Talk:Tim Hernández

Israel–Hamas war section

@Friedbyrd: Originally, I moved Hernández's views on Israel and Palestine into just one section, then you reverted about 14 hours later, you reverted that edit. I then moved back his views on Israel and Palestine into the section and split his rally attendance into a subsection within that Israel–Hamas subsection. You reverted it again about 2 hours later, and here we are.

In your last revert, you stated: Theres a specific subsection about the "controversy" [because] this [is] the most national attention he has gained, that section is dedicated not to his views specifically, but his actions at a rally which generated negative press. His views belong under the views section. I already explained why I made my edits, but in case of starting an edit war, I will re-state them here:

The rally attendance section is already in the section about his views. His attendance at the rally already showed what his views on Palestine were, and to not include more information about his views on Israel and Palestine in the section quite literally dedicated to his views on Israel and Palestine is useless. To extend on top of that, other articles like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib include controversies and criticisms about their views in their respective sections. Hernández's support for a ceasefire and attending a rally in support of Palestine shows what his views on Palestine are, and therefore they belong in the same section.

I won't revert it back pending this discussion, but hopefully we can reach some type of consensus. Thanks.  RONIN  TALK  04:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, I think the issue here is to consider his views, his status as a lesser known state senator, and his actions at the rally and the response he got from that.

First off, he is essentially a low level politician. He’s young and this is his first seat, it’s a state level one, and he was appointed to it, not voted into it. Second, his views as an office holder should be listed out as would any other politicians. The issue is that he attended a pro Palestine rally on the day Hamas attacked Israel and took hostages. Not only that, but when he was confronted by a constituent who was unnerved by this and felt it was inappropriate, he took an arrogant and dismissive tone with the person who then uploaded the video. That’s what generated arguably the most press on a national level concerning him. It was enough of a controversy that even his own party distanced themselves from him and spoke out against his actions. He was also forced to acknowledge and apologize for it.

Basically, he generated national attention for a controversy regarding his actions specifically at a rally. Due to that, this specifically should be sectioned off and addressed separately from just listing out his views.

Friedbyrd (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

More recently, several sources have begun talking about Hernández's support for Palestine separately from his rally attendance; some don't even mention that he attended the rally at all (Westword) (Axios, in article) (Denver North Star, in article) (Colorado Politics). Age matters when talking about sources, and as these more recent sources show, less of them talk about his rally attendance and more about his recent activism for Palestine. Once Hernández apologized for this whole ordeal, news articles mainly stopped writing about his attendance rally. The last reliable source I could find that talked semi-extensively about his attendance—rather than just a passing mention—was this article from KMGH-TV on October 21, 2023, just 2 weeks after the attack on Israel.

Even when more recent sources do mention his rally attendance, they seem to be in relation with another pro-Palestinian thing he did, take this Gazette article or other Gazette article when he attended a pro-Palestinian protest. But even then, not all sources that covered this event mentioned his rally attendance, take this Newsline article for example, that was then republished in a local newspaper and Westword. These sources and the lack of recent sources about his rally attendance show that coverage on it was unsustained, dare I say may not even be enough to justify having its own section in the first place. ~38.71% of the section is just quotes (and the Jared Polis quote is arguably not even about Hernández, but I digress), and the entire section could easily be condensed into just a single paragraph with a few sentences. I'm not saying that it should be condensed, and as of now it should be its own section, but just something to keep note of.

I believe that these more recent sources show that his rally attendance was, and still is, tied into his more broad views on Israel and Palestine. As aforementioned, whenever sources talk about his rally attendance, it's usually because Hernández did some pro-Palestinian activism that received news coverage. Again, the rally probably the most coverage he's gotten as a legislator, but with the fact that his coverage on the rally was short-lived and appears to be now heavily tied into his views on Palestine, it should be integrated within a section on his pro-Palestine views as a subsection, like how it was in this edit.  RONIN  TALK  21:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Any news story/event/controversy is going to have its time in the press before they move onto something else, this isnt some sort of novel thing with this specific case. You also are incorrect what Age Matters is about. Its stating that newer sources might correct errors that were reported earlier concerning an event, NOT that if a news story runs its course you can take it out of the article. This isnt a case where he was misquoted or anything like that since the original story broke to it all being on video. Its undeniable that all of that objectively happened. The fact that other and more recent publications about Tim dont mention that he faced a public controversy is irrelevant to the point of this discussion. Also, your comment about Polis not specifically addressing Tim is wrong, he gave that statement in direct reference to a reporter asking him about his response to the public outcry to his actions.

Like I said, he attended a Pro-Palestine rally on the day that Hamas attacked Israel which upset someone from the public and when they confronted Tim, he responded in a hostile and dismissive way that caused enough outrage to reach national news level, he faced criticism from both parties, and was forced to apologize for his actions. Attempting to remove or minimize this is basically just running PR and removing negative press from him which isnt acceptable. All recent news regarding his views on Palestine-Israel or any other topic should be confined to the specific views section. This subsection exist specifically to point out his controversy.

Friedbyrd (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding my point here. I'm not attempting to remove this whole controversy from the article nor am I denying that this never happened or saying that he was taken out of context, in fact I quite literally pointed that out in my original comment: I'm not saying that it should be condensed, and as of now it should be its own section, but just something to keep note of. The overall point of this whole discussion, and why I begun it in the first place, is simply that the rally is related enough to his political views on Palestine that it should belong in the section about his views on Palestine. That may not have been super clear from my comment, and if that's the case, then I apologize.

Also: The fact that other and more recent publications about Tim dont mention that he faced a public controversy is irrelevant to the point of this discussion. Sure, that may not have been the point of this discussion. But the point of me bringing this up was to show that as time has passed, several sources have tied this controversy with his views, which is the original point of this discussion; that is why I begun this discussion in the first place.  RONIN  TALK  15:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

What if we removed the "Palestine Israel controversy" subheading, but keep the several paragraphs concerning his rally attendance and the reaction to it separate? I still believe that his rally attendance is a separate enough issue from his views to warrant special attention, but we can include that information all under the same heading. Essentially, keep the article exactly as is, but just delete the controversy subheading, leaving all the current information as it is now. Would you feel that this is a fair compromise?

Friedbyrd (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that works. If the section on his political views gets large enough that it needs to be split into multiple subsections, then we may have to come up with a different solution, but I don't see that happening in the forseeable future if he stays as a local politician, and as of right now it looks like he will for at least a couple more years.  RONIN  TALK  21:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and made the change.

Friedbyrd (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Sweet. Thanks! :)  RONIN  TALK  23:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)