![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 |
Someone made the allegation comparing the appointment to that of Rod Blagojevich who is in jail for selling a senate seat. You can't include that on a Wikipedia page, because it is deliberately biased and derogatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingWither ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok listen the edit made by that anonymous user will remain down until a consensus is reached. Stop edit warring and talk about it here. Wollers14 ( talk) 16:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kelly Loeffler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add information of participation in insider trading, related to the corona virus outbreak.
https://nypost.com/2020/03/19/georgia-senator-dumped-stocks-after-private-meeting-on-coronavirus-report/ 100.1.22.200 ( talk) 03:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the insider trading allegations per similar discussion at Diane Feinstein's article, per user:331dot and user:Muboshgu. Mr Ernie ( talk) 06:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I came to the article just to read about the insider trading stuff, and was surprised it wasn't in here. I think it should be added. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The current version is grossly inadequate. All it says is that she sold stock. So what? Most members of Congress are much better off financially than the average American, so many of them own stocks and engage in routine transactions. The article must, at a minimum, mention that (a) Loeffler, like all members of Congress, is subject to particular restrictions found in the STOCK Act, which prohibits trading based on information garnered through official business; and (b) these transactions (mostly sales, but including purchases of companies that stood to benefit from the spread of work-from-home) came "after she was privately briefed by federal officials about the coronavirus outbreak." (That's per CNBC.)
Furthermore, Loeffler, who has no electoral history, is currently facing a serious primary challenge from Rep. Doug Collins, and Collins has made it a major attack point. (I don't normally think much of citing Fox News, but, as the house organ of the right wing of the GOP, it's reliable when it comes to reporting statements made by conservatives like Collins.) Even if some Wikipedians in their august wisdom reject the charge that Loeffler did something wrong, the controversy is notable, and hence worthy of inclusion, because of the distinct possibility that many voters will think she did something wrong. For example, one political blog has commented: "In particular, it is inconceivable that Loeffler can avoid taking serious damage from her stock trades. Given that she wasn't elected in the first place, that damage will likely be fatal to her reelection chances." An obvious parallel is the phony "Swift Boat" allegations against John Kerry in 2004 -- so phony that the term " Swiftboating" has, per our article, entered the lexicon "to describe an unfair or untrue political attack." The attack is, nevertheless, summarized in Kerry's bio and even elaborated on in a daughter article.
Our coverage of the Loeffler controversy should certainly include her defense, namely her assertion that she had no involvement in making the trading decisions. We should report both sides fairly. The current text falls far short of that standard. JamesMLane t c 16:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
There are more RSs at Talk:STOCK Act#potential violations related to SARS-2 non-public insider info, add?.
X1\ ( talk) 05:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
It's clearly relevant to Loeffler's bio that her husband, who is involved with her in stock trading scandal, donated a million $ to Trump's Super Pac shortly after the stock trading scandal broke and at a time when there was enormous pressure on the Republican Party to get her out of the 2020 Senate election race in Georgia, as well as pressure to pursue her and her husband for insider trading. There are countless RS that cover this donation in the context of her and her husband's stock trading scandal. Omitting it is a NPOV violation. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The connection is made by RS reports. We follow the sources. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I still don't think this belongs in Loeffler's bio, especially after the FBI has concluded the investigation into her, but I'll let someone else remove it. Mr Ernie ( talk) 11:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
While we're here, I see that the summary of this was removed from the lead. This controversy is the main source of Loeffler's national notability. I am inclined to restore some or all of the well-sourced lead content, moving the remainder to the article body. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The investigation into Loeffler has concluded [4], so I think we can nip this nothingburger in the bud. There is still no evidence that Loeffler has done anythign wrong, and to devote such a large portion of her page to it is overkill. Calling it a "scandal" is inappropriate. Mr Ernie ( talk) 11:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand why this sentence is in the article: "After marrying the firm's CEO, Jeffrey Sprecher, in 2004, a courtship Sprecher described as her biggest risk "because if it didn't work out, she'd be on the short end of the stick," Is that sentence there to convey that she has a sense of humor? I do not understand why that sentence is there unless you guys are 1] trying to talk about her sense of humor and that is part of her personality or 2] she doesn't necessary hvae a sense of humor, but has very good PR team, including those who added that sentence of being a younger wife to a wealthy older man is a risk. Maybe you guys hsould add a personality section of Loeffler, and talkk about how she has a sense of humor OR she has a good PR team, including adding sentences like that in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ap4lmtree2 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I fail to see why we should not add a self-description of her as the most conservative Republican in the Senate to the lead, as well as her touting that she has a 100% voting record with Trump. Per all RS, her short political career has been defined by being avowedly and staunchly pro-Trump, and the body makes that perfectly clear. Currently, the lead just includes a weird sentence, saying "An ad in her 2020 campaign claimed she has a "100 percent Trump voting record."" That sentence should be changed to "During her short career in the Senate, she has characterized herself as the most conservative Republican in the Senate. She has been a staunch ally of Donald Trump, touting her "100 percent Trump voting record."" Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I see the article is locked for editing, which is cool, I understand, but some of the recent editing has completely fucked up one of the sentences in the Political Positions section. What the hell, people? Proofread your goddamn changes!
Will somebody who has the authority please fix the screw-up, which I will document here. The section in question says:
...She is a cosponsor of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and she opposes the Assault Weapons Ban and the Red Flag laws. constructing a border wall along the Mexico–United States border, and the appointment of conservative judges to federal courts...
Notice the sentence fragment "...Red Flag laws. constructing a border wall..."
A previous edit enhanced her 2nd Amendment bona fides by completely screwing up that paragraph. I suggest putting "She favors" in front of the dangling sentence fragment that starts "constructing a border wall..."
Please please please fix this editing travesty. Thank you. I'd do it myself, but you know, you got it locked against vandals. 2600:1700:6EB0:80E0:D59A:C963:C164:90E9 ( talk) 02:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Davefelmer:, @ Neutrality: I concur with User:Nuetrality regarding recent edits by User:Davefelmer. I feel a need to comment especially on the deletion from the lede: 'Loeffler has strongly aligned herself to President Donald Trump and touted her "100 percent Trump voting record" during the campaign.<ref name=":0" />'
User:Davefulmer commented that, "This is not lede-worthy. Have we got some kind of activist surge going on here or something?)" and that "This is not encyclopedic content nor NPOV." I checked the source: "Win or Lose, It’s Donald Trump’s Republican Party" from the New York Times of 2020-10-27: The source seems reliable and as balanced as any source can be under the present circumstances. And it clearly supports the claim. Moreover, it seems to me to be highly relevant to the current 2020–21 United States Senate special election in Georgia. User:Davefulmer's edits seem to me to be POV in toning down or deleting comments that seem quite relevant and solidly supported by the cited sources.
I haven't checked the sources cited in other edits by User:Davefulmer reverted by User:Neutrality, but if these edits are typical, then I support User:Neutrality in those cases as well. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 21:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Davefelmer: I respectfully disagree with your 2020-11-20T06:17:13 deletions:
I am therefore reverting these edits. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 08:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. There is an almost overwhelming amount of evidence of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Especially in Georgia. Should I provide a list? Jroehl ( talk) 00:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
the sure-to-backfire efforts of partisan Democratic editorsare "sure to backfire" or have any effect on an election at all. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I questioned the fair use/public domain, which seems legitimate, but I question the use of this photo which would seem to have no use except promotional for the campaign? What relevance does it have to the article? I would hope that we could view this as a subject that requires consensus. Activist ( talk) 19:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I deleted the paragraph about the $3 million donation by Loeffler's husband to a fund that provided PPEs for those, one presumes, who were tasked with dealing with actual or potential coronavirus victims. It certainly contributed to the commonweal. While that sum might seem immense to someone living within close range of the poverty level, the WP article notes that Loeffler's husband who made the donation, is worth $165 million. The contribution constituted a tax-deductible amount that was less than 2% of his net worth. So the question is, is this notable, or was a written-off expenditure motivated to make her look as though she was concerned about appearances with regard to the pandemic while she was seeking election to the seat she holds? At the time she was probably not holding "superspreader" events. We could contrast his contribution, for instance, with probable thousands of donations by George Soros to a plethora of causes that could be argued by some were only made to improve his image and to dilute the effect of the baseless "nazi sympathizer" accusations that are made about him so regularly. Should his article have a detailed list of all those contributions, even though he's not even running for any office? We could ask the same question about immensely larger contributions made by Bill and Melinda Gates or Warren Buffett. I think that a restoration of such a mention to Loeffler's article should be a subject of inclusion only by consensus. Activist ( talk) 20:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I edited a statement about Marjorie Greene. Where it said she had a history of racist commentary, I changed it to say commentary that has been judged as racist. The statement is cited, to a piece by CNN. CNN might be widely regarded as reliable (although however careful they might be with regard to fact, surely nobody can deny that they pursue a clear agenda). But still, calling commentary "racist" is an assessment, not a statement of fact--unless it's incredibly blatant. Indeed, I followed a link from the CNN piece to find those allegedly racist statements, and the ones I found strike me as not racist at all. Uporządnicki ( talk) 14:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
She is not a senator !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.85.104 ( talk) 15:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
According to senate.gov she is still senator TorKr ( talk) 20:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
UNFOUNDED claims of fraud???... So just WHO were those poll workers who sent everyone home (including the Republican poll watchers), the 4 remained behind and pulled suitcases out from under a table, ostensibly to jam thousands of hidden ballots into the system... They feverishly worked for two solid hours doing whatever... Every one of those "workers" needs to be hauled in IMMEDIATELY, put under oath under penalty of perjury, and interviewed separately to see just what went on... While it may or may not impact the eventual outcome in Georgia...the public deserves to know the truth... [unsigned comment from User:108.185.238.182 at 2020-12-04T21:00:42]
References
I think the comment ([non-primary source needed]) appended to footnote 52 misapplies Wikipedia policy on primary sources and should be removed.
In the previous sentence, an interpretive statement of the bill's intent is made, it cites a secondary source. In the following sentence the predicate fact for this interpretation is introduced--the relevant portion of the bill's text. The citation for that portion of the bill's text is Congress.gov, deemed here "primary source."
Wikipedia's policy is: A primary source must be 1) "reputably published," 2) used "only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" that can 3) "be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
1) "Reputably published."
The Congress.gov website is "the official website for U.S. federal legislative information. The site provides access to accurate, timely, and complete legislative information for Members of Congress, legislative agencies, and the public. It is presented by the Library of Congress (LOC) using data from the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Office of the Secretary of the Senate, the Government Publishing Office, Congressional Budget Office, and the LOC's Congressional Research Service." ( https://www.congress.gov/about) There literally is no more reputable or reliable public source for the text of bills in Congress, and everything on the site is accessible at no cost to anyone with access to a computer and the Internet.
The footnote's link provides direct access to a facsimile of the bill's full, official text as printed for use by Congress.
Any "secondary" source for the bill's text is by definition less reliable.
2) The citation supports a "straightforward, descriptive statement of fact" ("The bill states...,") and what follows is an accurate, direct quote from the bill.
It cannot reasonably be argued that the quote chosen is peripheral, misrepresents the bill's intent or elides other possible interpretations by omitting context, because it is:
a) used in the bill's preamble as the definition of "sex" that forms the basis of the bill's stated purpose, and
b) reappears as the exact wording of the bill's proposed amendment to existing law.
3) The fact that the quotation is accurate can be "verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
Anyone with Internet can access the primary source. The footnote links directly to the bill. The bill is very short (24 lines of text). No specialized knowledge is required to compare the quote on Wikipedia with the quoted portion of the bill's text.
In short I argue that the citation is wholly within Wikipedia's primary source policy. To substitute or add a secondary source for the bill's text is to cite a superfluous and less-reliable source. Adenisj ( talk) 05:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
== Personal life == Newbie to editing and this page is locked. Suggested edit to 'Personal life' section for Kelly Loeffler re 'They live in Tuxedo Park, Atlanta,[83] in a $10.5 million, 15,000-square-foot (1,400 m2)...bought in the most expensive residential real estate transaction ever recorded in Atlanta.[14]" Please amend to specify i.e. 'as of 2013'. Case in point: Tyler Perry's larger 2016 deal, see: [1] Particlesarewaves ( talk) 22:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)particlesarewaves
References
When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies.That is the case here. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of the wording of BLP, it would be absurd to suggest we must protect her privacy about their home(s), when they were more than happy to talk about it in a magazine interview and it's in the first paragraph of an article in the New York Times. This is not private personal information. Reywas92 Talk 20:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I find that Loeffler is currently an appointee to an unexpired term and "Loeffler is running in the 2020 Georgia U.S. Senate special election, which will fill the Senate seat until Georgia's regularly scheduled November 2022 election." Was/is that election for THE REST OF THE TERM, which ends on 3 Jan. 2023? (If so, the article needs to be adjusted.) Yes, I see that is part of Jan. 5 runoff because this seat was voted on last Nov. 3 and gave nobody a majority; Loeffler remains an appointee senator in the meantime. Carlm0404 ( talk) 03:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, "2020–21 United States Senate special election in Georgia" article does indeed say that the runoff winner will serve until the term end. I am from outside of Georgia and don't feel l qualify to make correction myself to Loeffler article; presumably "Georgia's regularly scheduled November 2022 election", part of a longer quote above, should be replaced by "the term ends on January 3, 2023". Carlm0404 ( talk) 03:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
So, if Loeffler & Perdue win their respective runoffs, they'll switch places as junior & senior US Senators in Georgia. GoodDay ( talk) 12:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The editor Davefelmer keeps edit-warring out content that communicates to our readers that Loeffler's claims of fraud in the 2020 election are without evidence. We cannot leave it unclear whether there was fraud or there wasn't. By omitting that there is no evidence of any fraud, the text fails to adhere to what RS say and flagrantly violates WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
The trivia factoid about her height as compared to other women in congress in "Personal Life" seems out of place and irrelevant. 2607:FEA8:4C21:E100:5CC:6218:CB5C:8915 ( talk) 18:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed SRD625 ( talk) 22:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems worth mentioning that Loeffler had a 100% voting record partially because she had been in congress for a shorter period than some of her colleagues. For example, Kevin Cramer supported Trump on all the same votes Loeffler did, Cramer just had a longer track record. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/kevin-cramer/
It also seems worth mentioning that this is no longer true as she supported the defense bill which Trump did not.
Ethanbrs ( talk) 02:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kelly Loeffler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lax 71.241.212.218 ( talk) 23:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kelly Loeffler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change Loefflert to Loeffler in the U.S. Senate => Appointment section, paragraph 3 2600:1700:A700:6D60:9099:9582:8EEF:C17 ( talk) 03:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
In the first sections talking about her filling Isakson's seat, her name is spelled "Loefflert" Negrong502 ( talk) 04:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It is under her US Senate Appointment section Negrong502 ( talk) 04:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
At the end of second paragraph of this Article, mentions "She lost a close race to Warnock." The results are not yet certified. So, I think the statement that she lost isn't appropriate right now. I believe the statement that "major news outlets have called the race in favor of Democrat Warnock" is a more appropriate statement to make with appropriate references, which can be seen in Raphael Warnock's Article, under second paragraph. Final results can be updated later on. CX Zoom ( talk) 09:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kelly Loeffler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Her Husband is the CEO of Intercontinental Exchange, not its owner. Intercontinental Exchange is public and owned by many people. Her husband owns a small portion, less than 1%. meh-hisabness ( talk) 13:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you please proofread this article. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that professionals use. It should be better written. Jpdstl071988 ( talk) 14:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please proofread this article? Jpdstl071988 ( talk) 14:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kelly Loeffler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The page states that former Senator Loeffler "assumed office on January 6, 2020." However, as the election results have demonstrated, she was defeated by Raphael Warnock. See source here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/05/us/elections/results-georgia-senate-runoff-loeffler-warnock.html 68.134.210.213 ( talk) 02:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kelly Loeffler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Need to change the last line of introductory para Modiherin ( talk) 06:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
As I understand it, Loeffler remains a U.S. Senator until Rafael Warnock is actually sworn in and assumed office. See this point explicitly addressed in this USA Today article [7]. Please wait until Warnock's swearing in with changing "serving" to "served" in the lede. Nsk92 ( talk) 16:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The left leaning media has adopted the verbal tic and / or written catch phrase "claimed without evidence" when wishing to discredit an argument made by a conservative source. Wikipedia should not indulge that verbiage. It is a cheap method of avoiding having to make an effort to evaluate evidence.
The use here was: Loeffler and the other U.S. Senator from Georgia, David Perdue, claimed without evidence that there had been "failures" in the election, 2602:306:3AC7:57C0:8D74:93A3:2217:5A60 ( talk) 21:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
One basis of the dispute is poor verification of signatures on mail-in ballots. You may personally believe the assurances of various "authorities" that the verification was adequate. Others may not. In either case, it was a dispute settled by the authority of the Georgia Secretary of State rather that the Judiciary or some (credibly) disinterested party. So, again, the Senator made a claim, which rested on a potential failure mode that was poorly investigated. Lack of evidence, in idiomatic English, appears to exclude a rational basis, at all, for the claim. You are abusing idiomatic English - as has become commonplace in the general circulation media - to editorialize. The Senator made a counterclaim which can be allowed to stand alone as a claim. If there is a specific refutation, then that ought to be cited rather than the Orwellian "claimed without evidence." IMHO. 23:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC) 2602:306:3AC7:57C0:8D74:93A3:2217:5A60 ( talk)
I removed the net worth parameter from the infobox, as the parameter has now been deprecated. If anyone wants to add that content elsewhere in the article, you can find what I removed in this edit. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 18:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 |
Someone made the allegation comparing the appointment to that of Rod Blagojevich who is in jail for selling a senate seat. You can't include that on a Wikipedia page, because it is deliberately biased and derogatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingWither ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok listen the edit made by that anonymous user will remain down until a consensus is reached. Stop edit warring and talk about it here. Wollers14 ( talk) 16:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kelly Loeffler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add information of participation in insider trading, related to the corona virus outbreak.
https://nypost.com/2020/03/19/georgia-senator-dumped-stocks-after-private-meeting-on-coronavirus-report/ 100.1.22.200 ( talk) 03:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the insider trading allegations per similar discussion at Diane Feinstein's article, per user:331dot and user:Muboshgu. Mr Ernie ( talk) 06:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I came to the article just to read about the insider trading stuff, and was surprised it wasn't in here. I think it should be added. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The current version is grossly inadequate. All it says is that she sold stock. So what? Most members of Congress are much better off financially than the average American, so many of them own stocks and engage in routine transactions. The article must, at a minimum, mention that (a) Loeffler, like all members of Congress, is subject to particular restrictions found in the STOCK Act, which prohibits trading based on information garnered through official business; and (b) these transactions (mostly sales, but including purchases of companies that stood to benefit from the spread of work-from-home) came "after she was privately briefed by federal officials about the coronavirus outbreak." (That's per CNBC.)
Furthermore, Loeffler, who has no electoral history, is currently facing a serious primary challenge from Rep. Doug Collins, and Collins has made it a major attack point. (I don't normally think much of citing Fox News, but, as the house organ of the right wing of the GOP, it's reliable when it comes to reporting statements made by conservatives like Collins.) Even if some Wikipedians in their august wisdom reject the charge that Loeffler did something wrong, the controversy is notable, and hence worthy of inclusion, because of the distinct possibility that many voters will think she did something wrong. For example, one political blog has commented: "In particular, it is inconceivable that Loeffler can avoid taking serious damage from her stock trades. Given that she wasn't elected in the first place, that damage will likely be fatal to her reelection chances." An obvious parallel is the phony "Swift Boat" allegations against John Kerry in 2004 -- so phony that the term " Swiftboating" has, per our article, entered the lexicon "to describe an unfair or untrue political attack." The attack is, nevertheless, summarized in Kerry's bio and even elaborated on in a daughter article.
Our coverage of the Loeffler controversy should certainly include her defense, namely her assertion that she had no involvement in making the trading decisions. We should report both sides fairly. The current text falls far short of that standard. JamesMLane t c 16:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
There are more RSs at Talk:STOCK Act#potential violations related to SARS-2 non-public insider info, add?.
X1\ ( talk) 05:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
It's clearly relevant to Loeffler's bio that her husband, who is involved with her in stock trading scandal, donated a million $ to Trump's Super Pac shortly after the stock trading scandal broke and at a time when there was enormous pressure on the Republican Party to get her out of the 2020 Senate election race in Georgia, as well as pressure to pursue her and her husband for insider trading. There are countless RS that cover this donation in the context of her and her husband's stock trading scandal. Omitting it is a NPOV violation. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The connection is made by RS reports. We follow the sources. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I still don't think this belongs in Loeffler's bio, especially after the FBI has concluded the investigation into her, but I'll let someone else remove it. Mr Ernie ( talk) 11:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
While we're here, I see that the summary of this was removed from the lead. This controversy is the main source of Loeffler's national notability. I am inclined to restore some or all of the well-sourced lead content, moving the remainder to the article body. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The investigation into Loeffler has concluded [4], so I think we can nip this nothingburger in the bud. There is still no evidence that Loeffler has done anythign wrong, and to devote such a large portion of her page to it is overkill. Calling it a "scandal" is inappropriate. Mr Ernie ( talk) 11:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand why this sentence is in the article: "After marrying the firm's CEO, Jeffrey Sprecher, in 2004, a courtship Sprecher described as her biggest risk "because if it didn't work out, she'd be on the short end of the stick," Is that sentence there to convey that she has a sense of humor? I do not understand why that sentence is there unless you guys are 1] trying to talk about her sense of humor and that is part of her personality or 2] she doesn't necessary hvae a sense of humor, but has very good PR team, including those who added that sentence of being a younger wife to a wealthy older man is a risk. Maybe you guys hsould add a personality section of Loeffler, and talkk about how she has a sense of humor OR she has a good PR team, including adding sentences like that in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ap4lmtree2 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I fail to see why we should not add a self-description of her as the most conservative Republican in the Senate to the lead, as well as her touting that she has a 100% voting record with Trump. Per all RS, her short political career has been defined by being avowedly and staunchly pro-Trump, and the body makes that perfectly clear. Currently, the lead just includes a weird sentence, saying "An ad in her 2020 campaign claimed she has a "100 percent Trump voting record."" That sentence should be changed to "During her short career in the Senate, she has characterized herself as the most conservative Republican in the Senate. She has been a staunch ally of Donald Trump, touting her "100 percent Trump voting record."" Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I see the article is locked for editing, which is cool, I understand, but some of the recent editing has completely fucked up one of the sentences in the Political Positions section. What the hell, people? Proofread your goddamn changes!
Will somebody who has the authority please fix the screw-up, which I will document here. The section in question says:
...She is a cosponsor of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and she opposes the Assault Weapons Ban and the Red Flag laws. constructing a border wall along the Mexico–United States border, and the appointment of conservative judges to federal courts...
Notice the sentence fragment "...Red Flag laws. constructing a border wall..."
A previous edit enhanced her 2nd Amendment bona fides by completely screwing up that paragraph. I suggest putting "She favors" in front of the dangling sentence fragment that starts "constructing a border wall..."
Please please please fix this editing travesty. Thank you. I'd do it myself, but you know, you got it locked against vandals. 2600:1700:6EB0:80E0:D59A:C963:C164:90E9 ( talk) 02:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Davefelmer:, @ Neutrality: I concur with User:Nuetrality regarding recent edits by User:Davefelmer. I feel a need to comment especially on the deletion from the lede: 'Loeffler has strongly aligned herself to President Donald Trump and touted her "100 percent Trump voting record" during the campaign.<ref name=":0" />'
User:Davefulmer commented that, "This is not lede-worthy. Have we got some kind of activist surge going on here or something?)" and that "This is not encyclopedic content nor NPOV." I checked the source: "Win or Lose, It’s Donald Trump’s Republican Party" from the New York Times of 2020-10-27: The source seems reliable and as balanced as any source can be under the present circumstances. And it clearly supports the claim. Moreover, it seems to me to be highly relevant to the current 2020–21 United States Senate special election in Georgia. User:Davefulmer's edits seem to me to be POV in toning down or deleting comments that seem quite relevant and solidly supported by the cited sources.
I haven't checked the sources cited in other edits by User:Davefulmer reverted by User:Neutrality, but if these edits are typical, then I support User:Neutrality in those cases as well. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 21:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Davefelmer: I respectfully disagree with your 2020-11-20T06:17:13 deletions:
I am therefore reverting these edits. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 08:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. There is an almost overwhelming amount of evidence of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Especially in Georgia. Should I provide a list? Jroehl ( talk) 00:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
the sure-to-backfire efforts of partisan Democratic editorsare "sure to backfire" or have any effect on an election at all. – Muboshgu ( talk) 17:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I questioned the fair use/public domain, which seems legitimate, but I question the use of this photo which would seem to have no use except promotional for the campaign? What relevance does it have to the article? I would hope that we could view this as a subject that requires consensus. Activist ( talk) 19:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I deleted the paragraph about the $3 million donation by Loeffler's husband to a fund that provided PPEs for those, one presumes, who were tasked with dealing with actual or potential coronavirus victims. It certainly contributed to the commonweal. While that sum might seem immense to someone living within close range of the poverty level, the WP article notes that Loeffler's husband who made the donation, is worth $165 million. The contribution constituted a tax-deductible amount that was less than 2% of his net worth. So the question is, is this notable, or was a written-off expenditure motivated to make her look as though she was concerned about appearances with regard to the pandemic while she was seeking election to the seat she holds? At the time she was probably not holding "superspreader" events. We could contrast his contribution, for instance, with probable thousands of donations by George Soros to a plethora of causes that could be argued by some were only made to improve his image and to dilute the effect of the baseless "nazi sympathizer" accusations that are made about him so regularly. Should his article have a detailed list of all those contributions, even though he's not even running for any office? We could ask the same question about immensely larger contributions made by Bill and Melinda Gates or Warren Buffett. I think that a restoration of such a mention to Loeffler's article should be a subject of inclusion only by consensus. Activist ( talk) 20:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I edited a statement about Marjorie Greene. Where it said she had a history of racist commentary, I changed it to say commentary that has been judged as racist. The statement is cited, to a piece by CNN. CNN might be widely regarded as reliable (although however careful they might be with regard to fact, surely nobody can deny that they pursue a clear agenda). But still, calling commentary "racist" is an assessment, not a statement of fact--unless it's incredibly blatant. Indeed, I followed a link from the CNN piece to find those allegedly racist statements, and the ones I found strike me as not racist at all. Uporządnicki ( talk) 14:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
She is not a senator !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.85.104 ( talk) 15:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
According to senate.gov she is still senator TorKr ( talk) 20:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
UNFOUNDED claims of fraud???... So just WHO were those poll workers who sent everyone home (including the Republican poll watchers), the 4 remained behind and pulled suitcases out from under a table, ostensibly to jam thousands of hidden ballots into the system... They feverishly worked for two solid hours doing whatever... Every one of those "workers" needs to be hauled in IMMEDIATELY, put under oath under penalty of perjury, and interviewed separately to see just what went on... While it may or may not impact the eventual outcome in Georgia...the public deserves to know the truth... [unsigned comment from User:108.185.238.182 at 2020-12-04T21:00:42]
References
I think the comment ([non-primary source needed]) appended to footnote 52 misapplies Wikipedia policy on primary sources and should be removed.
In the previous sentence, an interpretive statement of the bill's intent is made, it cites a secondary source. In the following sentence the predicate fact for this interpretation is introduced--the relevant portion of the bill's text. The citation for that portion of the bill's text is Congress.gov, deemed here "primary source."
Wikipedia's policy is: A primary source must be 1) "reputably published," 2) used "only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" that can 3) "be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
1) "Reputably published."
The Congress.gov website is "the official website for U.S. federal legislative information. The site provides access to accurate, timely, and complete legislative information for Members of Congress, legislative agencies, and the public. It is presented by the Library of Congress (LOC) using data from the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Office of the Secretary of the Senate, the Government Publishing Office, Congressional Budget Office, and the LOC's Congressional Research Service." ( https://www.congress.gov/about) There literally is no more reputable or reliable public source for the text of bills in Congress, and everything on the site is accessible at no cost to anyone with access to a computer and the Internet.
The footnote's link provides direct access to a facsimile of the bill's full, official text as printed for use by Congress.
Any "secondary" source for the bill's text is by definition less reliable.
2) The citation supports a "straightforward, descriptive statement of fact" ("The bill states...,") and what follows is an accurate, direct quote from the bill.
It cannot reasonably be argued that the quote chosen is peripheral, misrepresents the bill's intent or elides other possible interpretations by omitting context, because it is:
a) used in the bill's preamble as the definition of "sex" that forms the basis of the bill's stated purpose, and
b) reappears as the exact wording of the bill's proposed amendment to existing law.
3) The fact that the quotation is accurate can be "verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
Anyone with Internet can access the primary source. The footnote links directly to the bill. The bill is very short (24 lines of text). No specialized knowledge is required to compare the quote on Wikipedia with the quoted portion of the bill's text.
In short I argue that the citation is wholly within Wikipedia's primary source policy. To substitute or add a secondary source for the bill's text is to cite a superfluous and less-reliable source. Adenisj ( talk) 05:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
== Personal life == Newbie to editing and this page is locked. Suggested edit to 'Personal life' section for Kelly Loeffler re 'They live in Tuxedo Park, Atlanta,[83] in a $10.5 million, 15,000-square-foot (1,400 m2)...bought in the most expensive residential real estate transaction ever recorded in Atlanta.[14]" Please amend to specify i.e. 'as of 2013'. Case in point: Tyler Perry's larger 2016 deal, see: [1] Particlesarewaves ( talk) 22:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)particlesarewaves
References
When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies.That is the case here. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of the wording of BLP, it would be absurd to suggest we must protect her privacy about their home(s), when they were more than happy to talk about it in a magazine interview and it's in the first paragraph of an article in the New York Times. This is not private personal information. Reywas92 Talk 20:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I find that Loeffler is currently an appointee to an unexpired term and "Loeffler is running in the 2020 Georgia U.S. Senate special election, which will fill the Senate seat until Georgia's regularly scheduled November 2022 election." Was/is that election for THE REST OF THE TERM, which ends on 3 Jan. 2023? (If so, the article needs to be adjusted.) Yes, I see that is part of Jan. 5 runoff because this seat was voted on last Nov. 3 and gave nobody a majority; Loeffler remains an appointee senator in the meantime. Carlm0404 ( talk) 03:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, "2020–21 United States Senate special election in Georgia" article does indeed say that the runoff winner will serve until the term end. I am from outside of Georgia and don't feel l qualify to make correction myself to Loeffler article; presumably "Georgia's regularly scheduled November 2022 election", part of a longer quote above, should be replaced by "the term ends on January 3, 2023". Carlm0404 ( talk) 03:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
So, if Loeffler & Perdue win their respective runoffs, they'll switch places as junior & senior US Senators in Georgia. GoodDay ( talk) 12:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The editor Davefelmer keeps edit-warring out content that communicates to our readers that Loeffler's claims of fraud in the 2020 election are without evidence. We cannot leave it unclear whether there was fraud or there wasn't. By omitting that there is no evidence of any fraud, the text fails to adhere to what RS say and flagrantly violates WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
The trivia factoid about her height as compared to other women in congress in "Personal Life" seems out of place and irrelevant. 2607:FEA8:4C21:E100:5CC:6218:CB5C:8915 ( talk) 18:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed SRD625 ( talk) 22:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems worth mentioning that Loeffler had a 100% voting record partially because she had been in congress for a shorter period than some of her colleagues. For example, Kevin Cramer supported Trump on all the same votes Loeffler did, Cramer just had a longer track record. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/kevin-cramer/
It also seems worth mentioning that this is no longer true as she supported the defense bill which Trump did not.
Ethanbrs ( talk) 02:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kelly Loeffler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lax 71.241.212.218 ( talk) 23:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kelly Loeffler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change Loefflert to Loeffler in the U.S. Senate => Appointment section, paragraph 3 2600:1700:A700:6D60:9099:9582:8EEF:C17 ( talk) 03:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
In the first sections talking about her filling Isakson's seat, her name is spelled "Loefflert" Negrong502 ( talk) 04:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It is under her US Senate Appointment section Negrong502 ( talk) 04:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
At the end of second paragraph of this Article, mentions "She lost a close race to Warnock." The results are not yet certified. So, I think the statement that she lost isn't appropriate right now. I believe the statement that "major news outlets have called the race in favor of Democrat Warnock" is a more appropriate statement to make with appropriate references, which can be seen in Raphael Warnock's Article, under second paragraph. Final results can be updated later on. CX Zoom ( talk) 09:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kelly Loeffler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Her Husband is the CEO of Intercontinental Exchange, not its owner. Intercontinental Exchange is public and owned by many people. Her husband owns a small portion, less than 1%. meh-hisabness ( talk) 13:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you please proofread this article. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that professionals use. It should be better written. Jpdstl071988 ( talk) 14:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please proofread this article? Jpdstl071988 ( talk) 14:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kelly Loeffler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The page states that former Senator Loeffler "assumed office on January 6, 2020." However, as the election results have demonstrated, she was defeated by Raphael Warnock. See source here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/05/us/elections/results-georgia-senate-runoff-loeffler-warnock.html 68.134.210.213 ( talk) 02:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kelly Loeffler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Need to change the last line of introductory para Modiherin ( talk) 06:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
As I understand it, Loeffler remains a U.S. Senator until Rafael Warnock is actually sworn in and assumed office. See this point explicitly addressed in this USA Today article [7]. Please wait until Warnock's swearing in with changing "serving" to "served" in the lede. Nsk92 ( talk) 16:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The left leaning media has adopted the verbal tic and / or written catch phrase "claimed without evidence" when wishing to discredit an argument made by a conservative source. Wikipedia should not indulge that verbiage. It is a cheap method of avoiding having to make an effort to evaluate evidence.
The use here was: Loeffler and the other U.S. Senator from Georgia, David Perdue, claimed without evidence that there had been "failures" in the election, 2602:306:3AC7:57C0:8D74:93A3:2217:5A60 ( talk) 21:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
One basis of the dispute is poor verification of signatures on mail-in ballots. You may personally believe the assurances of various "authorities" that the verification was adequate. Others may not. In either case, it was a dispute settled by the authority of the Georgia Secretary of State rather that the Judiciary or some (credibly) disinterested party. So, again, the Senator made a claim, which rested on a potential failure mode that was poorly investigated. Lack of evidence, in idiomatic English, appears to exclude a rational basis, at all, for the claim. You are abusing idiomatic English - as has become commonplace in the general circulation media - to editorialize. The Senator made a counterclaim which can be allowed to stand alone as a claim. If there is a specific refutation, then that ought to be cited rather than the Orwellian "claimed without evidence." IMHO. 23:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC) 2602:306:3AC7:57C0:8D74:93A3:2217:5A60 ( talk)
I removed the net worth parameter from the infobox, as the parameter has now been deprecated. If anyone wants to add that content elsewhere in the article, you can find what I removed in this edit. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 18:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)