Talk:Tim Scott/Archive 1

Archive 1

!tone

writing about living politicians on wikipEdia-especially in these hyper-partisan times is difficult. The way this article is written, it sounds like a campaign brochure. Not sure how best to do it, but it needs a refocusing on facts rather than hagiography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.203.172 (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Pro life"

I changed the article to read that Scott "describes himself as" pro-life, because the term pro-life is inherently POV (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life#Controversies_over_terminology). To call Scott unequivocally "pro life" is to imply that people who disagree with him are "pro death" and is just as leading as if someone were to describe him as "anti-choice." What is objectively true is that he is opposed to legal abortion. Arbor832466 (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the Wikipedia article that you cited. It was interesting reading, but it is not Wikipedia policy. We describe individuals as they themselves describe themselves. Tim Scott refers to himself as "pro-life." The article you cited is not a Wikipedia policy article. It is an article where information about the "pro-life" versus "pro-choice" debate is discussed only. And of course what the Associated Press suggests is interesting and informative to the Wikipedia reader it is not in any way Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is usually developed after long debates by the whole community. That particular has not attempted to take in the thoughts and opinions of the whole community, nor should it because that is not the goal of that article. That is to say that the goal of that particular article is not to set Wikipedia policy on what term to use to describe "pro-life" or "pro-choice" but rather provide the reader some information about the debate concerning how the debate on abortion has developed. It is not in any way a policy for the writing of this article. What does define how information is presented in this article is the three pillars of Wikipedia--verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research. We can verify that Scott refers to himself as "pro-life." We cannot verify if he is, as you state above "opposed to legal abortion." None of the sources cited outline what he considers to be "pro-life." You are making an assumption that he is against legal abortion in all situations--that is whether he is opposed to ALL abortions or whether he makes exceptions for the life of the mother or rape or incest. We don't know that and we can't assume that we do. That goes to verifiability again. We know that he calls himself "pro-life." The article is about him--not Hillary Clinton, for example. It would be wrong to describe Clinton as "anti-death" or "anti-life". It is wrong to describe Scott in a way that is diametrically opposed to the way that he himself describes himself. It is an article about him and we should give him the same deference that we would Clinton. In the Clinton article it states that Clinton was "100% pro-choice"--quoting a pro-choice organization. Throughout Wikipedia the term "pro-life" is used and throughout Wikipedia the term "pro-choice" is used--so it is not "inherently POV". Wikipedia has a whole section called "Category:American pro-choice activists", so "pro-choice" is not "inherently POV". Wikipedia has a whole section called "Category:American pro-life activists", so "pro-life" is not "inherently POV". What we should do is let him describe himself--just as Kate Michelman is described in Wikipedia as "pro-choice." He is uses the term "pro-life" and that is what we should go with. We should not use your description because you are an editor. If you could find a quote from a reliable source that uses the phrase concerning Scott as "opposed to legal abortion" then we could use it in the article, but we would have to still call him "pro-life" because that is what he is and that is the position that he takes and that is how he describes himself.--Corbridge (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I realize this is a response to a fairly old post, but you seem to have misunderstood the point of the original post. The first poster was not suggesting Scott's choice of words not be used, they were suggesting that the term "pro-life" be attributed directly to Scott so as not to seem if WP was describing his position with those words. Because of this I'm going to edit the section to say "Scott describes himself as pro-life" so that it is clear that WP is not speaking about the issue in those terms. 64.20.28.6 (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Citation concerning the use of "African American"

The entry on Tim Scott details how Scott prefers to be referred to as "American" rather than "African American". However, the source cited for this information, an article entitled "Assignments please Scott" by Robert Behre, does not make a single mention of Scott's preference to be called "American" rather than "African American". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I removed this part and added an appropriate reference for the rest of that sentence about the Congressional Black Caucus. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Subsectioning

Multiple subsections have recently been added for very short and one sentence paragraphs, and I have removed them per the Manual of Style, WP:LAYOUT "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text ... Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading" I can think of additional reasons such as --undue emphasis, and overly long table of contents, and discouraging readers from finishing the article-- that support the MOS rules. I have restored the semi-colons that provide bold type without lengthening the TOC. I notice that the MOS discusses the use of bullet points in such situations, and that would be another way to delineate his political opinions.--KeptSouth (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Making the "first since x" statment more accurate

Tim Scott and Alan West are clearly not "the first African American Republican representatives from the south since Reconstruction". First there is J. C. Watts who was from Oklahoma. If you look at the wikipedia article Southern United States you will see that Oklahoma is shown on the map as part of "the south" and both Oaklahoma City and Tulsa are on the list of the 25 top metro areas in "the South". The formulation "states in the confederacy" works because although some of the Native American nations in modern Oklahoma sided with the rebels against the Union, they did not constitute a state in the confederacy. On the other side "since Reconstruction" is just plain false for South Carolina itself. South Carolina's reconstruction ended in 1877. George Washington Murray, a former slave and a Republican, served in congress from 1893-1895 and 1896-1897. Thus 20 years after reconstuction there was a Republican of African descent serving in the United States house from South Carolina. There were two other SC Republican African Americans who served in the House after 1880. North Carolina gets even more fun. The first African American Republican was elected to congress from there in 1874. George Henry White, who would be the last African American of any party to serve in congress from the south until the election of Barbara Jordan in 1972, served as a Representative from North Carolina until 1901.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree - good points. White was elected before NC passed its disfranchising constitution, and he left the state after it did so, saying it was impossible to be a man there. The article leaves an enormous gap by not discussing why there were decades when no African Americans or Republicans were elected, and failing to acknowledge that southern state legislatures, dominated by white conservative Democrats, disfranchised most blacks across the South from 1890 to 1908 by passing new state constitutions and other laws to make voter registration and voting more difficult. Come on - there has to be some basic history provided here. This exclusion of African Americans from the political system in the South was maintained until after passage of federal civil rights legislation in 1965, which provided for enforcement of their constitutional rights. After that, white conservatives have moved into the Republican Party across the South and many African Americans supported the national Democratic PartyParkwells (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC).

Is pro-business POV?

There is a section that describes Scott's position on a variety of issues. Labor is one of these sections and next to it it simply says, "Scott has a pro-business orientation" this seems POV to me and could be described in a more neutral manner. At the very least it is very vague and doesn't really help someone understand Scott's views on labor issues. Maybe under labor his legislation against the NLRB could be listed? If anyone has any thoughts on this I'd love to hear them. Thanks. Policsn'stuff (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• That section also contains:
  

 Earmarks- Scott opposes earmarks, except in the 1st Congressional District of South Carolina.

I at least hope that whoever did that did so knowingly, as a joke, and is not so incredibly blinded by partisanship. - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"the state's free-rider-anti-union laws"

This is a highly-charged political description of right-to-work laws. It describes every employee in the state as a "free rider" who presumably benefits in some way by union activities without having to pay union dues. It also describes such laws as "anti-union". South Carolina law does not prohibit a union from organizing, operating, or representing the interests of its members, nor does it prohibit any employee from voluntarily joining such a union.

74.171.81.202 (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Victor Fricke

committee asssignments

Does Sen-Designate Scott have his committee assignments yet? 74.69.11.229 (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Term

Pursuant to federal statute (2 USC 36) and Senate historical documentation, the term of appointed Senators begins the date the governor officially appoints him or her. Scott's certificate of appointment was read into the Congressional Record today. Depending on the date it was signed by Governor Haley, his term could start either January 2 or January 3. Once that date is known, I will be making the appropriate change to the article. For discussion and supporting evidence on appointments, please see the article for Brian Schatz.DCmacnut<> 17:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bioguide says January 2 and specifically says the " appointment took effect" on that day. Hekerui (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I saw that, too, so I beat you to it. Now if we can just get the hold outs to agree on Brian Schatz we'll be good.DCmacnut<> 18:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment about default

I am deleting the sentence, "Without the passage of legislation to raise the debt ceiling, the United States could possibly have defaulted on its debt obligations." While conceivably true, the sentence is by necessity speculation and is not supported by any citations. Even with citations, such a sentence is better suited for articles about the debt ceiling and does not belong here.68.115.242.226 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Excessive and peripheral information in the lead section

I've removed the following information from the initial (top, lead) section because it is not in accordance with WP:LEAD. The initial section is supposed to be a summary.

I haven't checked to see if this information is in the body of the article (again, the lead section is supposed to be a summary, with everything in it also in the body of the article), but to the extent it is not, I'd appreciate another editor putting it there.

ran for Congress on a platform of reducing federal spending and taxes.

A graduate of Charleston Southern University, Scott owns an insurance agency and has worked as a financial advisor.

he was one of the two members of the 2010 freshman class chosen to sit at the House Republican leadership table.

and the tenth African-American to serve in the United States Senate.

Scott took office in the Senate on January 2, a day before the rest of the freshmen, resulting in a seniority ranking of 88, several places ahead of where he would have been had he been inaugurated on the regular date. Scott was joined by a second African-American Senator in the 113th Congress when Mo Cowan was appointed to a U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts on February 1, 2013 and served until July 16, 2013. Scott is one of two African-American senators in the 113th Congress, alongside New Jersey Senator Cory Booker.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Coverage of Scott's historic win needs more history

There has to be more history to provide an accurate accounting for Scott's historic win: the gap of Republicans and African Americans as representatives from the South to Congress for decades is due to the history of intentional disfranchisement of blacks in SC and every other former state of the Confederacy via new constitutions at the turn of the century, maintained into the 1960s and only changed by Democratic Party federal leadership and enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Without that, Scott would not have had a political career.Parkwells (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

History not opinion

SC's 1895 disfranchising constitution and its results for blacks and the Republican Party in the state - causing a major gap of decades when blacks were nearly excluded from the political system - are not opinion but facts.Parkwells (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

committees

Tim Scott is not listed on the Commerce, Science and Transportation and Energy and Natural Resources Committees anymore. He is now on the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and Finance committees. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tim Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121105124627/http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20101106/pl_cq_politics/politics000003759421 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20101106/pl_cq_politics/politics000003759421

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Real Estate

It is one of his categories but I don't see anything about his involvement in the entry. I couldn't find anything doing searches either.--TinHo82 (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Attacks on Scott by conservatives

An editor is trying to edit-war op-eds by conservative "legal commentators" (Ed Whelan, known for the bizarre Kavanaugh doppelganger smear campaign & Quin Hillyer, a failed Republican politician) into this article which attack this lone black Republican Senator for not supporting a judicial nominee with a track record of disenfranchising black voters. The editor says that Scott's opposition to Thomas Farr was rooted in "falsehoods". Completely unacceptable content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Is Ed Whelan not a legal commentator for National Review Online? Landivisiau (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

United States Senate Committee on Armed Services

Tim Scott is not a member of the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services. This should be removed from his listed committee memberships. Source: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/

Feb 9 2021 voting against impeachment resolution

Per WAPO; “ It’s our solemn constitutional duty to conduct a fair and honest impeachment trial of the charges against former President Trump, the gravest charges ever brought against a president of the United States in American history,” Schumer said. The resolution passed 89-11. The 11 Republicans voting against it were: Ted Cruz (Texas), Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah), Josh Hawley (Mo.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Tommy Tuberville (Ala.) and Bill Hagerty (Tenn.).” Wikipietime (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In breach of the Constitution Wikipietime (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Justice act: "expanding police body with penalties"

According to the citation, and consistent with items below, expanding police *use of body cameras,*. The article seems to be locked against my editing it, else I would do that directly. 222.152.27.40 (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed "police body" → "police body cameras". Thanks. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Social issues

It might be noteworthy to add to his "Political Positions" > Social issues section that he voted against the Respect for Marriage Act in November 2022. It could be added for additional detail for his opposition to same-sex marriage or just substitute the current citation (2015) for something more recent. X891 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Virginity talk

Personal life section as of May 22 says "When entering public life at age 30, he said he was a virgin." Personally I don't think this is appropriate talk. I don't think it should be included Stuffmaster1000 (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I would lean towards exclusion. I'm not aware of this statement being used of anyone else in Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if that content is on other pages or not; most people would not be coming out as 30 year old virgins. The question is: is there enough coverage of this in the context of his career that makes it WP:DUE to include? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The information is also terribly out of date. StAnselm (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

And my quick search finds WP:DAILYMAIL and other usual suspects. I agree to exclude. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s certainly way out of context, he was encouraging pre-marital abstinence and holding himself out as an example. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

No one is denying it's true. There is no reason to exclude it. Not liking it isn't a reason to note have. [WP:NOTCENSORED]. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Tim Scott is a member of US Senate Foreign Affairs Committee

Please add to Senator Tim Scott's committee assignments in the BLP section as a member of the US senate Foreign Affairs Committe. It is not included in his BLP Senate committee assignments. The source is https://www.foreign.senate.gov/about/membership The chairman of the committee is Robert Menendez. I would add, but the article is locked down and I am a mere IP user. Thank you 104.184.194.154 (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

References

If you click to edit the references section, you’ll see that lots of references are typed out. I have never seen a setup like this before, usually the references section just has one line of code, not hundreds. Shall we revise per normal format? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Turns out this does appear to be an acceptable style per Help:List-defined references. Moreover, the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources#To_be_avoided says that changing this style should be avoided. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's very rare for an article to do this. I've seen it here as well. I would revise this. --Wow (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to revising it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)