Talk:Rick Scott

"His Excellency"

It goes without saying that a 160-year-old book can't be used to establish that Scott has ever been called "His Excellency". This is an irrelevant factoid and needs to stay out of the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

High Speed Rail "Debacle"

I think this is a noteworthy event in Scott's tenure as governor, partly because this rail line was supposed to be the demonstration for Obama's rail initiative, partly because the previous governor already approved the funds, and partly because the Florida Senate was so quick to disagree. The original person writing this section didn't cite anything. I've tried to match the facts and the cites as much as possible while removing some of the emotion-laden words like "debacle."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.177.19 (talk • contribs)

The material is Synthesis of published material that advances a position. That source doesn't discuss Scott's decision, and including it hear casts a particular light over it that is absent from the source. This is not acceptable in a biography of a living person. You're also edit warring. If you add it back again you will be blocked from editing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I reject that including relevant economic impacts of a policy decision cast the acts in any specific light. As I said on your page, Scott's rejection of conditional federal funds for only 50,000 jobs with potentially hundreds of millions for Florida could be an economic win or lose. You're unreasonably inferring an intent on my part to imply Scott's decision was a negative one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.177.19 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You still need to provide reliable, verifiable sources for the material. Without those sources your edits are original research and synthesis, as stated above. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, but the wording is clearly negative. You [the anonymous user] were previously citing this article, where those numbers are given by a detractor of Scott's in order to criticize him. It also remains original research by synthesis. And of course, edit warring is not appropriate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree on that. If you have a more-neutral way to include the relevant information, then do it. Had you looked earlier, you would have seen I was using a prior editor's source. The critical website provided those figures from a FDOT survey. The subsequent editor linked to the FDOT website. You deleted the cite to the FDOT website claiming it's original research. I reinstated it because the FDOT site does not meet the criteria for original research, and because the FDOT is a reliable source for the economic impact of transportation policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.177.19 (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My edits also do not meet the criteria of synthesis. Each thought is expressed in an independent clause (separate sentences), and the sources for the information are clearly referenced in each sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.177.19 (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

All other editors here have found your editors to be irrelevant and synthesis. The burden of evidence is on you to find consensus for your edit. You've been edit warring against several other editors for the last two weeks, which is not appropriate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the page has been protected with pending changes due to the edit warring. If a consensus develops on this talk page that the material should be included, we can include it. Obviously that will take more than one user pushing for the change.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Concur. There's no question that Scott's decision is contentious. How to discuss that decision in the article will require careful wordsmithing to avoid WP:NPOV problems. For starters, I'd like to see the heading of "High Speed Rail 'Debacle'" go away, because the heading by itself is non-neutral. A "Controversy" header would be more appropriate, but again, subject to consensus. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is clearly consensus emerging that the issue is highly relevant to Scott's tenure as governor and thus necessary to include in the wikipedia entry on him for it to be taken seriously as such. The title of the subsection has been amended to "High-Speed Rail," so the previous comment is now moot. I'm concerned that references to what's at stake in the issue (namely, an expansion of jobs and the state's transportation network, in addition to costs associated with them) has been elided by those sympathetic to Scott's decision. Such tendentious proselytizing has no place in the entry. I vote to revert.128.186.46.171 (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It is improper in any WP article to advance arguments regarding any issues. All we do is report precisely the facts as reported in reliable sources. And extensive sections on issues do not belong in BLPs, but, at best, in articles specifically aimed at those issues, and worded in an NPOV. Collect (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

But see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN#Public_figures As governor, Scott is a not just a living person, but a public figure. Under Wikipedia policy, even "negative" information on public figures should be included so long as it's relevant and well-sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.177.19 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The key is that it actually has to be "relevant and well-sourced". This is irrelevant original synthesis and has no place in an encyclopedia article. And the idea that all those who think it should be left out must be "sympathetic to Scott's decision" is as irrelevant as it is baseless. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia here, not cataloguing every detail of every controversy surrounding a subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: "relevant and well-sourced." The information provided was the original justification for the project. I'll let you explain why that isn't relevant. The website to which the footnote directs readers is run by the Florida Department of Transportation, a bureau of the Florida State government that reports to the governor. I'll let you explain why that doesn't fit the definition of "well-sourced." I'm not sure you quite understand what synthetic argument is, as there there isn't one iota of it in providing such information.128.186.46.171 (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, various editors find your edit inapporpriate, to the point that the page had to be protected from your continuous edit warring. The reasons are all highlighted above. This is synthesis because you are taking one source making one claim ("the DOT estimated high-speed rail would create xx thousand jobs") and appended it to the paragraph making a different statement ("Scott rejected money for high-speed rail") to make an implication that doesn't appear directly in either ("Scott rejected money that would have created an estimated xx thousand jobs"). You're arguing including that statistic doesn't imply that conclusion; unfortunately, no other editor has agreed with you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in the editing or even seen this page before today, but I am a Florida resident and can attest that the DOT jobs estimate and similar information (which has been widely reported in reputable sources (major newspapers)) is certainly germane to an article about Rick Scott, as Scott's claimed raison d'running for governor was to create jobs, but the first act he performed as governor was to kill a project that all published information from sources other than him agreed would create jobs, and doing so against existing law and the express wishes of the state legislature. It may well be that the phrasing that was rejected was problematic, but the connection to jobs seems clear - if the DOT study indicated that xx thousand jobs would be created by doing the high speed rail project, then it seems to logically follow that rejecting the money and therefore killing the project (especially without Scott offering an alternative) would fail to create those jobs. I don't know the political leanings of the various editors that found the edit inappropriate, but as an outsider, seeing the DOT job information (which is clearly well sourced) deleted rather than rephrased to meet any objections certainly smacks (perhaps unfairly, but perceptions matter) of Rick Scott supporters using their position as editors to impose their own view of the facts.108.74.28.81 (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is a poor place for campaigning. Scott did not, however, violate existing law. Nor are the editors who are here "Rick Scott supporters". We just use WP:BLP as policy on all BLPs. BTW, for fun look at the jobs creation projections from the various stimulus bills. Collect (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I explained how the material violated Wikipedia policy: it synthesized publish material to make a claim not stated directly in the sources. End of story.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

School

What high school did Rick Scott graduate from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.109.17 (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

poll results

Posting of poll results is pretty much worthless unless an article is to consist primarily of weekly polls. Wikipeida is not a daily newspaper concerned with what is, at best, surveys of people's opinions on a topic, rather than facts about a topic. Collect (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree and I have removed it. Truthsort (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Drug screening controversy

Shouldn't there be mention of the fact that Rick Scott has, since becoming governor, championed and eventually signed laws requiring drug screening for state employees and welfare recipients? And the criticism he's received for doing so while owning the company that would do the screenings? 24.214.230.66 (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No, this is wikipedia! The wikipedians who dominate this place have a strong libertarian/conservative bias. Jimmy Wales himself is actually an Ayn Rand inspired Objectivist / right-winging libertarian. Wikipedians act as if they are vehemently AGAINST including controversial content into ALL articles unless "entirely necessary", but do not seem willing to apply this philosophy equally and fairly to both sides of the political spectrum. (ie: the Sarah Palin article's complete absence of a controversy section)

So there isn't a single mention in this article that his wife owns the company that administers these drug tests.. Even if it is changed to include this information, these conservative activists have the liberals and moderates so outnumbered here that the change will be overturned within a few hours.. so its pointless..

--69.125.144.46 (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

But there should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.10.90.15 (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Approval ratings

I know things are supposed to be nuetral on here, but as a Florida student, I see on the news constantly about Scotts critisms and low approval ratings. Shouldn't some of this be mentioned? --168.213.7.230 (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Scott's low approval ratings are frequently remarked upon by reliable sources, and would seem to be a relevant part of a neutral, encyclopedic biography. Strangely, though, such information is consistently removed (e.g. [1]). I can't say I care enough about this article to fight about it, but I agree with you that it features some notable omissions. MastCell ^Talk 20:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This "consistent removal" you speak of is nothing strange at all.. you are simply touching on wikipedia's biggest and most fatal flaw..

MANY (but certainly not all) Wikipedians seek to deliberately deprive the public of information that would reflect poorly on their own political party or ideology. This is very dangerous in my opinion, since wikipedia entries are usually in the top 5 of all google results on any given search.. so it would be nice if we could actually provide the public with the most accurate and up-to-date information.

But the wikipedians will constantly defend themselves in these situations by stating that wikipedia is not supposed to include "controversy" .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.144.46 (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Unemployment (a major problem)

Dear Governor Scott:

My name is Flozell Stewart {7599} I recently went to the VA hospital in Miami for an necessary operation on 08-02 thur 08-06-2011. I was discharged without problems. I did not claim that week, and explained why. I found out today, my benefits had been cut off as of 08-18-2011 for orbitration for four to six weeks. I do not understand, this action will send me under the bridge. Is there any help for a fellow service man? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydover60 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this site has absolutely nothing to do with Rick Scott or his office. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that collects information about people from Reliable soruces, so we can't put you in contact with Scott. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, would it totally shock you that someone big in the administration kept deleting the controversies of his?

Rick Scott Elected Worst Governor Ever

After a hotly contested online election at www.worstgovernorever.com in August 2011, Governor Rick Scott was voted Worst Governor Ever by the American people. Hundreds of thousands of votes poured into the site and Rick Scott was featured in two of the popular videos attached to the Worst Governor Ever campaign. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-SvZGbXGOQ&feature=channel_video_title http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEteSW3VIhE&feature=relmfu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmpress (talk • contribs) 18:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And since that isn't even close to a reliable source, it has no business being in a Wikipedia article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)