This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run 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 article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Muboshgu: Just quickly because I saw the sentence about her Tammy Duckworth and Chris Murphy's endorsements was reverted. I realize endorsements are always a sort of garbage area of election articles, and the compromise to keeping any at all is that they're colapsed by default. It's not a big deal to leave them off and I agree the biography section ideally would be strickly about her life, but in the next year, I do foresee the last paragraph could be split into an expanded "2020 Senate race" section, where noting a select few high profile early endorsements could be relevant, which was my basis for adding them. Thanks-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 00:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Gandydancer:: I see that you keep reverting the deletion of the part about the Justice Democrats supporting her Senate campaign. She has not been endorsed by Justice Democrats, her primary opponent has. That's what the Politico article in the citation says, and that's what the Justice Democrats' website says. So I think we should stick with the deletion. Thanks! -@Jocasnix, 8/27/19
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I started a tread about this on the elections Wikiproject, but do we prefer having her electoral history, i.e. the section with all the Template:Election boxes here on this article or on a separate Electoral history of Sara Gideon? I'm not sure what the policy is on breaking these off, but at least at the moment, we have a Template:Main which redirects back to the article here.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 16:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
There was serious concern over Rep. Bates' alleged sexual offences against a minor. This issue has been raised, and is serious enough to merit inclusion. That it is a negative mark on Gideon's tenure doesn't mean it should be excluded. All significant actions, good or bad, should be included. Wikipedia is not a political ad. Welcome for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:141:4D52:45DC:A526 ( talk) 17:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Whether this is a talking point used by Republicans is irrelevant. Nearly all of the content on Gideon's page, and Collins' for that matter, has been used by campaigns. I think you are fighting this too hard, and it suggests you and Neutrality are pushing an agenda on Gideon's page as well as US Maine 2020. I'm not a Republican and not pushing an agenda, but a vote on an ethics claim 51-72 is something significant. It doesn't have to be belabored, and can be done in a neutral, brief manner. But I think your saying it is inappropriate is basically motivated by your politics. I also noticed Neutrality adding a lot of content that ran like an ad. I understand you may want to use wiki to advance your candidate but it's inappropriate. You still haven't said which of any of these facts is disputed. You just don't like it being mentioned. That's not how wikipedia works.
So, I am seeking someone to resolve it that doesn't have bias in this. But we need to reach some type of consensus. It should be fact based. If you want to keep it small to protect your candidate, I'm open to that, but sexual offense is significant, potentially not handling it well is significant, and merits being on the page, just as the other candidate's decision to not impeach is significant. People's decisions in office are precisely what are supposed to be on this page, even if they don't portray your candidate in a positive light.
Also, re: Neutrality, I see zero basis for it being undue weight (a vote on your handling of something is significant). How Gideon's actions while in office are 'off-topic' is laughable, given your additions of all her accomplishments in office. Should we only mention the items that Maine voters tend to like. Distorted?! Reporting an ethics vote is distorted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:98F7:32E3:5AC7:3161 ( talk) 01:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Interesting experience on the Sara Gideon and US Maine 2020 pages. I study fairly extensively a vote in the Maine House towards Speaker Gideon, concerning a potential sex offender representative in the house, Dillon Bates. A vote is done, 52-71. I report this as accurately as I possibly can, with 4-5 different, neutral citations. I get erased, often without explanation and threatened with being blocked. I seek an arbitration after I am repeatedly erased. Users: Neutrality, KidAd act as each other's arbitrator. Having looked at their own pages, I see they are also in other brouhahas over deleting information that paints a democratic candidate in a bad light, or inserting partisan talk. When I contribute, every time (within minutes: I hope they are adequately compensated!) one of them has said nothing (half the time), or the other half, said: 'no references!', 'irrelevant', 'bizarre language', 'BPL', and the like, I have answered their concerns, trying to seek consensus, and warning against potential vandalism. What is disconcerting about this experience is that it is power speaking to truth: if you have extensive time to edit wikipedia pages, you are heavily partisan invested, and you attain a higher status, your privilege is to edit, not provide adequate justification, and lock pages. Arbitrary, biased power is unfortunate. Apparently, if two hyper-partisan wiki editors don't like the information, that is enough to 'prevent consensus'. Not that we could find a common resolution, neutral language, or shortening of its mention. No, rejection, usually without explanation. I will keep trying to have my case heard: that a potential mishandling of a sex offense case in the Maine House by the Speaker is wiki worthy. I hope I can find a fair arbiter, besides a few who take turns acting as eraser one minute, then my arbiter the next, even in an election year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:4438:C80D:13F3:B012 ( talk) 02:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I have read it extensively. There are literally hundreds of articles on this story that you are suppressing here. If you google 'dillon bates gideon maine' you get 535,000 hits. Sad that three democrats are 'adjudicating' wiki rules to benefit each other under the spurious claim of BLP. Briefly mentioning that a vote happened to censure Gideon is not slander. It is an important fact. Your standard: if a fact portrays a democratic candidate in a negative light, it should be banned. My favorite: you seem to be a registered republican or sympathetic with them. I didn't know you didn't allow republican editors of wiki any more. If your standard for eliminating any portrayal of a candidate in a negative light was followed, half of Collins' page would be gone. Hypocrites and suppressors of fact. Sad that three computer nerds without other activities spend their days and nights suppressing neutral, relevant events. Disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:D594:F657:6E6B:5D44 ( talk) 05:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
In the main page, her father is listed as having the last name of Gideon yet her husband Benjamin also has the last name Gideon. This oddity needs to be explained or corrected. What is her husband's real last name or last name from birth? Please fix this issue or explain why this oddity exists. 203.131.210.82 ( talk) 06:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Her father Vasant Gideon hails from India and her mother is a second-generation Armenian American from Rhodes Island, US." KidAd talk 18:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@ KidAd: Thank you! As for the novelist sister, we can't really do too much with that story, ... it's too complicated. Ultimately, it's not so much her last name, its the absence of a backstory. We need something more transparent and straightforward. Why has she not offered to do it, to tell her constituents how and when her father appeared on these shores, what part of India he came from, what college and medical school he attended, where his relatives in India live, ... ? The same for the mother, and about how the parents met. Is it that hard? It wouldn't take more than 10 minutes in an interview. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't know her history, but you guys are scraping the bottom of the barrel, not to mention engaging in various forms of synthesis, if you are piecing together history by using third-rate Indian sources such as news18 and India Abroad and Newspaper.com archives and a preface of a sister's novel. That is not your job. If it is anyone's job, it is that of a reliable newspaper reporter's—to ferret out the details from available sources, to weigh them for plausibility, to integrate them with other accounts (interviews etc). We Wikipedians can't really do that ourselves. I would err on the side of caution. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Namiba, you changed the "USA Today and Freeport Town Council" career subsection to "Early career", without apparent reason. Do you have a reason? I think your title is needlessly vague, and inconsistent with the others in Career, which are named for her work, not for the relative timing. Sometimes, a person has a dozen or so early jobs and "Early career" makes sense for concision. But for two jobs, we can and should aim for precision. InedibleHulk ( talk) 20:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run 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 article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Muboshgu: Just quickly because I saw the sentence about her Tammy Duckworth and Chris Murphy's endorsements was reverted. I realize endorsements are always a sort of garbage area of election articles, and the compromise to keeping any at all is that they're colapsed by default. It's not a big deal to leave them off and I agree the biography section ideally would be strickly about her life, but in the next year, I do foresee the last paragraph could be split into an expanded "2020 Senate race" section, where noting a select few high profile early endorsements could be relevant, which was my basis for adding them. Thanks-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 00:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Gandydancer:: I see that you keep reverting the deletion of the part about the Justice Democrats supporting her Senate campaign. She has not been endorsed by Justice Democrats, her primary opponent has. That's what the Politico article in the citation says, and that's what the Justice Democrats' website says. So I think we should stick with the deletion. Thanks! -@Jocasnix, 8/27/19
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I started a tread about this on the elections Wikiproject, but do we prefer having her electoral history, i.e. the section with all the Template:Election boxes here on this article or on a separate Electoral history of Sara Gideon? I'm not sure what the policy is on breaking these off, but at least at the moment, we have a Template:Main which redirects back to the article here.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 16:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
There was serious concern over Rep. Bates' alleged sexual offences against a minor. This issue has been raised, and is serious enough to merit inclusion. That it is a negative mark on Gideon's tenure doesn't mean it should be excluded. All significant actions, good or bad, should be included. Wikipedia is not a political ad. Welcome for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:141:4D52:45DC:A526 ( talk) 17:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Whether this is a talking point used by Republicans is irrelevant. Nearly all of the content on Gideon's page, and Collins' for that matter, has been used by campaigns. I think you are fighting this too hard, and it suggests you and Neutrality are pushing an agenda on Gideon's page as well as US Maine 2020. I'm not a Republican and not pushing an agenda, but a vote on an ethics claim 51-72 is something significant. It doesn't have to be belabored, and can be done in a neutral, brief manner. But I think your saying it is inappropriate is basically motivated by your politics. I also noticed Neutrality adding a lot of content that ran like an ad. I understand you may want to use wiki to advance your candidate but it's inappropriate. You still haven't said which of any of these facts is disputed. You just don't like it being mentioned. That's not how wikipedia works.
So, I am seeking someone to resolve it that doesn't have bias in this. But we need to reach some type of consensus. It should be fact based. If you want to keep it small to protect your candidate, I'm open to that, but sexual offense is significant, potentially not handling it well is significant, and merits being on the page, just as the other candidate's decision to not impeach is significant. People's decisions in office are precisely what are supposed to be on this page, even if they don't portray your candidate in a positive light.
Also, re: Neutrality, I see zero basis for it being undue weight (a vote on your handling of something is significant). How Gideon's actions while in office are 'off-topic' is laughable, given your additions of all her accomplishments in office. Should we only mention the items that Maine voters tend to like. Distorted?! Reporting an ethics vote is distorted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:98F7:32E3:5AC7:3161 ( talk) 01:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Interesting experience on the Sara Gideon and US Maine 2020 pages. I study fairly extensively a vote in the Maine House towards Speaker Gideon, concerning a potential sex offender representative in the house, Dillon Bates. A vote is done, 52-71. I report this as accurately as I possibly can, with 4-5 different, neutral citations. I get erased, often without explanation and threatened with being blocked. I seek an arbitration after I am repeatedly erased. Users: Neutrality, KidAd act as each other's arbitrator. Having looked at their own pages, I see they are also in other brouhahas over deleting information that paints a democratic candidate in a bad light, or inserting partisan talk. When I contribute, every time (within minutes: I hope they are adequately compensated!) one of them has said nothing (half the time), or the other half, said: 'no references!', 'irrelevant', 'bizarre language', 'BPL', and the like, I have answered their concerns, trying to seek consensus, and warning against potential vandalism. What is disconcerting about this experience is that it is power speaking to truth: if you have extensive time to edit wikipedia pages, you are heavily partisan invested, and you attain a higher status, your privilege is to edit, not provide adequate justification, and lock pages. Arbitrary, biased power is unfortunate. Apparently, if two hyper-partisan wiki editors don't like the information, that is enough to 'prevent consensus'. Not that we could find a common resolution, neutral language, or shortening of its mention. No, rejection, usually without explanation. I will keep trying to have my case heard: that a potential mishandling of a sex offense case in the Maine House by the Speaker is wiki worthy. I hope I can find a fair arbiter, besides a few who take turns acting as eraser one minute, then my arbiter the next, even in an election year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:4438:C80D:13F3:B012 ( talk) 02:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I have read it extensively. There are literally hundreds of articles on this story that you are suppressing here. If you google 'dillon bates gideon maine' you get 535,000 hits. Sad that three democrats are 'adjudicating' wiki rules to benefit each other under the spurious claim of BLP. Briefly mentioning that a vote happened to censure Gideon is not slander. It is an important fact. Your standard: if a fact portrays a democratic candidate in a negative light, it should be banned. My favorite: you seem to be a registered republican or sympathetic with them. I didn't know you didn't allow republican editors of wiki any more. If your standard for eliminating any portrayal of a candidate in a negative light was followed, half of Collins' page would be gone. Hypocrites and suppressors of fact. Sad that three computer nerds without other activities spend their days and nights suppressing neutral, relevant events. Disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:D594:F657:6E6B:5D44 ( talk) 05:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
In the main page, her father is listed as having the last name of Gideon yet her husband Benjamin also has the last name Gideon. This oddity needs to be explained or corrected. What is her husband's real last name or last name from birth? Please fix this issue or explain why this oddity exists. 203.131.210.82 ( talk) 06:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Her father Vasant Gideon hails from India and her mother is a second-generation Armenian American from Rhodes Island, US." KidAd talk 18:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@ KidAd: Thank you! As for the novelist sister, we can't really do too much with that story, ... it's too complicated. Ultimately, it's not so much her last name, its the absence of a backstory. We need something more transparent and straightforward. Why has she not offered to do it, to tell her constituents how and when her father appeared on these shores, what part of India he came from, what college and medical school he attended, where his relatives in India live, ... ? The same for the mother, and about how the parents met. Is it that hard? It wouldn't take more than 10 minutes in an interview. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't know her history, but you guys are scraping the bottom of the barrel, not to mention engaging in various forms of synthesis, if you are piecing together history by using third-rate Indian sources such as news18 and India Abroad and Newspaper.com archives and a preface of a sister's novel. That is not your job. If it is anyone's job, it is that of a reliable newspaper reporter's—to ferret out the details from available sources, to weigh them for plausibility, to integrate them with other accounts (interviews etc). We Wikipedians can't really do that ourselves. I would err on the side of caution. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Namiba, you changed the "USA Today and Freeport Town Council" career subsection to "Early career", without apparent reason. Do you have a reason? I think your title is needlessly vague, and inconsistent with the others in Career, which are named for her work, not for the relative timing. Sometimes, a person has a dozen or so early jobs and "Early career" makes sense for concision. But for two jobs, we can and should aim for precision. InedibleHulk ( talk) 20:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)