Jump to content

Talk:Scott Peters (politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trivial incident

[edit]

IMO the incident where someone referred to DeMaio as "Mary" on Scott Peters' blog is too trivial to include here. It was recently deleted by User:Mcd51 and restored with additional references by User:RightCowLeftCoast. However, all of the references are from last May, when it happened - in other words the incident had no lasting significance. We've kept it in the article for six months but there has been no further mention of it in the news; clearly it was a one-day thing. I believe it should be removed per UNDUE and NOTNEWS. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it was a single event, it did receive significant coverage itself (nationwide), including the Washington Times, The Daily Caller, & Daily Kos, National Review, and Breitbart.com (August). It can be reduced in size from two sentences to one, if it helps balance if that helps UNDUE concerns. Perhaps it belongs in the DeMaio article instead, as it is whom the language was directed at?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely does NOT belong in the DeMaio article. If it is about anybody, it is about Peters, on whose blog (but without whose input) the comment was made. Still, I don't believe a single mention by various media makes the incident important enough to include. (Most of the national media you name, with the exception of Kos, are right-wing sources which would be eager to give publicity to anything that makes a Democrat look bad; I give more credence to the reporting by local TV stations.) This wasn't even anything that Peters himself did, and it clearly had no lasting impact and did not affect the election. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that User:Stepshep has removed it. It looks to me like we now have three !votes to remove it - Mcd51, myself, and Stepshep - vs. one !vote to keep it - RightCowLeftCoast. So I would say the current consensus is to leave it out. --MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, here's another !vote to leave it out, certainly until someone provides more argument addressing the UNDUE and lasting-impact issues. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Description of district is out of date

[edit]

Peters' district no longer includes Poway. The district also changed in some other ways following the 2020 redistricting cycle. 130.191.100.158 (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]