Jump to content

Talk:Cathy McMorris Rodgers

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

District

[edit]

I transferred the map of the Fifth Congressional District of Washington from George Nethercutt because, after all, he's not using it anymore. Nevertheless, a portrait of McMorris seems more appropriate here. --Calton 07:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV insertion

[edit]

The following was inserted in the article:

McMorris has taken $5,000 from Tom DeLay's ARMPAC.
McMorris voted with Tom DeLay 98% of the time between Jan. 1 2004 and March 31 2005.
McMorris voted to weaken the ethics rules in a move that many say served only to protect Tom DeLay.
When Republicans realized it was "impossible to win the communications battle" over the gutted ethics rules, McMorris flip-flopped and voted to put the old rules back into place.
When Democrats offered a solution to clean up the House by strengthening ethics rules, McMorris voted twice to make sure it never even came to an up or down vote.

This turned the article into a POV piece. -- Jonel | Speak 13:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are these not facts? Aren't there enough references to back this up? In Wikipedia, a point of view or POV is one way of looking at an issue. Wikipedia seeks a neutral point of view by including all relevant POVs while explicitly attributing them to those who hold them. If the whole article is made POV as a result of the insertion of a couple of facts, then please look at balancing the article and tell the other side of the story. Perhaps McMorris returned some of the dirty money or donated it to charity. Maybe as a freshman she did not know what ARMPAC is all about. Please add your point of view to correct what you don't think is fair and balanced about these facts.Kgrr 01:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I placed the section in the talk page because it unbalanced the article. If you can't write a balanced article, please do not turn one into a biased piece. Campaign finance is not something for which I have any stomach, and I'm not going to go searching for balancing facts for all of the politicians whose articles you've edited.
Also, even if balanced, the section still has large issues. First, DeLay no longer faces charges for conspiracy. Please remove that from every bio you have listed it on, as it is not true. Second, "McMorris voted to weaken the ethics rules in a move that many say served only to protect Tom DeLay" is a use of weasel words. Third, words such as "gutted" and "flip-flopped" are not at all useful in an NPOV encyclopedia entry unless part of someone's quote. Fourth, please provide a citation for the quote about the communication battle. Fifth, "McMorris voted twice to make sure it never even came to an up or down vote" is an intentionally misleading statement that plays upon the average reader's ignorance of standard Congressional procedures.
The article as it stands now is *not* NPOV. Please either balance it or move the POV parts to the talk page until they can be balanced. — Jonel | Speak 03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The idiot version of "balanced" is to make a far right winger look like a centrist. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeLay

[edit]

per compromise with editor Roma

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who faces felony charges for money laundering campaign finances, helped finance McMorris's campaign with a $5000 from ARMPAC, DeLay's political action committee. [1] McMorris has not returned the money or donated it to charity, despite calls from Democrats to do so. Republicans say that the charges against DeLay are politically motivated because prosecutor Ronnie Earle has a history of unsuccessful indictments against political enemies of both parties such as Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and because it has been widely reported that Earle had to shop the charges to multiple grand juries because one refused to indict. [2] [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachs (talk • contribs)

This was added because the added statement about Tom Delay is an unproven allegation that is used to make the member of congress guilty by association. Especially when there is much evidence that Ronnie Earle's indictments are politically motivated. You cannot include one side of an unproven allegation and not include the other, to do so would be unfair and biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachs (talk • contribs)

Voting record

[edit]

More than half the article is a mainly unsourced "voting record." Wikipeidia is a list of information. If particular votes are notable they should be addressed with descriptions. It was a copyright-violation of *McMorris' voting record maintained by the Washington Post.Arbusto 02:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Cathy was recentoy married and took a double last name. the clerk of the house website even has her lister as Cathy McMorris Rodgers. should we change it here--Bohouse 18:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it. We should ALWAYS use people's proper names. Alamar2000 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no indication of her political positions here?

[edit]

Why are these excluded? They are usually included in other Congressional members articles. Herp Derp (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you go through the history of the page, you'll see Washington DC and government Seattle IPs (or WP:SPA) removing anything critical. 198.49.222.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),for example, replaced "Cathy Rodgers did not support the continuation of the 1994 Violence Against Women's Act" with "McMorris Rodgers championed economic policies that would create jobs." When an editor pointed out she has spent most of her adult life as a "career politician," 146.129.133.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) an IP that only edits the Rodgers' page, removes it and calls her an "Orchardist". That IP is listed as belonging to "King County Gov" (that is in Seattle).
Or mentions that her undergraduate degree is not accredited is removed without justification, by an Washington DC IP that only made two edits; both being on this page.
Seriously, look at the history of the page. Anything critical that gets added, is promptly removed by an IP from Washington DC, Seattle government IP or a WP:SPA. I think this should be investigated further. Some examples:
Someone in the DC area and someone working for the government in Washington state doesn't like this page to have negative material. One area in particular that the government IP and DC IP doesn't like is the mention her undergrad degree came from an unaccredited fundamentalist school. There are more examples of some this on the page, I only went back a few years. RobinBnn (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the original question differently: perhaps WP:FART applies? Positions are only worth noting if secondary sources claim they're worth noting. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, RobinBnn, thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Washington DC IP white-washing this page and her religious alma mater

[edit]

I'd like to point out that 67.182.141.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is white washing this page and her alma mater Pensacola Christian College. She is scheduled to give the State of the Union response. Six minutes after the IP's last edit, Jocks175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made his/her first edit on Wikipedia which continues in the same manner of removing properly sourced material.

The IP over the last several months has removed negative information, such as Rodgers "vot[ing] against the Lily Ledbetter act, which is aimed at protecting women from pay inequalities in the workplace" while he/she adds in material about the birth of her child or where she attends church.

I am bringing this to editors' attention as that has been making misleading edits and removing WP:RS without justification. This must stop. RobinBnn (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the above section for a list of Washington DC IPs and Washington State government IPs white-washing the page. RobinBnn (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great catch RobinBnn. I have recently encountered a similar problem (whitewashing) with a US-G member (on the Democratic side, but no less inappropriate). Unfortunately, I lost that struggle because they were far too committed to whitewashing but I'm game to get into this one. I support reinsertion of the reference to the Ledbetter material - this was a well-publicized piece of legislation and including it is fundamental to a good and comprehensive WP article on a sitting member of Congress. BlueSalix (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pensacola Christian College

[edit]

Mention of it needs to be changed as it is now accredited but wasn't at the time. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I cited The Chronicle of Higher Education on its uniqueness with rules and lack of accreditation, and then mentioned 2013 TRACS accreditation. The type of accreditation does need mentioned because TRACS accreditation is not regional accreditation, and many employers and universities don't recognized the credits. RobinBnn (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could we delete the line "one of the strictest" ... my first impression by that phrase in the context of an academic institution is it's one of the most rigorous, but apparently they literally mean "strict" as in draconian punishments being meted out. (Or am I misunderstanding this?) BlueSalix (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are sources mentioning the relevance of the schools accreditation, this information is not relevant and is a BLP issue as the only reasonable purpose appears to be an attempt to speak of the subject in a negative light. Now if the NYT were to mention the accreditation in conjunction with Rodgers, this would be ok.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The material appears neutrally worded and well-sourced, but it is inappropriate for this article. The details of her alma mater belong in the article on her alma mater and don't really have any bearing on her biography unless we have a secondary source that highlights some direct significance to her. Gamaliel (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The single most important aspect of an institution of higher education is accreditation. It is what separates a school from a diploma mill. There is no question that PCC was unaccredited when McMorris attended. The source is The Chronicle of Higher Education, a publication that is very reputable on higher education, and discusses PCC's lack of accreditation. A source doesn't have to mention McMorris to be included in wiki article about McMorris. As you have seen, at least four editors agree with inclusion. RobinBnn (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question that The Chronicle of Higher Education is a first-rate source, and I do not question it. I question the relevance of this material to McMorris. Gamaliel (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. If the NYT, for example, made the connection that she attended a school that was uncredited, well then it's fair game.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accreditation is an important issue. It is relevant and sourced. I can repeat myself as well. RobinBnn (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the NY Times discusses it, but here it is mentioned by the Washington Post: "She is a graduate of Pensacola Christian College, seen as one of the more socially conservative Christian institutions. The Florida college was previously opposed to accreditation but reversed its position and was accredited in 2013." RobinBnn (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of three female U.S. Representatives from her state?

[edit]

Does the lede really need to mention she is "one of three female U.S. Representatives from her state"? It really seems out of place in the introduction and I'm not even sure its worth mentioning in the article. Whether she is one of three, one of four, one of six, one of nine, or eight of eight, it doesn't give substance to any point. RobinBnn (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay- Washington has one of the highest male-to-female ratios in the House (not to mention being one of the first states to have 2 females serve as Senators at the same time) and both Rodgers and Jaime Herrera are noteworthy and most media recognizes her as "the most powerful ***women*** in the House." PrairieKid (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but the article doesn't say that as it is currently worded. If you want to mention "Washington has one of the highest male-to-female ratios in the House" it belongs under her "U.S. House of Representatives" section, not the lede. That she is a Republican leader belongs in the lede and doesn't need to buried in a statement that she is "one of three female U.S. Representatives from her state". RobinBnn (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I (slightly) disagree with PK. While I think that's worthwhile to include somewhere, it seems very wordy. Also could we quantify that WA has one of the highest male-to-female rations in the House? There may be a source I just didn't see - if so, I apologize, but could you post it again? I'm not really passionate on this point one way or the other, though, so if you think we need to include I don't want to get in the way of progress and won't object! Either way, great work on improving this article RobinBnn and PrairieKid! BlueSalix (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gun bill

[edit]

The section where the article mentions Rodgers support for a guns bill is wildly POV, and takes the source out of context. I'd remove it entirely per BLP, but I'd like to hear suggestions on how to improve it first.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I strongly question whether it's POV, however, I would say - after reading the original source and searching for additional coverage of this specific piece of legislation - that it is a case of WP:UNDUE as the bill appeared to be a technical, rather than ideological, statute that was not exactly the subject of sustained attention or coverage; in fact, the original sources appears to be a one-off story. On that basis I will support delete, but would be open to reversing that position if someone can present compelling evidence to show that this was an important bill that received a lot of attention. BlueSalix (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Gamaliel, who fixed this. I'd be more comfortable if this were "improved" even further by paraphrasing the source as to the strange bedfellows the bills supporters appeared to make, and the claim that supporters sought alignment with federal laws.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, this seems to happen a lot with politicians from both aisles. Their record of accomplishments is hand picked to make them look like cartoon villains straight out of central casting. In writing and/or improving this article, we need to highlight those things for which she achieved wide attention. I'm unclear if a vote to cut $70 million in a state with a $15 billion budget, or her vote on a gun law that only received one article of mention, are things for which she was widely known. I'm sure the Seattle Times or Spokesman-Review have a pre-election profile of her; we should locate and find that to identify 2-3 points of legislative accomplishment or controversy, instead of independently deciding which merits inclusion. BlueSalix (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, these two bills have undue emphasis. I'm starting to smell a rat. While one editor is concerned about whitewashing, I'm starting to be concerned about this being a hit piece. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go that far, this is just the result of editing by committee. I added a little bit more a moment ago, please give me your thoughts. (I'm not entirely sold on my own edits; we really need a "overview" RS that gives a perspective on her whole career instead of just picking up an article here or there and plugging it in. At the same time, of course, it's not our job to polish or burnish her credentials. If she was known for engaging in reckless legislating we need to incorporate that, it just seems like we're choosing obscure pieces of bad legislating and elevating it to "she was known for" status.) BlueSalix (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources were taken out of context to put Rodgers in a negative light, but I'm coming here from the BLP board, so perhaps I'm biased. Though you have made some excellent suggestions on how to bring this article into balance. Thank you, and I'll look at this more tomorrow.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two kinds of pork, You say its not relevant and POV as reasons to remove. But you have one editor who says its not POV and another who writes it is very relevant and changed the wording from the quotes in the newspaper. For the record, I'm fine with its inclusion. RobinBnn (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, while I did say I did not believe it's inherently POV, I do think it's a possible case of WP:UNDUE. If we're going to summarize a legislator's career in 2-3 sentences, we - as editors - really should not be choosing the 2-3 specific pieces of legislation we're using to craft that summary. Over the course of 10 years a legislator could vote on hundreds or thousands of bills. We should not be combing through her career to pick-out obscure bills to elevate to "she was known for ..." level. One of the three bills we were using to summarize her career was only covered in one short sidebar article. (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about this [[4]] and this [[5]]. These provide birds eye overviews after she announced her run for Congress and gives us a guide on how to properly weigh the issues for which she was known in her legislative career. Based on it, may I recommend the following?
During her time in the legislature, McMorris was known for defending timber and mining interests from what she described as "regulatory and tax burden," and for supporting conservative social issues. She voted against a 2004 bill to add sexual orientation to the state's anti-discrimination law and was a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage. Some credited her, however, for sponsoring legislation to require the state reimburse rural hospitals for the cost of serving Medicaid patients and for her work overcoming opposition in her own caucus to pass a controversial gas tax used to fund transportation improvements.
BlueSalix (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good addition. The more reliably sourced details on her career the better. RobinBnn (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two kinds of pork, what do you think? BlueSalix (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. Thank's for doing the legwork on finding the sources opinions on her legislative work.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've made the change. BlueSalix (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Education Paragraph

[edit]

Currently reads:
In 1990 she earned a BA in Pre-law from Pensacola Christian College and earned her Executive MBA while serving in the Washington State Legislature from the University of Washington in 2002. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, Pensacola Christian College is "one of the strictest" schools in the country and since its founding was unaccredited until 2013 when it received national accreditation from Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools.
I have a couple issues: (1) We don't need to specify TCHE if we're including an inline citation to it, (2) "one of the strictest" gives the false impression it's rigorous, (3) the entire paragraph is cumbersome.
Can I suggest this?
In 1990 she received a B.A. in Pre-Law from Pensacola Christian College, a then-unaccredited liberal arts college in Florida, and, in 2002, earned an Executive MBA from the University of Washington.
Thoughts? BlueSalix (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the accreditation at all is original research/synthesis unless there's an independent source discussing its accreditation in her context. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you're absolutely right, NorthBySouthBaranof. I hate to have the fact that she went to an unaccredited school obfuscated because I think that's important to note so the word "college" doesn't become genericized on WP, but, it sadly appears there are no NPOV RS discussing its accreditation status. As long as we link to the PCC article, I think your amended text seems fine and fair. BlueSalix (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you know, on a personal basis, I agree - but policy trumps my personal feelings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely; a salient and important reminder. BlueSalix (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proposal is good and support its insertion. Accreditation is standard in the US, that was not accredited its important to mention. RobinBnn (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point, RobinBnn. Still, for reasons stated by NorthBySouthBaranof, I think we need to find at least 1 reliable NPOV source that makes a mention of this fact before including it. Getting a degree from an unaccredited institution is a pretty big deal, particularly for a politician in light of some of the resume padding scandals recently related to academia, like D.J. Bettencourt and numerous others. I have to believe if we looked hard enough we could find one RS that mentions her degree. I can take a look. In the meantime, just a gentle reminder, I think we need to try to avoid CANVASSING. Thanks,RobinBnn! BlueSalix (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing? You mean like this, which got NorthBySouthBaranof involved? Or you mean like this? On the other hand, I contacted an admin experienced in this for his opinion because I received an unpleasant post from User:Two kinds of pork saying it can't be reinserted. That appeared to be false for a variety of reasons so I asked a more experienced person. RobinBnn (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm referring to that, too. Thanks, RobinBnn!BlueSalix (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your notifications were the very definition of canvassing. You stated your position, and asked the person to intervene knowing what their position would be. I on the other hand asked two regulars from BLPN to merely take a look. I was fully aware that they might have a different view on things, and was prepared to accept their findings.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll assume that was a typo as I didn't make "notifications." I contacted one person, an administrator, for an opinion after your rudely contacted me on my talk and said it can't be reinserted. You, on the other hand, immediately contacted more than one editor, which caused edit-warring over a sourced and relevant point. While you didn't give your opinion on their user talk, you did on article talk, which you expected them to read. So that is a moot point. Lastly, you clearly don't accept findings as you have seen there is clear consensus to keep it with even one person who previously sided with you now leaning to keep the mention. RobinBnn (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not WP:OR. The accreditation status of the degree is covered in Pensacola Christian College. It is beyond question that degrees awarded by Pensacola prior to 2013 were not accredited - defiantly unaccredited would be a reasonable characterisation; they rejected any form of accreditation that would require them to stop teaching young earth creationism. TRACS itself is a questionable accreditation agency, it exists primarily to enable schools to achieve accreditation while teaching pseudoscientific views of biology. Even now they state that their teaching degrees are not suitable for teachers in public schools. For my money that makes them entirely worthless, but whatever.

I'm puzzled as to why there is such fierce determination to remove this obvious fact, especially since th eissue of unaccredited degrees in public service was the subject of a substantial inquiry, Operation DIPSCAM. It is clearly a matter of pressing public concern, especially when legislators have unaccredited degrees from fundamentalist schools that teach creationism as fact. It's a legitimate concern. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, as per above, I agree from a philosophical perspective, but disagree insofar as WP is concerned. I don't think it's our job to "out" questionable politicians, rather, it's RS' job to do the "outing" and ours simply to collate the information they report into a single place. Right now, unfortunately, no RS has seen fit to call out McMorris' unaccredited degree. But, that point aside, I notice this keeps being reinserted. As long as that's happening, what are your feelings about my OP suggestion that we delete "one of the strictest schools in the country" at least? I really feel that is creating the impression PCC was the Harvard of Florida. BlueSalix (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to including the word "unaccredited" as a possible compromise, but a discussion of the school's accreditation issues are beyond the scope of this article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the accreditation status is shown quite clearly in our article on the institution. The degree is an unaccredited one. This is fact. We do not need further sources, because the fact is established and is not disputed. The only thing that is disputed is its significance, and that seems to be largely disputed by anonymous editors from Washington IP addresses. Join the dots.
The fact that her degree is from a then-unaccredited creationist college can hardly be regarded as irrleevant. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with Gamaliel's compromise. A simple word or two that mentions PCC was unaccredited when she attended is fine. However, a sentence pointing out its lack of peer-academic recognition was just as fine too. RobinBnn (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, since no one is going to acknowledge me, I'm making a BOLD edit to delete "one of the strictest schools in the country." By any common reading of the English language this is making PCC sound like its rivaling Yale for academic rigor because no one will commonly interpret that to mean disciplinary strictness. This seems like it's a totally separate question from the accreditation issue so I'm making this edit because I think it's non-controversial; if someone wants to undo it, I won't object, however. BlueSalix (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, you simply want it reworded in a way that describes its "strict" policies since you think it is vague? For example, the Chronicle of Higher Education mentions:

There are restrictions on when and where men and women may speak to each other. Some elevators and stairwells may be used only by women; others may be used only by men. Socializing on particular benches is forbidden. If a man and a woman are walking to class, they may chat; if they stop en route, though, they may be in trouble. Generally men and women caught interacting in any "unchaperoned area" — which is most of the campus — could be subject to severe penalties.[6]

So if your issue is the meaning of strict then maybe it is better to discuss its unusualness with an example? RobinBnn (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the Pensacola Christian College article that would be absolutely appropriate. I'm not sure we would include that here, though, anymore than we would include a brief description of Brutus Buckeye in the article about Marcia Fudge, an Ohio State alumnus. BlueSalix (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I had something in mind like the Religion News Service' article about McMorris that gives the flavor of PCC as "as one of the more socially conservative Christian institutions." As it is a unique school with unique rules, it is informative to mention PCC's leanings. RobinBnn (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That source satisfies all my previous issues in including "unaccredited" and was, for me at least, exactly what I was looking for - thanks RobinBnn! I don't know need we need a deep discussion on campus life at PCC (as people can click over to the PCC article for a flavor of that), but - since you've found a RS that has made the connection to it being unaccredited - I'm now totally in the corner of keeping that point in the article. BlueSalix (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another issue: Now that we have sources discussing the accreditation and the subject, we should paraphrase their analysis. The way it stands, the reader might erroneously believe Rodgers received a substandard education because the school couldn't be accredited. Both sources make note the school did not believe in accreditation, but later changed their position. We should add this context.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the whole point of unaccredited means it is not known what type of education is offered, which is why states outlaw using unaccredited degrees. Your statement that "the reader might erroneously believe Rodgers received a substandard education because the school couldn't be accredited" is not supported by sources. You don't know if it was good, bad, below or beyond! The article makes no claims on that. Stop pushing your POV. RobinBnn (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion of the accreditation philosophies of her alma mater is way beyond the scope of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to put too fine a point on it, but both sources, that make note of this do so in a single sentence. If it (the accreditation) must be included, it must reflect the sources findings on the accreditation. Let's get the article right.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we do this then we're back exactly where we started, with a long, irrelevant discussion of her alma mater in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I disagree that it is long, but if some insist upon including mention of the accreditation in the article, then it should be in context and true to the source. My first inclination is that this tidbit in the article was a smear attempt on the subject, then seeing the source in context reaffirmed this feeling.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember WP:AGF. The majority of the editors on this page appear to support inclusion. Are they all out to smear the subject of the article? Gamaliel (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll AGF until I have a valid reason not too. In this case it was a BLP complaint, cries of "whitewashing" and a side of POV language which you yourself objected too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs)
Currently Two kinds of pork's current version is misleading. PCC has TRACS accreditation. TRACS has the same standing as the Distance Education and Training Council. It does not have Southern Association of Colleges and Schools's accreditation, which is the gold standard from a small community college to major research institution. Also PCC doesn't have a single individual program accredited by the proper agency. For example, nursing programs usually have accreditation from American Association of Colleges of Nursing, but PCC does not. The difference of not having regional accreditation is significant. For one, the federal government does not accept non-regionally accredited units or degrees. States, like Texas, require regional accreditation or state approval. This makes institutions, like the ICR that had TRACS accreditation, illegal to award science degrees, see Institute_for_Creation_Research#School_and_accreditation. Ultimately, ICR shuttered its program because they couldn't get state approval or SACS' accreditation. Thus, not all accreditations are equal or treated the same.
Simply put: say who accredited it and let readers learn more on the finer points of accreditation on other pages. Additionally, the sources are in the wrong place and IB is in past tense without a comma. I've made the changes. RobinBnn (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out this sort thing really makes you look childish. Unaccredited degrees are illegal in many states, including McMorris' state of Washington. If you bothered to do basic research, even just glancing at Diploma mills in the United States and searching for Washington state, then you would know that if McMorris applied to a job with a PCC degree listed on her CV, she would face a max of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. You can read the signed bill here for issues the meaning of accreditation. The law prohibits using "false or misleading college degrees." Stop acting like a child and claiming this is a "smear attempt." Her degree is unaccredited. It is a fact. RobinBnn (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TWoP's statement was inappropriate, but your reaction and escalation is inappropriate as well. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My statement is backed by the editing history. RobinBnn is the one who inserted this gem into the article, an edit which you described as horrible. Coupled that with Robin's complaints that someone is "whitewashing" this article, yeah, sorry but my well of good faith is a bit dry at the moment. @Robin, I don't care if her degree is accredited by TCoHL or the Keebler Elves. Any information in an article on a living person (and especially negative information) must be verifiable to a reliable source whom we trust to a) get it correct) b) establish the relevance. I don't care if it is legal or illegal in Washington State until a reliable source tells me I should care. I've no interest in Rodgers, and had never even heard of her until a few days ago. I didn't even watch the SOTU. I've no pony in this other than making sure this BLP is accurately and reliably described as the sources state, no more, no less. I've no idea what your interest is, but so far your editing has been anything but neutral.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I discovered people have been white washing the page, specifically including accreditation. I mean are you denying that I have valid concerns? I'll quote from above:
That it wasn't accredited was re-inserted by admin several days. Not me. I started working on the article due to the white washing. I was fine with Gamaliel's compromise and I am fine with the article now. I simply don't want the education/accreditation issue to be misleading. If you're fine with the accreditation issue now, let me know so we can move from this. Frankly, I thought this was resolved yesterday and was surprised that there were new edits. RobinBnn (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you two want to argue about who is the editor with the biggest agenda, please do it on your personal talk pages, because you won't be doing it here. Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

BLP notification.

[edit]

At the top of this article is a notification about how this article must follow BLP policy. I am formally stating that inserting into the article the school the subject attended was not accredited while she attended is a BLP violation using synthesis. We need a reliable source to make note of this connection. It appears that I am not alone in stating we need this connection. Until there is consensus that this is NOT a BLP violation, then this material may not be restored. Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally I think this is the type of information that belongs in an article (what, they went to an unaccredited school??) but we must rely on a RS stating this connection in order to state it. I am somewhat surprised such a source doesn't exist already.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is tiresome. There is no need to start yet another section. The two above this are enough. You've given your opinion now in many different locations (here, the BLPNB, my talk, the PPC section on this talk, and posts for users to get involved here and here). We get it. You don't want it in the article. You've been told it is not original or synthesized material, but haven't replied to the substance of those claims. You have also been told it is sourced and relevant. At this point, you have a minority view and should recognize there is consensus to keep it.
There are sources and accreditation is relevant when mentioning education. RobinBnn (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure there's consensus, by my count we have 2 confirmed users who are absolutely opposed, 2 who absolutely support, and 2 who are mildly opposed but open to compromise. Perhaps we should leave the "unaccredited" in for now and open this to RfC to get some clearer direction? BlueSalix (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't want to count the many users who have inserted the claim, such as an administrator from a few days ago? Or Dougweller who wanted it tweaked a few days ago to mention its current accreditation? Well, I count those editors and administrators. In doing so, they are the majority over the two opposed: Two kinds of pork and NorthBySouthBaranof (who got involved from Two kinds of pork's request). RobinBnn (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I contend that it is a BLP issue, it should come out now and go back in after there is consensus to restore. It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong, once BLP has been raised in good faith, it is now a BLP issue. I'd be perfectly willing to live by the results of a RfC.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
heck, ill settle for an uninvolved admin to opine about "consensus" to settle the issue before I call for a RfC. Shall I go ask for one?Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple secondary sources that the place was unaccredited. Accreditation is relevant for a degree. You just had Guy, an uninvolved administrator re-insert it and post an explanation! RobinBnn (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, having edited the article and this topic area is very much involved.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having edited in this topic area of accreditation certainly makes him "involved" by per admin:involved. Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through the entire article's history. Guy edited the page once: he undid your removal. Sorry, he doesn't have a dog in the fight and disagrees with your removal. RobinBnn (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I only just joined this discussion. However, a majority does not equal a consensus. Anyway, since this is a style, and not a WP:LIBEL, issue, I still believe we should keep unaccredited in the article for now pending the outcome of a RfC. BlueSalix (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is one area of wikipeida where one person can override consensus about inclusive material until there is consensus to restore. No apologies needed. Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no substance to your claim. Simply shouting "BLP" over and over again isn't helping. It is sourced. It is relevant. It stays. RobinBnn (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC that's only true in the case of WP:LIBEL; maybe I'm wrong. Either way I do think a RfC would help take the edge off this discussion a little. You both have relevant and important points and it's natural stalemates eventually become a little heated. BlueSalix (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent] I added an article by the Religion News Service that discusses McMorris and specifically mentions PCC's lack of accreditation. This should settle things for Two kinds of pork who wrote: "Find a source that makes note of this". RobinBnn (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That source satisfies all my previous reticence in including "unaccredited" - thanks RobinBnn! BlueSalix (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. For what it's worth, it is also in the Washington Post here. RobinBnn (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are acceptable. This is also should serve as a lesson that if something is relevant, the sources make note of it. That's not our job as editors of an encyclopediaTwo kinds of pork (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you are fine with including that PCC was unaccredited based on the sources now? I just want to clarify so we can move on to other things. RobinBnn (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The accreditation was never an issue. It was its relevance to Rodgers. And the sources mention of this relevance needs to be expanded, which I will address later Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GREAT TEAM EFFORT BY EVERYONE, gang! Way to go! Barnstars for everyone! BlueSalix (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State makes it illegal to use an unaccredited degree

[edit]

There seems to be one stubborn person who doesn't want to accept that accreditation is an important for inclusion in the article. Therefore, I will quote from Washington state law that makes it illegal to use a false or misleading credential, punishable by five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The law defines False academic credential as:

"False academic credential" means a document that provides evidence or demonstrates completion of an academic or professional course of instruction beyond the secondary level that results in the attainment of an academic certificate, degree, or rank, and that is not issued by a person or entity that: (i) Is an entity accredited by an agency recognized as such by rule of the higher education coordinating board or has the international equivalents of such accreditation; or (ii) is an entity authorized as a degree-granting institution by the higher education coordinating board; or (iii) is an entity exempt from the requirements of authorization as a degree-granting institution by the higher education coordinating board; or (iv) is an entity that has been granted a waiver by the higher education coordinating board from the requirements of authorization by the board.

Pensacola Christian College (i) was not accredited by a recognized agency, (ii) was not an authorized degree-granting institution, (iii) is not exempt from and did not seek exemption from the higher education coordinating board, and (iv) was not granted a waiver by the Washington Higher Education Board.

To be clear, I am not accusing McMorris of breaking any law. I quote the law and explain it in the context of PCC to demonstrate the importance of noting a degree is unaccredited.

The law shows that an unaccredited degree is misleading and using it can be a crime in her home state. If the government is concerned about unaccredited degrees and reliable sources discuss McMorris' lack of accreditation then it should be mentioned in a wiki article. RobinBnn (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The law you are quoting was passed in 2006, she earned her degree in 1990, doesn't seem to apply. The law you quote only applies to colleges operating in Washington sate, PCC operates in Florida, doesn't seem to apply. She earned her executive MBA from the University of Washington in 2002, an accredited university. They must have determined her undergraduate degree was acceptable to their standards at the time, that is their decision. I don't know what this particular law has to do with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.178.6.18 (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The context this being quoted is clear if you bothered to read the above sections. Seriously, there has been lots of discussion above that you could read if you want to see why this was posted. No one has or is accusing anyone of a crime. However, I want to correct several of your misstatements: The law pertains to an unaccredited degree being used on a job application in Washington state post-2006 whether received in 1990, 2005 or 2007 it doesn't matter. Lastly, the law doesn't apply only to unaccredited institutions in one state. The law applies to using a fake or misleading degree in the Washington state. Whether a fake degree was printed in Washington or Mexico, it is still fake and illegal to use in the state. RobinBnn (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It only applies to schools that do business in the state of Washington. It only applies to individuals that try to pass off unaccredited degrees as accredited degrees. Neither of these have been shown to happen so it does not apply to this case — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.178.6.18 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't bothered to read the law or this talk page before injecting yourself here. The law is only seven pages, read it! Section two (page two)of the law prevents fake degrees from being used. It doesn't matter whether they came from Washington, Mexico or the Moon. Section three (on page three) amends another law and deals with an entirely different matter. It discusses educational institutions in Washington and requires them to be accredited or exempted by the Board. RobinBnn (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the talk page discussion and I have read the law. Which one of the things in section 2 paragraph (2) are you saying she has done to make this law apply to this situation? The law can not apply to the school in this situation since the law did not exist in 1990 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.178.4.18 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Above I wrote: "I am not accusing McMorris of breaking any law. I quote the law and explain it in the context of PCC to demonstrate the importance of noting a degree is unaccredited." RobinBnn (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we agree that this law has no bearing on this article, since the school did not do anything in violation of it when they granted the degree in 1990 and McMorris has not done anything in violation of the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.178.5.18 (talk • contribs)
Please have someone help you comprehend the original post where I said: "There seems to be one stubborn person who doesn't want to accept that accreditation is an important for inclusion in the article. ... I am not accusing McMorris of breaking any law." RobinBnn (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please have someone help you comprehend that this law has nothing to do with this situation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.178.6.18 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll explain it again to you: Some editors are opposed to mentioning PCC's unaccredited status. I quoted the law to show that the government takes the unaccredited status of a degree or institution seriously. If the government cares, reliable sources care then so should Wikipedia. So yes, mentioning the law--which forbids using unaccredited degrees without approval-- is relevant to this situation. RobinBnn (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we will never see eye to eye on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.178.5.18 (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The UW EMBA offers a limited number of waivers of undergraduate degree requirements if people have exceptional life experience and score a minimum grade on the GMAT (other EMBA candidates don't need to take the GMAT); so the fact she was accepted into the UW EMBA program does not necessarily mean the UW considered PCC to be an acceptable degree (nor, of course, does it mean they didn't - we don't have the information to say whether she was given a waiver or not). On the point by RobinBnn, I'm somewhat familiar with the law and it wouldn't apply in Rodgers case regardless of the dates involved - it's only a crime if one claims to have a degree from an accredited institution but does not have said degree (and a few other situations that don't apply); besides no one has ever accused Rodgers of making any claims regarding her degree on a job application - by all appearances she's been a career member of the political class so likely never had to make a job application.
All of these issues are pretty far afield, in any case. Since it's been specifically called-out in RS - namely the Washington Post (via RNS) - it's certainly fair game to note in this article she graduated from an institution that lacked accreditation, IMO (the only thing that could possibly override us including that is if PCC were granted retroactive accreditation, which I've seen nothing to suggest was the case). My only concern is that there are now two sentences on this which is veering into the realm of WP:UNDUE. I liked the version better when this was all encapsulated into a single, neat sentence. (Frankly, this section could be even more pointed by observing that TRACS school degrees aren't even accepted - despite their accreditation - in 25+ states for purposes of obtaining licensures like teaching certificates, CPAs, etc. Now that would be a smear attempt - though absolutely true.) BlueSalix (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[EC] I came here after seeing comments on User:JzG's talk page. I've edited a lot of articles and lists on the topic of accreditation, unaccredited schools, and diploma mills, so I've often wrestled with questions about what should be said (and what constitutes undue emphasis) when discussing these schools. IMO, the "Early life and education" section in the current version of the article provides the appropriate factual information without giving undue emphasis to the criticisms of Pensacola Christian College.
I would absolutely stay away from suggesting that there are legal issues surrounding Cathy McMorris Rodgers' attendance at Pensacola Christian, for several reasons:
1. Lack of accreditation does not necessarily indicate a substandard institution or a substandard education. Some institutions lack accreditation because the accrediting agencies were concerned about their financial management. That's something for a prospective student to be concerned about (because it suggests that the institution might not be around very long), but it doesn't necessarily mean there are problems with educational quality. Historically, many religious colleges refused to participate in accreditation (not just Pensacola Christian) -- and in many states religious schools are exempt from laws regarding authorization/accreditation. Other universities and regulatory authorities typically recognize certain unaccredited schools as valid institutions, even though they aren't accredited.
2. Not all unaccredited degrees are illegal in Washington. The law in Washington state was enacted after the discovery of a major diploma mill fraud based in the state and it is intended to prevent more cases like it. The law specifically does not apply to persons with degrees from "an entity exempt from the requirements of authorization as a degree-granting institution by the higher education coordinating board" -- that language almost certainly relates to religious colleges like Pensacola.
3. The Washington law didn't exist when Rodgers attended Pensacola, nor subsequently when she obtained her master's degree from University of Washington. The law was enacted in 2006, but Rodgers graduated from Pensacola in 1990 and from U. Wash. in 2002. Even if Washington's intent was to make it illegal to use a Pensacola Christian degree to (for example) enroll in the state's university system, it wouldn't apply retroactively.
4. Emphasis in this article on negative information about her college looks like a classic case of a POV-pushing WP:Content fork. --Orlady (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but no one is suggesting there is a legal problem or even that all unaccredited schools are illegal. One particular user claims it is a "smear attempt" to mention her degree came from an unaccredited college. The above law shows accreditation is an important issue. You can read the above sections for more information. RobinBnn (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree that accreditation is an important issue; otherwise I wouldn't have accumulated 446 edits to List of unaccredited institutions of higher education and 179 edits to List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations (and many more edits to related articles) over the last 7 years. If you read my comments above, you would see that I agree that it's appropriate for the article to mention the former unaccredited status of Pensacola Christian College. What I'm saying is that there is no call for suggesting that there are legal issues surrounding Cathy McMorris Rodgers' attendance at Pensacola Christian. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We are in 100% agreement. RobinBnn (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We all agree that accredidation is an important issue, we don't aggree that this law has anything to do with this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.178.4.18 (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop digging and read the above sections on this talk. Other editors above claim accreditation is not an important issue. Hence, I quoted the state law that takes it seriously. That is all. RobinBnn (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the one who quoted a law that has nothing to do with this situation and refuses to admit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.178.6.18 (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first line in this section is "There seems to be one stubborn person who doesn't want to accept that accreditation is an important for inclusion in the article." Two lines above you wrote: "We all agree that accredidation [SIC] is an important issue." Can you admit that you simply didn't grasp the point of this section? The law shows the importance of mentioning a degree in unaccredited, which is why it was quoted. RobinBnn (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand what you think you were trying to do, but when you start quoting laws they better apply to the article. When you quote a law that has nothing to do with situation that is being discussed you weaken your position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.178.5.18 (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not clear you understood. You clearly didn't understand the post or even the meaning of the law. Look at it like this, why would a law only ban a fake credential from Washington state and nowhere else? RobinBnn (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the meaning of the law. The law says it is illegal for a school doing business in Washington to give out fake degrees. The law also says it is illegal for a person with any fake degree, no matter where it comes from, to pass that off as a real degree in Washington state. The State of Washington can not make something illegal if it doesn't happen with in their state. Either of these things must happen in Washington State for this law to have any effect 155.178.4.18 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good, it sounds like you understand the spirit of the law now. RobinBnn (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Always have understood the meaning of the law. PCC does not operate within Washington state so the law does not apply. There is nothing that says McMorris has done any of the things that are prohibited in Section 2 Paragraph (2) so the law does not apply. This law has nothing to do with this particular situation. 155.178.4.18 (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And as I noted at the start of this thread, "To be clear, I am not accusing McMorris of breaking any law. I quote the law and explain it in the context of PCC to demonstrate the importance of noting a degree is unaccredited." Are you an employee of the technical center editing on government time or just catching a flight? RobinBnn (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got it, you are quoting a law that did not apply to PCC when the degree was given or even now to demonstrate the importance of noting the degree is unaccredited. You say you aren't accusing McMorris of breaking this law and the law does not apply to PCC, so how does it apply to this specific situation? 155.178.4.18 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you "got it" and in the next sentence say you don't know how "it appl[ies] to this specific situation." You are either illogical or being a WP:TROLL. My regards to the FAA's William J. Hughes Technical Center for their hiring choices. RobinBnn (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is neither one, I got what you are trying to do, but I do not understand how it applies to this specific situation. You can't defend the point so you attack the person. 155.178.4.18 (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't understand and didn't "get it." RobinBnn (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But since this law does not apply to this situation it does nothing except divert the discussion to something that has ne bearing on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.178.4.18 (talk • contribs)
That is a non sequitur. RobinBnn (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 155.178.4.18 might have meant to say that since this law does not apply to her situation, discussing the law in the article does nothing except divert the article to something that has no bearing on it. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Its significance lies in the fact that this was a school that deliberately and defiantly chose to remain unaccredited, despite the quality of some of their programme,s simply because no accreditation agency would allow them to qualify teachers on the basis of a young earth creationist curriculum. In the current political climate, having legislators who chose to attend YEC fundamentalist schools is germane, but does not necessarily speak to legality or quality of the degree. I have only one degree, earned from a Russell Group university. No university in my country teaches creationism. It baffles me that any country would accredit a university that teaches such nonsense. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, TRACS is really only accreditation-in-name-only. Most states disallow TRACS degrees to meet the requirements of licenses that require university degrees and reputable graduate schools don't recognize TRACS degrees for admissions - TRACS even does presentations about this LOL -- [[1.ppt]]. The TRACS article here on WP should be expanded by someone with the wherewithal and interest to get into these points. (That said, I find TRACS a lot less offensive than the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine). BlueSalix (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Image

[edit]

We already have a headshot in the infobox, so I've uploaded an "unposed" image (the one now online with Mike Mullen and Sanford Bishop) and swapped out the second headshot that was halfway down the page. If anyone passionately objects to this, please feel free to undo it. BlueSalix (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine anyone objecting, but since there's plenty of room in this long article, I added a second headshot lower on the page. Gamaliel (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no dedicated section on her political positions?

[edit]

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boehner#Political_positions See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#Political_positions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herp Derp (talk • contribs) 23:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • SupportThat seems like a good idea. We have a lot of info on her positions already but it's scattered around the article. Plus there hasn't been much fighting since the PCC conflict, and adding a political positions section is likely to spice things up in here. BlueSalix (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2014

[edit]

For the Wikipedia page on Cathy McMorris Rodgers, this line should be removed: "her office attributed them to Todd Winer, a former employee who had been fired by the congresswoman." This line should be removed for several reasons: first, the source cited in the Politico story is not from McMorris Rodgers' office, it's from a "source close to the investigation." Second, the story never mentions that Winer was fired. Finally, Winer's involvement - if any - has not been confirmed by the Office of Congressional Ethics or by Winer himself. Given the fact that this statement contains both inaccuracies and implies that uncertain information has been proven - which it hasn't - it should definitely be removed. CharlieMacPhil (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Politico story says:

“The complaint to the OCE was made by a former disgruntled employee, Todd Winer, who was terminated from the office with cause after [McMorris Rodgers] became Conference chair, and she decided not to choose him for the communications director position at Conference,” said a source familiar with the inquiry.

  1. "source close to the investigation" or "source familiar with the inquiry" – correct, nothing linking the source to "her office"
  2. "the story never mentions that Winer was fired" – Winer was "terminated from the office with cause", per the story. That seems to me like a longer-winded way of saying "fired"
  3. Your third point is the one I most take to heart. I think we should exercise caution, wait for confirming sources, and, generally speaking, restrain from naming alleged whistle-blowers or victims based on limited information.
 Done Wbm1058 (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictions

[edit]

Her official biography and the Wikipedia article says her family started a farm in 1984 and she "worked there for 13 years." 1984+13=1997. In 2011 and 2014 she listed her profession as "fruit orchard worker" in the Official Congressional Directory. She earned a BA in Florida, which I'll assume took four years. She has been an elected politician since 1994. I read somewhere that the family sold the farm in the late 1990s, shortly before her father died.

First, the problem with the claim of 13 years is someone cannot work on a farm in Washington, while living in Florida from 1986 to 1990 where she said she cleaned houses and worked at McDonalds. Secondly, since 1994 (at aged 25) she has been a full-time career politician. Considering the farm, with different owners, today employs a staff of 1 to 4 people, she can't both be a full-time farm employee and in the Washington capital. Thirdly, if she was a professional "fruit orchard worker" in 2011 that means she was a farm worker for 27 years, not 13! The farm has been sold multiple times since her parents owned it, see a 2010 ad here, which means she worked on another farm she hasn't spoken about or her biography is wrong. Fourthly, she claims to be a "fruit orchard worker" in 2014, according to the Official Congressional Directory. How does she find time to work in an orchard, while being a ranking Congresswoman in 2014? Also where's the farm? In Washington DC? The claims of being a farm worker needs clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred000ping (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with our core sourcing policy, "Verifiability, not truth" ... ? — Kralizec! (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, truthiness is the most important value among the wikipedos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.4.17 (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That observation jumped off the page to me too! At first I just wanted to calculate how old she was when she started working for her parents on the farm. Then I was trying to figure out how she could be in Pensacola, Olympia and Washington DC while farming in Kettle Falls. If you have ever been to Kettle Falls, well you would know that commuting between there and SPOKANE would be difficult, let alone DC or Pensacola. Very strange unqualified claim to make when launch right into what where she really spent that 13 years. Spawn777 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Cathy McMorris Rodgers. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cathy McMorris Rodgers. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cathy McMorris Rodgers. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cathy McMorris Rodgers. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In line citation 69

[edit]

The inline citation 69 that she supported repeal of Net Neutrality does not support that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DancerEE (talk • contribs) 00:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cathy McMorris Rodgers. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of biographical history

[edit]
There is a consensus to not include the information at issue. A raw vote count had 4 opposed to including the information, 2 who were in favor of including the information (although 1 of them suggested that they felt that the full content at issue is perhaps too long and should be shortened), and 1 editor who supported very brief mention of the subject's origins in the lead (a sentiment echoing comments made earlier by an editor opposed to the inclusion of the information). Arguments were focused on the presence or absence of early biography information in other articles, and some arguments against inclusion also invoked the description of what a lead should be from MOS:LEAD. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 22:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Howdy all. I tried to fill out the lead (as can be seen in this revision). @Snooganssnoogans: disagreed with the edit, later stating it was "boring" and of "no interest to most readers." Personally, I find that to be a WP:NPOV issue; what Snooganssnoogans finds interesting may be much different than other readers. Some readers might be very interested in McMorris Rodgers' life outside politics. (I, for one, read political BLPs primarily for the historical background/early life history as I know the recent stuff from other sources.) I also directed them to featured articles (Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, John McCain and Ronald Reagan) which are all fantastic political BLPs with similar leads. BLPs are meant to be biographies providing details on an entire person's life, not just about the time that made them famous. WP:BLPLEAD explicitly states that all information in the article should be included in the lead, with recent stuff receiving no more attention. Further, McMorris Rodgers frequently refers back to her youth in political discourse, ads and decisions, making it all the more worthy of inclusion in the lead. That ought to start in the lead, as it does with nearly every well-written political BLP. (I could direct the interest to dozens of GAs and FAs written that way if the above do not suffice.) That's my argument--let's have a robust lead summarizing information from throughout her life, just as we do for nearly every good BLP. I am open to hearing others' ideas. Thoughts? PrairieKid (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CMR's early life stuff is only covered briefly in what is a sizable article. Some of the content is also mentioned in the infobox if any reader be interested to learn where this House Rep hails. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I don't think that addresses much of what I said. Wikipedia is about providing a full biography and you can not pretend to know what visitors are looking for. All of these other BLPs seem to be consistent on this. You really have to convince me why CMR is different from all of the other BLPs on Wikipedia before I would go along with you here.
Further, I think you're pointing to another issue with the article (i.e. that we need more information on her early life). An ideal article would have a fuller biography and a large lead section. However, we should not shorten the lead solely because we do not have a ton of additional content in the main article. We should not shorten the lead to be inadequate just because the article is inadequate, if that makes sense. Instead, we should expand the lead and then work toward expanding the article.
For right now, I will readd in the career-centered stuff to the lead, since I think we can agree that ought to be there. Just know that unless you can provide good reasoning as to why CMR is different from everyone else, I will soon add back in the rest of the content as well. PrairieKid (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for WP:OTHER, it's actually rare that House Reps have info about their birthplace, education and parents in the lede (even House Reps with much longer articles). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're doing the classic "cite a policy without explaining why" bit. WP:OTHER is primarily about page creation and content inclusion, not so much about formatting and weight. However, I would suggest you turn toward WP:SSEFAR within OTHER, especially the 3rd and 5th bullet points. Articles ought to be consistent across Wikipedia
As far as other congressional articles, I would again point to the fact that they simply are not up to par yet. That is why I suggested FAs. You can also look at GAs like Mike Capuano, Matt Bevin, Rahm Emanuel, Charlie Baker, John Berry (administrator), Steve Beshear, Byron Brown, Joe Kennedy III, Jim McGovern (American politician),Barney Frank, Mitch Daniels...the list goes on and on and on with but a few exceptions. We should be writing articles like CMR's hoping to match the precedence set by GAs and the FAs, rather than trying to match that set by B- and C- class articles. Precedence is set by the articles our community has agreed consistently to be superior.
I also have to say I am a bit surprised and concerned you also changed my edits on Jaime Herrera Beutler. That seems a clear case of WP:HOUND. You may disagree with me here and we ought to have this discussion here. But do not start going through my edit history just trying to revert my work here. PrairieKid (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To what extent that content like this exists in ledes, it's because unusually many politician articles are written like campaign brochures/advertisements intended to glorify and humanize these people with mundane trivia about their origins and backgrounds. It's a pock on Wikipedia. Outside of politician Wikipedia, this content does not really exist - and thank god for that. See Neil Young, Ingmar Bergman, Fabio Cannavaro or any other random Wikipedia page for famous people who have accomplished much more and had a more lasting impact on society than the thousands of people who have happened to represent congressional districts for a few years. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think you need to convince me why we would look to B- and C- class articles over FAs. Even more so, why would we look to non-political articles over political articles here? You do not seem to be addressing what I am saying at all. I really want to walk away with us both feeling heard and satisfied. I do not feel like I am being heard here. PrairieKid (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating how FAs contain this type of bio material in the lede, yet all those political bio FAs are about major historical figures. There are countless GAs, which are about less prominent historical figures, which do not contain the sort of absurdly mundane campaign ad bio material that you keep edit-warring into this article.[7] If you believe it's standard to include this mundane material to the ledes of House Reps, I implore you to seek community-feedback to show that this is truly the case. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, I have provided a bunch of examples of GAs and FAs from both BLPs and BDPs (biographies of dead persons, if you will) which all have that consistent theme. Please provide some GAs/FAs which are as well-written (rather than those that passed F/GA in ~2011 and haven't been reassessed since) that follow your way. Otherwise, we are back to the presumption the articles will contain that information and the burden is on you to explain why we go against precedent.
Further, I think you ought to seriously reconsider the way you are going about this. It does seem to be reaching a personal level. It seems borderline accusatory, with you claiming I am adding campaign material; the accusation that I am a CMR shill or unable to keep my bias outside of editing is not well-taken. Further, you tell me what I find important is "boring" or "mundane." In the words of The Dude: "That's just, like, your opinion man." What you find important/not important is only one piece of the puzzle. We can not assume what our readers are here for. Therefore, we should be as comprehensive as possible and stick to precedence and prior agreements which involved many people. Otherwise, you are just completely ignoring my opinion. I hope you agree that is not the best approach.
Look, I want to engage with you and have a good discussion but you are making that difficult. You are offering comments on me rather than the content, providing little to no evidence for your claims and not engaging the points as I make them. Looking at your talk page and history, you seem to do this quite consistently with people. You get into a lot of arguments on here that quickly become personal and (based on your user page) you actually seem quite proud of your argumentative and confrontational nature. Why? That is not what this project is and ought to be about. Please reconsider your attitude. PrairieKid (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Brunner + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Corzine + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Pritzker and so on. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brunner was last assessed in 2009 and Corzine in 2008. Standards have certainly changed since then and I would hardly say those articles generally are well-written or ought to be the standard (having given them both a good skim). In fact, Corzine's lead hardly summarizes the article accurately at all. As for Pritzker, her lead does not list her birthplace or education but it does touch on her family and early career. I'll give you her about halfway. So (not that this is a math competition), I think you have one article that halfway proves your point whereas I have over a dozen.
Further, you are not really addressing the meat of the issue at all. PrairieKid (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pritzker's family and business background is clearly pertinent to her career and notability. Where she was born is absolutely not. Equally non-notable is that JHB has undergrad in communications and that CMR's self-written campaign bio boasts of being a descendant of Oregon Trail pioneers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you and I are going to go round-and-round in circles. Rather than just getting upset at one another and furthering conflict, I am going to look toward WP:DISPUTE. These articles are both extremely important and often-viewed so I am not quite ready to WP:DISENGAGE. Now, I want to leave it up to you. We could pursue WP:3O or WP:DRN. Which one are you more open to pursuing and which will you accept? I am fine with either. PrairieKid (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's your pick. I usually go for RfCs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to chime in on this. First, I did a little checking. The Oregon Trail bit on CMR has been reported in Politco and Atlantic back in 2014. Both are reliable sources. @Snooganssnoogans: did you know that or did you know that but think this information came from WP and that those publications were getting their facts from here? A check of this article's history would tell us if the info was in the article prior to those articles. I won't bore you with the story of how I think some wrong facts at WP may well have been the source for them being in a book written by John Paul Stevens.
Second, If this information is put back in the article with a reliable source, I don't think it belongs in the lead.
@PrairieKid: too. So he can reply to what I wrote....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can appreciate that. It's fair to say those words are not necessary for the lead. Granted, it was only a few words and I still believe it ought to be included but I will concede there. Now, how about regarding the rest of the material? Snooganssnoogans, is there anything from the lead as I had written it that was unsourced? What about on Jaime Herrera Beutler's article, where you also had issues? Anything not sourced? Of course I do not want content without a source in the article and especially not in the lead. Regarding the rest of it, however, I still do not understand why it ought not be included. I will begin the RfC process shortly. PrairieKid (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If RS have reported about her ancestors being Oregon Trail pioneers, then it's fine to include in the 'early life' section. Also, @WilliamJE:, as someone who is prolific in editing American politics, I believe that a lot of mundane background info about candidates comes from the candidates themselves and RS often take them at their word, judging by the number of scandals that occur with it being revealed that candidates lying about their background (but that's besides the point and I'm not suggesting CMR is lying). As for the lede, even if this is covered and sourced in the body, it doesn't belong in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People, sometimes deliberately and sometimes because they in good faith relate something that they think true (Family legends) but isn't, relate things about themselves to the media and the media most of the time doesn't do any checking even on easily verifiable information. They will say "That's what John said". While I have worked for the MSN (I blogged for Newsweek for a while) I just don't understand that attitude. Sports Illustrated in the 1960s tells a story about some incident at Pebble Beach involving Arnold Palmer. 50 years later a ESPN reporter tells an opposite version.
I do some work on politics articles here too. I have a 1988 Almanac of American Politics and love using it as a reference source for Congress people articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


RfC on Lead

[edit]

Should the lead of Cathy McMorris Rodgers' and Jaime Herrera Beutler's articles include information about their early life (as seen in this edit for CMR and this edit for JHB) or not (as they currently stand)? PrairieKid (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without reading the above discussion, I do not believe anything before the start of their careers is important enough for the lead section. It's mundane and does not need to be repeated from the early life and education sections. It could be condensed to just the hometown and the lead-in to the career via university perhaps. Reywas92Talk 04:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The early life material is mundane, covered briefly in the body, and is not particularly notable. Thus, no space in the lede should be given to it. Her basic info (birthplace, education, birth year etc.) is already in the infobox in case there are any readers who want this info immediately when they glance at this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take an intermediate position. The lead of an an article should briefly summarize the most important points in the body of the article. It is bizarre and not appropriate to have such a large amount of early life information in the lead, which is repeated right after that in the early life section. On the other hand, the current lead is pretty sparse and spare. I support adding her birthplace, and very brief mention of the farming background. If reliable sources really discuss her pioneer origins, I would not object to a brief mention of that. I find emphasis on expanding the lead a bit disconcerting. Far better to focus on policy compliant expansion of the body of the article, and then expansion of the lead flows naturally from that. Denigrating the article subject because she is only a run of the mill member of Congress is ludicrous. Election to Congress or any national legislature is a major accomplishment, and work to expand and improve the biographies of all such people is a very valuable contribution to this encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, (Summoned by bot) suggestions made above are fairly trivial. Since "the lead … should briefly summarize the most important points in the body", it follows that family background and life before being notable is unlikely to feature significantly and that the lead will tend to be proportionate to the body. Even place of birth is not inherently important (Obama's is included in the lead, John McCain's isn't ... possibly because of the 'birther' focus on Obama. Hitler's is included, because his Austrian origins are important to the subject). In some instances, sources may draw attention to early life of the individual, but that does not appear to be the case here. A concise, albeit brief, lead is preferable to an artificially 'bloated' one IMO. Pincrete (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not include in the lead (Summoned by bot) I would not include information on early life in the lead section of either article. While the information is definitely relevant to include in the body, the events of their early lives are not part of what makes them notable. I agree that the existing leads are a bit on the sparse side, but I would prefer to expand them using their accomplishments in Congress rather than focusing on their early lives. CThomas3 (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - or at least expand lede. A single paragraph lead is two short. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH we should have 3-4 paragraphs for the 37kb prose Cathy McMorris Rodgers and 2-3 paragraphs for the 17kb prose Jaime Herrera Beutler. I think some pre-politics content is DUE (though possibly less than in the presented versions) - but the lede definitely should be longer in order to summarize the relatively long articles. Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Article has been edited down to a set of liberal criticisms

[edit]

These edits 1 2 3 selectively removed Rodgers' relevant accomplishments and positions that are likely to be viewed favorably by general readers and have effectively reduced the overall article down to a set of criticisms framed from an American liberal POV. The revision comment claimed that the content removed was poorly sourced, but upon inspection most of the content you removed was sourced and it's unclear why they found the sources to be problematic. I attempted to revert the changes, but someone reverted back. Please explain the objections to the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.140.195 (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination of "McMorris" from the title

[edit]

On March 26, 2021, the title of the article was changed by Hong Kong Ian from "Cathy McMorris Rodgers" to "Cathy Rodgers". However, I noticed that every mention of "Rodgers" on the page is preceded by "McMorris", and the same is true if you google any news article about her. Considering that "McMorris" appears to be an integral part of her name, I don't see how it can be justified to remove it from the title. So I plan to change it back unless someone can explain the flaw in my reasoning here.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesy0627144: thanks for bringing this up. I hadn't noticed the move. It shouldn't have been made. She goes by and is known as Cathy McMorris Rodgers, so that should be the page title. Any future moves to a different title should be discussed here first and not made without consensus. Marquardtika (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cathy_McMorris_Rodgers&oldid=1263651085"