Talk:Mia Love

references are to interviews with subject herself

no 3rd party source. is this how wiki works?

Haitian

Respectfully, I believe there is an error in the wording of the first sentence "Ludmya 'Mia' B. Love (born 1975) is the first female African-American to serve as a city mayor in Utah." Mia Love is an American born of Haitian parents, as the article later states. The only people who refer to themselves as "African-Americans" are the descendants of American slavery, a name they adapted during the Black Pride Movement. The children of Caribbean immigrants never refer to ourselves as "African Americans," but rather as [country name]-Americans (i.e. Haitian-American in Mayor Love's case), or as "Americans of Caribbean heritage/descent." This is the reason why Caribbeans had a movement starting last February to get their own box on the Census form (see four bullet points up from bottom http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/04/eye_opener_obamas_calls_for_su.html). I propose that the sentence be changed to "Ludmya 'Mia' B. Love (born 1975) is the first woman of African descent to serve as a city mayor in Utah." Amberblossoms (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

>The only people who refer to themselves as "African-Americans" are the descendants of American slavery --

> you are so right

The very first paragraph in the Wikipedia article on Barack Obama states "Barack Hussein Obama II (i/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office." He is not descended from American slaves (well, technically, he might be through his mother's side, but the genealogical evidence is a bit weak). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.25.61 (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Mia Love is not a hyphenated American, nor of "African" descent.

The complaint is raised that Mia Love, a personal friend, is not an African-American because her parents were born in Haiti. That is true, for two reasons. First, because her parents were born in Haiti, not Africa. Secondly, because Mia is loathe to be called a hyphenated American of any prior national affiliation. Mia was born in the United States. Those that call themselves African-Americans are almost exclusively members of the the Democrat Party, or any political association that is not of the Republican Party. Mia is a staunch member of the Republican Party. Members of the Republican Party, if a need for a label ever occurs, refer to themselves as Black Americans. Mia Love follows that custom.

Mia Love's ancestors lived in Haiti for many generations removed from the continent of Africa. To the extent that generations of those of "European", et alia, descent do not refer to themselves as such, neither is it correct to refer to Mia Love as of African descent. Again, a need for an ethnocentric label is a quality anathema to members of the Republican Party. UTresident (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see is that that sources call her "the first black woman to...". So completely removing it I thing would be wrong. However, some ideas at the Failed Wikipedia:African American discussion may work her. Perhaps change it to "Haitian-American". However, I dislike "Black-American".--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This article has Mia describing herself as "African-American." It is from 2004 though, and I'd be curious to know if there are any current media sources where she doesn't use that phrase. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what party she may or may not be in has anything to do with it, but if she doesn't identify as "African American" then it shouldn't be there, still no reason to bring partisanship into a manor like this, plus were you really trying to say she isn't of African "descent", not to be rude. but I have ask if you know what the word means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.104.4 (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

fixed?

I fix the text to remove the "African American" label. Is the tone OK now? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilingbandit (talk • contribs) 15:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Eliminate Department of Education and Energy?

Why does this keep getting edited, moved, and reworded? This is the actual line from the article, and it follows the paragraphs that discusses dismantling the black caucus....

The caucus isn't the only thing Love said she would dismantle in Washington. The departments of education and energy must go, she said. States, she said, should take back those duties along with health care.

Shouldn't it follow the paragrpahs from the same article where it talks about and she says...

If elected in November, Love would be the first black Republican woman in Congress and Utah's first black representative. She said she would join the Congressional Black Caucus in Washington, D.C., should she win.

"Yes, yes. I would join the Congressional Black Caucus and try to take that thing apart from the inside out," she said.

Though officially nonpartisan, the caucus has been more closely identified with the Democratic Party.

"It’s demagoguery. They sit there and ignite emotions and ignite racism when there isn’t," Love said. "They use their positions to instill fear. Hope and change is turned into fear and blame. Fear that everybody is going lose everything and blaming Congress for everything instead of taking responsibility."

It doesn't flow, and it's taken out of context when broken up as it's currently worded...the whole idea of her saying she wants to take apart the black caucus is in line with breaking up the dept of education and energy and from the same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.175.49 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Should we mention that Mrs. Love's husband is of European descent

I do not think this fact is mentioned in the article, and I am not sure if it is relevant or worth mentioning. This article http://newsone.com/346727/meet-mia-love-utahs-first-african-american-mayor/ makes that clear with its lead picture, and the earliest Deseret News article on her (from 2004, when she had been on the city council about 9 months) not only mentions that Mia and Jason are of different racial backgrounds, but discusses the way this effects the physical apparence of their children. The fact that she is married to a white man has not come up much in more recent coverage. In fact, thinking about it, the race of her husband is often left unstated, but we clearly have the sources for saying he is white/of European descent. I am not sure how best to phrase that, or where it should be place. I will try, but feel free to relocate it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• There was once a Deseret News article that discussed how some people reacted to Mia Love hanging out with her husband's white family and them wondering how she knew them. I believe this was an article in January 2005 leading up to Martin Luther King Jr. Day, but I may be wrong about the year and the exact reason for the article. I believe she was on the city council when it ran, but the article only incidentlally mentioned she was on the city council. I am only 90% certain it was a Deseret News article, I am 100% certain I read it. With Mrs. Love becoming such a popular topic in the Blogosphere, it is hard to hunt down pre-April 10, 2012 articles. I will try to find the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It is possible the article I am thinking of ran in the Provo Herald. Either way it was not about Mrs. Love, but about perceptions of race in Utah. I will continue trying to find it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Potentially first Haitian-American in congress?

Does anyone know if there have to date been any other Haitian Americans serve in congress? If yes, were they children of two Haitian immigrant parents, Haitian immigrants themselves, or more distantly removed from their Haitain roots?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

African-Americaness revisited

--- The Wiki for Colin Powell lists him as the son of Jamaican immigrants but also calls him 'African-American'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.46.32 (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Photo

The photo currently displayed is low quality, there must be some quality headshots out there, any objection to a change? Cavdoc (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but it can't be copyrighted, which is what most available images are. See WP:IUP for more details. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I found one and added it. Someone else can crop it out later. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

that looks a lot better, thanks for that! Cavdoc (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability of "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" vandalism on national news

Should we include the national news mention on this edit, which included the quoted language above?99.102.212.191 (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. Vandalism happens all the time on Wikipedia. And don't try to reinsert material that's been over sighted/deleted because it's degrading by including it in discussion headings, please. - Nunh-huh 16:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It was only hidden after the news went national. It seems your concerns and censorship of a quoted national news headline are self-serving and seek to further the interests of Wikipedia as an institution - and not to consider the notability of this event based upon its encyclopedic merit. I have to admit that I'm taken aback by your deletion and censorship of me directly quoting a headline read already by millions throughout the world.99.102.212.191 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with 99.102.212.191 and 76.6.218.158's sentiments. It should be included. 75.150.245.242 (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone knows racism doesn't matter when it benefits Democrats. Eric Holder proved that when he refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers. Evidently Wikipedia is reluctant to post anything that makes Democrats look bad.76.6.218.158 (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that now even the Talk page history has been scrubbed of any quotation of the internationally read headline regarding Wikipedia's term for Mia Love.99.102.212.191 (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a conspiracy or some other sort of similar BS. Stuff like this happens all of the time on Wikipedia and usually goes unnoticed. Part of this is a general philosophy where vandals should not be given any sort of special attention, as that is precisely what they crave. If they keep pushing against a brick wall and nothing happens and there is nothing to show for their effort, generally they go away. What is happening here on this page is just a bunch of idiots who will move on to the next big thing and eventually leave this page alone. Just ignore that this happened and be done with it. As for folks trying to make Mt. Everest out of an ant hill over the vandalism on this page (and that is perhaps overstating the reality here as that is insulting to ants and the size of their mounds), saying that vandalism happens on Wikipedia is a joke. It shouldn't even be news. Certainly editors who mention this in outside media sources are just sensationalizing something that really shouldn't even be mentioned at all. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If someone had made these comments about President Obama or some other black Democrat, I doubt you'd be taking it so lightly. Why do you trivialize racism?76.6.218.158 (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that you spend a couple of minutes at least (if not a few hours if you really want to see some nasty stuff) on the Barack Obama and George W. Bush articles on Wikipedia. Heck, I've had vandals write stuff far more insulting than the stuff said about Mia Love on my own personal user and talk pages. Don't go presuming my political leanings here either (you might be surprised). I'm just saying this is rather normal to Wikipedia. If something like that was put up and attempts to remove that kind of hateful speech were reverted consistently and admins on Wikipedia were defending hateful content like that, such content would be newsworthy. At the moment, that doesn't seem to be the case and in fact the admins on Wikipedia seem to have things well under control. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I'm the one who hid several offensive edits from the article's history, not User:Nunh-huh. This was a routine action that Wikipedia administrators do based on Wikipedia policy to protect biographies of living people (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for details). There is nothing political or conspiratorial about this - I simply removed offensive edits as I have done with countless other articles. When the offensive edits were repeated here on this talk page, I removed them as well. Wikipedia does not tolerate this type of behavior, and Wikipedia administrators will continue to protect this page and others from similar attacks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a philosophy on Wikipedia that extends to every article, called Revert, Block, Ignore. It means to block those who vandalize Wikipedia, revert their actions (undoing the vandalism) and deny them the recognition they're seeking by being vandals. The Barrack Obama article has been vandalized heavily in the past, and those edits were reverted and scrubbed as well, so this isn't treatment given only to subjects who belong to a particular political party. Volunteers at Wikipedia try to be careful with biographies of living people, because negative material reported about people can do real life harm. Any negative material that can't be backed up with a reliable source is removed, and anything that is seriously damaging is removed from even the history of a page to protect the article subject. This isn't about making any political party look bad, it's only about not causing damage to Mrs. Love, just as we try not to cause damage to any other living person. This is in accordance with our policy on biographies of living persons. -- Atama頭 18:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability

It appears the event has given the candidate a significant bounce in money:Slate The event is also rippling out on both sides of the ideological aisle:policymic. It's worth noting, especially as it has clearly generated more newsprint than any other event in her life save possibly for her speech.99.102.212.191 (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It was just routine vandalism, the same that goes on basically every minute on Wikipedia. It should not be in the article. 72Dino (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Its notability is dictated by reliable secondary sources. Fox News just gave it headline treatment here, and context:"Mia Love Wikipedia page vandalized with slurs" and used the incident to underscore their report that "The attack comes as Democrats and liberal media outlets criticize or downplay the GOP's effort at showcasing diversity at their convention in Tampa." 99.102.212.191 (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Salt Lake Tribune has also picked it up and mentioned it locally, stating, "her Wikipedia page was defaced with disparaging comments calling her a “sell-out to the Right Wing Hate Machine” and using a racial epithet."... as an aside it also noted that her "name was the top Google search term as of Wednesday afternoon."99.102.212.191 (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

While this Salt Lake Tribune article did mention the vandalism in this article, it was also a passing remark and certainly not the focus of the article. There is no reason to put any information about this vandalism into the article, although elaborating upon the general impact that the speech at the national convention may be of some value and certainly does need to be included in this article... perhaps even to a slightly larger degree than currently exists. I'm sure you can find some detractors of Mia Love that are of a slightly higher caliber than some random idiot vandalizing a Wikipedia page. Frankly, I find it simply indefensible that you would even include something like this. See also WP:UNDUE, which is Wikipedia policy that applies in this situation as well. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

ABC News local affiliate in Utah headlines with it, "Racial and sexist Wikipedia comments anger Mia Love supporters". It is the sole focus of the article, as were several of the others ref'd above. The Provo Utah Daily Herald also ran with it, ""After Love's speech .. her page on .. Wikipedia was edited to contain racial slurs and other degrading comments. "99.102.212.191 (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

@IP: It was run of the mill vandalism, and although the vandalism is getting some press coverage, it is not yet significant enough to be mentioned in the article. Yes, there are some press reports on it, but not every fact needs to be in the article. Articles are restricted to encyclopedic information. Some guidelines to bear in mind are WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:NAVEL. I'd recommend letting a month go by, and if in October 2012, with the benefit of hindsight, this looks like a major event in her life, then perhaps it could go in the article. But not today. --Noleander (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Routine vandalism. Not News. Seems that the media has enough to report than to talk about some minor vandalism, which was all removed within a few minutes.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Routine vandalism? It's a very large and widely reported event that has caused commentary on both sides of the ideological aisle - and reliable, notable secondary sources have written entire reports devoted solely to it, while numerous others have found it critical enough to include the event, and its after-effects, in still more reports. Over-riding the reliable secondary sources because you 'know better' what they should report is not an acceptable practice, nor is shunting it aside unless it's still a daily news event a month from now. 99.102.212.191 (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be to leave it out. I'm not quite sure why you are so adamant about including it, but you don't appear to have much support for having it in the article. 72Dino (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Its inclusion is warranted by the numerous reliable secondary sources that have deemed it noteworthy. Now the Salt Lake Tribune has written still another report which refers to the incident. It's an event of significance - irregardless of any attempts here by the locals to downplay it due to embarrassment and institutional protectionism. 99.102.212.191 (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. Read them, get to know them. They are your new best friend.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Throwing out acronyms does nothing, you're using those little cliched links as thought minimizing devices - you imagine that the mere mention of policy somehow forms an argument. I've presented numerous solid references and overcome specific objections as to "not the focus of the article, etc .. and I've offered reliable secondary sources that have placed the incident in the context of the candidate and the times. A serious , sober and well referenced argument has been made for consideration. No serious argument has been presented for ignoring the reality of the event.99.102.212.191 (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Out of a sense of thoroughness I've reread (I've read them numerous times now over the years) the entries you pointed vaguely to. You should have read them first yourself, there is no argument to be found there to deny inclusion of this significant event.99.102.212.191 (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The vandalism to this page has now become a notable event. I think there should be a section noting that the vandalism occured, but the comments themselves have no place on the article or the talk page. Just my two cents. Korentop (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Quincy Jones' VIBE magazine has now put the story out to a still wider audience, one younger and less political. MIA LOVE WIKIPEDIA PAGE VANDALIZED This article is currently featured on both the VIBE homepage & the News page.99.102.212.191 (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Utah Pulse has also now put it out to their readership in the business and governmental community: Love's Wikipedia Page Temporarily Defaced...99.102.212.191 (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

More reports, now from the entertainment press. Enstarz headlines their report: Mia Love Speech Hit With Slurs After RNC, Called 'Worthless' in Wikipedia Hack ....99.102.212.191 (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Digital Journal adds a new one:"These insulting remarks haven’t hurt the campaign, but rather it has generated support among Republican voters and Independents, who are contributing to ..."...99.102.212.191 (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to concur that the vandalism has become a notable event as it has now been featured in a large number of US national news stories. Is vandalism notable and SHOULD this incident be notable? Of course not... we revert thousands and thousands of vandalism hits a day, but this particular one has apparently taken off in the media. HOWEVER(!!!), I'm not convinced that it is suitable for inclusion based on WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS, this is something that I feel will have to develop a little longer before we know if it's something that will have a lasting impact. The WP:UNDUE argument is crap, though. You want to find the most POV person in a political article debate? Look for the person that is waving around the WP:UNDUE flag the most. Trusilver 16:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I still think it should be left out, noting that those who are sensationalizing this particular incident here on Wikipedia really are clueless about Wikipedia and its policies. Out of the billion plus people who have internet access, is it possible for one particular anonymous troll to have something hurtful or derogatory about any other random person? Absolutely. That is all that has happened, and for the sake of protecting Wikipedia I think it should stay removed as well without mention. That people who are long-time Wikipedia editors should perhaps try to educate these "mainstream" news publishers about the project and convince them to also ignore similar kinds of trollish behavior on Wikipedia perhaps, but it really isn't news. It also seems weridly self-serving to be talking about Wikipedia on Wikipedia (although I do know that the Wikipedia article exists too).

As for WP:UNDUE applying here, on the scale of things this is so minor and inconsequential I find that including even a single sentence about this incident to be far more coverage than it deserves. There are going to be a whole bunch of hateful things said about Mia Love over time, particularly if she gets elected to the U.S. House of Representatives or becomes involved in some other manner in Utah politics (just as likely even if she loses). What other forums have been used to make such racist comments, and can any of those comments be tied to anybody remotely worthy of note? If Barack Obama had said such a thing about Mia Love (or even Harry Reid), it would be noteworthy. If the user account who made the edit could be traced to the DNC or again something noteworthy, that too would be something worthy of mentioning. Some random nobody making a trollish comment that was almost immediately reverted and then furthermore had oversight applied to remove the comment from the page history altogether just doesn't seem to rise to the same level of comparison for notability worthy of being included in this article. That is the reason I think it is self-serving and applying undue weight in this article for what it represents. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with excluding any mention of the vandalism, for WP:NAVEL among other reasons. There are a lot of wikipedia articles that are vandalized, and if we start adding these navel gazing self-references every time such vandalism makes a splash in the news, we will start looking unencyclopedic. Wookian (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to concur. I deal with a lot of vandalism and a lot of vandals. This is nothing new or noteworthy here. We are an encyclopedia, not a news organization. Is anyone going to care about vandalism on her Wikipedia article in twenty-five years? No. There were more than likely be plenty of other things that she will have accomplished in her life that will be in this article, but some asinine vandalism by some anonymous IP isn't worth our time. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree on leaving it out, but let's make sure we are doing it for the correct reasons. Everyone here knows damn well that articles get vandalized on a near constant basis and that making a news article about one act of vandalism is a little bit on the absurd side. BUT... we don't make that call, or at least we shouldn't. We are in a unique position here that we all know how the project works and understand that irrelevance of one act of vandalism (zomg! WP:OR!). But, those outside the project know no such thing... and regardless of our own knowledge, this SHOULD be included if it overcomes certain criteria such as WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. In other words... WP:NAVEL should be overcome if the notability of the event warrants it. Right now? it's not happening. I'm not going to speculate on what it would take for that notability to be reached, because every scenario in my head is of exceptionally poor taste, but the possibility exists. Trusilver 00:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

When I see WP:NOTNEWS invoked, that seems to suggest the content should be moved over to the Wikinews sister website to Wikipedia. There certainly does seem to be content rising to that level where perhaps a more legitimate "news story" should be written instead of an encyclopedia article (and why that sister project was created in the first place). In this case, it wasn't even newsworthy. The noteworthy issue being raised at all here in terms of Mia Love and what should be in this article is the reaction to the speech she gave at the convention. Out of all of the places and possible websites and discussion forums that could be used to identify reactions to the speech (positive or negative), the only one that seems to be raised at all is a troll comment on Wikipedia? Is that the best anybody else can find? --Robert Horning (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Textbook case of bias & original research. Wikipedia editors find embarrassment in the generation of numerous articles across media from multiple categories devoted to or mentioning the degradation of this articles subject - and being experts on the ins and outs of Wikipedia pronounce that in their considerable expert opinion ... this is all much ado about nothing.

It is not the place of the vested parties here to censor reliably sourced notable events. By any measure the incident in question has had a significant impact - and is reliably reported to have had a significant impact on the congressional race that she is involved in and her own candidacies fund raising. It is the second largest subject in her national press behind only her speech before the R. convention and a significant portion of her local press from all major Utah newspapers and Utah publications.99.102.212.191 (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

A snippet from WP:BLP: "Avoid victimization: When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. [...] This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.".

I agree that the vandalism is well sourced, but for reasons of WP:NAVEL plus the WP:BLP notes above, which seem to apply directly herebe at least somewhat related to this case, this is a bad choice to expand the article at this time. In general Wikipedia is not about censorship; but we also are supposed to take WP:BLP's more seriously than general news media, so it's OK to refuse to gratify WP vandals with recognition, at least in the absence of an incredibly strong reason to do otherwise. Wookian (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Books & Review (a new category of media again) headlines their article on the incident, "Mia Love Speech: Recieves Twitter Support After Racist and Sexist Remarks .... 99.102.212.191 (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

College News also adds the incident to their report on Love's speech.99.102.212.191 (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I will repeat: What is notable here is not the vandalism on this page but rather the reaction to the speech... of which the vandalism was just one very minor part. For crying out loud, how often does a comment under an article on the New York Times ever get mentioned... particularly after it is removed by the website operator? This is no different and in fact I would dare say weaker still. This is a nonevent. Are any racists arguments on blogs, comment sections, or forums going to be mentioned here too? That other "media sources" are even mentioning this sort of speaks about their ignorance of Wikipedia than anything genuinely newsworthy or notable. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No one advocating wiki vandalism as a "notable event" is addressing the fact that if the wiki acknowledges the vandalism as notable, the vandals are rewarded and encouraged. If we react to vandalism by incorporating it into the targeted article in any form, we can only expect it to proliferate. Bustter (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

An exception to that which has been noted is when trollish behavior could be traced to notable people by virtue of the IP addresses that they used. BTW, I did do a quick IP trace (nothing fancy) and it led to what appears to be consumer ISP companies in Los Angeles and Chicago. That is sort of the danger if you use an IP address edit I should note too. Examples of this can be found on Vandalism on Wikipedia#Notable Acts of Vandalism. Having Steven Colbert literally taping his act of vandalism on-air and then broadcasting the action sort of rises to the level of notability. In fact is was the blatant vandalism of the John Seigenthaler article which led to the WP:BLP policy becoming adopted on Wikipedia. I'm not denying that there could be something from vandalism that could be notable, but in this case on this article about Mia Love? Please, let's be serious. It should also be something of an extreme even for Wikipedia which in this case certainly doesn't rise to that level of something exceptional or noteworthy. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles like [1] make it clear that there is some significance of the vandalism in terms of the overall post-convention notability. Maybe indeed there shouldn't be, and the press should know better, because any idiot can vandalize Wikipedia. But omitting all mention altogether? That seems overly self serving. Yes, I know that giving the idiot a forum only encourages him, but our #1 priority should be covering the topic, not avoiding vandalism. This is subtle, but it would be the same fundamental fallacy as if we deleted the article 'Penis' to avoid the inevitable tomfoolery it invites. I think that half a dozen words, sourced to a general article like the one I cite here, in the context of general post-convention reception, are warranted. Wnt (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This has no comparison to the Penis article. It isn't because of the contents of the remark, but because it wasn't even a noteworthy remark. What makes this particular incident anything special, other than a bunch of hacks trying to fill their articles or air time on radio broadcasts trying to prove that somebody in this world hates Mia Love? Is this really the only negative reaction to Mia Love's speech? --Robert Horning (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well that's a very good question. Why is it supposed to be newsworthy that she was hit with these comments on the free encyclopedia anybody can vandalize? Is it some elaborate means of garnering sympathy, or legitimizing antagonism, or a media-versus-net thing... I have no guess. We should cover such things and not try to analyze them, in the hope that sooner or later the causes clarify themselves. Wnt (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

As to the question of "What makes this event notable?" It's clear - it received national press as both the sole focus of, and in numerous other articles as a significant portion of, reliably sourced secondary sources across a wide swath of media in a number of diverse outlets, music, entertainment, books...just to name a few.

By any measure the incident in question has had a significant impact - and is reliably reported to have had a significant impact on the congressional race that she is involved in and her own candidacies fund raising. It is the second largest subject in her national press behind only her speech before the R. convention and a significant portion of her local press from all major Utah newspapers and Utah publications. (note that my ip address has changed, I previously wrote to this discussion above with ip:99.x ...)108.71.163.44 (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Is It Vandalism?

I'm not sure why we call it "vandalism." How can they be "vandals" when we essentially hand them a can of spray paint and show them the way to the boxcars?

I am constantly criticized when I quote Wikipedia on other sites, specifically for that reason -- we don't even try to vet our contributors. Understand that the criticism I get isn't that we don't try hard enough. It's that we don't try at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbone0106 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss this. Try the Village pump. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry about my quote. The lines involved seem pretty egregious. I guess you are right that acknowledging them gives power to those involved. I do think though some people have gone overboard in shouting vandalism. Some of the edits that have been tagged as "vandalism" were good faith if misguided edits. I would add a word of caution to tagging anything as "vandalism". Vandalism is deliberately provocative edits meant to disrupt content. Claims that there are lots of wikipedia editors with evil intent are not vadalism. They may be unjustified and unwise, but they are not vandalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"We don't even try to vet our contributors." Huh?

The vetting of what contributors do is done on the fly and is a part of the editorial process on Wikipedia by other contributors and volunteer editors, with some occasional help by volunteer "administrators" who help out from time to time in dealing with difficult contributors. The idea is that you are invited to contribute until you have proven yourself to be a problem rather than a permission based system that doesn't allow you to contribute until you have proven yourself in some other manner. Wikipedia as it exists today would not be here if a strong credential system was in place.

BTW, I agree that this whole discussion about vandalism in general needs to be ultimately moved to the Village Pump. If there is something explicit that needs to be talked about this particular article and some particular edit that somebody thinks was unfairly reverted or removed, raising those issues here on the talk page is entirely justified. Be specific about a particular edit and try to justify why that edit needs to remain in this article or why it needs to be deleted. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Source statements

Make sure statements are well sourced. If there is a statement in the article that "Love will be the first x" it needs to have a source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Republican National Convention Speech

Here http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865561398/Mia-Love-speech-at-Republican-National-Convention-pitch-perfect-on-national-stage.html is a good Deseret News article on her speach. I am not sure how best to incorporate anything from it in the article. I will leave that to others who are better at incorporating material into articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Here http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/mia-love-gops-african-american-mormon-candidate-rocks-rnc/ is a what looks like a blog/opinion peace on her speach. I am not sure that saying she "energized the convention" is worth putting in the article. It seems a lot like presentist passing statements, but it might be worth noting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Upon reflection, she is seen as a Republican "rising star" ! Here is a quote from a day later: "And her speech was refreshingly positive, focusing on her experience as the daughter of Haitian immigrants."

• "My parents immigrated to the U.S. with ten dollars in their pocket, believing that the America they had heard about really did exist. When times got tough they didn't look to Washington, they looked within," Love told the audience. "So the America I came to know was centered in personal responsibility and filled with the American dream."
• "President Obama's version of America is a divided one -- pitting us against each other based on our income level, gender, and social status," she continued. "Mr. President I am here to tell you we are not buying what you are selling in 2012."
• Watch her whole speech: [2] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 August 2012

In External links, please move the parameter in the standalone IMDb template into the CongLinks template. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems minor and uncontroversial so  Done. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The race to Washington DC

Editors here are discussing 'notability'. What is most notable is that Mia Love is poised to be the first black Republican congressman in the history of the nation. Here's a current quote: Ludmya "Mia" Bourdeau Love is the mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, and the 2012 Republican Party nominee for the United States House of Representatives in Utah's 4th congressional district.

This is why people will be coming to Wikipedia to read about Mia Love. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you read section headings and not content. No one is questioning her notability. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

The good thing about America is that we can beleive whatever we want no matter what race, color or creed.. Mia, I salute you as a strong woman with great values and the fortitude to stand on the principles you live by... That's what makes being an American so great.. The haters can hate but the truth is, the group should not affect the individual liberties of any one person... If the grouop intimidates to change any individuals ideaoligy, that is intimidation and bullying and that is not what America is about.. Stay stong and thank you for your example of dignity and stregth... You are an American!!!! William Hall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.226.90 (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

My point was that a new section in the Article is needed. I understand the discussion here in TALK. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion that Ms. Love, if elected, would be "the first black Republican congressman" is incorrect. See African Americans in the United States Congress. Perhaps you mean that she would become the first female black Republican Member of Congress? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The term "first black Republican congressman" is of course a needless redundancy. The first African American member of congress was a Republican. Actually the first 20 or so African Americans in congress were all Republicans. At present there are two African American Republicans serving in congress, Allen West and Tim Scott.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Anchor baby" language

As Mother Jones has retracted their original claim, should the language be deleted from the article? Kelly ^hi! 15:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/55031749-90/love-mia-bourdeau-family.html.csp?page=2 Oct. 8, 2012 "Salt Lake Tribune" article includes comments based on an interview with Mrs. Love's father, Jean Bordeau, in which he presents the view that Mia's birth was the key to permanents resident status and eventual citizenship. Of course Mr. Borudeau may avctually have been wrong, and he might have been able to get enough information and evidence to get permanent status as a political refugree from Papa Doc Duvalier's atocratic regime before then, but the fact that he believes this, although my guess is he is probably right and would not have been able to convince the authorities without a citizen child, it is clear that this is the story that Mia was told from her earliest recollections and to imply that it is a late innovation as part of her campaign is questionable. It feels to me like these is too much attention being given to this issue in the article, and it comes off to me as unfounded accusations, but I am not sure how best to rewrite it to reflect the fact that all agree that this is clearly the story that Mrs. Love was given from her earliest recollection, and no evidence has been put forward that any imigration attorney disagrees with the assesment. So I think a shorter coverage of the issue would be in order, but I will leave figuring out how to do that to another.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Anochor Baby debate seems more an election rhetoric issue than a real issue about Mrs. Love's birth, so maybe the indepth coverage of statements about that should be moved to the section of the article on the 2012 congressional election.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)