Talk:Tim Kaine

Error in the wording of climate change verbiage

By stating that Tim Kaine "acknowledges" the supposed scientific consensus on climate change, this article implies that there IS such a consensus. That is clearly refutable. Over 300 climate researchers have signed on to a memorandum stating that they disagree with at least some portion of the statement that climate change is real, and that it is caused by human activity. Hardly a "consensus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40E:8100:EEA:503E:5D6A:E727:7C6 (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, there is clearly not a consensus since only seventy percent of all Americans accept that climate change is happening. Bluewolverine123 (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Scientific consensus is not measured by polling the American public; it is measured by polling qualified relevant scientists. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Recent section additions

Nearly all of the recent additions seem to be based on a primary source, Kaine's own paper. Has there been any substantial coverage of this in secondary sources? GMG^talk 21:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The section that the new editor had added was undoubtedly overlong, but I think mentioning the article in a sentence or two would be appropriate. Does anyone have an objection to that? Neutrality^talk 22:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Umm... I mean I would probably prefer if there was some secondary coverage available to judge the relative due weight. But I'm stuck on mobile editing on smoke breaks for the time being. I'm not opposed in principle in any way.GMG^talk 22:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The recent additions (note: I refer to the "grand strategy and democracy position" subsection) are supported by three sources, only one of which is a link to Kaine's paper. They are not all based on a 'primary' source.

At the same time, as a newcomer to wikipedia editing -- but not a newcomer to academic research -- I find it suspect that editors here are rejecting clear, unequivocal information coming from a 'primary' source. The argument that a 'secondary' source is more valid than a primary one for a publicly stated policy position is absurd. Extending the same logic, tertiary sources should be favored over secondary, quaternary over tertiary, and the longer the string of interposed media and academic intermediaries, the closer one would be to the truth. Is this what Wikipedia is all about?

In support of the rejection of primary source material, the 'no original research' (NOR) alarm bell has been loudly rung. I have gone to WP:NOR to check what the actual policy is. In the article, it states: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

So... has there been any "interpretation" of Kaine's published material in the recent additions -- such as a distortion of his published positions, a synthesis that goes beyond his statements, a reinterpretation of what he's declared publicly? If an editor has evidence that this is the case, that should be the focus of the edit! -- on correcting the misconstrued and, when impossible, eliminating the unverifiable. But to eliminate wholesale under the whimsical rubric of 'cherry-picking' is clearly perverse.

I am currently blocked from reverting the recent additions again (I am allowed only one revert, it seems), but I hope someone reading this will understand the importance of putting that information back and giving it the due attention that it deserves. The contributor obviously spent some time putting the material together and it is repugnant to see it all summarily rejected under such a ridiculous pretense.Fullbound (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

To whomever lifted the block, thanks.Fullbound (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I am the user who added the sections on grand strategy and Latin America. I would just note in addition to what has been said about the value of primary sources that this particular essay is central to Kaine's foreign policy belief. Because it is a grand strategy, it attempts to encompass everything, so it is definitely a more significant aspect of his foreign policy than say, a committee vote on a specific military operation. Also, there are some secondary sources discussing Kaine's essay, but I thought it was more informative to hear Kaine describing his foreign policy than a punit describing Kaine describing his foreign policy. One such secondary source is here: https://www.americanagora.org/single-post/2017/09/28/The-Democrats-Internal-Foreign-Policy-Debate-Explained — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F3F0:C480:AC30:8061:5B5C:F32D (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

...Well... the Freedom House source doesn't appear to mention Kaine at all. So something's not quite right. And no, it's not clear that we should be uncritically giving such relative weight to what does appear to be a essentially a personal essay, and a talk about a personal essay. GMG^talk 03:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

In some cases that would make sense. But we need to remember what we are talking about here. This section of the article is about Kaine’s political positions. I think it’s self evident that the most authoritative source on Kaine’s political positions is Kaine himself. To suggest otherwise is a bit nonsensical. Now, it could possibly be argued that this addition should not be given that much weight because of its content matter (which I have previously addressed). I also suggest you read the article if you have not already; it helps to know what we are talking about when deciding what content should matter. But that is all a separate issue than the fact that this is a personal essay. What’s more, of all personal essays, this one is among the most authoritative because of the consideration that would go into such a long piece in a prestigious medium like Foreign Affairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F3F0:C480:55AF:737C:6E23:9A28 (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Senate committee assignments and caucus

Someone should include his current Senate assignments in compliance with table format in other senators' articles. Pr4ever (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Healthcare and public health

The "Healthcare and public health" section of the article claims that Virginia, in 2009, was the first Southern state to ban smoking in bars and restaurants "with some exceptions". However, Florida banned smoking in restaurants and bars "with some exceptions", in 2003. The claim is quoted from a cited article, which also provides a questionable description of the bill.

Neither Florida nor Virginia outright bans smoking in bars. The "exceptions" in Florida are bars attributing 10% or less of revenues to food sales, as described here. The "exceptions" in Virginia are bars with a separate structure, separately ventilated, dedicated to smoking. The significance of Florida's moves toward banning or limiting smoking 6 years prior to Virginia should not be downplayed or ignored by the Kaine article.

Recommended Resolution Options:

• Remove the dubious statement as it was likely mentioned in the cited article solely to sensationalize the signing of the bill.
• Clarify the "with some exceptions" portion of the statement to specify that Virginia was the first Southern State to ban smoking in all bars without a separate dedicated smoking structure.
• Specify that Virginia was the second Southern State to ban smoking in bars "with exceptions" (and perhaps mention Florida).
• In any case, change the citation to the Wikipedia article on List of Smoking Bans in the United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philbayer (talk • contribs) 10:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)