Talk:Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject U.S. Congress (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
This article has not yet been assigned a subject.
The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Events."
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
 
WikiProject Miami (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to South Florida on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cuba (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 




Untitled[edit]

Is this an encyclopedia article or a blog post praising the congresswoman for being a gay-friendly Scientologist? I think this is in need of some sort of rewrite. --Caponer 07:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that. Magicwombat 19:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll third it. I'm skeptical that she's a darling of the LGBT community - I'd like to see some proof, please.

Is it even confirmed she's a Scientologist? I've heard of people who go to Scientology events, but aren't Scientologists. For example one site says on "August 7, 2004, she presented a flag flown over the U.S. Capitol in recognition of the Scientology Celebrity Centre’s 35th anniversary of "humanitarian and voluntary contributions", together with Rep. Brad Sherman." Sherman is not listed as a Scientologist.--T. Anthony 14:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Lehtinen? Where does that name come from?[edit]

Is it because she is married to a man of Finnish heritage (the name sound finnish), or because one of her parents are of finnish origin? --Konstantin 12:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I am also wondering about it? Cus the name Lehtinen is as Finnish as it can be. Dr.Poison 16:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

From her website: "In the Florida Legislature she met and married Florida Representative Dexter Lehtinen, who later went on to become the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida."

Her husband is of Finnish origin.. And as for her being Gay-Friendly, SHE IS. The HRC has rated her with an 86% approval rate for the 108th Congress and an 88% approval rate so far in the 109th Congress. Callelinea 04:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion as "Scientology"[edit]

Based upon some brief research I could find no support of the claim that the subject of this article refers to herself as being of the Scientologist religion. Certainly she "supports" the group but that is quite obviously irrelevant and different, as one doesn't imply the other.

There is nothing in the article that says she is a Scientologist. (She appears to be mum on the subject, probably because of the obvious political fallout.) However, she is a politician and the controversial use of her political office to support Scientology causes and her receipt of Scientology campaign contributions is certainly relevant and of interest to her constituents, wiki readers, and students of religion and politics.--66.176.130.243 10:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have searched thru archives of her official public biographies throughout the years and have not found any references to her religion what so ever. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.house.gov/ros-lehtinen/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.214.251 (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:John-l.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:John-l.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a fair use image (a publicity/PR photo). I will upload it again and add the required explanation or rationale.--MiamiManny (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Photo Captions[edit]

The captions on the new photos read like press releases from Ros-Lehtinen's office. I fixed one of them to eliminate POV but more is needed. --MiamiManny (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the POV issues, there doesn't appear to be any legit reason for two of the photos -the one with the man in the Century Council t-shirt and one with the group of students. Any thoughts?--MiamiManny (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Position Section[edit]

This section reads like a press release from Ros Lehtinen's Office. In fact, many of the sources are from press releases. This section needs to be cleaned up for balance. --MiamiManny (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientology Gala Photo[edit]

Not sure why the Scientology Gala photo was deleted again. It's a publicity photo clearly covered under fair use. I hope the deletion is not for political reasons. I will upload it again and add to the article. Please discuss here before deleting again. Thank you.--MiamiManny 18:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Another deletion of the Scientology Gala Photo. Again it's a promotional photo clearly covered under fair use. Sadly, it appears this is politically motivated as no discussion or rationale was made here. I will restore again.--MiamiManny (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Celebrity centre promotional photo.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Celebrity centre promotional photo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I added yet another tag to the photo to justify its use. The effort being made by some Wikpedians to exclude photos that are clearly fair us is extraordinary. Wikpedians should be focused on efforts to keep photos, not to remove them. Shame.--MiamiManny (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Error in edit summary[edit]

In the edit summary of this edit, I make reference to WP:REVERT. I meant to refer to WP:RV, in detail this part: "It is particularly important to provide a valid and informative explanation when you perform a reversion". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Campaign contributors[edit]

I have started a discussion about the reliability of one of the sources on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Inter Press Service--Reliable Source?. I do not believe that the IPS meets our requirements for reliable sourcing, and without that, there is no justification for the section's existence. Horologium (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, IPS is a well-known news agency and the WP:RS discussion of it will likely reach that conclusion. Here is another piece by Jerusalem Post ("heavy contributor") on the same issue. Since this is a controversial issue, we should also consider mentioning it in the lead, since significant controversies should be mentioned there per WP:LEAD. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP[edit]

A new editor has twice removed material describing this funder, explaining in edit summaries that the material would be a BLP violation. I'm opening this thread to give this editor a space to explain, in what way this material would be a BLP violation. According to WP:BLP only material that is "material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" should be removed immediately. Since this material is reliably sourced, it'll remain in the article pending the outcome of this discussion.

To kick off this discussion, my opinion is that since the snippet follows the text in the source very faithfully, it complies with neutrality and verifiability, and presents no original research. Therefore, I don't see a BLP violation. Regarding whether the material complies with the "conservatively" prong of BLP, it should be recalled that this is an article about a congresswoman. Reliable sources have reported she has accepted money from someone who is involved in illegal businesses, and that she has failed to return it. I don't follow in what way conveying that would run afoul of WP:BLP. Should we fail to reach agreement on the text here, we can post it on the BLP noticeboard. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

you are accusing a living person of a crime - we don't do that in BLPs unless very high quality sources make that allegation, and make it a notable element of his biography. The source you are using is not a high quality one, and the person article does not even mention this , which indicates it is not very important. BLPs should be written conservatively, and you are not doing that. Please get consensus for your addition of this contentious material, either here or on the BLP noticeboard. Ruby Tuesday ALMWR (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, there may be a confusion here. I'm not proposing to change the article, you are. Therefore, the burden of building consensus for your edit lies on you. Concerning sources, here are a few more:

Moskowitz has spent millions of dollars purchasing property in East Jerusalem to create pockets of hardline Jewish settlements in Palestinian neighbourhoods (Guardian)

a prominent supporter of Jewish settlement in the Old City and other parts of East Jerusalem (NYT)

the primary sponsor of the Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem (Der Spiegel)

That the settlements are illegal has been underlined by the UN and the International Court of Justice, for example. What Mr. Moskowitz' own article says or doesn't say has no bearing on this one. In fact, if it doesn't mention this issue I can edit it once I get the chance. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Miccosukee Tribe lawsuit against husband[edit]

I just reverted out an unsourced and severely slanted account of a lawsuit which was filed by the Miccosukee Tribe against several defendants, one of whom is her husband, whose firm did legal work for the tribe until two years ago. The edit was stuffed with speculation about motives and actions, and stated allegations from the complainants as fact. It was all wrapped up in a lovely effort to tie Ros-Lehtinen to the lawsuit against her husband, when in fact it does not involve her at all, and her husband is one of at least six co-defendants in the suit, all of whom were business associates of the tribe under the previous tribal chairman. Horologium (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Category: American Jews[edit]

She is in the category: Jewish American politicians as of now. Therefore, she is American and Jewish. Anyone opposed to me adding her to the category: American Jews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anibar E (talkcontribs) 15:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed her from Category:Jewish American politicians, as she is not Jewish, nor has she ever been Jewish. In any case, that category is a subcategory of Category:American Jews (underCategory:American Jews by occupation), and (if she were Jewish) would not need to be categorized in the parent category. Horologium (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Weasel words in article - needs to be removed[edit]

,,over the following decade as it became both palatable and politically advantageous to do so." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.208.38 (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

False anti-Cuban remarks[edit]

As for a couple of statements by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen regarding Cuba:

1. “It’s obvious the Castro regime is using these refugees to seek revenge against the Panamanian authorities for seizing the North Korean bound ship, from Cuba, carrying illegal arms last month.” (http://ros-lehtinen.house.gov/press-release/congressional-members-express-outrage-letter-prime-minister-bahamas-regarding-cuban)

2. "U.S. law states that no Castro may be in power, so this may be a ploy by the Cuban regime to attempt to normalize relations prematurely with the U.S. ” (http://ros-lehtinen.house.gov/press-release/ros-lehtinens-statement-raul-castros-possible-retirement)

Remark #1 is just plain ridiculous because Raul Castro didn't express outrage at Panama for seizing a North Korean freighter sailing from Cuba, so why would Cuba use immigrants to seek revenge against Panama for seizing a ship laden with illegal arms?

Concerning the second remark, Raul Castro's plan to retire in 2018 is consistent with his intention to restrict Cuban leaders to two five-year terms, and has nothing to do with US, even though the Helms-Burton Act says that the US must not recognize any Cuban government that includes both Castros.

For all her anti-Castro fervor, Ros-Lehtinen constantly tries to dismisses ostensibly exciting political developments in Cuba (e.g. Raul Castro's impending retirement) as mere ploys to try to win concessions from the US. In this regard, there's way too much propaganda from Ros-Lehtinen and her colleagues. 68.4.28.33 (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

The West Bank[edit]

Instead of having an edit war, Horologium could discuss the issue here. East Jerusalem is a part of the West Bank and this is how it is presented on Wikipedia. Read for example West Bank. The claim that we should separate them because Israel annexed East Jerusalem is laughable.

I see that Horologium says that East Jerusalem is "disputed" but this is not different from the status of the West Bank and both of them are regarded as occupied. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The formulation used here (separating East Jerusalem from the West Bank for purposes of discussion is an accepted practice, both in Wikipedia and in mainstream news sources. Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967; it did not annex the rest of the West Bank. Regardless on your personal view of the legality of the annexation, it is clear that there is a difference between the claimed status of East Jerusalem and that of the West Bank.
You are the editor who was supposed to initiate a discussion, when your attempt to introduce new verbiage was reverted. See Wikipedia's Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. It is incumbent upon an editor wishing to change the long-standing stable wording of an article to obtain consensus for such changes. IRISZOOM has been pushing his preferred verbiage on a couple of other articles as well, and he's encountered pushback on at least one other. Horologium (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I am restoring to the consensus view, as mentioned before. His arguments was interesting and could be discussed further, because they still don't represent the view by the international community and written here on several articles about the topic, but they differ vastly from yours. So don't try to make it look like you are both sharing the same view against me.
I have not said that the annexation is the reason so you are making a straw man. East Jerusalem is regarded as a part of the West Bank and there is no difference whatsoever between their status. Both are occupied and obviously you don't like the term but this is how they are viewed. It's not about my view, it's how they are regarded and written here in Wikipedia articles such as West Bank and discussed here and here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I have written here at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues. Welcome to discuss the issue there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)