Talk:Ami Bera/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notability

Bera is not notable, but I notice that neither Flatterworld or Arbor832466 marked it for merger. Interesting.--InaMaka (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, InaMaka. Would you care to discuss why Mr. Bera is not notable, or are you just here to attack other editors? Arbor832466 (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ami Bera. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.washingtontimes.com/campaign-2012/candidates/amerish-ami-bera-60686
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.beraforcongress.com/pages/about

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Voting Record

The votes listed in this section should have secondary sources to indicate their significance. An external link is already provided to Votesmart. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Quote re Ose

This statement by Teixeira about Ose has absolutely no relevance in Bera's bio. We strive for WP:neutrality in WP articles. There is no policy that says adding completely unrelated topics to articles in order to provide "balance" is acceptable.CFredkin (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We also strive to accurately record quotes. WP:MOSQUOTE requires it. The Teixeira quote responds to Oso's attack, which is also included in the article, solely to provide "balance." Otherwise, if the Teixera quote goes, the Oso quote must go as well, as this article is not about Oso, but Bera. And as you know, we shouldn't be giving undue weight to opponent's comments, when a response is readily available within the same source. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:BCB5:24DF:A4F4:D034 (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe both quotes are gone now.CFredkin (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Undue Quote

This edit removes 2 sentences from a 5 sentence quote to address WP:undue.CFredkin (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed and removed fluff.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Restored original quote. Completing the thought of a reliably sourced quote is neither undue or "fluff." But capriciously editing that quote violates both WP:TE and WP:NPOV. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:BCB5:24DF:A4F4:D034 (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The important parts of the quote remains. This: "And he immediately supported our strategic agenda, getting right into the working group. He is our poster congressman for No Labels" is just fluff and repeats pretty much what was already in the quote.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What is fluff is a matter of opinion and POV. What is a quote is not. A reliably sourced quote should be given more latitude than a normal edit. Otherwise, you are manipulating someone's actual quote, in violation of WP:MOSQUOTE. Kindly self-revert now. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:BCB5:24DF:A4F4:D034 (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that entire paragraph is undue and has little balance to it. Why so much about the one group that Bera has worked for with no mention of anything else and both from the same author? Why the immediate attribution to the Sac Bee for claims of facts here?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you had no answer for your clear vio of WP:MOSQUOTE, now your response is to double-down on your flimsy challenge of a reliably sourced direct quote? If your POV editing wasn't obvious before, it's pretty transparent now. FYI, quotes don't need balance. But per MOSQUOTE, "the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced." But also MOSQUOTE says "Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context" - so you've managed to violate it twice. We can add that to your other vios.

While the double attribution of the SacBee is unnecessary, to take a single quote from an article that extensive and claim it is undue, is nothing but desperate grasping at straws. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:BCB5:24DF:A4F4:D034 (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No attribution should be used to make claims of fact. We only give in text attribution if there is a claim of biased opinion. The two articles appear to have had content cherry picked to promote this one group with no mention of anything else when the article is very specific as the what Bera's opponent feels about the organization as a "do nothing group". The balance is not in regards to the quote it's about the mention of the organization and Bera. When the source has balance with both positive and negative why do you insist on just using the positive. That is not encyclopedic...that is promotional and advocacy editing. This is neither Bera's PR page, the Bee's endorsement page or the organizations page for just the positive points being mentioned. There needs to be balance here if there is a need to even use this material...which I do not believe is needed at all frankly.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is about Bera, not his opponent. You should remember that when including cherry picked criticisms from his opponent, while simultaneously complaining about cherry picking. His opponent's comments are undue weight in this article and certainly do not merit the last word. As for advocacy, you seem unfamiliar with BLPs of political figures on this project. If you would like to scrub every politician's article of advocacy, then you are on a fool's errand. Stating their positions is not advocacy. It is simply stating their record. While I have left his opponent's criticism in, I have also restored actual balance by including Bera's response to it, which was also included in the article, but you inexplicably omitted it. I have also corrected the attribution of quotes and sources. Your removal of the SacBee attribution when so much of that article is now being quoted, is not encyclopedic. The article now has the balance you claimed was lacking. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:BCB5:24DF:A4F4:D034 (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is about a congressman and they have opponents like Dan Lungren who is mentioned as well. Bera's notability is based entirely on his being a politician. This is not just common, it is expected.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You are correct about one thing: the article is about a congressman. It is not about the congressman's opponents. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:BCB5:24DF:A4F4:D034 (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this back up, since it looks like the discussion has cooled a bit. But what's the real issue here - balance, or something more straightforwardly encyclopedic? I just don't like the entire paragraph as constructed. Can't we just trim the superlative quotes from a colleague, and the out of context mention of the "Problem Solvers", which isn't explained, and instead simply note that Bera is a member of the No Labels group and that he's led advocacy on issues, x, y, z (if well-supported by the source)? Shatterpoint05 (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Misleading and duplicative information

The following was recently re-added to the page:

During the 2016 Congressional race the Bera also failed to gain endorsement from the democrat party, as well as the Sikh PAC because they accused him of being unwilling  to condemn the Indian government for a 1984 massacre.

More than 8,000 Sikhs, including 3,000 in Delhi, were killed by mobs during riots following the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, reportedly by her Sikh bodyguards.

The first statement, that Bera failed to gain endorsement from the democrat [sic] party is technically true in a very limited time frame, it is not true that Bera was not endorsed by the Democratic Party in 2016, as seen here. The second statement, about a Sikh PAC endorsement, is uncited. Previously, the citation was for the failure of the Sikh PAC to endorse Bera in 2014. This is covered in the section about 2014. The second paragraph is is background information for the uncited statement. I'm removing all but the first statement, and adding clarification that he received the endorsement a month later. - Plandu (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Not receiving an endorsement from a PAC that isn't particularly notable shouldn't be included in this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Information about Sikh PAC

Is the information about Sikh PAC newsworthy in the 2016 cycle? Previous discussion on the talk page seems to suggest no. I'm fine with leaving what's there in the 2014 section, but adding it to the 2016 section when there is no source about Sikh PAC and Bera in reference to the 2016 election seems hard to justify. Plandu (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

User User:EagleFIre32 continues to add back poorly sourced and duplicative content in the 2016 section. Plandu (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

User Plandu continues to delete properly sourced local newspapers with supportive information and Plandu wishes users to to prove a negative with sourced information.

How can you prove a negative of not being endorsed Plandu

The information is for an event that happened in 2014. If you'll look at the section in 2014, you'll see the information there about him losing the support of Sikh PAC along with why. There's no need to write it again in the 2016 section. I've requested a Wikipedia:Third opinion to resolve the disagreement. Plandu (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: Per WP:Summary style, we're supposed to summarize notable events and this doesn't seem notable to the subject for the 2016 election cycle. I don't feel that Sikh PAC needs to be specified in the 2014 cycle aside from "members of the Sikh-American community" (a summary which includes various Sikh individuals and organizations). It doesn't seem unusual to me that a political candidate may not have ready answers to questions about something that happened 30 years ago, halfway around the world, or that he is more focused on what he might actually accomplish in the position for which he is running. I'm not sure that it would be worth mentioning at all (the Sikh advocates didn't think it would affect the results) if the 2014 election wasn't as close as reported. And just as the news tends not to report a continued absence, neither do we, the reader can assume this. Also, while a search engine may be used to find sources, they can't be used as a source or to demonstrate notability (see Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers). – Reidgreg (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Guns

Guns is a more easily understood term than "2nd ammendment" (misspelling aside). Someone from outside the United States is far more likely to understand what is meant by "Guns" than "2nd ammendment" [sic]. I am reverting the changes made by User:EataPi for this reason. Plandu (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

user:Plandu Everyone knows what the 2nd amendment is, and bills under section are pro second ammend they are not gun control bills. You are editing the wording to make Bera look good, please dot editthe section again from 2nd Ammendent. I will put

2nd Ammendment Gun Rights in it if you want gun the title. He is against the 2nd ammendment as these votes pro 2nd ammendment bills say. If they were gun control bills then the bills would have limited those rights not expanded them.

Not everyone knows what the second amendment is, especially people who are not from the United States. That's the entire purpose of the change, along with the fact that "guns" is more inclusive of the entire range of gun policy than 2nd amendment. I'll file a request for Wikipedia:Third opinion to resolve this. Plandu (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

user:Plandu yes they do, the take a citizen ship test, and by saying 2nd Ammendment gun rights you can also educate new citizen voters that they do have constitutional gun rights in the 2nd Ammendment. Saying gun control denies this right exists, and makes it harder for people to learn where the rights come from.

We can easily link to the 2nd Ammendmentfor people to read. Denying the words 2nd Ammendment denies people knowledge of their constitutional rights as voting citizens

People who aren't United States citizens read Wikipedia. Not everyone who speaks English takes an American citizenship test, nor is Wikipedia restricted to people who live in the United States. Saying "guns" does not deny that there is a right to own guns, nor does using the term "gun control". Plandu (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Plandu sorry Plandu but are straight full in denial here again your argument falls flat as saying 2nd ammendmend gun rights and linking to the constituion further educates all who come here of the US 2nd Amm rights. Why would you want to deny that knowledge to the world and read about our constitution

Plandu so are you agreed the the wording 2nd Ammendment Gun Rights with a link to say cornell univ's fundamental explanation of those rights is acceptable compromise to teach those about the right if they have questions and their browser can use widely available translation features incase they dontread english. I will take silence of agreement to this compromise and 3 hr time to respond from 12:00 PM PST oct 24th 2018

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

I appreciate your initiative, but this is not how section headers work, nor should external links be used in the article. The translation feature comment makes no sense, as the people who would be reading this article that I was referring to were English speakers who are not American. There are countries besides the United States where people speak English, some even as their native language! They will be very familiar with the language, but not with the term "2nd amendment". Additionally, the laws are about guns. A law cannot change the second amendment. Only an amendment can do that, and none of the bills you mention are bills to amend the second amendment. For all the aforementioned reasons, I am again reverting your edit. Plandu (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

There was no agreement and any suggestion that me not answering for a few hours qualifies as agreement is disingenuous. Plandu (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Plandu as EataPi has stated the section header accurately reflects the content of the section. Web browsers offer extensive translation features even wikipedia's front page asks what language you want to read in. Yes there are countries besides the United that view this page and that is why there are available translation features in different web browsers and add ins that people use. It is common practice on wikipedia to link to a site for further explanation as an acceptable source and definition of a term. The laws are not necessarily about guns in general they about protecting the rights and extending the rights that the 2nd ammendment to constitution protect. Laws can be written to inhibit the practice of the 2nd Amendment in full or laws can be written to extend the practice of the 2nd Ammendment. The bills mentioned support the latter and give more protections for citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. Right now it sounds like you don't like anything that pushes the 2nd Ammendment in a positive manner or even allows a reader to learn more about it. So you are deleting any reference to it. Plus you are further just disagreeing so you can say there is no agreement. The bills do refer to the 2nd Ammendment and the references for those bills refer to the 2nd Ammendment support.

Wikipedia articles shouldn't "push" anything in a positive or negative manner. Plandu (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: "Guns" is short and clear, while referencing the second amendment in the section title risks conflating all gun issues with second amendment issues, which, as Plandu points out, is not necessarily true, and so could well be seen as taking a stance. Wikipedia is not here to promote awareness of Americans' constitutional rights, except on pages which deal explicitly with those rights. I'm also pretty confident that external links in the body of the article are nonstandard.

Also, for the record, any edit which affects content is not minor, especially during a dispute. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Plandu PLEASE CHANGE IT BACK TO 2nd AMMENDMENT FIREARMS RIGHTS WITH THE EDUCATIONAL LINKS. You seem to not want anyone to know about those rights and their existence in the United States. Stop changing anything negative about Bera. You must be a paid DNC member you have been reported to the admins again. GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE CORRECT LANGUAGE and you know it. Please for the sake compromise please allow the earlier pre gun control stance in the wording to stay.

I added a link to the wikipedia page of the second amendment. I am not "changing everything negative about Bera". I have, among other things, made the parts of the article about Bera's father clearer and more expansive, as well as adding more information about the Sikh issue. I am not paid by anyone. If you look at my editing history, I certainly don't confine my editing to political articles. Not by a long shot. All I have done to this page, as with many others, is to try to improve, clarify, and ensure WP:NPOV. If you have a specific, motivated change you'd like to see that complies with NPOV and WP:MOS, I would be more than happy to incorporate it. Plandu (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Plandu the https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment is more appropriate as it gives a good overview with links to both sides and is from a constitutional law school. The title the 2nd Ammendment is also more appropriate than guns or gun control because the 2nd Ammendment covers more than just guns and the bills were not gun control bills and Bera is against the 2nd Ammendment not for gun control.

Like I said, external links inline are strongly discouraged. If there is a problem with the Second Amendment wikipedia article, you can improve it. I know the bills weren't gun control bills. I described them as bills that eased gun restrictions, which is accurate. If you'll post a source that shows Bera thinks the Second Amendment should be repealed, definitely post that here and I'll add that to the article. Plandu (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

Please add 2018 election results Ami Bera 54,097 52.7% Andrew Grant 48,597 47.3% 15.211.201.93 (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Found a source and added the results requested (minus the 47.3% for Grant, which was not in the source article). Plandu (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

No notable accomplishments

I recently added two brief statements to summarize the observation that Bera has done almost nothing in Congress. Ricky81682 deleted them soon after, saying "no accomplishments are notable needs a source" One statement was a direct summary of sourced statements farther down in the article. The other is an observation that there are no sources available describing accomplishments. If any editor can add sourced information, I'd be happy for that line to disappear. Over the years I have written Dr. Bera several times, often including the suggestion that his staff report his accomplishments in this article, with sources. Still nothing. He's even been invisible on local media throughout the Covid pandemic, which seems to be directly in his medical skill set. Stating "no accomplishments" is close to OR, yet newspapers never waste effort reporting the absence of something, so published sourcing is unlikely. Therefore, please accept both statements until anyone can state and source an accomplishment. Thanks! Justaxn (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

What you're describing is WP:OR. "Accomplishments" is subjective and you are describing your personal opinion about Bera. We build our articles with content from independent reliable sources. Marquardtika (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Both revised statements are fully supported by other sourced content in the article immediately before and after, thus not OR, IMHO. So be it. Justaxn (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Justaxn: Please point out the citations. Use pin cites. I doubt a newsource would use that wording and I suspect his office would argue the other way so I believe it will be something in the middle that has a view on his actions where a better wording will be "According to X, Bera has had no significant accomplishments". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

What has he done in 5 terms?

Ami is my congressman and I voted for him in every primary and general until this year, when I abstained. I've been waiting for years to see his staff report here on his accomplishments, using RS of course. The Black group Sacramento Sister Circle made some thoughtful comments this year, which I folded into the article after the election. But I'm disappointed that he seems largely a do-nothing, even on Covid and vaccines despite his medical and public health background. Can anybody point out some positives? Justaxn (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)