Talk:Alejandro García Padilla/Archives/2014/January

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Should we include graphs about Puerto Rico's economic behavior under the Governor's tenure?

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. I want to preface this close by reminding folks that consensus is based primarily on the quality of arguments based in policy, and that other considerations are secondary. After reading over the discussion here and at the preceding DRN, many editors have expressed concern with inclusion of the graphs. The question is, are those concerns reasonably grounded? Many concerns revolved around similar ideas:
  1. Raw government data presented on a biographical article on a head of government was argued to be suggestive to the point where explicit cause-effect needed to be discussed by reliable sources.
  2. Primary sources should not be used alone to assert a particular association between the individual and the data.
  3. The graphs are better suited for the article on the national economy rather than on a biography on an individual.
  4. Citing WP:PERTINENCE and a somewhat-related discussion of three editors on another article is not a compelling argument for inclusion.
For the record, I do not think anyone involved in the RfC would dispute either that a) Padilla and his office have some non-trivial influence on the economy, or b) the economic data discussed in this RfC are real and important. However, editors agreed that the sources provided in this RfC -- primary or secondary -- do not sufficiently connect Padilla to the changes presented in the "cumulative Economic Activity Index" and "cumulative payroll employment" graphs. As such, consensus was against inclusion of the graphs. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Puerto Rico's cumulative Economic Activity Index under García Padilla's tenure.
Puerto Rico's cumulative payroll employment (seasonally adjusted) under García Padilla's tenure.

We are having a hard time coming to a consensus about wether or not we should present graphs about Puerto Rico's economic behavior under García Padilla's tenure. This is common on Wikipedia and is currently done for other heads of government such as:

The graphs that were included on this article were created from data published by two reliable sources: the Puerto Rico Government Development Bank and the Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human Resources—the only two sources in the whole world that publish such data. This can be obtained from:

  • [1] (sheet T01, first table, fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014, months from January to August--tenure of García Padilla as he was sworn in on January 2, 2013) and from
  • [2] (sheet T22, first table, fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014, months from January to August--tenure of García Padilla as he was sworn in on January 2, 2013).

Both entities have a backlog of about three months (right now they only show the data until August: [3]).

The graphs were created from the following data:

Month EIA Deviation (cumulative; when compared to base)
December (previous governor; serves as base of comparison) 131.4 0
January 129.9 -1.14%
February 128.5 -2.21%
March 127.4 -3.04%
April 127.1 -3.27%
May 126.6 -3.65%
June 125.5 -4.49%
July 124.2 -5.48%
August 123.8 -5.78%

I'm not making this up. The data is available at

Regarding jobs, we have the following:

Month Payroll (seasonally adjusted) Deviation (cumulative; when compared to base)
December (previous governor; serves as base of comparison) 929.3 0
January 921.3 -8,000
February 920.4 -8,900
March 915.8 -13,500
April 914.7 -14,600
May 906.7 -22,600
June 895.7 -33,600
July 890.8 -38,500
August 897.1 -32,200 (recovery; jobs are being added)

Once again, I'm not making this up. The data is available at:

A similar process was done for Barack Obama with an archived discussion available at Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 77.

The question is: should we show these graphs on this article?

Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. As has already been made clear at WP:DRN [4], this material contains original research and synthesis, and inclusion is thus contrary to Wikipedia. Accordingly, this RfC is pointless - one cannot come to a local agreement to contravene policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not original research nor synthesis. We obviously disagree on this and that is why I have opened this RFC to have community wide input on this matter as we already do this very same thing on many other articles, including Barack Obama (see graph) and George W. Bush (see graph). This is done by following the process set forth by WP:DRR which suggests a third opinion (done), an informal noticeboard (done), an RFC, and formal mediation should the parties still disagree. As you have already been told, per WP:IAR and WP:PILLARS, Wikipedia does not have firm rules and its policies and guidelines are not carved stone. Furthermore, our policies and guidelines are interpretative. You are interpreting them in a way and I'm interpreting them in another. This is why this RFC has been opened. Let the community as a whole give its input rather than a few editors that visit WP:DRN and a random Talk page. The RFC notifies all of the community. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The graphs should not be included. They are based on primary sources, which on a BLP should be treated "with extreme caution". You cannot just include without any reliable secondary sources providing context on what that says about Garcia Padilla. That is OR and synthesis. And if the graphs are not supposed to be implying that Garcia Padilla is at least partly at fault for the economic situation, then it's hard to see how they are directly relevant to the article. Neljack (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The graphs are built from the ONLY reliable source in the whole world that can publish such statistics. Similarly to how the graph about the economy under Obama's tenure was created based on statistics published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These are NOT original research nor synthesis. The graphs show facts. What it says about García Padilla is IRRELEVANT. Facts are facts, PERIOD. You wanna see how the graphs are relevant? Here, let me show you: Act 1 of 2013, his very first act of his tenure, called the Jobs Now Act, an act to create jobs which justifies the graph about payroll employment. He also signed Act 40 of 2013 which raised taxes and implemented new ones. Here are other reliable sources that link the Governor to the economy of the island: [5] [6] [7] And here's how the Economic Activity Index is computed: [8] Wanna know why the EAI is related to the Governor? Because one of its four metrics takes into consideration power generation. Power generation in Puerto Rico is managed by a government monopoly which is controlled by a Board appointed by the Governor. So, he signs laws to mingle with job creation, raises taxes, and appoints the people that control power generation. How is the Governor NOT related to the economy? This is the first time in my life that I have to explain this to someone. I'm still pondering why is it OK to do this with Obama but there is an issue doing it with García Padilla. Facts are facts bro. It is not our job to hide some and show others. We must remain neutral. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion of these graphs. Came here via RFC, so uninvolved. The graphs are problematic for reasons of OR and Synthesis as highlighted by others here and at DRN. I have no problem with the inclusion of graphs in general, but these don't pass the threshold of being supported by secondary sources and analysis for inclusion. In addition, I do agree with Andy that there appears to be a consensus from DRN which must be part of the final conclusion on this issue. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I wandered by and noticed the discussion. The comparison to Obama and Bush doesn't provide justification, as they were/are heads of state, whereas Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the U.S.A., thus the leader is a governor. As for the legitimacy of the data, if the source is the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as Ahnoneemoos said, then the data is NPOV and in fact, one of the only sources that is credible for employment data. Another might be ADP monthly payroll data. ADP is used in the continental U.S. as a payroll services provider for jobs outside the public sector, and releases monthly information that news and wire services, economists, researchers analyze and summarize. While it is relevant information for the economy of Puerto Rico, I am uncertain about including it in the BLP of the current governor, especially since many economic indicators are lagged by 3 months or longer, and I don't know how long the current governor has been in office. The situation regarding municipal bonds in PR is very important and encyclopedic content. Again, I don't know why it would be included in the governor's BLP unless he has directly um affected the triple tax free exempt status related to PR and U.S. public finance issues, AND there are NPOV sources that can confirm. --FeralOink (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The significant point is that the Obama and Bush articles provide multiple secondary sources which explicitly discuss the state of the U.S. economy, and the influence that the President will have had. With such sources already discussing the data, presenting it to readers is justifiable. This proposed edit cites no secondary sources which suggest that the data is relevant, or give it any context whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The following sources, as they have already been provided to you before, prove, without any reasonable doubt, that the Governor has an influence on the economy: [9] [10] [11] [12] Furthermore, the Governor himself has (1) signed a law about job creation [13] and (2) a law that expanded taxes [14]. You have been told about this several times already both in this discussion and at DRN. The Obama article does NOT present secondary sources, it only references the Bureau of Labor Statistics with the following two references: [15] & [16] Puerto Rico has its own "local" Bureau, in this case, the Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human Resources which publishes data about employment, and the Puerto Rico Government Development Bank, which publishes data about economic data.
The following bonds have been issued under García Padilla's tenure:
  • Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority - $673,145,000, Power Revenue Bonds, Series 2013A, August 15, 2013 (while García Padilla was in power) [17]
He also increased the government budget by $783 million: [18]
So, why exactly should these images not be shown when (1) the Governor himself has signed laws to increase jobs and these graphs present such data and (2) the Governor himself is highly related to the economy of Puerto Rico and these graphs show exactly how the economy has behaved under his tenure? These graphs are VERIFIABLE and backed up by RELIABLE SOURCES. Why again should they NOT be used?
Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
By the way, if the issue is the trend line, we can present the data "as is" (just show the data without trendline and without calculations) even though the Obama article does this. I have updated the graphs to reflect this: they only show the data "as is" right now. No trendlines; no calculations. A verbatim copy of the data published by the Puerto Rico Government Development bank. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • among other problems, the graphs are prepared in such a way as to be biased because they do not start from zero. Any small decline or improvement can be greatly accentuated by this improper choice of the y axis. This is one of the most basic sins of graphics presentation. (The two graphs referred to as comparisons do not have this problem, at least not to the same extent: the Bush one properly starts at zero, the Obama one indicate the break in the axis-- though even doing it this way exaggerates the effect. One of the reasons we have the rule about WP:OR is to discourage this sort of data manipulation. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Brother, this is done automatically by Apple Numbers. If you tell me how I can make it so that it starts at zero I will--I just put the data and insert the graph. Be careful with your wording, especially if you are unaware of how the software makes the graphs by default. We can use other free software available online or you can update the graph yourself since you were provided with the data on this very same page. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
OK I figured out how to do it and updated the graphs accordingly. The y-axis starts at zero now. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • (Invited by the RFC bot) My overall opinion is to leave them out. This is based on several factors on either "side" of the question. On the "plus" side, I do not consider the graphs themselves to be wp:or / or wp:synth. But juxtaposing them with an individual is; it implies cause/effect. Next, it is from primary sources, and (long story short) the reasons for strictly limiting uses of primary sources are relevant here and IMO the editor-selection of the material and juxtaposition of the editor-selected material with the individual violates those rules. Finally I tend to use a higher standard of relevancy when material is disputed. That standard is "is the material directly about the subject of the article"?. And this material fails that test. (Other than possibly falling under wp:undue, that last criteria is just my opinion, not policy.) North8000 (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
We have a guideline for that, called WP:PERTINENCE. Long story short, the guys at the Obama article had this very same discussion several months ago. The conclusion, per Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 77 was:

Per WP:PERTINENCE, we only include data for the period of time pertinent to this article's subject. If readers want context, that can easily click through the caption wikilinks to read further about unemployment rate or labor force participation rate.

I find it quite shocking that we are having the very same discussion all over again, specially when we have proven, without any reasonable doubt and through reliable sources, that the Governor has a significant impact on the economy and employment. This is the first time in my life that I have to defend such stance.
Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I was invited randomly by RFC bot to participate here. First, this RFC is invalid because it does not follow RFC guidelines. A good RFC should simply state the question without any editorializing or explanation for one side of a question or the other. The amount of POV in this RFC makes any consensus impossible. We should just stop there, but from what I can see in the sources for this data most if not all of the proposed content is synthesized from primary sources and should not be included. (I can't even find mention of the terms "Payroll Employment", "Economic Activity" or "Deviation" in the GDB spreadsheets.) So in my opinion, even if we restarted the RFC with a proper neutral question, the result would be to reject this content. Jojalozzo 04:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, the source for this data was specified in the introduction of this RFC. This is pretty much why you always have an explanatory in RFCs like this one. For your convenience:
  • [19] (sheet T01, first table, fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014, months from January to August--tenure of García Padilla as he was sworn in on January 2, 2013) and from
  • [20] (sheet T22, first table, fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014, months from January to August--tenure of García Padilla as he was sworn in on January 2, 2013).
Hope this helps.
Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
As has been pointed out here multiple times, using raw data like that is pure OR and SYN. In addition, you are ignoring the problems with the RFC. I strongly suggest you stop now before your not hearing becomes tenditious. Jojalozzo 22:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
As has been pointed out several times here, on DRN, on other discussions, on other articles, and on other graphs which have been referenced in this discussion multiple times, the preparation of these graphs is NOT original research nor it is synthesis. Second, there is not a single problem with this RFC. And finally, please cease accusing people directly and instead focus on the arguments being presented in the discussion. I, too, can easily accuse you of WP:IDHT and WP:TEND if I wanted to. Did you know that the data was updated two days ago and this new data shows a POSITIVE tendency in the last month? Are we NOT going to show that too? As has been explained multiple times before, we don't care wether this data is positive or negative. We show it how it is per WP:NPOV. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
No. You haven't 'pointed out' that the graphs aren't original research or synthesis. You have merely asserted that they aren't in the face of multiple experienced contributors stating the contrary, and explaining why. Eventually you are going to have to accept that your interpretation of policy is wrong. And no, it doesn't matter what the data shows - without a source that directly discusses both the data and the Governor, and draws a linkage between the two, they don't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Here you go brother: from Sin Comillas: [21]

Alejandro García Padilla Governor announced that his government has managed to create 25,256 jobs and has signed additional commitments that says, "I stand steadily on track to achieve 50,000 jobs in 18 months." To support the information made ​​following 14-page document 50mil Jobs Report.

The information contrasts with official data showing that 22,000 net jobs lost in the last 12 months.

In this case, when the government says it has created 25,256 jobs, say forget that in that same period, must have lost about 47,000 jobs. All months are created and jobs are lost. The important thing is to know what is more, those created or those who are perishing?

and [22] which has this graph: [23]

Well, believe . In Sin Comillas believe , we believe that the data presented in the makeshift conference ( if it was impromptu who attended? ) By Jorge Colberg are true . We believe that since this government came to have created jobs , and we believe that what they were say 28,000 jobs. But to say that and not talk about net jobs, unemployment , participation rate is only telling half the movie. Say it is not lying , but at least it's not the whole truth .

Data from the Department of Labor and Human Resources say that between July 2012 and July this year has lost 23,000 jobs, according to the Survey of Housing Agency , one of the two that are made to measure employment. The other survey, the sample of establishments in the last 12 months have lost 34,000 jobs.

If, as the government says have created 28,000 jobs, should have lost 51,000 jobs, for a net loss of 23,000 jobs is saying Housing Survey . You can do the same exercise with data from the Survey of institutions, but not go into that . Let us calculate differently. What do the surveys say the last seven months ? In January 2013, 3,000 jobs were lost over the month of December; fell in February 1000 , 2,0 o0 more in March, 3,000 in April, 4,000 in May and 3,000 in June. In July , employment increased by 2,000. Which means that in the first seven months of net employment has fallen by 14,000. If the government claims to have created 28,000 jobs that means they must have lost about 42,000 in total.

You can also use [24] [25] [26]
Anything else?
Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
From El Nuevo Día, the governor attributing to himself and his administration employment growth [27]:

At a time when the people gives low marks for their performance in the first 10 months at the helm of the country, according to a poll published by El Nuevo Día, Governor Alejandro García Padilla announced yesterday that his administration has created 25,256 jobs.

"I have given body and soul to lift this town," said García Padilla surrounded by young people in a press conference as part of the job fair government "Employee Satisfaction" held at the Convention Center in Miramar.

"These (young) accompanying me are part of those 25,000," said the chief executive, who took the opportunity to take stock of what he thinks are his achievements.

Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
For the Economic Activity Index you can use [28] [29] [30] [31]Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
There is clearly no consensus for using the charts in question, but I'd support your use of reliable news stories to support statements about employment and economic activity. This RFC is seriously flawed and should not be pursued, but there are other ways to get economic information into the article if you regroup. Jojalozzo 00:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It's the tail wagging the dog here. Which sections of this article are these graphs supposed to clarify? I don't see them. If there are independent reliable sources discussing the employment under Padilla, then we should have sections about them. If we can use charts from the data in those sources, or the data those sources point to, to further clarify the sections, then we probably should. But these are just graphs without context, which seem to want to lead the reader to some conclusion. That's not good use of charts. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
There's a section called "Domestic policies" under which these two graphs were placed at. If you mean the prose, I can easily write that since we now have a reference for these graphs (without deviation; just presenting stuff "as is") from several articles published today by El Nuevo Día, Univision, and EFE; see [32] [33] [34] Notice there are references now because the economy is going up so the government's public relations team is making official statements about it in several media celebrating this feat. This is why we must ALWAYS post this information. So that our readers can see the whole picture, not only the part where things are OK. Like I said in all my arguments: this stuff can go up or down at any time, we don't care about that, we just present facts. When this RFC started they were negative, today these facts are positive. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.