Talk:Dave Brat

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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)

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)

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)

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 [4]):

>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)

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 [5], and this the summary [6]. 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)

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)

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)