Talk:Jeff Frederick

Unreliable Sources

The unidentified editor who has removed the unsourced tag should register and explain why his poorly-sourced and unreliable citations should stay. --Zeamays (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC) The unidentified editor has reverted my edits of this page again, with no explanation. He simply is undoing my deletes of self-references by a political candidate, which cannot be regarded as independent citations. Therefore, I am posting a request for dispute resolution,. --Zeamays (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There are no disagreements between two editors to support the use of a third opinion. I have therefore removed this talk page from the list of current disagreements. Other ways to solve the problem should be chosen; try with a page protection, for instance.--Jetstreamer (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The unregistered editor continues to revert and has not provided arguments to the talk page, so I have followed Jetstreamer's advice and requested semi-protection today.--Zeamays (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Vabio1 has also reverted the tag, with a declaration that references in the "public domain" are to be treated as facts. That is not Wikipedia policy, particularly because the references are used to support opinions, such as that a politician is "powerful". The editors who wish to retain these references need to provide sources considered reliable, not partisan campaign websites. --Zeamays (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The citations of the campaign websites are reliable since they are referring to the subject person and deal with the actual announcements or the original releasing of the information being specified. Further, other ommissions, like the fact that this person is the first Hispanic elected to the Virginia legislature are not in dispute and can be verified by contacting officials in the legislature. Finally, news reports that are no longer available via http are not invalid simply due to the fact that the citation is a pdf copy of the report linked from a campaign website. As an aside, news outlets quote people all the time -- why is a quote from a direct subject's website less reliable than a quote given to a news reporter. You'd think it would be more reliable coming directly from the person than filtered via a reporter.

If there is specific information or facts that are in dispute, let's take the discussion there. Otherwise, there is no reason to modify relevant and widely accepted information contained herein. Vabio1 (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

VaBio1 has confused my objection to certain types of unreliable references with (VaBio supposes) an objection to the statements themselves. But the statements cannot stand if the references that support them are unreliable. The sources are partisan political websites, and therefore inherently biased. Look at the Wikipedia policy stated at the top of this page, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately...." VaBio1 has not responded on this page to my request for his arguments why his favored material should stand. Therefore, I will revert the edits of VaBio to remove the material that is sourced and referenced to partisan campaign websites. --Zeamays (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Zeamays has yet to provide any evidence or even argument as to why information is unreliable. This information has been listed without dispute for over a year, and it should not simply be disqualified via fiat of one isolated user. Therefore, prior version of this entry have been restored. Vabio1 (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This incident has been reported to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Here I simply note that the thrust of Vabio1's argument is the claim that the facts supported by the biased campaign website citations are true. VaBio1 urges readers to verify them for themselves, i.e. do original research. This is contrary to Wikipedia policy. --Zeamays (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Lots of BLP problems - many of which I have sought to emend. Vabio - the issues are real, and though you are a new editor with scant a score of edits, all on this person, I suggest you read the WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:KNOW among other pages. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please top doing wholesale undoing of updates. Doing so leaves bad links and omits relevant content cited by objective third parties. Votejeff references are only used when referring to direct statements by subject person. For example, if President Obama gives a speech and something from that speech is cited in an article, it is completely appropriate to cite the campaign or White House website where that speech is located so that a reader can read the referenced language directly. The only other use of votejeff references are providing content from reputable news organizations (like the Washington Post and News and Messenger) that may no longer be available directly online, so PDF files are linked of those original articles. The last revisions by Zeamays are becoming vandalism and are in direct conflict with the three-revert rule and Zeamays has made no attempt to achieve consensus among editors, rather simply reverting to old versions, even after much has been done to address his complaints, including citing objective third party references, and after the page has been updated with more current information - which he simply disregards in his wholesale reversions. Mediation is being requested. Vabio1 (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Mediation" will not allow violations of WP:RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but much of what VaBio1 writes above does not fly. Unreliable, partisan references will not suffice, even if they contain valid secondary references to what is being asserted in the article. If his material is factual, he should go do his homework and find primary, authoritative references, not force readers do original research for verification. VaBio1 has repeatedly undone edits by Collect, Bbb23, and Cameron Scott as well as myself. Enough is enough of this. --Zeamays (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

We do not believe that there has been a violation of WP:RS. If you do, please be specific about where you believe that violation occurs or even address the spefific violation rather than a wholesale undoing of relevant content. Said differently, instead of simply claiming a violation of WP:RS, please justify it. Prove it. In each specific case.

Let's address each instance (statement or text) where you believe there is a WP:RS violation. The group you mention seems to be intent on wholesale undoing of edits, again, including updates (such as information about a recent senate campaign, of which has absolutely nothing to do with the objections any of you are raising). I'd guess you don't even know what you are undoing any more. No one is suggesting one do original research. If you want to delete or omit a specific word, sentence, or paragraph, please provide spefific information and reasons for wanting to do so so that objections can be addressed or concurrence can be achieved. Vabio1 (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very specific definition of Wikipedia:original research. A secondary reference, particularly one from a biased souce, is not a substitute for a primary one. Wikipedia policy is very specific: "...you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." There were too many citations to votejeff in the article to get bogged down on each one. You should see that so many biased references make the entire article suspect. --Zeamays (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, many or all of the votejeff references link to third party journalistic content (like from the Washington Post), which can hardly be characterized as biased. Instead of deeming the whole article suspect (again, one that has been posted for two years without dispute), please provide where you believe a source is suspect, in each specific ommision you wish to make. Let's take these one at a time. If you don't want to go through the trouble, then perhaps you should withdraw your objections. You can't have it both ways -- wanting to omit content but not wanting to justify why you want to omit each specific thign. Vabio1 (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Vabio1 is just making the same tired arguments. If the WPO is really the citation, then why doesn't he cite the WPO? It's available on-line or in microfilm in many libraries. A citation to the dead-tree WAPO is just as good as one to the on-line archive. Votejeff is not a substitute, under [WP:RS]] and Wikipedia:original research. The argument of how long text that doesn't comply with Wikipedia policy has persisted has no relevance. --Zeamays (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference between microfilm, a PDF of an article, or actual article text, irrespective of where that article is hosted? Again, please be specific about your objections. Not sure why you are so reluctant to do so.Vabio1 (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Read the content of what I wrote. Votejeff is not an passive, neutral, inert container for WAPO or other articles; it is inherently biased. Since when did you request mediation? Look above, and you'll see I did that at the get-go. So far we have three editors who differ with you, listed above. --Zeamays (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

We were not aware of any mediation request you initiated. If you did, our apologies. However, we have initiated one. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/14_September_2011/Jeff_Frederick. Ganging up is hardly grounds for being correct. And, none of the other editors have been engaging in attepts to find compromise nor provide specifics about their objections. Vabio1 (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, editors seem to not know what content they are restoring or why they are restoring it. In many cases, it is old or outdated. For example, the first reference link in the version they are restoring links not to information about Jeff Frederick but information about his successor in the House of Delegates, Luke Torian. These editors need to engage in a discussion about each specific edit, what their objection is, and take it from there instead of wholesale restoration of Zeamays edits, some of which contain bad information and links. The version we are restoring is largely the same version that has been in place on this page for over two years without objection, but adding information about subject's current run for the state senate. Vabio1 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:RS and WP:BLP. Find reliable sources for the information you wish added and it will absolutely remain. Use non-RS sources, and it will be removed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, we did revise prior content with other reliable sources, but it seems you have not taken a moment to see that. If there is other content you believe needs to have a more reliable source, please specify which information you are seeking to have better corroboated and we will be more than happy to do this. Yesterday we spent considerable time providing alternate references than what had previously been in place, yet you and other continue to do blanket reversions without regard to the updates that had been made in an attempt to statisfy your objections. Because we have already gone through and found additional/alternative references, it would be helpful if you could specify your objections so we can address them indivudally and find the other sources you are seeking. Vabio1 (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I fear your violations of 3RR will soon make such a tad moot. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

citations using votejeff

Content and citations have been updated to reflect relevant info and current events. All content and citations used reliable sources and conform to WP:RS and WP:BLP. All citations using votejeff have been removed with the exception of one, which references a direct statement by Fredrick, a statement found on that website, so we used it to prove he said it, and we know he said it because it is on his website. Citations used to back-up speeches or original writings of the subject person should be reliable to use as references. Article now includes content that helps establish more accurate and complete knowledge of the subject person (ex: I think it is relevant and interesting that he has a Colombian family), and is updated to include subject's current activities. I have done my best to address the previous concerns raised, but would certainly appreciate any feedback on how to improve upon the edits I've made in such a way that does not eliminate good content while providing reliable references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vabio1 (talk • contribs)

I reverted your many changes as there are too many problems with them. It's not true that you use votejeff only once. You use it in the infobox, adn you used it in References (replacing a better cite). Some of your assertions are not supported by reliable sources and/or incorrect. For example, you state that Frederick is the first Hispanic to be elected to any position in state government. The source,which appears to be a promotional site, says only the General Assembly. The cite to Wikipedia is not permissible. You cite to news.heartland.org for another asssertion, and that site is a political site and not reliable. At that point, I stopped reviewing your edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your knowledge of Virginia government is limited. There are only 5 ways to be elected to Virginia government: Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Senate of Virginia, and House of Delegates. There has been no one known to have been elected to any of those offices except Frederick. The citation used "Patch" is not a promotional website but a local news source. I have restored the information less the votejeff link in the infobox. Using votejeff as a outside website is permissable -- for example, both the Barak Obama and Rick Perry wiki articles include their official campaign websites. There are two citations of votejeff within the article, both used to refer to orignal writings or speeches by the subject, which is permitted. Heartland is not a political site, but a IRS certified not-for-profit. Using your standard, most websites could be construed as political one way or another. Before a wholesale reversion again, please identify what content you belive to be unreliable or incorrect. For example, Frederick is currently running for senate, yet you have deleted that. How is that information unreliable or incorrect? Further, Frederick's mother is from Colombia. That is not a matter of opinion, but fact, and it is of interest to a reader. How is the fact that his mother is from Colombia unreliable or incorrect? Yet, you delete that too. Collect (talk) states above "Find reliable sources for the information you wish added and it will absolutely remain." I am making a good-faith effort to address all concerns, and believe I have done so. The prior concern was excessive use of votejeff. I have addressed that and strickly limited to original writings of Frederick, and a mention of votejeff as his campaign website, just as is the case with the Obama and Perry articles (for example). 74.96.252.206 (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Complete reversions are also using old bad links. My edits update old/bad/wrong links, and the reversions being done omit those corrections. Vabio1 (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Have replaced Heartland and Wikipedia sources with other sources like the Washington Post and Clerk of the House of Delegates publication, hopefully to satisfy objections posed. Please post any further objections here and I will address them. I hope, however, you will not object to undisputable facts, like Frederick being a married male with three children who was born to an American and a Colombian, nor his birthdate or other things of that nature.Vabio1 (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of Virginia FREE/FEC Discussion

Virginia FREE is a highly controversial group that has record of bias ratings (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47793-2004Jun16.html) and shouldn't be used as a source. Doing so will result in an article about Jeff Frederick turning into a discussion about the controversy surrounding Virginia FREE and the quality of their ratings, which seems inappropriate. Alternatively, use of Virginia FREE will result in a slew of other business groups that have rated Frederick more positively (like NFIB, Virginia Small Business Partnership, and various Chambers of Commerce) to provide an opposing/balanced view to Virginia FREE, which would then muddy up the Frederick article, turning it into a discussion regarding the quality of different business group ratings, which again, seems inapproprate for a page supposedly about Frederick.Vabio1 (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I read the reference cited above, and it indicates that the ratings (not bias rating) are supported by both Republicans and Democrats (bipartisan support). The basis for the Vabio1 rating is an objective score, as can be seen in their report. I have added a countervailing reference for balance. However, the major premise of Vabio1 seems to be that controversial material should not appear, which is wrong. Vabio1 should feel free to cite views of Mr. Frederick's record that differ with the Virginia Free group.

Vabio1 also reverted my deletion of a statement which is not supported by the reference, which does not mention the court case in which Frederick was fined for a violation of Federal Law. --Zeamays (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, there is no "court case" as Zeamays suggests. It does not exist. I challenge Zeamays to find it. The item he is referring to was an administrative matter before the FEC. The statement: "federal courts in the aftermath of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission have determined that such contributions are legal under federal law" is referring to contributions made by corporations for federal election activity. The reference, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2011-05-27-corporate-contributions-campaigns_n.htm, indicates that a federal court has ruled that "the campaign finance law banning corporations from making contributions to federal candidates is unconstitutional". The administrative matter before the FEC involving RPV and GXS dealt specifically with the issue of "prohibited contributions by corporations" for federal election activity, and as the above cited article demonstrates, a federal court has now determined that "corporations enjoy the same rights as individuals to contribute". Thus, the assertion that "federal courts in the aftermath of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission have determined that such contributions are legal under federal law" is absolutely true and should remain. Zeamays continues to suggest that because the reference does not specifically mention the RPV/GXS matter disregards how the legal system in the United States operates, with regard to case law and courts setting legal precedent. Now in the wake of Citizens United, with 527 super PACs and other activities by corporations in federal elections, it is quite easy to say that certain activities once considered not legal under FEC law is now considered legal -- you don't need a specific court case to point out each of those instances where things are legal.

The best analogy to this situation is thus: Person A runs a stop sign, gets caught and cited. Because he doesn't want to mess around with it and take the time to fight the ticket given his opinion that a stop sign should be there, he just pays the fine and moves on. Person B also runs the stop sign, also gets caught, but decides to fight it. Person B goes through the process to protest the citation and wins, and the stop sign is removed. Because Person A already paid the fine and settled the matter, he has no recourse to unravel his situation. However, it would be correct to say "Person A was cited for running this stop sign, and while he believed the stop sign should not have been there, he declined to protest and paid the fine. However, subsequent cases established that the stop sign should not have been there in the first place." You don't need another case or court or anything to affirm that statement is true for it to be so. It is what it is. Vabio1 (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The remedy Vabio1 proposes is either (1) I do his work for him to identify a suitable reference, or 2) to accept his argument that a Wikipedia reader should be able to deduce an unstated conclusion from a reference that doesn't mention Jeff Frederick. Neither of these is acceptable in Wikipedia. The first is bad form and the second amounts to Wikipedia:Original research. Original research is exactly what he proposes, by the definition: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." If Vabio1 is correct, then he should be able to identify a suitable reference. It is up to him, not me. --Zeamays (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I also note that Vabio1 finds it OK to include ratings by various conservative organizations, which obviously are controversial to liberals, but not to include the objective scores of Virgina FREE. Wikipedia considers it important that all sides of a controversy be included (see Wikipedia:NPOV). Criticism of Virginia Free, as in the last Vabio1 edit, should be in an article on Virginia FREE, not here. --Zeamays (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The Virginia League of Conservation Voters, a coalition that includes the Sierra Club is hardly an organization than can be characterized as "conservative". Same goes for the March of Dimes. And, none of the groups ratings/awards that we listed are controversial in the context of what they claim to advocate for versus how the general public views the validity of their voice in that advocacy. For example, I am not aware of anyone saying that the League of Conservation Voters is controversial in its advocacy for enviornmental issues; the NFIB is not controvercial in its advocacy for small business; and the National Right to Work Committee is not controvercial in its advocacy for right to work laws. People may disagree with right to work laws (for example), but they hardly disagree that the National Right to Work is advocating for those laws, and there is no controversy surrounding whether National Right to Work is actually advocating for right to work laws. However, VA Free claims to advocate for business, yet, there is a quite a bit of controversy surrounding their advocacy for businesses, and thus their ratings are frequently in conflict frequently with the ratings of other business advocacy groups. User:Vabio1|Vabio1]] (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This is just the same tired argument stated above. Controversy about VA FREE, valid or not, is not germane to this article. These are two separate issues. I didn't reference Frederick being rated by the other organizations listed above. Irrelevant. Vabio1 also doesn't address the point I made about all points of view being included here. He also insists on using a reference that doesn't mention the case at hand. His edits are not aligned with Wikipedia:NPOV policy. --Zeamays (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Vabio just posted a statement on another editor's talk page claiming, "Zeamays posted the information about the FEC purposely to make Frederick look bad...This FEC information came straight out of Frederick's opponent's opposition research in the current election." Here, I wish to remark on this assertion and clarify the facts.

In fact, when I first became aware of the Jeff Frederick article, it was a one-sided puff-piece, not up to Wikipedia:NPOV standards. I began by editing the text to delete improper references and material that depended on those references, an effort which has been discussed ad-nausem here. It rapidly became apparent that this article was being actively patrolled by partisans. My edits were repeatedly reverted by anonymous editors and later by Vabio1. My efforts to find compromise were ignored, so I reported the problem on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Vabio1 was, as a result, sanctioned for edit-warring and violation of the 3-revert rule.

Afterward, I did some searching and found some material to balance the article, which I have posted with references. Unfortunately, Vabio1 returned to the practice of using unsuitable references, this time using Wikipedia:coatrack commentary on a non-partisan organization that happened to rate Frederick poorly, and he added references in another section of the biography that demanded readers to do synthesis for verification. Zeamays (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)zeamays

American

"Born to an American father and Colombian mother,[1] Frederick spent his early childhood in Northern Virginia"

The Colombian mother is by definition American. What country is the "American father" from? ---Dagme (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Biographical info

In the United States, "The Honorable" is a title accorded to elected officials, and once the title is obtained, the person has it for life (see Wikipedia:The_Honourable and http://www.formsofaddress.info/Honorable.html).

How is the subject's personal website not a relevant source for biographical information like occupation and activities? The news media would consider such a source acceptable. This person is no longer a politician having been out of office for over 5 years but maintains other activities and this article should reflect that with relevant information. The article had become stale and needed updating to account for the years since the subject left public office. Is there some dispute that he has professional and leisure activities? Do not professional and other activities help inform a reader about who a person is?