But these are his words, therefore not defamatory, and no indication of how they might violate our BLP policies. Perhaps there are supporters of his who would prefer to not have this mentioned, but that's not how we write articles. No one said this is the most important thing, but it's a widely sourced fact and should be in. I too would like to see an explanation of how one editor sees this as a BLP violation, but absent that, the text should be returned to where it was when the RfC started, and when consensus is reached we should follow it. Also - there seems to be some misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE above. I don't see how that has anything to do with this - we're not over-representing a point of view or one side of an argument, we're quoting the words of the subject of the article. Please explain if I am missing something. Tvoz/talk 17:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

There is an obvious BLP violation. There is no need to repeat over and over again that Brat invokes the name of God. This particular mention of Brat invoking the name of God is redundant. But not only is it redundant it is an attempt to POV push and give the impression that Brat is a religious fanatic. It is uncalled for. There is an editor who is pushing for this second mention of Brat invoking the name of God who also wanted to place in the article the words The Holocaust and prognosticate as if Brat is attempting to be a modern day version of John Brown invoking the name of God and the wrath of God. I attempted to remove those words (holocaust and prognosticate) but it was after much effort because that editor would not allow the removal of two words that did not appear in the reliable sources in any manner. There is already a sentence in the article that talks about how Brat frequently invokes the name of God. In the fourth paragraph which describes the Republican primary the article clearly states: "Brat ran an anti-establishment campaign criticizing government bailouts and budget deals while frequently invoking God and the Constitution in his speeches." This sentence is quite enough information about Brat's invocation of God. There is absolutely no reason to talk about this fact again. Why do we need to repeat twice that Brat is known to invoke the name of God? It is an attempt to discredit him. Also, your statement that "Perhaps there are supporters of his who would prefer to not have this mentioned" does not apply in any shape, form, or manner because no one is arguing that the first mention of Brat's tendency to invoke the name of God should be removed. The sentence in the fourth paragraph of the primary section should stay in the article because it explains to the reader that Brat does, indeed, invoke the name of God frequently, but that last is enough. So your argument that those who oppose your viewpoint only do so that no one will notice that Brat invokes the name of God frequently is a false argument, a red herring if you will. The way that we do write articles, is not by waiving red herrings in the air, but is attempt to present the information with a neutral point of view. And mentioning Brat invokes the name of God frequently is presenting the information in NPOV. But stating over and over again everything that Brat invokes the name of God is not a NPOV. It is an attempt to discredit him and as such it is a violation of BLP. One mention of his frequent invocation of the name of God is enough. To do more violates BLP and is attempt to make this article a Wikipedia:Coatrack.--NK (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The word God is mentioned six times in the article. Two times in the Campaign section. One time in the title of an essay he wrote. That title is in the text. The rest are in sources and publications. The fact is, that God and his views on god have shaped his political thoughts, per WP:RS that have reported his own words and writing. That is a fair and accurate description of Brat, per WP:RS. The article does not imply he is a religious fanatic. However, it shows the influence of religion on his actions. That is fair and accurate. You cannot whitewash an article of religion from an article about a person where religion has played a central role in their life.Casprings (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Everything you just stated Casprings is true. But it is off point. Yes, God is a word that has been and must be used in this particular article about Brat. We cannot write an article about him without using that word. But I did not, in any way, state that we should remove the word God from the article. I did not, in any way, state that we should not talk about Brat's view on God. All of the information should stay in the article. So do not make straw man arguments. I was not stating we should remove all references to God from the article. What I am stating is a very simple, small proposal that we do not need to state in two different places in the article that Brat invokes the name of God frequently. The article already states that he invokes the name of God frequently. We do not have to mention that he said it on the night of his election victory. I'm only stating that we remove this one sentence. I never stated that we should remove all of the other mentions of God in the article. That is a false argument. No one ever said that. Focus on the topic of discussion here. The topic of discussion is the statement he made on election night. Once again, leaving out that one sentence will not, in any way, harm the article because the rest of the article goes into greater detail about his thoughts on God. Once again, no one is claiming that those references must be removed. The article, with that sentence in, appears to be not neutral. We state once that he frequently invokes God. That is enough. We do not have to state again that he invoked God on election night? Now, if he wins in November and he will invoke God on that night (assuming he wins) are going to put in that section of the article "Brat invoked God again on election night"? Are we going to state this in article every time he invokes God, where and when? Should we? No.--NK (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

if he wins, and again states that God acted through the actions of voters, and it is reported by a large number of sources, it will be surely included. Cwobeel (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No, you are advocating the removal of something supported by a huge range of sources based on some belief that it makes him look like a "religious fanatic". The fact is, the quote is well within WP:BLP and there is no good argument that it isn't.Casprings (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The fascinating thing is that NK is advocating for the removal of this statement because he believes it paints Brat as a "religious fanatic", when actually the conservative media and religious media are giddy that he made that statement, seeing it as a huge positive (that is why they are reporting it). That is what I would call "blinded by your own POV". Cwobeel (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Declaring another editor is "blinded by [his] own POV" is the latest in a pattern of unconventional contributions you've made in this RfC. I strongly and respectfully encourage you to rethink your current style of discussion and reflect on whether or not it is appropriate for the kind of civil dialog we promote on Wikipedia. BlueSalix (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Noted and refactored. Now, you can also stop calling me "aggressive". If there is fire, there is no need for you to throw fuel into it. Cwobeel (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making this change. Your efforts to calm your commenting style will, I'm confident, realize the use of different adjectives when others describe it. BlueSalix (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

See for example this story at The Washington Times: [50] - I think it captures rather well Brat’s viewpoints on God and the way he expressed his beliefs, and why keeping that statement is important for this article. Cwobeel (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If only you had stopped typing after the word "beliefs", your post would have been spot on. As it stands, though, it's heartily untrue: that story provides no more proof that a quote from his off-the-cuff acceptance speech is non-trivial than any of the other sources linked. It's nothing more an a factoid. His faith, and it's influence on his politics, can be fully fleshed out without including a quote from his acceptance speech, which is without precedent in any other House member's article. Lithistman (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP used as rational to remove material during an ongoing WP:RFC Discussion at WP:BLP/N

It is normal behavior to allow material to remain while a WP:RFC is ongoing. However, it has been removed a few times ([51],[52], [53]). This has caused some confustion in the RFC. For example, [54]. Rather the material should be in the article or not is not the issue I am asking for help on. The question I have is, is there a WP:BLP issue that would justify delecting the material while there is an ongoing WP:RFC.

The discussion is taking place here, on WP:BLP/N.Casprings (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

G-d

And together, with your help and God's grace, we will continue our journey forward and remind the world just why it is that we live in the greatest nation on earth. (Cheers, applause.) Thank you, America. (Cheers, applause.) God bless you. God bless these United States. (Cheers, applause.

[55] Formulaic more often than not, and not particularly notable. Collect (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is formulaic indeed. But not this: "This is a miracle from God that just happened,[...] God acted through people on my behalf." If it was that formulaic it would not have been reported so widely in WP:RS across the board. Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yea, more times than not it's not particularly notable. Probably over 90% of the time. Close to 99%. But isn't this quote above a little different than making a claim that God worked through people in order for Brat to be elected? I'm probably not going to comment in the RFC, but thanking God, asking for God's grace and saying "God Bless America" are very different than claiming God is working for you. For that to be true, he would be working against the other person. Cantor can't be too thrilled with that claim. In any case, in the long term who knows how notable the claim will be. I don't. Probably nothing. Dave Dial (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I understood it to be a term of art, not a literal enunciation of a belief that a disembodied deity had possessed the bodies of humans in eastern Virginia at the polling booth. Such a notion would be inconsistent with Brat's free will theology and none of the RS that includes this quote have indicated he meant it as anything more than a literary flourish. If they were unambiguous he intended to communicate he was in contact with God or some other super-being then we'd have something. But they didn't. Right now we're making a scrapbook, rather than an encyclopedia article. BlueSalix (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Other quotes:

And whereas, it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to owe their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.

with faith in God and in the country I have been so proud to serve

The motto of of the State of South Dakota is 'Under God, the People Rule.' The motto of the United States could be the same.

The rights of Man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.

With thanks to Almighty God for seeing us through this perilous passage.

In this dedication -- In this dedication of a Nation, we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come.

ad infinitum. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Lots of others. Mention in "opinion columns" is not, IMO, sufficient to make this less than UNDUE. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

These are proclamations for National Day of Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer (now National Day of Prayer) made by early Presidents of the US, and IMO, has no relevance to this contemporary article. Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

And FDR's first inaugural address, JFK's speeches, etc. I am glad JFK is now considered an "early President" t be sure. But heck -- to some I suppose JFK is now "ancient history", right? Collect (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

From April 2014, Barack Obama declared "And none of us are free from sin, but we look to His life and strive, knowing that “if we love one another, God lives in us, and His love is perfected in us.” [[56]] ... the President of the USA is stating that a magic super-being is possessing human bodies. That sounds exactly like what Brat said; every bit as unhinged and every bit as trivial. BlueSalix (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have just taken the oath of office on the Bible my mother gave me a few years ago, opened to a timeless admonition from the ancient prophet Micah: "He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." (Micah 6:8)

There is a big difference, between a prayer, and saying that God made a miracle by acting through voters giving Brat his political victory. Cwobeel (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The biggest difference is in the media response. None of the older quotes shown above got much play compared to Brat's victory pronouncement. That's why Brat's quote should appear in this biography. It's indicative of the man's stance, and it was very widely reported. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean the partisan response. It is not our job to promote partisan sniping at anyone. In fact it is more "silly season" stuff than utile encyclopedic substance. Rather, the job of editors is to see what is "important to what readers will want to know in the future." Too many times, the concept of "it made the papers and editorial columns, therefore we must cover it in detail" seems to rule. Collect (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I mean the media response. Your wording is "partisan sniping". The bit about thanking God for his victory in the primary is characteristic of Brat, and important to his biography, as a measure of his character. Binksternet (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Please let's be clear what we are talking about here. If he merely "mentioned God" or "thanked God for his victory", that wouldn't have attracted any attention and we wouldn't be arguing about it here. But he did more: he said "I attribute [the win] to God... God acted through the people on my behalf." That is NOT a common or clichéd thing to say and it has attracted attention. Any time someone tries to reduce this discussion to "mentioned God" or "thanked God", they are changing the subject. We need to keep the discussion focused on what he actually said. --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. It seems more than odd to claim that any attention to this comment is a form of "partisan sniping", since the comment was made to Sean Hannity and has been heavily reported by Fox News. Is Fox News now considered to be a liberal partisan source? --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This has gotten muddied up. Suffice it to say, I echo Melanie's comments. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, which exist. Claiming intervention is an extraordinary claim, thus notable by itself and worthy of inclusion. To exclude smacks of political bias and whitewashing. He hasn't hidden from the quote, why should we censor it, like someone has censored the subtitle here? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The only reason we are having this discussion is because of the underlying notable event of Eric Cantor being defeated in a primary. Of course there is going to be widespread coverage of this event and the person who defeated him. From what I've read and been able to glean from the sourcing about this individual, there is nothing extraordinary at all about his comments in his thank you speech. As Cwobeel so aptly points out above in a comment, Brat has already demonstrated that he has strong positions on religion and Christianity in an economic and social context as a professor and as a politician, so that is what the article should reflect. There is no reason to give a trivial recitation of what he said in a speech about who was to thank for him winning the primary. It's not extraordinary or even notable for a person that already has an established position on religion and Christianity to utter a comment that is in alignment with their core beliefs. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

God gave us this win is not the same as "I want to thank my mom, my dad, and Jesus". I'm not saying it is good or bad, but it is very different, enough so that it has gotten extraordinary coverage. If it WAS the same, adding it would not be controversial as this seems. It is the fact that it is NOT the same that has people up in arms. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What Dennis said. And just to keep the record straight, it was said in an interview, not a speech. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, we can certainly parse the specific words that he used during his speech interview, but that still doesn't negate the fact that his comments are in alignment with his core beliefs, and that is the reason he made them. It's not about the "words" he used, but rather the reasoning behind them, and I just don't think the reason behind those comments is extraordinary or that the coverage surrounding them is extraordinary.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Then you are missing the entire point. He made a claim. Twice. It wouldn't have mattered if he was Jewish, Christian or Muslim, it is the claim that God intervened, period. He didn't imply it, he flatly stated as much. There is no way he could have been clearer. Would Dave take offense to the quote being included in a neutral way? Of course not, so there is no way it could be a BLP violation, and it is in fact, the best way to define the man: using his own words. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I've made no claims about it being a BLP violation, so that point is moot for me, because I don't see it as a BLP violation. And if this claim is so widely covered that it has become that extraordinary, shouldn't the proposed content reflect that view of it being extraordinary. Otherwise, the way the sentence is worded now, it's just simply a trivial factoid inserted into the article with no context given to provide the reader the relevance of the comment. I don't see an issue with using his own words to define who he is, but if those words are not placed in a perspective that adds context and relevance to them, then his words are nothing but a trivial factoid that provides no definition of who he is. I think that if you wanted to provide the reader an insight to who this man is, then we would say something along the lines of: In an interview with Sean Hannity...Brat [insert text of his full quote here], which provides the reader a little context to how and why the comments were made.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The BLP comment was in reference to all the reverting in the article, not you in particular. But as for framing, yes I agree that setting up the quote is key, as is NOT dwelling on all the reaction to it, thus throwing it out of balance. The real discussion should be "How do we introduce this information in a way that informs the reader, without adding bias", rather than "should we or shouldn't we". It is out there, our responsibility is to document it in a neutral fashion, not ignore it, wish it away or use it as a means to introduce bias. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, it sounds like you agree with what I proposed below under "Wording and sourcing": That we should use his entire comment, sourced to the actual transcript. Not pick and choose which parts to include and which to omit; not use any paraphrasing by the media; not take anything out of context; but show exactly what he said, period, end of story. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself here, but I'm always open to compromise and solutions whenever there is a content dispute. As the sentence reads now, I would support omission of it. But if someone wanted to propose an alternative with some context, I think that would help and I could certainly get behind an effort to improve the content in dispute.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wording and sourcing

Those of us who do want the material included in the article need to consider wording and sourcing. Perhaps the most neutral approach of all would be to use his actual words, rather than any news outlet's paraphrase of what he said. His actual words are found in the transcript of the Sean Hannity interview; we could use them either in whole or somewhat abridged: "And I was blessed. I mean, it's a miracle. What do I attribute it to? First of all, I attribute it to God. And I'm utterly humbled and thankful. I'm a believer and so I'm humbled that God gave us this win. But right with that, God acts through people, and God acted through the people on my behalf." We could source that to the Fox News transcript plus some Reliable Source such as the WSJ to demonstrate that his comment was widely reported. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that the direct quote should be used. There really is no need to get it reinterpreted by someone else, his education and experience are such that he is fully capable of expressing his ideas for himself. Sourcing sounds good, and I don't think we should have any "reactions" section, which would be WP:UNDUE at this point. Let the man define who he is, in his words. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that someone has re-added the original sentence to the article. Fine. We can work on possible wording here, but let's leave the article as it is until the include-it-or-don't debate is resolved. (I assume someone is going to close this discussion at some point?) --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

After it simmers down, it is still pretty active. A neutral request can be made at WP:AN, but it is supposed to be on the list of "to close" after 30 days, although I've seen them sit on that list for months. For now, more opinions is a good thing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Including the entire quote may be a way to address concerns related to context, but what was widely reported in just the sentence "God acted through the people on my behalf". Cwobeel (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This is probably why it is important to use the entire quote. I don't think it would be fair to pick and choose parts. The sources might be leading with that snippet, but it is the entire quote that gives perspective, and keeps us out of BLP or simple bias territory. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I would not object strongly to have the full quote. Cwobeel (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support use of whole quote, per User:Dennis Brown.Casprings (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN

Those of you thinking the "burden is on those that want to include it", you are misreading that policy altogether. As a policy "BURDEN" is about verification, which is not at issue here as it is clearly verified. To include any verified material or not is based on rough consensus, not any burden of proof. Just wanted to clarify policy here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I have seen the "burden" wording of WP:BLP misused more than once to stifle edits and claim "no consensus for inclusion" and that is the wrong interpretation as you indicate. If material is contentious (which is not the case here, as it is Brat's own words), indeed the burden of WP:VERIFIABILITY is on the editor arguing for inclusion, but if the material is verifiable and it is not contentious, the policy does not apply. Cwobeel (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP states: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say." Dozens of reliable sources say that Dave Brat said what he said. We would in fact be failing to live up to the plain words of the policy by not stating it, because we would then be failing to "simply document" what the sources say. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for Closure

I request consensus to close this RfC. It's been significantly less than 30 days, however, there has been a high degree of participation with ample discussion and it's clear (IMO) there will not be a consensus to delete the passage in question. Does anyone object? BlueSalix (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• I don't oppose that, and think it might be good to focus on the actual wording now, to address the concerns on both sides of the issue. I think everyone here really does want to be fair and mindful of any BLP concerns. That we all agree on, and I'm hopeful we can hash out the details in a positive way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• I absolutely oppose that. It is far too soon to declare there will be no consensus. The longer it is open, the more chance of editors not involved with American Politics will look at it. By the end of 30 days, I feel there is a good chance of coming to a clear consensus.Casprings (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • My thinking is that if we can all agree on using the full quote, our time might better be spent working on that exact wording around it instead, but I'm fine waiting if needed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Quote in context = fine. Commentary = not fine. IMO, the more we stick to actual sourced facts in BLPs, the better. Once we delve into opinions and criticisms of folks, or, worse yet, into categorizing folks, we depart from being an "encyclopedia" into being an "opinionopedia" or worse. Collect (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't think anybody is proposing "commentary," or reaction or anything like that, are they? If they are, I missed it. The proposal is to simply cite what he said, in his own words and in his own context. --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• I oppose closure at this point. Give editors time to return from their weekend festivities and a chance to chime in if they so desire. Meanwhile, I agree that working on a compromise would be a good idea.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think we need to wait a month to close this, and in fact I would hate to see that. Right now, tens of thousands of people a day are coming to read this article; it would be nice to have them see the version that we (via consensus) think is the best version. Maybe if we just wait until three or four days go by with no additional !votes? (We are certainly not to that point yet.) --MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• A couple more days and then we could close, per WP:SNOWBALL Cwobeel (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not SNOWBALL in the least, the numbers are split. This is more of a new consensus forming in the center of the discussion. Compromise, and one that serves the reader better while addressing everyone's concerns. Very different thing. No "losers" here, we all just got pushed onto the same team ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

"IF" discussion

Even for those who are undecided, this may provide information before choosing. Per discussions above and without prejudice to those that choose to oppose inclusion: If we were to use the entire quote, and assume that the framing and quote is a standalone paragraph, how should it be introduced and/or framed? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

How about this?

During his victory speech an interview with Sean Hannity following his win, he attributed his victory to God, saying:

And I was blessed. I mean, it's a miracle. What do I attribute it to? First of all, I attribute it to God. And I'm utterly humbled and thankful. I'm a believer and so I'm humbled that God gave us this win. But right with that, God acts through people, and God acted through the people on my behalf.

Casprings (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe these comments were made during an interview with Hannity following his win, were they not?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the above correction. I like the approach and I'm ok with either blockquotes or text quotes; blockquotes might give it a little too much importance. And let's not wikilink God; there no telling which of many Wikipedia articles about god/God he would have been referring to. (Oh, but do let's wikilink Hannity.) --MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we should include a minimum of commentary and I don't think it is necessary to include a lengthy section of the interview with Hannity. Can we consider the following wording: "Brat made reference to God in explaining his win over Eric Cantor. Brat said that "God acts through people, and God acted through the people on my behalf."[57] I don't think it needs to be a standalone paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I oppose paraphrasing him like this; I think his own words are better. And at this point I oppose any commentary or reaction; could change my mind if any particular commentary in itself becomes notable, which hasn't happened yet. --MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you need the full quote to provide the full context, so I would be against making it that short. I'm not fixed on it being a stand along paragraph, but it is helpful to write it as such for now. I think Casprings version is pretty good, complete but not padded. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with MelanieN and Dennis Brown about keeping the entire quote, sans the blockquote formatting. Cwobeel (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I would also point out that him saying, "it's a miricle" is also widly used in this context. Prehaps that too needs to be added to the paragraph?Casprings (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

"It's a miracle" is in the blockquote above. Cwobeel (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

oh sorry.Casprings (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The entire quote is necessary, as presented above, and because it is long, it would seem that the block quote format is also necessary to prevent the presentation of a confusingly bloated paragraph with an excessively long inline quote. The quote is noteworthy enough to be presented in that manner.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Short quotes don't need it, but longer quotes like this benefit from the separation. It makes it easier for the reader to understand it is a quote, and helps to frame it. I can go with whatever the consensus is, but I strongly prefer the blockquotes because it looks better from the reader's point of view. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

We should back off of repeating his word attributed in our introductory sentence. This is justified but it is not necessary. We are letting him speak in his own words, right? Can we consider the following as a sentence to introduce the whole block quote:

During an interview with Sean Hannity following his win, Brat referenced God, saying:

Does he literally attribute it to God? We can't be 100% sure. This could be a manner of speaking. Notice that he doesn't use the word "attribute" near the end of the quote, at which point he is presumably clarifying his thoughts. In what I read as a refinement of his thinking on the matter, he says that "God acts through people". This might be the same thing but it also might not. He is responding to a question from Hannity which includes the word "attribute". Hannity asks: "What do you attribute this big win tonight to?" I feel that we should not be lending undue emphasis to this word "attribute". Bus stop (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

"Referenced God" is weak and doesn't come close to capturing what was notable about the quote. Many politicians would "reference God" in some way in that situation, that's nothing newsworthy. As you point out, he was responding to a question: "What do you attribute this big win tonight to?" So it's perfectly correct to say he "attributed" it to God - that was his word as well as the interviewer's, that IS the context. But maybe we should not try to summarize or characterize what he is saying in any way. How about just "During an interview with Sean Hannity following his win, Brat said:" ? Or to supply the context, "When he was asked on election night what he attributed his big victory to, Brat said:" --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that I see it, I agree that "referenced God" isn't optimal. I like yours here, but think we need to mention Sean Hannity somehow, or otherwise provide the information as to where he was when he said it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with these formulations. I was just objecting to the singling out of the word "attributed". It is justified but it is unnecessary we are letting him speak. Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

How about "credited" instead of "attributed". Tells the reader why it is important and doesn't use the same word in the quote.Casprings (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd say no to "credited". I think we have agreed we are not going to try to paraphrase or interpret what he said. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

New proposal based on discussion above:

During an interview with Sean Hannity on the night of his win, Brat said:

And I was blessed. I mean, it's a miracle. What do I attribute it to? First of all, I attribute it to God. And I'm utterly humbled and thankful. I'm a believer and so I'm humbled that God gave us this win. But right with that, God acts through people, and God acted through the people on my behalf.

--MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ha, I edit conflicted with you and was about to say the exact same thing, keeping it simple. "During an interview following his win, Brat told Sean Hannity:" Yours is better, adds "night of" and is still just as concise. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• SupportCasprings (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• I support this as well as a good compromise. . Cwobeel (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• It's simple, it's clean, it's NPOV. Looks good. I'm not a big fan of blockquote, except for famous quotes, but I'd defer to consensus on that issue.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• It makes his response to the win seem more important than the actual win. I cannot support undue weight. The win was historic, the quote is not, yet the discussion seems to be tending towards this. Arzel (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

We are not the ones to judge what is important or not. We have to follow the sources, and in this case there is a preponderance of sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It was a historic win. His reaction to it is notable. As long as we are concise and neutral, there is no WP:UNDUE. Restricting it to a singular quote from the actual candidate (which was rather strong in its own right) is as balanced as you can get. If we added a bunch of analysis, I could see your argument, but not over a single quote. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

After reading all the discussion, I support MelanieN's version in the box above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I too support MelanieN's version in the box above. Bus stop (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like we have consensus to use this version - instead of what is currently in the article - if and when the above discussion is judged as showing consensus to include the information. --MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• First, what sources should be used? Second, if there is consensus that this version is better, it should be put in the article as soon as the sources are figured out. The RFC can continue to work, but there is no reason not to add it if the consensus is it is better.Casprings (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Above I suggested two sources: the transcript of the interview [58] and the NYT WSJ news story [59]. Both as citations to the quote as a whole, not to individual parts of it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I put in the Fox transcript. But the WSJ one is dead. Have another link. It would be nice if both sources had the whole quote.Casprings (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Try this link for the WSJ: [60] Oops: paywall. Another possibility: the Huffington Post [61] I doubt if any news source is going to quote the whole paragraph; that's not their style. --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Paywall isn't a bar to using as a source, particularly if others don't have the full quote. It isn't preferable if others DO have the full quote, but having the full quote is the first priority. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The full quote is available in the Hannity website: [62] - Cwobeel (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That's identical to the Fox News link, namely, the transcript of the interview. We're not going to find any reporter-written source using the entire paragraph. Reporters always shorten and paraphrase - just as we were doing before we decided to use the entire quote. We could just use the transcript and let it go at that. The reason I suggested using a second, news-type source was to show that the comment had been regarded as notable by the media. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support The simple intro and block quote format allow the statement to speak for itself.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• I am going to go ahead and add this. I think we have consensus it is better.Casprings (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"Request for closure" a month later? Why???

This discussion (which I didn't think was ever a formal RfC) (my mistake, the RFC template was removed by a bot on July 12) has been listed at ANRFC requesting closure. In fact, the way this discussion went was that, as it became evident that opinion was 2-to-1 in favor of inclusion, the discussants got away from the question of "include or not?" and worked instead on actual wording (in the subsection immediately above this one, "IF..."). It was a vigorous discussion involving many parties, some who had favored deletion and some who favored inclusion, and consensus was reached on a wording that all agreed was neutral, sourced, and proportionate without being UNDUE. That was more than a month ago, on June 16. I'm not clear why we have to bother an administrator now when it appeared we reached consensus among ourselves a month ago. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't need an admin to close the RFC. We can close without help. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prediction in re: The God Quote

I am willing to bet a fair amount of money that within 6-12 months of his actual election to the House, this quote will no longer be a part of his Wikipedia biography. Discussion of his faith? Sure--that's a big part of who he is. But including this quote, from an interview with a Fox News personality, is trivial, unnecessary, and--in my view, at least--makes Wikipedia look a bit daft. Lithistman (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it needs some context, so I moved it up to follow the paragraph about "invoking God". As an instance of such, I'd say it's non-trivial. Λυδαcιτγ 04:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted per WP:BRD. Better to keep it as it was before, in chronological order and without "however" or "furthermore" as that is editorializing. We don't editorialize, we just report fact as presented to us in reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to characterize the use of those words as editorializing. Consider these two adjacent sentences. "Brat ran an anti-establishment campaign... During the campaign, Cantor criticized Brat as a "liberal professor" who had strong ties..." There's a clear conflict between these two statements, and good writing requires an adversative conjunction. To be honest, when I first read the section I thought it was Brat criticizing Cantor for being a "liberal professor", because of the absence thereof.

Meanwhile, I think we should consider Lithistman's point about the long-term value of this article. Whereas a chronological style is better for news reporting, it seems to me that for an encyclopedia it makes more sense to put the quote about God in the section about God. Λυδαcιτγ 05:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I've found, in my years on the project, that "good writing" is not of top priority for the project. I would doubt it's even of second or third priority. It's sad, but true. Lithistman (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the version I suggest. Λυδαcιτγ 05:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Audacity: I tried a partial restore, but did not work. The current version is better. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to go ahead and redo my other non-controversial change. Λυδαcιτγ 05:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

To your comment, Lithistman. Please see the previous discussion about this subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Audacity: That version does not work because we will be editorializing. You first present the quote of the interview, which was the last event in the chronology, and then used "however" to link back a story about how Cantor characterized Brat as a liberal professor during the campaign. What you are doing there is to say: "hey readers, see how Cantor said that Bard was a liberal professor, but in fact he is a heavily religious person.". That is a great example of editorializing, which we are not supposed to do as editors. 99% of the time you find a "however" or a "furthermore" in an article, there is OR or editorializing. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Audacity. It took a lot of discussion to reach this consensus: that we should simply quote what he said on the night of his primary win, period - singling out that particular paragraph only because it received so much coverage from Reliable Sources. We quote it in his own words, with no paraphrasing, no editorializing, no interpreting what he meant by it or what it says about him, no trying to draw larger conclusions from it. It should stay in the primary section, without any "however" or any other attempt to make more out of it than it is. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• The "However" is clearly Wikipedia comparing and contrasting two events, something we can NOT do ourselves else we break WP:SYNTH. The policy link has some exact examples like this, so it is very clear on these points. Using "if" "but" "however" "yet" and similar contrasting connectors between two differently sourced facts is almost always a synthesis of sources, thus not allowed. If a single source is doing the comparing, that is a different thing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I see your guys' points - thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm not sure I agree about editorializing/synthesis though. Cwobeel, I don't think the "however" implies that Brat is religious (and not liberal), any more than it implies that he is liberal (and not religious). Hence, while I would agree with Dennis Brown that to include "however" constitutes comparing and contrasting, I would not agree that doing so violates WP:SYNTH, which says "do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources" (my emphasis).

Melanie, regarding the God quote, I understand your wish to avoid disturbing the consensus and won't push for moving it. I still think it seems newsy to have it standing there by itself, which is why I attempted to contextualize it. But I guess we can let time tell what should be done with it in the long run.

However, there are several other edits I'd like to get other opinions on. Whether or not putting "however" before Cantor's statement is OK, I would push for merging "Brat ran an anti-establishment campaign criticizing government bailouts and budget deals while frequently invoking God and the Constitution in his speeches." into paragraph 2, and for putting "Brat's victory was described in the press as a "deep schism" in the Republican party between its conservative base and its business wing, as well as a split between establishment Republicans and tea party insurgents." at the beginning of current paragraph 4. To me it seems odd to go into detail about to what degree Brat was supported by the tea party before announcing that his win was viewed as evidence of "a split between establishment Republicans and tea party insurgents". Λυδαcιτγ 12:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have been so absolute in my comment. "However" "but" "if" can are often found in synth, so you have to be careful with them, but that doesn't mean every use is synth. When we use it in some contexts, it does look like we are qualifying the previous statement, and when it is a quote, we have to be particularly careful. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried Audacity's proposal, as it is much easier to BRD. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with these changes, and I thank Audacity for discussing them and seeking consensus rather than simply implementing them. (As long as we are discussing the section - I think the "deep schism" sentence is awkward/unclear. His victory wasn't the schism, although it was related. How about "...was described as illustrating a deep schism," or "exposing", or "arising from" a deep schism. A check of the references cited does not clearly suggest a wording.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There would've been absolutely nothing wrong with it if he had instead proceeded by "simply implementing them." The project was BUILT by people "simply implementing" what they felt were beneficial changes to an article. No article is static, and in no way should any editor feel they need to "ask permission" at the talk page of an article to make a change. (Protected articles excluded, of course.) That sort of attitude is anathema to the project I came to know and enjoy many years ago. Lithistman (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Audacity could have gone ahead and implemented their proposal; there was no rule against it. But they recognized that there had been lots of previous discussion about that particular area and it was controversial - and they showed a willingness to engage in that discussion rather than simply doing what they wanted. And I appreciate that willingness, and said so. That's all. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

And I think it's sad that editors in good standing feel they need to ask permission to make such changes. I think it's a step backward as a project that an editor like Audacity has to "clear" changes he wants to make that incontrovertibly improve both the style and substance of the article through some sort of "gatekeepers." I don't see that as progress at all, and I hope editors don't quit boldly making good changes like Audacity tried to do by adding a useful conjunction that helped the flow (and was shot down in doing so). Lithistman (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

That is why we have WP:BRD. There is no need to "ask for permission", best is to do a BOLD edit and explain in talk with the hope it will stick. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, well then, forget that I asked for advice about how to handle the "schism" sentence; I'll just go ahead and change it. But I disagree that being bold should be encouraged in an article with a history of dissension and hard-won consensus. Seeking consensus first in that situation is a class act in my book. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Rate my professor.com

Is this external link necessary? I'm wondering if it falls afoul of policy. I wouldn't call them a reliable source, obviously, but they aren't representing him nor objectively discussing him as the site is easy to game. It is not a vetted website, it is user input, and he isn't known for being a professor as much as a politician, so it seems to be a NPOV issue to have it here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• I removed it. Lithistman (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability in December, 2014

Just checking, presuming no other notability issues (one of the single handedly defeating ISIL, for example), doesn't the rules on Notability indicate that either Brat or Jack Trammell's page should be deleted after the election? Or are we in a situation where if Trammell wins, then Brat's page should be kept under an IAR situation?Naraht (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, there's no reason to have this conversation now, but the notability guidelines don't necessarily indicate that. I expect we'll see what happens in this campaign and make decisions after it if someone raises the question. It certainly is not automatic - notability is not temporary, so we'll see. Tvoz/talk 23:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why any of these two bios will need to be deleted. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There is an interesting dicotomy between the two articles. As it currently reads Trammell's article has almost no information, if it remains as such, it should be deleted and what little information that does exist should be collapsed up into the election article. If he were not a candidate for office, it would be deleted. Arzel (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Discuss there, not here. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC) BTW, it is dichotomy, not dicotomy.

How about you be civil here, your response was uncalled for. Arzel (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

All I said was that if you want to discuss the Trammell article, discuss it in that article's talk page, not here. Is that not civil? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• WP:NTEMP - Notability isn't temporary, either he is or he isn't notable, meaning if he is notable today, he is notable in 2100 (assuming the consensus on WP:GNG is the same in 2100). Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• He accomplished something that's never been done before. His notability is not now, nor would it be then (if he lost), in question. Lithistman (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Date assumed office

The date he assumed office should be November 12 when he was sworn in. (I presume Cantor resigned so he could take office early.) But someone changed it to November 4, giving as reason that candidates elected in special elections take office immediately. Even if that is true, this was not a special election; it was the regular scheduled congressional election. MelanieN (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A recent edit by an IP editor just changed this date to 11/12. The Roanoke Times of Tuesday, November 11, 2014 states "Dave Brat will be sworn in at the Capitol in Washington this evening, taking office as the 7th District’s new representative in time for the lame-duck session of Congress". So, what date should be used?

1. The election date of 11/4
2. The date he was sworn in, 11/11
3. 11/12, presumably his first day in the office (per the source, not the day he was sworn in)

Per the source, I believe 11/11 is most accurate. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• U.S. Law states that in the event of a special election, date of assumption of office is the date of the election. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

"...tone or style may not reflect encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia."

This note, in the section "Economic philosophy" (is it by a staff member?), seems to be a green light for Wikipedially correct editors to censor the content of what appears to be an interesting and unusually informative section. It seems to me like someone just doesn't like this section, and is resorting to vague innuendo. -lifeform (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)