Talk:Bill Nelson

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

First lawyer is space?[edit]

I believe Sen. Nelson is the first and only lawyer ever in space. Can anybody verify this and if so include this fact in applicable places? --Butnotthehippo (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Episcopalian?[edit]

Some sources claim he is presbyterian. http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=MFL25165 Anyone care to fact check this before changing the article, or is votesmart proof enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.65.18 (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

I'm protecting this until the troll goes away. john k 02:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, unprotecting. Now we can revert instead of deleting, since it has a history. john k 03:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV edits[edit]

Hi! I removed some inferences from the ratings he has been given that the reader could draw for himself, and which were basically not cited original research. Also, I removed the POV term "Partial Birth Abortion" and replaced it with the medial term for that procedure, Intact Dilation and Extraction (D&X). --BenBurch 18:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The term "Partial Birth Abortion" was the title of the legislation. It passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law. Using that term is therefore appropriate; even if the medical community doesn't use it, millions of others do. I would be willing to bet that if you pick 100 people at random off the street and ask 50 of them to explain "Partial Birth Abortion" and the other 50 to explain "Intact Dilation and Extraction," a lot more of the first 50 are going to know what you're talking about. Also, there are plenty of examples here at Wikipedia where information contained in the body of an article has been repeated in the lead, and you've defended at least one of them with remarkable resolution. Dino 01:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Political actions and positions[edit]

This section should be devoted primarily to Nelson's own descriptions of his views, not partisan groups' characterizations of them. When one characterizes a politician's views via partisan groups' assessment of them, it violates both WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and thus WP:BLP. Nelson's views and actions need to be accessed from the Senate website and reliable third party sources, not partisan groups. This all should clearly go without saying, but apparently not. CyberAnth 10:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, no it doesn't. If we make it clear that "X group says Y" about him and X is a notable political group, there's no issue. JoshuaZ 04:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So, in your view, is it okay and responsible in a biography to sum up someone's views on an issue by exclusive reference to a partisan political organization? Yes or no? CyberAnth 05:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
CyberAnth, your above question to some extent shows why you've been running into so many problems. Not everything is a Yes or No question. In this case, noting what ratings someone has had from various partisan groups is relevant when attempting to summarize the individual's voting record. It is thus not unreasonable to mention how someone voted on some major bills and also indicate of the partisan groups which ones have favorable and which ones have unfavorable impressions. I do not know how much I can reiterate- the ratings are reliable sources for this purpose since all we are using them for is to discuss the ratings themselves. There is therefore no BLP issue, but at most an NPOV concern. JoshuaZ 05:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The yes or no dichotomy began by your insertion of the material. The action demonstrated that, in your view, it is okay and responsible in a biography to sum up someone's views on an issue by exclusive reference to a partisan political organization. That is poorly sourced material and is completely subject to WP:BLP. CyberAnth 05:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The way forward here is as I said above. Go to senate.gov and get his views in his own words and google news and get reports about his views. At that point, the partisan sources will not present an WP:Undue weight issue. CyberAnth 05:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, excuse me? One of the sources given is partisan, the other two sources are non-partisan. This hardly constitues summing up "someone's views on an issue by exclusive reference to a partisan political organization" Now, if you think there is a problem with the sourcing, I suggest that you go to google news and senate.gov. JoshuaZ 05:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, excuse me. Project Vote Smart is a collator of partisan information. Project Vote Smart places this right on the page:

Project Vote Smart does not evaluate or edit these descriptions.

AND

Keep in mind that ratings done by special interest groups are biased. They do not represent a non-partisan stance. In addition, some groups select votes that tend to favor members of one political party over another, rather than choosing votes based solely on issues concerns.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Bill_Nelson_Abortion.htm - yea, let's look at this. First, the text I keep removing says he voted YES when this "source" says he voted NO! Therefore the assertion is not verifiable - verifies as false. As for whether it is partisan, it clearly is, since it selected only NARAL to include in its evaluation of Nelson. Don't let neutral sounding URLs fool you. It is not just the prochoiceamerica.org type orgs that are partisan because they have a partisan name.

Removing it per WP:BLP.

Perhaps I will expand the article, but not tonight.

CyberAnth 06:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the particular website ontheissues may have issues (I'm not sure, although they use the NARAL ratings for abortion, they use the term "pro-life" to describe those with low ratings, and classically there are very high inverse correlations for ratings from groups who are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, making which one you use as your referrence actually not that relevant). As to the matter that our text doesn't reflect the source- that's easy to deal with, flip it. JoshuaZ 06:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
As to the matter of project votesmart, since votesmart correlates data from all sorts of groups, its descriptions can be presumed to be fairly non-partisan. JoshuaZ 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Does the article cite such from all groups or select only one? Thus, all the source is doing is being used as an intermediary, one that "does not evaluate or edit these descriptions" - all one is doing is citing the partisan source through VoteSmart, a source that "does not evaluate or edit these descriptions". See?
And do you or do you not agree that it is true you added material in violation of WP:V (the no, not yes vote) and then threatened to "report" me in part for for removing it?
Also, recall it is the burden of the person adding material to ensure it is adequately sourced, not the person removing it. You know this yet seem to want to enforce a private rule you hold on the contrary.
As for why I have so much trouble removing blatantly violative information from BLPs, it is related to that private rule and and many others like it. I should have been able to place my initial post in this section and that should have ended the matter. Because what I said was and is right. But no, I instead have have to spend six hours removing a mere three sentences.
No, the reason I have so much trouble is not for the reasons you think. It is because tribes of influential (= have the most free time on their hands) admins and editors have decided that WP policies say something other than what they actually say. They want to have loose reigns to make WP their playground for their own particular agendas, and people who follow strict and standardized interpretations of policies threaten that. So people like me must be stalked and rebuffed.
And worse, otherwise potentially responsible editors and admins get sucked into it all by peer pressure - a desire for "inclusion" in tribal "in-groups". The problem on WP is not so much the obvious trolls but the ones who make editing painful for other editors by repetitive questions, tendentious editing, private agendas hidden beneath yet lord of all arguments; immature teenagers and college students who view BLPs as their private political platform rather than a task requiring the utmost responsibility and mature outlook, all in recognition that words can be like flames and real lives can and sometimes really are ruined or at least permanently altered; people who fill up talk pages with nonsense, who see the truth of contrary arguments but refuse from selfishness to acknowledge them; who endlessly Wikilawyer the most obvious points, and enforce not the policies but the policies as they privately interpret them through the grid of their own private agendas. Most people like me are at Missing Wikipedians, many gave up much sooner, and many such people are enjoying the heck out of Citizendium, while some are taking their jabs at Wikitruth. The price that has been paid and will continue to be paid until something changes is a Project in the guise of an encyclopedia that cannot even be cited by 1st graders, lest high schoolers. Welcome to your Wikipedia.
CyberAnth 06:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What an incredible rant. Nevertheless, there was an element of truth somewhere in there and I have replaced the links to an obviously none-too-reliable partisan page with ones to the official voting records, and updated the text to reflect the latter. AvB ÷ talk 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Major rewrite of section[edit]

I've reconfigured the "Political actions and positions" section according to the following plan--

  • Summarize X's own description of his positions and priorities
  • Cite important measures or issues associated particularly with X, if not described in preceding paragraph
  • Characterize X's position as liberal, conservative, in-between, or otherwise. If X does not fit well onto the the left/right continuum (e.g. liberal on social issues, conservative on economic ones) illustrate with significant votes and/or interest-group ratings.
  • Characterize X's voting record in terms of agreement or differences with party
  • Cite examples of major votes against party and/or major deviations from position on left/right continuum.
  • --And throughout: footnote, footnote, footnote.

This isn't a rigid algorithm. However, I think that a per-genus-et-differentiam approach like this is a good way to convey X's political position to the reader. The alternatives seem much worse: either limiting ourselves to X's own bland waffling statements, which will leave us with 535 articles asserting that X cares about American families; or watching the section turn into an unreadable tangle of unrelated sentences, as editor after editor after editor inserts a sentence or a paragraph about his particular pet issue.

In keeping with this scheme, I've made a couple of excisions that I suspect will be controversial:

"He has also voted in favor of tighter bankruptcy restrictions"

I checked Vote Smart for a couple of votes on this. Although a majority of Democrats oposed the measure, it wasn't a terribly strong majority. Thus I don't think that Nelson's vote represents a significant deviation from what you'd expect a Democrat to do.

And, the hot one:

"Nelson has received a 75-percent rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League. He voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act,[1] on the grounds that it failed to provide for cases in which the mother's life was in danger.[2] He has also voted against a bill providing for criminal penalties for anyone harming an unborn child during the commission of a crime.[3]"

I don't think that abortion is a trivial issue, or that a politician's position on it isn't important. However, Nelson's position seems to be no surprise, given his left-right ratings by various groups. If he were strongly in favor of abortion restrictions despite being liberal in most other matters, it would be worthy of note in the article; or if abortion were considered one of his signature issues, it would be worth including under the second point in my outline. As it is, I think that this paragraph is only an illustration of one aspect of a point that's already been established.

Let the discussion begin...

--Ammodramus (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Gitmo[edit]

I'm surprised there's nothing here about his support for the Guantanamo detentions, given the ongoing controversy surrounding them. Koyaanis Qatsi 16:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Son Charles Nelson[edit]

Various news outlets are reporting on the recent sentencing/probation of Nelson's son Charles. I don't know that we need anything about this in the article, but right now the article only mentions a son named "Bill Nelson Jr." I'm guessing this is the name that Charles usually goes by, but since he is all over the news now as "Charles Nelson" we might want to clarify his name in the article (giving the full name but also the nickname is probably the way to go). Thoughts?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"bumped from Challenger"[edit]

I'm removing this passage:

Nelson was originally scheduled to be on the Challenger flight that resulted in the destruction of the Challenger and the loss of the entire crew, but a scheduling conflict bumped him to an earlier launch.[citation needed]

From what I read, it looks like Nelson's trip on Columbia was the cause, not the effect, of the "bump," bumping Gregory Jarvis to ''Columbia. See , e.g., http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,960601,00.html ("Rescheduled to fly on Columbia last month, Jarvis was again disappointed when he was bumped in favor of Florida Democratic Congressman Bill Nelson.") and the book "Space Shuttle Challenger" By Ben Evans, http://books.google.com/books?id=MQjCF8Cc7HoC at page 240 ("The more likely reason for reassigning Jarvis, wrote Mike Mullane, was that Congressman Bill Nelson had requested a Shuttled flight and the space agency had hurriedly complied. 'NASA bumped the oft-abused Jarvis one mission to the right,' Mullane recalled in his 2006 memoir. 'The next time he would pose for a crew photo would be for STS-51L, the mission that would kill him.'"). TJRC (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Membership in The Family[edit]

I removed the addition on this point from the lede. As his membership does not seem to have become newsworthy, I'm not sure this belongs in the article. It almost looks like an attempt to tar Nelson with association with a recently controversial group. If there is a consensus that this factoid should be added to the article, it most certainly does not belong in the lede. -- Donald Albury 11:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

primary[edit]

who's running against him in the primary? I can't vote for this moron again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.8.253 (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nelson, Obama, and the public option[edit]

I've excised the following two sentences:

"Nelson must run for reelection in November of 2012, on the same ballot on which Barrack Obama is expected to run. As a supporter of the Obama health care plan, along with the "public option," he is expected to receive substantial opposition."

The first sentence should be rewritten-- after all, Nelson might opt not to run for re-election in 2012. The second sentence needs a citation and a rewrite: expected by whom?

This material also doesn't belong in the section "2006 re-election campaign", since it has nothing to do with the 2006 election.

--Ammodramus (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

We can always hope he decides not to run again in 2012. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.94.194 (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

2006 election[edit]

I've excised the following:

"In an interview with Sean Hannity on March 15, 2006, Harris claimed that Nelson was a member of the ideological far-left and had taken bribes. She did not state from whom, nor did she give any other specifics as to these allegations, nor has anyone else mentioned these charges. It is probable that this was merely propoganda to try to discredit Nelson. Nelson is generally regarded as a moderate in Florida.[4]"

This strikes me as a violation of BLP standards: it makes an unsourced claim about a living person (Harris) that might tend to damage her reputation.

The source cited in the final sentence doesn't support the sentence itself: it has nothing to do with whether Floridians regard Nelson as a moderate or not.

--Ammodramus (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

political positions section[edit]

We need to separate the political positions section into separate subfields. This will make it easier to read. Mosesman76 (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no way...[edit]

On a global basis, that this man is searched for more than Bill Nelson the musician. Why is he the first one that comes up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.195.40 (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Nelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Gorsuch[edit]

PLEASE - Confirm Gorsuch. Enough Political posturing. Babs Simmons (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill Nelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)