Talk:Rob Portman

Signature

Portman's signature comes up at his campaign website's splash page (please Google Image search 'Rob Portman signature.') Can someone please upload that image to Wikipedia, and insert it inside his profile box on this page? Similar Wikipedia pages have signatures, and because his is available online, it would be a great asset to this page. Someone with experience uploading images to Wikipedia should upload it, or explain to me how it can be done without problems.--Camairaen (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

merger of Jane Dudley Portman?

I think the two articles should be merged, with content on Jane Dudley Portman and the rest of the family in the personal life section. Being on a hospital board and supporting meals on wheels are both wonderful things to do but neither of them amount to a reasonable claim of notability independent of the fact that she is a senator's wife. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There is enough reference material, relevance, and visibility for this subject to stand on its own, with its own page. The references are substantial and ongoing.--OhioTruths (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The test here is if we would have an article on her were she not married to a senator. I do not see any evidence she has done anything on her own notable enough to warrant an article. Spouses of notable persons are not automatically notable themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There is incredible amounts of information about her activities and life available online, very apart from other spouses of high-profile U.S. citizens. She is married to a U.S. Senator (whether hypothetically she were not) and was highly involved in numerous elections, including 2010 and 2012. She possesses a profile both needing of a separate page and beneficial to the continuing growth of the encyclopedia: 'merging' this page would only work to stymie additional works. Including all of Jane Dudley Portman’s referenced information on her page in Rob’s page would deter, as well, from a consistently readable Rob Portman page.

Other examples that raise similar concerns from your argument are: Ann Romney, Cindy McCain, various spouses of U.S. celebrities, and American volunteers close to political decision makers. If you disagree with this measurement, please explain what sets them apart. I see all have been involved in national political campaigns.

I reiterate keeping the page separate, and keeping it condensed as a gesture to this discussion and future discussions.--OhioTruths (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Merge References mostly articles about husband: activities are normal activities of a politician's partner.TheLongTone (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the merger proposal tag because the article on Jane Dudley Portman was previously deleted. --TommyBoy (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

GTLB rights

No, we do not change acronyms of well established notability because you think it is better. That is just never going to be done here on Wikipedia. The LGBT acronym is the correct way to address the community. Also, the wording of the sections and reliable sourcing was better before you made the changes. Perhaps if you can gain Consensus here on the Talk page to make your wanted insertions, it may be possible. Otherwise, you should not edit war any further. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I will gladly make the change again. To the second comment, I would like to know from what sources, if any, you make the conjecture. I do not know why the editors of the Rob Portman page cannot make reasonable accommodations like this for the obvious facts listed. In this specific case of the Portman announcement, there is considerable leverage to change the title. Aside from what is proposed in GTLB, which seems to fit this case, there is a very popular and widely prolific use of the GLBT acronym, which serves as a compromise between these two users. GLBT is, if not the most prolific, more prolific than LGBT in many places and universities. To any point that using an acronym without the “L” first is somehow incorrect, that’s nonsensical: think of all the men who were gay who fought in all the wars that have led to this pacific political moment in history. There’s a major historical reason for listing “G” always first when suggested, no matter who’s out against it. Per the compromise resolution, this is getting listed now to the Rob Portman page to bet suit the subject, the announcement, and the overall situation; I am also alphabetizing this in the political topics listed in his Senate tenure for this necessary accommodation and re-inserting the information you deleted in the topic’s body.

Do not edit war or delete this information further unless there is need to adjust the letters following “G.” This is rather final now. The opinions of prominent editors on this page will be sought if warring and deletions continue. --Camairaen (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Healthcare issue

This edit violates WP:NPOV and per WP:BLP the burden is on the editor adding the content to justify its inclusion.CFredkin (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

These sourced edits are impartial and their sources are all impartial, if that's your worry. But two users deleted clearly substantial information, and that is the only thing that needs justified. Thanks--Reducman (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only is the section on "Health insurance" wildly POV, it's not supported by the sources provided. I'm removing per WP:BLP.CFredkin (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey if you're new, great. But, you should not outright delete whole sections about political topics. Always just cite your issue; but not take down entire section. I'll just re-include it in my next edit. Or maybe you can since you deleted all of it without anyone to first talk with.--Reducman (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The statement regarding contributions from the insurance industry is redundant with existing content in the 2010 Election section. So I'm removing it.CFredkin (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin has a mistaken understanding of "burden" as it applies to BLPs. "The burden of evidence" on the last sentence of WP:BLP's lede refers to "the burden of proof" which links to WP:BURDEN, aka verifiability of sources. So, as long as the burden of verifiability is accomplished, content can remain in BLPs. CFredkin has taken that approach on other articles related to conservative politicians, and the way to manage this process is to ask 3rd party editors to weigh in, such as posting at WP:BLP/N. 18:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Social security

Please don't add contentious material sourced to partisan websites. If editors want to add to the article about Portman's position on social security over the years, there are some good pointers here: [1]. Cwobeel (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

ThinkProgress

is not a reliable source for this edit. Unless/until you can obtain a consensus that it is, please stop adding it to this WP:BLP.CFredkin (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletions

Don't delete content that is not contentious or controversial. Instead, use {{Citation needed}}. Cwobeel (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

sp exeperience

not a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources

There's a noticeboard that discusses reliable sources and the prevailing view there seems to be that ThinkProgress is not reliable. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BringthePaine (talk • contribs) 16:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, the primary source for this on C-Span says that it's "user-uploaded" content: Portman vocally supported President Bush’s “exciting” proposal to privatize Social Security by transitioning the existing program into “personal accounts” invested in the stock market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BringthePaine (talk • contribs) 21:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay--, but let's not be too hasty here. I object to your sweeping deletions of multiple sections of the article. These have to be handled one by one. If Portman is on record as getting excited about personal accounts invested in the stock market... That's privatization. Let's call a spade a spade. I mean, that *defines* privatization of Social Security, as envisioned by GWBush and co. So if Portman once (and/or currently) triumphed this cause, it should be recorded, particularly since it is such a key indicator of political ideology. One way or the other please do not just delete Portman's POV on social security: it's one of the most pressing issues for millions of Ohioans and Americans. --Smilo Don (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

So, it took me all of ten seconds to find the source from the archives of WhiteHouse.gov to confirm the darn quote. What's such a shame here, BringthePaine, is your habit of deleting anything you deem unverified. It strikes me as behavior antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia. Deleting is necessary yes, but it's not our first line of action. First, we call for citations and clarification and so forth. We don't just delete. And with an issue as crucial as social security, this is a vital issue. Now it may be the other editors of Rob Portman have composed unbalanced or poorly cited sections, but that does not give another editor (and a newbie at that) the right to come in blasting everything to bits. Please, please, please: add to the sources, add balance, add information, etc. I asking you to literally be constructive: to *build*, fix, tinker, strengthen. Smilo Don (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You were called out by other editors for adding improperly sourced content at another article. I don't believe the above statement is accurate where biographies are concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BringthePaine (talk • contribs) 19:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

There are 2 sources for the following content. One is user-uploaded content at C-SPAN (and therefore not reliable) and the other C-SPAN source doens't support the statement: Portman vocally supported President Bush’s “exciting” proposal to privatize Social Security by transitioning the existing program into “personal accounts” invested in the stock market.

I've edited the content according to the remaining C-SPAN source.

BringthePaine, please avoid ad hominem attacks on other users. The C-Span user-created clip is being displayed on the C-Span government website because it is a direct quote by Portman about Social Security privatization: the video remains his unadulterated words, therefore it should be allowable to use this as an Internet source just as it continues to stay on C-Span's website. And the next fact is the ThinkProgress source utilizes a direct quote from Portman in this case. Furthermore, ThinkProgress is generally progressive, but not partisan, and I see no reason why the source or the sentences it is being used as a reference for should be deleted. All the material needs to stay as it is.--Republicsisterhood (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

"Spotlighted elite"

This is a very odd and confusing section: "Portman gradually became a confidante of Cincinnati’s spotlighted elite, and has remained an associate of several of Ohio’s widely-known residents, including Bob Taft, Carl Lindner, and Anthony Munoz." First, what is "spotlighted elite" supposed to mean? I have never heard of that term, and don't see it in any of the sources. One of the sources in that section redirects to the homepage of the Cincinnati Enquirer, and another is a link to login at High Beam research. The source retrieval dates are also all given as December 2012, but it is October 2016 and as far as I can tell this material was just added to the article. Some more clarification/explanation would be useful, otherwise I would advocate removing this material because it doesn't appear to be adding substance and it confusing. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I understand "spotlighted elite" either. Is it an Ohio thing? I agree with some editors that we have to be careful not to report too much what names his opponents called him, unless it's especially relevant. (I could see some of Trump's zingers like "Crooked Hillary" or "Lyin' Ted"; if only b/c they were national news.) If we start quoting opponents' negative advertising on Wiki pages... oh my. --Smilo Don (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "spotlighted elite" is a name his opponents called him. I'm not even sure what it means at all. @Republicsisterhood: could you please clarify this content? Champaign Supernova (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with decision to remove. Just don't know what it means. I think it's possible to show who Portman's political allies are, who his major financial contibutors are, etc. , but the section--as written--didn't seem very informative or objective. --Smilo Don (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This was added during a previous edit by another user, then deleted. It adds insight into the Senator's ties and rise in politics. I do not think it is worded in a way that jeopardizes the article's objectivity. "Spotlighted elite" is not being used to refer to the Senator here, but instead to those figures listed as being associated with his rise. Elite is an accepted sociological term used widely throughout the discipline. Keep the sentence in its original form.--Republicsisterhood (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Slur

The following statement is an unfounded attack by a political opponent and has no business being included here:

Buchert ran campaign commercials citing McEwen's bounced checks, the expenses of his congressional office, and his campaign finance disclosures, while also calling Portman "the handpicked choice of the downtown money crowd" and "a registered foreign agent for the biggest Democrat lobbying firm in Washington," notedly labeling Portman and McEwen "Prince Rob and Bouncing Bob."

No, it adds insight into his first election to Congress and the environment he eventually won in. The names are accurately sourced and from a newspaper of the time which recorded his opponent's use of the words. This needs to remain as it is in the article.--Republicsisterhood (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)