Talk:Luis Fortuño/Archives/2009/December
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
National aspirations 2012?
Gov. Fortuño was mentioned this week by a reputable Newsweek blogger and a well-known Republican figure, Grover Norquist, as a fascinating long-shot potential member of the 2012 Republican ticket.[1]
Due to its noteworthiness, I have placed a reference to this in the introductory paragraph, since this is not a locally-generated possibility but one that appears in a reputable blog, citing a reputable national Republican figure.
I admit that this is as long a shot as talk four years ago that our nation would have in the foreseable future an African-American president! Pr4ever (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Reference: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/11/25/absurdly-premature-2012-watch-vol-2-the-governor-of-puerto-rico-for-president.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.68.163 (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- The addition is speculation and should not be in the introduction as it gives undue weight to one isolated speculation. It's not the view of the majority. To be in the introduction statements should be a concise overview of the article, they should serve both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The addition does neither, as the subject matter is not even further discussed in the article proper as it should be. I have moved the topic to the body of the article where it best fits in terms of flow and relevance.
- The article statement also added that "reputable national analysts" are the ones who mentioned Fortuño as a potential nominee; but Newsweek blogger Andrew Romano himself states that he was reporting on what he had heard Grover Norquist say. It is thus quite incorrect to state "by reputable national analysts" when in reality it's only one. As a result I also removed the phrase "by reputable national analysts" as this statement is not additionally sourced. Mercy11 (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits! Pr4ever (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)