![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
At first, this was a normal wikipedia page, which any could edit. Then it was provisioned the notification "protected", wherein persons could only edit it under certain circumstances until AFTER the election, at which point it would become far less interesting to all concerned. Now, without actual discourse, the designation "This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism."
This is a talk page. There is ZERO potential for libellous material against a US politician because the first amendment protects against that. At present, the wikipedia article appears to be a political advertisement for Ms. Sinema. In adjudging the Talk page, one should keep in mind the talk page of Barack Obama, a perhaps less well known American politician than Kyrsten Sinema.
This appears in Mr. Obama's talk page:
I agree. It's been an ad nauseum discussion, and I find the continual tagging of these articles, and attempt to shoehorn in discredited information bordering on (if not already there) disruptive behavior. Bellwether BC 19:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC) The article mentions that his father was a non-practicing Muslim. It also notes that Obama himself is a Christian, and how he came to that decision. I'm not sure why his family's religious practices or the meaning of his name are important facts. Paisan30 (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC) In Islam , the meaning of a name are very important. If Obama's father did not consider him Muslim why did he give him a highly symbolic Islamic middle name, which you can read all about by looking at Hussein in wikipedia. Why the name Baracka , meaning blessed in Arabic. I guess this would not resonate if one is not acquainted with Middle eastern culture. But that is what wikipedia is for, to bring knowledge to where it is lacking. Though not everyone agrees with that concept.--CltFn (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC) I doubt a non-practicing Muslim father really cares how important names are to other Muslims. Further, how many people still care about the original meanings of names. David means beloved yet who actually names their son that for this reason. You might say that its because of the language difference that the name doesn't mean the same thing anymore but everywhere that Barack has lived, Arabic has not been the main language. Basically a name is a name. I doubt Isaac is picked because people want their child to laugh. Gdo01 (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC) This is laughable. His parents gave him his father's own name, as in Jr You've heard of that construction? His father didn't name him independently of his mother in some kind of secret Muslim symbolic rite. Why did Bill Richardson's parents name him William Blaine Richardson, III - is there some kind of hidden WASP message there, trying to deny his Latino heritage by emphasizing his Mayflower side? Seriously, give it up already. Tvoz |talk 22:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Well then let it be included in the article then , since according to you there is nothing to it.--CltFn (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC) They're not, which has been the point of those of us who have removed the POINT-y tags. Thanks for weighing in, though, as CltFn (wonder what that name stands for?;) ) has been attempting to push through additions, and in lieu of being able to do that, has been adding tags to the article about "neutrality." The mor editors who oppose such POINT-y additions, the better off the article (currently at featured status) will be. Bellwether BC 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_12
Now it may well be true that, being a White woman, Ms. Sinema is to be protected against comments in the TALK page that are permitted with respect to African American politicians, but that should certainly be discussed. OneWhoDoesNotLikeCrooks ( talk) 14:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
"On the night of November 4, 2008, when it became apparent that Proposition 102 would win by a 12% margin, Sinema was quoted on Fox 10 news saying that "[Prop 102] was able to eke out a victory," despite the fact that in 2006, Prop 107 (a similar ballot measure which she led the fight against) was defeated by the much smaller margin of 3.6%."
The above quote sounds to me like trivial nitpicking with a definite anti-Sinema POV. Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 19:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Please stop reverting back and forth about committee assignments. Per WP:BRD, it really needs to be discussed here after the first revert. I wanted to comment that listing all her past committee assignments would be tedious and trivial. Just listing her most recent ones would go against WP:RECENT. If we really want to include that, perhaps only if she was ever a chair of any of her committees. That might be notable, IMO. I don't generally think committee assignments should be listed much since they can change from one term to another often and is just not really necessary unless she is somehow more notable for being on certain committees. -- JoannaSerah ( talk) 06:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
If she was a chair of any committees, that would be notable to me (with a cite, of course) otherwise, I agree that they are not needed. I don't really think committee assignments are needed on most articles except if there was something really notable about them being there or being a chair (maybe a high ranking member for US House committees). -- JoannaSerah ( talk) 22:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
"One of the highest honors that any society can see is a lawyer whose wisdom surpasses that of a court in the United States second only in authority to the Supreme Court of the United States. Ms. Sinema fits that picture absolutely perfectly. Ms. Lynne Stewart defended Sheik Ahmad, who may have (the guilty verdict was likely in error) organized the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. A vast judicial conspiracy resulted in Ms. Stewart's conviction for terrorist activity. Ms. Sinema immediately realized that the US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit [1], would head up the plot. As a result, she took the great risk, courageous as Moses when confronting Pharoah, of organizing a commemoration at Arizona State University called 'emphatically not guilty' [2] [3]. Some might deem such action treason, but others deem the 1993 World Trade Center bombing a forewarning of a vast conspiracy that ultimately collapsed the buildings [4]."
What say you? I think her quite marvelous for this. OneWhoDoesNotLikeCrooks ( talk) 04:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
This transcript was purchased by INTELWIRE.com for $218.90 from the Southern District of New York court reporter. Please credit and/or link INTELWIRE if reporting from this document.
The above is assuredly a referenced source. Now, for you, Ms. Serah, the defendant would appear to be something of a hero. That is your POV. Mine, as well as Judge Duffy, is that he was being charged for criminality like most organized criminals would be charged. Ms. Sinema did indeed organize that rally, which was sourced. Albeit, if your POV includes the notion that government should execute all Jews, the Jewish Journal constitutes an unreliable source, a source so nefarious it enables you to charge that the quote in entirety was unsourced. In fact, the Jewish Journal source is acceptable at the highest level. It is a secondary compendium of materials, one that Ms. Sinema did indeed respond to [7]. Precisely because she, an attorney who claims to be in active practice of the law when the legislature is not in session, responded in full & freely to the piece, all statements not contradicted by her have her seal of approval as being true. Of course, given a point of view that Jews should be executed (a POV that must be considered when discussing Ms. Sinema), it should be stated neutrally. How does this sound:
"The WTC bombing, to which the felon Lynne Stewart was connected, is viewed by some as being a strike on behalf of Islam {here I'd insert the pro-Sinema material by Sheik Rahman at his final statement, as well as that of the others}, but by others, including Judge Duffy, as a form of organized crime, wherein religion played no role." OneWhoDoesNotLikeCrooks ( talk) 17:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
(A large amount of BLP violating content was removed) Gigs ( talk) 22:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
I believe Go Phightins erred gravely in their third opinion. This kind of digging up of negative court records and public records is very strongly against our BLP policy. Continued insertion of such information without it being cited to a secondary source rather than a primary source is a serious matter that will result in full protection of the article or blocks for those involved with such insertion. Gigs ( talk) 22:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC) |
As well, I don't think this information should even be on the talk page, so I'm blanking large sections of it. Gigs ( talk) 22:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I removed some non notable material from a "controveries" section. These type of sections should be avoided if possible. If this material has been widely covered by the main stream media, then please post here and discuss. Non notable blog enties are not a good starting point. Thank you, -- Malerooster ( talk) 01:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why in the section on minimum wage vote, there's a reference to the handbag she had with her at the time. I realise it's attempting to be a dig at how she's voting not to increase wages while she personally is able to afford expensive items, but it reads like a Vogue summary, rather than a Wikipedia entry.
Might this be revised to reflect what certain publications may have said about the dichotemy, or if this is a recurring theme, perhaps a controversy entry?
"During the 116th Congress, she voted with President Donald Trump's position roughly 25% of the time, the third-most of any Democratic senator, behind Joe Manchin and Mark Kelly.[note 1][6]"
Considering the percentage range for Dems with that stat is between 33.33 - 13.3%, and the average among Democratic senators was 19.45%, this is a useless statistic. I know whomever wrote that is just trying to associate her with Trump, but try a little harder...
I posted this today under the "positions" list:
"Sex Trafficking In 2018 Sinema was the subject of public criticism in Republican campaign ads for previous comments that she made during a 2007 legislative committee hearing that debated SB1268 a senate bill that would stiffen legal penalties for people who solicited underage sex trafficking victims. In video of the "House Natural Resources and Public Safety" committee hearing on SB1268 Sinema said: “I’m just not convinced that enforcing a strict liability on those johns who are engaging in prostitution is really the answer, and as a former social worker at an elementary school, there were children at my school who were 12, 13 years old and some of these children looked older than me. They were much more – I mean, definitely sophisticated, developed – and if I had seen a number of my former students in a place other than in a sixth-grade classroom, I would not have known that those children were 12 instead of 19 or 20. And so I do have a real concern for those individuals, and if one of those young girls were conscripted into prostitution and a john were to approach her, he’d be facing a class 2 felony for unknowingly soliciting sex from a 12-year-old who appeared to be a 20-year-old.”[195] Sinema ultimately voted for the bill which was amended to allow solicitors of underage sex trafficking victims 15 years old & older, to defend themselves in court utilizing the argument that they couldn't determine the sex trafficking victim's age.[196]"
With the following cited sources, which I would be glad to add to:
1. [url= https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/11/politics/kyrsten-sinema-defend-arizona-gop-attack-ad/index.html](September 17, 2021) 2. ^ [url= https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/48leg/1r/summary/h.sb1268_06-11-07_houseengrossed.doc.htm]access-date=September 17, 2021}}
I request to include this topic as one of Sinema's public positions on sex trafficking or create another small section under controversies or political tenure periods. This should have been included before and I find it's omission may be indicative of "conflict of interest" edits. These are public comments made on congressional record by Sinema that have caused public debate from prior victims of sex trafficking and their advocates, not to mention significant controversy in Sinema's senate career. The Sinema page is not a balanced product if we omit all unflattering comments and positions taken by Sinema. Again, I would be glad to edit it down and I request SPECIFIC and USABLE feedback from the larger community. I am concerned that this page may be being edited by Sinema fans, staff or other paid actors. FreedomFries2021 ( talk) 22:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
was the subject of public criticismmakes clear that this is WP:POV. Of course Republicans tried to attack Sinema during an election campaign. Including it is WP:UNDUE weight. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
As possibly unflattering as it may seem to Sinema, this IS reflective of her position on sex trafficking. Sinema lobbied the committee to have the penalties for underage sex trafficking reduced for "Johns" if they couldn't reasonably ascertain the age of the victims and the victims were 15-17 years old. Sinema voted that way and commented on congressional record as to her position, it's a fact supported by the congressional record and reported on by CNN and other reputable outlets. President Biden was a public proponent of the War on Drugs, it is unflattering now, but that doesn't change his political history. I am willing to re-title the excerpt, put it in another section and edit it down, but to not include it at all is just plain political censorship. FreedomFries2021 ( talk) 22:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
NPOV guidance: Words to watch Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. For example, the word claim, as in "Jim claimed he paid for the sandwich", could imply a lack of credibility. Using this or other expressions of doubt may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using such loaded words; for example, "Jim said he paid for the sandwich". Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source). "Unless those expressions are part of a noteworthy source" In this case, Kyrsten Sinema herself via the congressional record and CNN. I understand this is difficult to "weigh" but not including the facts on her voting record is censorship. FreedomFries2021 ( talk) 01:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC) I would be GLAD to include a reference to that, it doesn't undue her previous vote and the existing legislation but it's certainly worth including, just as it is worth including Sinema's prior voting records and political positions. FreedomFries2021 ( talk) 23:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC) The Republicans may have found Sinema's comment and tried to use it for an attack ad but it doesn't change the fact that she said it and lobbied for protections for solicitors of underage girls 15 & older. I understand why you might want to remove the content. These are difficult facts that are politically charged, but these are the facts and to not include them is to assist in anonymizing sex trafficking victims and downplaying the importance of legal protections for people engaged in sex trafficking of underage girls. Whether this was used as an attack ad or not is virtually irrelevant, though I did reference that in my original post. FreedomFries2021 ( talk) 23:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Footnotes
I'm not "implying" that Sinema supports Sex Trafficking of minors at all. Clearly however according to CNN-(this is not a reliable source???) and the congressional record-(again this is not a reliable source????), she was concerned about "Johns" not being able to tell the difference between a 12 & 13 year old and a 20 year old. Again-the "source" is her own words as reported by CNN and the congressional record! Did either of you even read the references? These aren't "conclusions" that I have "reached" they are FACTS. Question: Are either of you paid to edit the Kyrsten Sinema page? FreedomFries2021 ( talk) 23:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Quote: "As The Daily Poster first reported, Sinema, who has raised over $500,000 from the pharmaceutical and health products industry, was featured in ads by a pharma-funded dark-money group just before she went public with her opposition to drug pricing legislation. Data from the Center for Responsive Politics shows that since entering Congress, Sinema has also grossed well over $6 million in donations from the finance, insurance, and real estate industry."
-- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 12:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
So the current lead image does not look like a tradition portrait and furthermore it was when she was a U.S. Rep and not senator so its outdated in terms of office. The proposed image looks similar to that of Dick Durbin (whose outdated lead image was replaced) and like the official portraits of Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell. In contrast to the current lead, Sinema is looking towards the audience like most official portraits. -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 02:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I've started a new paragraph under "Health care" regarding Sinema's opposition to drug reform provisions in the current spending bill per this and other articles. [11], [12]. Politics is not my strongest writing area, feel free to expand or reword as necessary. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Question on whether editors can add a new heading without "consensus" on talk page Beautifulcalmdriving ( talk) 20:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, get consensus on the talk page for "corruption allegations"
post on Talk:Kyrsten Sinema and do not reinstate this again
WP:ONUS is on you, see WP:BRD, get WP:CONSENSUS for contested info in a WP:BLP or I'll block you for WP:EW
I propose the following text to summarize the issues in the NYT source that Beautifulcalmdriving was trying to add to the article.
In October 2021, five of the veterans Sinema had selected for her advisory council as liaisons to the Arizona service member community resigned. Their resignation letter accuses Sinema of "answering to big donors rather than your own people" and criticizes Sinema's opposition to key Democratic party issues such as abolishing the filibuster and aspects of Biden's Build Back Better Plan.. [1]
Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
References
Could you use this source: Why Five of Kyrsten Sinema’s Advisers Just Quit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.19 ( talk) 22:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
It might be helpful to start a section on her funders, where would be the best place for it? Here are a couple of references which may be helpful. But, if you seek to tar Sinema for her funders, wouldn't it be necessary to do the same with more Left-leaningDemocrats?
Thanks
. John Cummings ( talk) 15:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Not sure of placement/size but there should be mention of it in the article. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 09:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Bookerxv.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if there is room in this article for the photograph that Sinema posted to her Instagram page, in which she is wearing a F––k Off ring. [1] Larry Koenigsberg ( talk) 16:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
References
![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
At first, this was a normal wikipedia page, which any could edit. Then it was provisioned the notification "protected", wherein persons could only edit it under certain circumstances until AFTER the election, at which point it would become far less interesting to all concerned. Now, without actual discourse, the designation "This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism."
This is a talk page. There is ZERO potential for libellous material against a US politician because the first amendment protects against that. At present, the wikipedia article appears to be a political advertisement for Ms. Sinema. In adjudging the Talk page, one should keep in mind the talk page of Barack Obama, a perhaps less well known American politician than Kyrsten Sinema.
This appears in Mr. Obama's talk page:
I agree. It's been an ad nauseum discussion, and I find the continual tagging of these articles, and attempt to shoehorn in discredited information bordering on (if not already there) disruptive behavior. Bellwether BC 19:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC) The article mentions that his father was a non-practicing Muslim. It also notes that Obama himself is a Christian, and how he came to that decision. I'm not sure why his family's religious practices or the meaning of his name are important facts. Paisan30 (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC) In Islam , the meaning of a name are very important. If Obama's father did not consider him Muslim why did he give him a highly symbolic Islamic middle name, which you can read all about by looking at Hussein in wikipedia. Why the name Baracka , meaning blessed in Arabic. I guess this would not resonate if one is not acquainted with Middle eastern culture. But that is what wikipedia is for, to bring knowledge to where it is lacking. Though not everyone agrees with that concept.--CltFn (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC) I doubt a non-practicing Muslim father really cares how important names are to other Muslims. Further, how many people still care about the original meanings of names. David means beloved yet who actually names their son that for this reason. You might say that its because of the language difference that the name doesn't mean the same thing anymore but everywhere that Barack has lived, Arabic has not been the main language. Basically a name is a name. I doubt Isaac is picked because people want their child to laugh. Gdo01 (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC) This is laughable. His parents gave him his father's own name, as in Jr You've heard of that construction? His father didn't name him independently of his mother in some kind of secret Muslim symbolic rite. Why did Bill Richardson's parents name him William Blaine Richardson, III - is there some kind of hidden WASP message there, trying to deny his Latino heritage by emphasizing his Mayflower side? Seriously, give it up already. Tvoz |talk 22:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Well then let it be included in the article then , since according to you there is nothing to it.--CltFn (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC) They're not, which has been the point of those of us who have removed the POINT-y tags. Thanks for weighing in, though, as CltFn (wonder what that name stands for?;) ) has been attempting to push through additions, and in lieu of being able to do that, has been adding tags to the article about "neutrality." The mor editors who oppose such POINT-y additions, the better off the article (currently at featured status) will be. Bellwether BC 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_12
Now it may well be true that, being a White woman, Ms. Sinema is to be protected against comments in the TALK page that are permitted with respect to African American politicians, but that should certainly be discussed. OneWhoDoesNotLikeCrooks ( talk) 14:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
"On the night of November 4, 2008, when it became apparent that Proposition 102 would win by a 12% margin, Sinema was quoted on Fox 10 news saying that "[Prop 102] was able to eke out a victory," despite the fact that in 2006, Prop 107 (a similar ballot measure which she led the fight against) was defeated by the much smaller margin of 3.6%."
The above quote sounds to me like trivial nitpicking with a definite anti-Sinema POV. Ray Eston Smith Jr ( talk) 19:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Please stop reverting back and forth about committee assignments. Per WP:BRD, it really needs to be discussed here after the first revert. I wanted to comment that listing all her past committee assignments would be tedious and trivial. Just listing her most recent ones would go against WP:RECENT. If we really want to include that, perhaps only if she was ever a chair of any of her committees. That might be notable, IMO. I don't generally think committee assignments should be listed much since they can change from one term to another often and is just not really necessary unless she is somehow more notable for being on certain committees. -- JoannaSerah ( talk) 06:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
If she was a chair of any committees, that would be notable to me (with a cite, of course) otherwise, I agree that they are not needed. I don't really think committee assignments are needed on most articles except if there was something really notable about them being there or being a chair (maybe a high ranking member for US House committees). -- JoannaSerah ( talk) 22:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
"One of the highest honors that any society can see is a lawyer whose wisdom surpasses that of a court in the United States second only in authority to the Supreme Court of the United States. Ms. Sinema fits that picture absolutely perfectly. Ms. Lynne Stewart defended Sheik Ahmad, who may have (the guilty verdict was likely in error) organized the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. A vast judicial conspiracy resulted in Ms. Stewart's conviction for terrorist activity. Ms. Sinema immediately realized that the US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit [1], would head up the plot. As a result, she took the great risk, courageous as Moses when confronting Pharoah, of organizing a commemoration at Arizona State University called 'emphatically not guilty' [2] [3]. Some might deem such action treason, but others deem the 1993 World Trade Center bombing a forewarning of a vast conspiracy that ultimately collapsed the buildings [4]."
What say you? I think her quite marvelous for this. OneWhoDoesNotLikeCrooks ( talk) 04:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
This transcript was purchased by INTELWIRE.com for $218.90 from the Southern District of New York court reporter. Please credit and/or link INTELWIRE if reporting from this document.
The above is assuredly a referenced source. Now, for you, Ms. Serah, the defendant would appear to be something of a hero. That is your POV. Mine, as well as Judge Duffy, is that he was being charged for criminality like most organized criminals would be charged. Ms. Sinema did indeed organize that rally, which was sourced. Albeit, if your POV includes the notion that government should execute all Jews, the Jewish Journal constitutes an unreliable source, a source so nefarious it enables you to charge that the quote in entirety was unsourced. In fact, the Jewish Journal source is acceptable at the highest level. It is a secondary compendium of materials, one that Ms. Sinema did indeed respond to [7]. Precisely because she, an attorney who claims to be in active practice of the law when the legislature is not in session, responded in full & freely to the piece, all statements not contradicted by her have her seal of approval as being true. Of course, given a point of view that Jews should be executed (a POV that must be considered when discussing Ms. Sinema), it should be stated neutrally. How does this sound:
"The WTC bombing, to which the felon Lynne Stewart was connected, is viewed by some as being a strike on behalf of Islam {here I'd insert the pro-Sinema material by Sheik Rahman at his final statement, as well as that of the others}, but by others, including Judge Duffy, as a form of organized crime, wherein religion played no role." OneWhoDoesNotLikeCrooks ( talk) 17:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
(A large amount of BLP violating content was removed) Gigs ( talk) 22:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
I believe Go Phightins erred gravely in their third opinion. This kind of digging up of negative court records and public records is very strongly against our BLP policy. Continued insertion of such information without it being cited to a secondary source rather than a primary source is a serious matter that will result in full protection of the article or blocks for those involved with such insertion. Gigs ( talk) 22:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC) |
As well, I don't think this information should even be on the talk page, so I'm blanking large sections of it. Gigs ( talk) 22:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I removed some non notable material from a "controveries" section. These type of sections should be avoided if possible. If this material has been widely covered by the main stream media, then please post here and discuss. Non notable blog enties are not a good starting point. Thank you, -- Malerooster ( talk) 01:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why in the section on minimum wage vote, there's a reference to the handbag she had with her at the time. I realise it's attempting to be a dig at how she's voting not to increase wages while she personally is able to afford expensive items, but it reads like a Vogue summary, rather than a Wikipedia entry.
Might this be revised to reflect what certain publications may have said about the dichotemy, or if this is a recurring theme, perhaps a controversy entry?
"During the 116th Congress, she voted with President Donald Trump's position roughly 25% of the time, the third-most of any Democratic senator, behind Joe Manchin and Mark Kelly.[note 1][6]"
Considering the percentage range for Dems with that stat is between 33.33 - 13.3%, and the average among Democratic senators was 19.45%, this is a useless statistic. I know whomever wrote that is just trying to associate her with Trump, but try a little harder...
I posted this today under the "positions" list:
"Sex Trafficking In 2018 Sinema was the subject of public criticism in Republican campaign ads for previous comments that she made during a 2007 legislative committee hearing that debated SB1268 a senate bill that would stiffen legal penalties for people who solicited underage sex trafficking victims. In video of the "House Natural Resources and Public Safety" committee hearing on SB1268 Sinema said: “I’m just not convinced that enforcing a strict liability on those johns who are engaging in prostitution is really the answer, and as a former social worker at an elementary school, there were children at my school who were 12, 13 years old and some of these children looked older than me. They were much more – I mean, definitely sophisticated, developed – and if I had seen a number of my former students in a place other than in a sixth-grade classroom, I would not have known that those children were 12 instead of 19 or 20. And so I do have a real concern for those individuals, and if one of those young girls were conscripted into prostitution and a john were to approach her, he’d be facing a class 2 felony for unknowingly soliciting sex from a 12-year-old who appeared to be a 20-year-old.”[195] Sinema ultimately voted for the bill which was amended to allow solicitors of underage sex trafficking victims 15 years old & older, to defend themselves in court utilizing the argument that they couldn't determine the sex trafficking victim's age.[196]"
With the following cited sources, which I would be glad to add to:
1. [url= https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/11/politics/kyrsten-sinema-defend-arizona-gop-attack-ad/index.html](September 17, 2021) 2. ^ [url= https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/48leg/1r/summary/h.sb1268_06-11-07_houseengrossed.doc.htm]access-date=September 17, 2021}}
I request to include this topic as one of Sinema's public positions on sex trafficking or create another small section under controversies or political tenure periods. This should have been included before and I find it's omission may be indicative of "conflict of interest" edits. These are public comments made on congressional record by Sinema that have caused public debate from prior victims of sex trafficking and their advocates, not to mention significant controversy in Sinema's senate career. The Sinema page is not a balanced product if we omit all unflattering comments and positions taken by Sinema. Again, I would be glad to edit it down and I request SPECIFIC and USABLE feedback from the larger community. I am concerned that this page may be being edited by Sinema fans, staff or other paid actors. FreedomFries2021 ( talk) 22:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
was the subject of public criticismmakes clear that this is WP:POV. Of course Republicans tried to attack Sinema during an election campaign. Including it is WP:UNDUE weight. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
As possibly unflattering as it may seem to Sinema, this IS reflective of her position on sex trafficking. Sinema lobbied the committee to have the penalties for underage sex trafficking reduced for "Johns" if they couldn't reasonably ascertain the age of the victims and the victims were 15-17 years old. Sinema voted that way and commented on congressional record as to her position, it's a fact supported by the congressional record and reported on by CNN and other reputable outlets. President Biden was a public proponent of the War on Drugs, it is unflattering now, but that doesn't change his political history. I am willing to re-title the excerpt, put it in another section and edit it down, but to not include it at all is just plain political censorship. FreedomFries2021 ( talk) 22:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
NPOV guidance: Words to watch Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. For example, the word claim, as in "Jim claimed he paid for the sandwich", could imply a lack of credibility. Using this or other expressions of doubt may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using such loaded words; for example, "Jim said he paid for the sandwich". Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source). "Unless those expressions are part of a noteworthy source" In this case, Kyrsten Sinema herself via the congressional record and CNN. I understand this is difficult to "weigh" but not including the facts on her voting record is censorship. FreedomFries2021 ( talk) 01:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC) I would be GLAD to include a reference to that, it doesn't undue her previous vote and the existing legislation but it's certainly worth including, just as it is worth including Sinema's prior voting records and political positions. FreedomFries2021 ( talk) 23:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC) The Republicans may have found Sinema's comment and tried to use it for an attack ad but it doesn't change the fact that she said it and lobbied for protections for solicitors of underage girls 15 & older. I understand why you might want to remove the content. These are difficult facts that are politically charged, but these are the facts and to not include them is to assist in anonymizing sex trafficking victims and downplaying the importance of legal protections for people engaged in sex trafficking of underage girls. Whether this was used as an attack ad or not is virtually irrelevant, though I did reference that in my original post. FreedomFries2021 ( talk) 23:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Footnotes
I'm not "implying" that Sinema supports Sex Trafficking of minors at all. Clearly however according to CNN-(this is not a reliable source???) and the congressional record-(again this is not a reliable source????), she was concerned about "Johns" not being able to tell the difference between a 12 & 13 year old and a 20 year old. Again-the "source" is her own words as reported by CNN and the congressional record! Did either of you even read the references? These aren't "conclusions" that I have "reached" they are FACTS. Question: Are either of you paid to edit the Kyrsten Sinema page? FreedomFries2021 ( talk) 23:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Quote: "As The Daily Poster first reported, Sinema, who has raised over $500,000 from the pharmaceutical and health products industry, was featured in ads by a pharma-funded dark-money group just before she went public with her opposition to drug pricing legislation. Data from the Center for Responsive Politics shows that since entering Congress, Sinema has also grossed well over $6 million in donations from the finance, insurance, and real estate industry."
-- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 12:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
So the current lead image does not look like a tradition portrait and furthermore it was when she was a U.S. Rep and not senator so its outdated in terms of office. The proposed image looks similar to that of Dick Durbin (whose outdated lead image was replaced) and like the official portraits of Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell. In contrast to the current lead, Sinema is looking towards the audience like most official portraits. -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 02:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I've started a new paragraph under "Health care" regarding Sinema's opposition to drug reform provisions in the current spending bill per this and other articles. [11], [12]. Politics is not my strongest writing area, feel free to expand or reword as necessary. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Question on whether editors can add a new heading without "consensus" on talk page Beautifulcalmdriving ( talk) 20:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, get consensus on the talk page for "corruption allegations"
post on Talk:Kyrsten Sinema and do not reinstate this again
WP:ONUS is on you, see WP:BRD, get WP:CONSENSUS for contested info in a WP:BLP or I'll block you for WP:EW
I propose the following text to summarize the issues in the NYT source that Beautifulcalmdriving was trying to add to the article.
In October 2021, five of the veterans Sinema had selected for her advisory council as liaisons to the Arizona service member community resigned. Their resignation letter accuses Sinema of "answering to big donors rather than your own people" and criticizes Sinema's opposition to key Democratic party issues such as abolishing the filibuster and aspects of Biden's Build Back Better Plan.. [1]
Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
References
Could you use this source: Why Five of Kyrsten Sinema’s Advisers Just Quit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.19 ( talk) 22:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
It might be helpful to start a section on her funders, where would be the best place for it? Here are a couple of references which may be helpful. But, if you seek to tar Sinema for her funders, wouldn't it be necessary to do the same with more Left-leaningDemocrats?
Thanks
. John Cummings ( talk) 15:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Not sure of placement/size but there should be mention of it in the article. -- Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 09:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Bookerxv.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if there is room in this article for the photograph that Sinema posted to her Instagram page, in which she is wearing a F––k Off ring. [1] Larry Koenigsberg ( talk) 16:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
References