Talk:Gabrielle Giffords/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

External links

See User talk:Utahredrock for discussion on the controversial external links. Will move to this page if not resolved in the short term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utahredrock (talk • contribs) 16:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This site has too many external links, as Wikipedia is not a link farm. The links to the blogs need to go per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #9. The endorsements could be mentioned in the article, and then referenced. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference?

What's the reference that Giffords was only with Price Waterhouse for six weeks? If that is the case it may not be worth mentioning.--Utahredrock 23:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding relations with Israel comment

The comment needed more context beyond the external linke provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.145.198 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not post propaganda to the Wikipedia

To Giffords campaign staffers and others:

Wikipedia adheres to a strict Neutral Point Of View policy. Pitchman's views of candidates' records cut and pasted from websites are not appropriate. Be matter-of-fact. Cite others' value judgements if appropriate, but do not offer your own.

Bkalafut 08:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

???

I posted the material you called propaganda. I am neither a Giffords staffer nor a Democrat. The material came from research to better understand her record, and her supporters. "Propaganda" is a subjective concept. It frustrates me when such a word is thrown out and material related to a candidate and their background is just deleted. I spent a lot of time researching this article. Please explain in more detail why you find this objectionable.

15 years ago I worked in politics [GOP]. One thing I feel very strongly about is making it easier for citizens to find information on candidates outside of the racket of campaigns with all of their fundraising requirements and restrictions.

I would like to restore the deleted information, however, I am open to hearing further your reasons for deletion. --Utahredrock 17:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why I removed those sections

Perhaps outright removal was a bit heavyhanded, but the way to talk about a candidate's record in a NPOV fashion is to give how they voted on this bill or that, not by quoting supporters. Statements of positions ought to be matter-of-fact. It was the inclusion of positive testimonials which ultimately prompted deletion. The Robert Reich testimonial, especially, was inappropriate from an NPOV.

Bkalafut 21:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that

To user Bkalafut I appreciate your comments above. When it comes to political candidates understanding the record and the positions of those who know them best is critical to understanding who they are. Where you see propaganda, I see things like "endorsed by the Sierra Club." Not everyone thinks the Sierra Club is a good thing so knowing that they support a candidate will be viewed as good and/or bad propaganda depending on the perspective of the reader. NPOV should not mean No Information. --Utahredrock 18:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Amnesty"

It never ceases to amaze me how people like Giffords can espouse their belief in guest worker programs, 'routes to citizenship', 'normalization' of status, 'regularization' of status, etc and not call these things what they are: Amnesty for illegal aliens that broke the laws of the United States. Whether it is pandering for votes or allowing cheap subsidized labor by U.S. taxpayers for U.S. Big Business, Ms. Giffords and President Bush are on the same side on this issue. I guess issues of depressed wages for Americans, closed emergency rooms and a health care system stressed by illegal aliens, abdication of U.S. sovereignty and autonomy, intolerable stresses on our education system by the children of illegals (who should not be 'anchor citizens'), increased crime and incarceration costs, and environmental destruction by illegals of our beautiful Arizona desert, etc don't seem to resonate with people of the Giffords and Bush ilk.

At least have the integrity to call it what it is (AMNESTY) instead of misleading euphemisms that are nothing more than Orwellian Doublespeak.

Disgusting. (end) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.148.51 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me that people don't get how important WP:V and WP:NOR are to wikipedia. Instead, they want THEIR view of the world to be reflected in the articles. In this case, if Giffords used the term "amnesty", then quote her (with an acceptable source); if someone (other than a person in the opposite party, or a commentator known to be partisan) said "She supports amnesty", then quote that person (with an acceptable source). Otherwise, please consider getting a blog, where no one will object to your explaining exactly how the world really is. John Broughton | Talk 21:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you not read what I wrote? Politicians should have the integrity to use words appropriate to their platform instead of engaging in duplicity. The whole point is the avoidance of the word 'amnesty' for policies that are de facto amnesty, by definition. It is not I that engages in semantic acrobatics, it is disingenuous folks like Giffords and Bush who engage in this exercise. The article sounds like it was written by the campaign and lacks objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.148.51 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You are incorrect with your "amnesty, by definition" comment. Amnesty is: "a general pardon for offenses." This is _not_ the case if someone has to pay back fines, etc., which these proposals, in fact, do. -- Sholom 00:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and the sky is green too. How are things in La-La Land? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.148.51 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I changed that section to reflect that her opponents accuse her of wanting amnesty and she denies it. This is not a blog for you to post your political gripes. It is an encyclopedia, please respect that. Dklangen 19:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I added the section regarding how, upon his candidacy verses Giffords, the Republican Party backed away from his campaign and subsequent funds for his campaign. That may be more indicative of the loss rather than holding the 'extreme' view that existing immigration laws should be enforced. Apparently, this is a radical notion in this day and age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.148.51 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I see that. I accidentally removed it among the other changes you made, but I've added back in with a citation. Before reposting anything controversial, you should attempt to reach a consensus with others here on the talk page. johnpseudo 23:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Supporting your position with quotes from the biased AZ Republic sourced from the interpretation directly from the Giffords campaign is hardly balanced. This page was so completely lopsided before my involvement, so your sanctimonious self-congratulations are hardly warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.223.135 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No reason to be uncivil. If something is considered controversial, it needs to be carefully worded to achieve a neutral point of view. My quote from the AZ Republic was used to 1. Cite the fact that the Republican party cut their support, and 2. An opinion of why, by the Giffords campaign. Regarding #1, I could have used [1] or [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1706031/posts], but it doesn't really matter to me. Regarding #2, I'll work on making that a little more neutral.
However, referring to Giffords' immigration policy as "de facto amnesty" is not only biased and uncited, but also incorrect. For one, how can one prove what a person "hopes" to do except by listening to their professed goals[2]? Second, as "Sholom" said above, amnesty's definition is not compatible with either her past actions or her professed goals[3] (McCain Plan) johnpseudo 22:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for a wide margin of victory

Indeed it is true that 4 ballot initiatives to restrict illegal immigration rights passed in AZ. I'm not sure whether that implies (as some have written) that the immigration issue wasn't important in the race against Graf. It may well be the case that voters wanted more restrictions, but viewed Graf's position as way too restrictive. I just don't know. It may be that Graf was too far to the right on other issues. I'll note that the initiative to ban same-sex marriage failed in AZ. (OTOH, it was only 51% to 49%). Just don't know yet . . . -- Sholom 17:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Marriage in Arizona is already defined as that between a man and a woman (that already passed a while ago). The ballot proposition that would amend the state constitution that you refer to was narrowly rejected. Your failure to point out this distinction is a serious omission or one by-design to inject your point of view. How convenient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.148.51 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the point is that it is not our place here to make that determination, any more than we should make POV accusations about either candidate (or any candidate). That one added sentence seemed factual and relevant and reasonably NPOV, which is why I left it in. If you can find an even more neutral and fact-based way to cover that aspect of the election, go for it. Karen | Talk | contribs 17:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I believe that the Republican party spending $250,000 against Graf in the primary and withdrawing $1,000,000 from Graf (as a result of his win in the primary)in the general election is a likely contributing factor in the loss as well. Nice try. No one seems to want to talk about that here and post it in the article. That would be far too even-handed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.148.51 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the Republican party withdrew their advertising support seems pretty non-disputable. You should go ahead and add that back in. Any guesses as to why they did so, or what the result would have been otherwise should only be added with citations to reputable sources. I just reverted your entire edit because it was easier than having to go in and weed out all the amnesty POV. johnpseudo 18:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean no one wants to talk about it? In fact, I previously added it in to the elections page. Clearly, the GOP didn't spend money for Graf because he was considered less likely to get elected. (Similarly, the GOP spent money to support Lincoln Chafee in his primary, although his opponent was much more mainstream-GOP). The question I was attempting to address is why did Graf seem so unelectable in this district. (Also, please sign your comments) -- Sholom 19:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I added the passing of the propositions to counter the ridiculous view of the national press indicating the election was a referendum on enforcing existing illegal immigration laws, a point patently absurd and unwarranted. I dislike Bush and many of his policies, and I'm an independent, unlike Sholom and Pseudo-boy who grant the Democratic party absolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.148.51 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
A few comments:
  • please stop personal attacks -- in fact, I wrote above that there were reasons to not consider this election as related to immigration issues; and I don't grant anybody absolution
  • please sign your comments
  • please stop violating the WP:3RR rule
  • please consider cooperation in your editing of this article
-- Sholom 21:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, if you'd like to change the wording of 1. Bush's proposals from "immigration reforms" to "amnesty for illegal aliens" and 2. the wording of Gabrielle's denials from "flatly" to "tenuously", please argue these points specifically instead of making personal attacks. #1 was discussed above, and any further arguments should be a continuation of that discussion. I've started a new section for #2 below. johnpseudo 21:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Denials - "Flat" or "Tenuous"?

According to [4], her exact words were "I don't support amnesty. Amnesty is giving a free pass." Whether or not her policies can be defined as "amnesty", she is certainly flatly denying the accusation. A "tenuous argument" is one open to interpretation or refutation. A "tenuous denial" would be a denial that is open to interpretation as well, such as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". johnpseudo 21:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is grossly imbalanced and distorted thanks to Sholom and Pseudo-Boy who can't handle opposing points of view and do not themselves seek to add other factors (such as Republican party pulling $1 million in funding from Graf). I'm not even in the guy's district, by the way. Gee, think that may have been a part of the cause for defeat? Cowards. Keep the garbage article as it is then. A propaganda piece with half-truths lauded by illegal- alien amnesty apologists, Giffords being one of many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.223.135 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr Sockpuppet,
-- Sholom 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Woops (image)

Woops, we both added an image at the same time. I'll defer as to which one is used - I just didn't want it to get separated forever because the infobox was removed... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Including Religion in Infobox

Figured we should get this started. Although you are changing the infobox styles, the only substantial difference in this revert war is the fact that her religion is included. I assume UtahRedRock's reasons for wishing the information to be omitted are along the same lines as her birthday (personal security). Once again, typing "gabrielle giffords" religion into google will get you her religion if you want to find it. The information also appears on her own website if you look hard enough. What reason is there to omit it? johnpseudo 15:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it's different from the DOB info in one major way: it is more subject to issues of voter tolerance. It shouldn't be so, but there are people who mistrust others for being from a substantially different religious background from their own. (JFK's religion was a big issue back in the day, and even Kerry had problems over it.) It seems to me that if a candidate actively mentions the affiliation, then it's appropriate to list it here, but if not the listing is more problematic. Based on that one fact, voters might assume that a politician will vote in certain ways, whereas the politician might have a very different set of views. On the other hand, if the info isn't hard to find, then that may be an overly cautious view of things. Personally I'm satisfied whether it's included or not, but I kind of see both sides here. Karen | Talk | contribs 16:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)