Talk:Bernie Moreno/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Bernie Moreno. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because Bernie Moreno is currently one of the leading candidates for the U.S. Senate in Ohio and a page on this individual is important and notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonOhioHistory (talk • contribs)
- Please read WP:NPOL: until he's elected, or unless there is WP:SIRS, he is not notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Contested deletion (2)
This should not be deleted, because he’s an important candidate in this race. If you’re going to delete Bernie Moreno’s page, you might as well delete Frank LaRose’s page and delete Matt Dillan’s page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmashingThreePlates (talk • contribs) 04:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- We shouldn't delete major party canidates for Senate. He's the nominee now. End of story. 68.234.168.22 (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- I second this, makes zero sense to delete this page if he's the nominee JasonOhioHistory (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- There are plenty of losing nominees without wikipedia pages. I lean delete; guy is too unknown and random for their to be a page on him. If he wins then we can make a page about him after November. StrangelyAccurate (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- How about we lean on the side of caution, if he loses in November THEN you can delete the page. 68.234.168.22 (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sure there are a lot of losing nominees without wikipedia pages but you're also talking about the one of two major party nominees for the US Senate for the 7th largest state in the US. I think Moreno meets the general notability guidelines, especially now with significant news coverage after winning the primary. JasonOhioHistory (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also, another thing is that Wikipedia has articles for other losing US senate nominees who never held office (Blake Masters and Kari Lake) from similarly sized US states. JasonOhioHistory (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- I must agree with this, people will want to learn about who they may be voting for and Wikipedia is a major source for this. If Mark Ronchetti gets a page so should Bernie Moreno 2600:1011:B12F:8BA7:4CAF:A9A0:85C:2A8A (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- These are Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly WP:WHATABOUTISM and WP:USEFUL. Wikipedia's inclusion policy is predicated almost entirely on the general notability policy, and on subject-specific policies such as for politicians; the latter explicitly states they must be elected, and the former has a rather high-bar for significant coverage by independent, reliable, secondary sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the bar for significant coverage by independent, reliable, secondary sources is obviously met in this case. Almost all of the most popular media sources and newspapers (NBC, AP, Politico, NYT, WashPost, etc.) have all reported on his primary victory and have sufficient coverage about him. Obviously, I get you're not supposed to do whataboutism but my point is that party nominees for high offices in the United States will almost always get the sufficient coverage necessary for an article and generally meet the bar for being significant and I think this case is no different. We're not talking about some random candidate running for local office in Rhode Island with only local news coverage. Based on independent and significant news coverage, Moreno meets the bar. JasonOhioHistory (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- It does appear to be so now. At the time of the start of this thread, that wasn't obviously the case. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the bar for significant coverage by independent, reliable, secondary sources is obviously met in this case. Almost all of the most popular media sources and newspapers (NBC, AP, Politico, NYT, WashPost, etc.) have all reported on his primary victory and have sufficient coverage about him. Obviously, I get you're not supposed to do whataboutism but my point is that party nominees for high offices in the United States will almost always get the sufficient coverage necessary for an article and generally meet the bar for being significant and I think this case is no different. We're not talking about some random candidate running for local office in Rhode Island with only local news coverage. Based on independent and significant news coverage, Moreno meets the bar. JasonOhioHistory (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- These are Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly WP:WHATABOUTISM and WP:USEFUL. Wikipedia's inclusion policy is predicated almost entirely on the general notability policy, and on subject-specific policies such as for politicians; the latter explicitly states they must be elected, and the former has a rather high-bar for significant coverage by independent, reliable, secondary sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- I must agree with this, people will want to learn about who they may be voting for and Wikipedia is a major source for this. If Mark Ronchetti gets a page so should Bernie Moreno 2600:1011:B12F:8BA7:4CAF:A9A0:85C:2A8A (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- There are plenty of losing nominees without wikipedia pages. I lean delete; guy is too unknown and random for their to be a page on him. If he wins then we can make a page about him after November. StrangelyAccurate (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- I second this, makes zero sense to delete this page if he's the nominee JasonOhioHistory (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Gay Adult Website Controversy
I have removed highly controversial BLP on the page regarding gay adult website controversy. If you would like to add this back, please first argue and gain community consensus before adding this back - it must not violate UNDUE and WP:NPOV Mr Vili talk 01:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- It was a notable news story about Moreno, it probably should be added back in given it was a fairly big story. However, we should ensure it's from a neutral point of view as to not violate the UNDUE policy. JasonOhioHistory (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say I can count approximately 14 WP:RSPs who've covered it now so it's not a case of "rag source covering rag story". Not seeing how adding a matter of fact "post comes out linked to Moreno, Moreno campaign denies it" is gonna be a problem re UNDUE or NPOV. Comments and suggestions welcome. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Given other editors have agreed with me on this I've restored it; as said in the edit summary I didn't think it needed its own section and didn't wanna add it to a WP:CSECTION. Again, comments and suggestions welcome. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- The story is being widely covered by multiple news outlets. I do not see how keeping this information in the article is violating UNDUE and WP:NPOV 199.246.102.5 (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Mr vili: We would appear to have consensus to include. Also note that it would be excluding it which would violate UNDUE and NPOV, not including it. Wikipedia is not censored and major controversies are expected to be covered. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I trimmed the content down; maybe one sentence that he was a victim of a homophobic prank by a campaign staffer would be the appropriate weight? BBQboffingrill me 16:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2024
 | This edit request to Bernie Moreno has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
70.181.167.248 (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Graduated from NYU in degree in marketing
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 20:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Energy/Climate Change
I added a section on energy policy just now. Usually those types of sections in "political positions" have a statement on the person's position on the scientific consensus on climate change and the environment more broadly. For Moreno, it doesn't seem as if he has stated a position on it. I assume his position is he doesn't care all that much but I haven't found any source about that specifically. If anyone is able to find that, please add that sometime in the future. JasonOhioHistory (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Lead Nationality
Per MOS:NATIONALITY it is important to clarify the status of the nationality of individuals, especially for a politician running for office such as he. Should the lead refer to him as Colombian-American, Colombian-born American, or Colombian and American? Zinderboff(talk) 18:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Title of LGBT section
In regards to the title of the second section under "Political positions," I think it would make the most sense to title it "LGBT" rather than "LGBT rights," since the section is about Moreno's opinions and activities surrounding the LGBT community. I think this an appropriate title given the section's content, and also adheres to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view BlueShirtz (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Would "LGBT community" not be better than just LGBT in that case? I concur with others on "LGBT" on its own looking strange as a header. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose, but I think LGBT is broad enough to cover everything because the section is about Moreno's stances on political issues involving people who identify as LGBT rather than specific individuals who are apart of that group. Personally, I don't think "LGBT" as a title looks any more strange than "Energy" as a title for instance. But between those options "LGBT community" is closer to the contents of the section than "LGBT rights." BlueShirtz (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think "LGBT" is probably fine, but another option is "LGBT policy". Marquardtika (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, LGBT and LGBT policy are both too vague and confusing. LGBT community would be an acceptable option, but the most accurate one (based on the content of the section) would be LGBT rights. Radiohist (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand how LGBT or LGBT policy are vague or confusing. The section itself is just about Moreno's activities surrounding and personal opinions of LGBT political issues. But between the current title and "LGBT community," which so far seems to be the most supported option, I would support the latter. BlueShirtz (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- We have quite a few pages entitled "LGBT issues in country/region" on Wikipedia, and here that common phrasing would encompass the issues of LGBT rights (such as Moreno's evolving acceptance of gay marriage) as well as activities and interactions with the LGBT community (2014 Gay Games hosting and 2024 accusations). So "LGBT issues" would be my suggestion. BBQboffingrill me 15:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand how LGBT or LGBT policy are vague or confusing. The section itself is just about Moreno's activities surrounding and personal opinions of LGBT political issues. But between the current title and "LGBT community," which so far seems to be the most supported option, I would support the latter. BlueShirtz (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, LGBT and LGBT policy are both too vague and confusing. LGBT community would be an acceptable option, but the most accurate one (based on the content of the section) would be LGBT rights. Radiohist (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think "LGBT" is probably fine, but another option is "LGBT policy". Marquardtika (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose, but I think LGBT is broad enough to cover everything because the section is about Moreno's stances on political issues involving people who identify as LGBT rather than specific individuals who are apart of that group. Personally, I don't think "LGBT" as a title looks any more strange than "Energy" as a title for instance. But between those options "LGBT community" is closer to the contents of the section than "LGBT rights." BlueShirtz (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Political Positions - Right-wing populism?
What's the source that Moreno identifies as a right-wing populist? I have heard others characterize him as such, but have not seen him say that. Perhaps, I am missing something, but the source does not address populism. 128.210.106.49 (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- The "right-wing populist" text was added here[1] but you're right that the source we have doesn't use that phrase. BBQboffingrill me 16:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. "Defines himself" seems a bit strong, as I have not seen a source that says Moreno sees himself that way. 128.210.106.49 (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- After checking an archive of the campaign site, I couldn't find what the sourcing was, so I removed it. When there's strong sourcing for a particular label, we should then add it and attribute it either to Moreno himself or to the sources. BBQboffingrill me 17:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. "Defines himself" seems a bit strong, as I have not seen a source that says Moreno sees himself that way. 128.210.106.49 (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Right To Contraception Act
IP editor's text: At a March 2024 Republican primary debate, he expressed support for access to contraception, but he later expressed opposition to the Right to Contraception Act, which would have guaranteed a woman's right to birth control, and said that he would have voted with Republicans in the U.S. Senate to block the bill.
This to me looks like we're calling Moreno a liar and a hypocrite in Wikivoice, since we don't explain the "why" behind his opposition to the specific bill.
My text: At a March 2024 Republican primary debate, he expressed support for access to contraception, but he later expressed opposition to the Right to Contraception Act. A spokesman said Moreno "supports comprehensive access to birth control for women but not the far-left gimmicks in this bill.”
The IP's objection seems to be that we're parroting his campaign message.
If neither of these is acceptable, can we find NPOV language, based on the NPR source[2] that explains Moreno's opposition to this specific bill, while including his support for what the title of the bill does? BBQboffingrill me 22:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree the second version is more neutral. We could also say something like "...he later expressed opposition to the Right to Contraception Act, with a spokesperson saying Moreno disagreed with the specific language of the bill..." or something to that effect. Although looking at this source, "The bill was indeed a bit of a gimmick, by Democrats' own admission..." The source says Democrats knew the bill had no chance of passing, "But Senate Democrats wanted to get Republicans on the record as opposing it, so it could be used as a campaign cudgel against the GOP Senate candidates in states like Ohio..." Marquardtika (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- My preference would be not to mention the RCA bill at all: it won't come to the floor and if it did, Moreno wouldn't get a vote. We already have his declared position on contraception in the article. My text suggestion above (and I also like your "disagreed with the specific language of the bill" language) was meant as a compromise if it had to be mentioned at all. BBQboffingrill me 17:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that you are not angling for neutrality here, but for deleting any reference to facts that unfavorable for the candidate. That, obviously, is not neutrality. If he expressed support for contraception and then later expressed opposition, those are both relevant facts for people reading about his positions on abortion and contraception. It's pretty obvious that a couple people here are trying eliminate certain sets of facts of here, and that, obviously is not searching for neutrality. 76.126.172.88 (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am realizing he never even voted on the bill in question (of course he didn't, since he's not an elected official...) so what he said he would have done or not done does not actually seem particularly relevant. Politicians (and political candidates) say lots of things. We should focus on what they actually vote on/do. So I agree this should not be included here, all in all it seems like some sort of attempted "gotcha" that is not based on actual actions taken. Marquardtika (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems that you are not angling for neutrality here, but for deleting any reference to facts that unfavorable for the candidate. That, obviously, is not neutrality. If he expressed support for contraception and then later expressed opposition, those are both relevant facts for people reading about his positions on abortion and contraception. It's pretty obvious that a couple people here are trying eliminate certain sets of facts of here, and that, obviously is not searching for neutrality. 76.126.172.88 (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- My preference would be not to mention the RCA bill at all: it won't come to the floor and if it did, Moreno wouldn't get a vote. We already have his declared position on contraception in the article. My text suggestion above (and I also like your "disagreed with the specific language of the bill" language) was meant as a compromise if it had to be mentioned at all. BBQboffingrill me 17:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)