Jump to content

Talk:Cindy Hyde-Smith/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cindy Hyde-Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Date of birth

Has anyone come across a source for the date of birth? I do not doubt that it was added in good faith but I have not yet seen any proof for it. Thanks, --Andropov (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

FWIW d:Q5120540 contains a free base ID /m/03wc2px with this birth date. –84.46.53.184 (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out, yet the Google Knowledge Graph that this information stems from does not seem all that trustworthy to me. --Andropov (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
+1, Google uses this birth date on search hits is only better than nothing. Maybe add a {{citation needed}} here and drop the detail temporarily on dewiki, {{Belege fehlen}} can't be used inline. –84.46.52.169 (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
What's more, Google only started using this birthdate recently (after this Wikipedia article added the date). In the German version, I have refrained from adding an exact birthdate and will continue to do so until we have proof :) --Andropov (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
It appears to be correct per public records, but no sources that I can see yet have corroborated. Connormah (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Senator

She officially became Senator yesterday, she simply won't start work until April 9. April 1 should be her start date. MB298 (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Controversies section

As this is early-breaking news, there is some discrepancy about when the "front row at the hanging" comment occurred. Some sources are indicating it occurred on November 2, while others state November 11. If someone would be so kind as to nail down the correct date and adjust as necessary, I would be most obliged—kindest regards! 2601:3CA:204:F860:653D:B39:546D:D9DF (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Hyde-Smith's quoted comment from the WLBT article seems to clarify the date as November 2, 2018. Changed accordingly! 2601:3CA:204:F860:4DEB:52C8:7CB0:F598 (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone appears to have removed the whole section. Let me guess which party had an interest in expunging that information. Rousse (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

'Twasn't me!  :-) Perhaps a moderator might consider restricting edits or locking down the page—the newsworthy comments just seem to keep coming from this woman, and even after the November 27, 2018 special election, it's likely the page will see some vandalism or "creative editing". As this has now reached worldwide attention (note https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cindy-hyde-smith-republican-mississippi-voter-suppression-midterms-liberals-democrats-a8636521.html), some protection of the page might be a necessity. 2601:3CA:204:F860:615B:EEDB:A0D1:943B (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Her "Public hanging" and "make it harder to vote" comments seem especially interesting when you consider it was a relative on her husband's side who publicly shot and killed Lamar Smith in broad daylight on the courthouse steps in front of a crowd of witnesses for attempting to bring absentee ballots to the poll. He was not even charged with a crime. [1]. Seems like this would be worthy of mention in the article. Jacona (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Daughters attendance at seg academy

As for a BLP vio on the daughter's attending a seg academy, the statements are sourced daughter's name was not even mentioned, and as user:Marquardtika states, the choice of school would be a choice made by her parents, not the daughter, and the attendance of one black child out of 386 would hardly make the school integrated. Jacona (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at WP:BLPN. And yep, the daughter's name was mentioned. The statement was sourced in the context of Cindy Hyde-Smith but not in the context of her daughter, who attended the school years later and is not a public figure. Marquardtika (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Amending my comment--according to the article, Hyde-Smith's daughter attended a different school than her mother. The article is about Hyde-Smith's schooling, so it is even more of a stretch to try to involve the daughter here. Marquardtika (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Marquardtika, you are right on the facts. An NPOV article -- which I am convinced and related articles will be soon -- will weave the stories of Lawrence County Academy and its first cousin Brookhaven Academy in a town where a civil rights activist was shot on the courthouse steps and the local public high school revolted when it hired the football coach from the white private school ... and whose assistant coach was the first principal of Lawrence. This is an incestuous little town whose proclivities surely affected Hyde-Smith. Wikipedia doesn't need to connect all the dots, some of which are conjecture. The wise Wikipedia reader can draw her own conclusions. In my judgement, though, sending one's daughter to a school with a single black student is relevant. Rhadow (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not for conjecture's about BLPs. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely not, only reliably sourced content. But neither is wikipedia censored. Sourced content about public figures is appropriate, even if it does not promote the person who is the subject of the article. Jacona (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Galobtter, please identify what text, if any, in the articles Lawrence County Academy, Brookhaven Academy, Brookhaven, Mississippi, and Cindy Hyde-Smith is conjecture. It will be removed. Otherwise it seems a warning about an infraction which has not yet been committed. What does it mean, "conjecture's"? Rhadow (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Apparently the world does care that [Cindy Hyde-Smith]] sent her daughter to a school founded as a segregation academy and today has only one black child in 386. The Washington Post cares, and so does Politico.[2]. Abpout Hyde-Smith's school, so did the The Hill and the Daily Beast.[3] "A spokeswoman for Hyde-Smith characterized the report as a low blow from the "gotcha liberal media," according to The Hill." Rhadow (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I was responding to your comment that Wikipedia doesn't need to connect all the dots, some of which are conjecture. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations, Galobtter, you were right. There was going to be a problem that required the cavalry (Ymblanter). You were the one who did call for the administrative protections on the page. Bravo! It ought to be quite effective against IP vandals. However, I don't see any substantial change in the POV of the BLP article, nor any specific misdemeanors by the experienced editors you tagged. Correct me if I am wrong, but I see no conjecture in the article text. All I see is administrative burden imposed by a petit fonctionnaire. Rhadow (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I would disagree with Galobtter that any of the post was conjecture. It was sourced content. Yet I understand Galobtters reaction, because it sounds a bit like something a troll would post, but it is because the true-life actions of this candidate are shocking.Jacona (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I User:Tanada would contend that continuing to use the term Segregation Academy is a misnomer no matter how many minorities do or do not attend this private school. Most private schools nationwide have very low minority attendance and the US Supreme Court forced open enrollment on all the former Segregation Academies per se back in 1976. Continuing to use an old name and an old standard definition more than 40 years after that standard was changed is highly suspect. If you must use the racially charged terminology then you should also give a comparison of the private academies where other prominent politicians send their children from all political parties and not cherry pick one example in an attempt to make one politician look bad to the general public. In other words pointing to the daughters educational environment is a politically motivated statement unless the same information is conveyed for all politicians generally across all states and political parties evenly.
User:Tanada, I formatted your comments so that the link to your username would render correctly and so the indent would work, I hope that's fine.Jacona (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Tanada, I believe you point to a valid opportunity. Many articles could use expansion, and if there are other articles in which it would be appropriate to add that information, well then, Wikipedia depends on the input of volunteers like yourself. What matters is that the information is verifiable by independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not censored of information that someone might find unpleasant, and information is not to be removed because someone doesn't like it. Jacona (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello Tanada, a fact reported in one biography does not require that all others report on the same characteristic. "FDR had Guillain–Barré syndrome." That's a fine assertion. Should other articles include the following? "Obama did not have polio." "George W. Bush did not have polio." Do you know any other Senators who went to a segregated school after 1954, then sent a daughter to a practically all-white school?
As to the definition of segregation academy, Wikipedia has a very specific definition for certain schools founded between 1954 and 1976. It derives from a court decision:

The term "segregation academy" will be used here to denote one of "a System of private schools operated on a racially segregated basis as an alternative available to white students seeking to avoid desegregated public schools." Coffey v. State Educ. Fin. Comm'n, 296 F. Supp. 1389, 1392 (S.D. Miss. 1969).[1]

"Do you know any other Senators who went to a segregated school after 1954, then sent a daughter to a practically all-white school?" A lot? All of them? Hillary Clinton went to a high school that was probably 98-99% white if not all-white. Chelsea went to "Sidwell Friends School" -a private school. Wasn't Hyde-Smith a Democrat when she sent her daughter to the seg academy? -Topcat777 20:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, there is no matter to be resolved unless there is an RfC. If you want to go to the drama boards, have at it. I believe most here are happy with the way the article turned out. Rhadow (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hafter, Jerome C.; Hoffman, Peter M. (June 1973). "Segregation Academies and State Action". The Yale Law Journal. 82 (7): 1436–1461. JSTOR 795573.
    • Softlavender, you're right about that BLPN discussion (and my indenting skills, lol). It was interminable: I think it hindered rather than helped the situation; if editing had not been suspended for the discussion, the cites would have been improved as so many are available. I appreciate your contributions and sharing of your personal history. Thanks!Jacona (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I have made an effort to remove the (in my opinion, unfounded) alleged coatracking complaint of the daughter's attendance at the segregation academy, by as suggested at BLP, moving the material into the campaign section. I've also added an additional source. You can't please everyone, but I believe this puts it in a neutral point of view (although it is possibly more of a Hyde-Smith apologists idea of NPOV). Jacona (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Joked v Made a comment

We should probably use the wording in the cited article. If Hyde-Smith did try a motte-and-bailey defense of her comments, that's worthy of mention. For many years, joking about lynching was common. To wit: Tom Lehrer's 1967 tune I wanna go back to Dixie, "I'll put my white sheet on again; I haven't seen one good lynching in years." [[4]] Rhadow (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. People today are too eager to pounce on someone for their words and to overlook the possibility the person said it with sarcasm or in jest, or the fact that the person said something stupid without meaning to say something stupid. THe same thing happened with Ron DeSantis. He said something stupid and insensitive, but that was not his intent - it was a mistake on his part. The same can be said for Eric Holder. He too said something stupid. Now, he did elaborate on what he meant and clarified he meant no harm, but he should've known that what he said would be soundbited and used against him, so he shouldn't have said it.Sy Incognito (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me? Can you please elaborate on where in this article you wish to use the wording to which you allude above? What is the news source to which you refer?Critical Chris
Critical Chris comment and Tornado Chaser's revert made me feel it's time for me to personally review the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines about the purpose of talk pages, editing of comments etc. I need to review these guidelines from time to time, don't we all? Thanks everyone! Jacona (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Election rules

Hello Mélencron -- I rely the text of United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2018 , which describes the jungle primary election series as follows: 

On November 6, per Mississippi law, a nonpartisan top-two special general election took place on the same day as the regularly scheduled U.S. Senate election for the seat currently held by Roger Wicker. Party affiliations were not printed on the ballot.

No candidate gained a simple majority of the vote. Therefore, a runoff between the top two candidates, Cindy Hyde-Smith and Mike Espy, will be held on November 27, 2018.

Many outlets including WP in Nonpartisan blanket primary (but not the AP) described this process as the jungle primary. I believe the key element was majority on November 6. If any candidate had gotten a majority, the race would have been over. You may, if you are correct, revise the text in United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2018. If not, then revision 870722247 is wrong. Rhadow (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

"Invited to a public hanging"

Is a figure of speech.

Google search- https://www.google.com/search?biw=1097&bih=455&tbm=bks&ei=b5H9W4-mNIjWzgKM8Jn4Aw&q=%22INVITED+TO+A+PUBLIC+HANGING%22&oq=%22INVITED+TO+A+PUBLIC+HANGING%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...432649.433292.0.434333.3.3.0.0.0.0.133.292.2j1.3.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.lXJHSFxm1I0 -Topcat777 19:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It certainly is. It instantly brings to mind John Hartfield and Fred Rochelle, just for starters. Take a look at this newspaper invitation to a public hanging in Mississippi. Jacona (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It's a rare phrase, but when I've heard it used it had nothing to do with race. I searched a news archive and found the phrase used in advertisements for hanging wallpaper and pictures in a studio. That was in the 1970s and 80s. -Topcat777 00:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
In light of her comments about making it harder to vote, read this item with a mention of one of her relatives efforts that succeeded making it harder for African-Americans to vote. This wikipedia article also discusses that incident. I don't think this has a place in the article as yet, because it's about a relative, not Hyde-Smith. Topcat777, Do you agree?Jacona (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Mass deletion of Controversies section in 2018

On November 14, 2018, Marquardtika removed the entirety of the Controversies section of the article, citing issues with neutral point of view. I disagree with such wholesale removal, as the content placed in that section was well-sourced with citations from reliable authorities (including both liberal and conservative media sources, as well as video where Hyde-Smith could be unquestionably identified as the party making noteworthy comments). Marquardtika left a note on my talk page suggesting I address any concerns on her talk page, but has requested that I return here for further discussion.

As I mentioned to Marquardtika, "the citations removed were excerpts from Hyde-Smith's own Web site; Mississippi's largest newspaper, The Clarion-Ledger; and established broadcast news organizations from local station WLBT to international networks like CNN and Fox News." I dare say this establishes neutrality by providing multiple, disparate points of view. I do note that some portions of the content have been restored by other Wikipedia users, but it concerns me that a single user would wipe out such a significant chunk of well-sourced material with such minimal explanation or community agreement.

As a casual user, I will gladly respect any consensus here, but I would like to hear discussion about the relevance of Wikipedia policies to this situation. For the convenience of all, the diff in question is here. 2601:3CA:204:F860:4DEB:52C8:7CB0:F598 (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

If you care to dig into the history at the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard, you can find where most of the discussion took place. IMO, there was a somewhat legitimate initial argument on a small part of the information (the portion of her attending a segregation academy and sending her daughter to a segregation academy) because it was more or less breaking news, and to information about the daughter. After the election was over, the opposition to the factual, reliably sourced material dissipated and at this time I believe most if not all of the material is in the article. As to relevant policies and guidelines, I suggest Biographies of living persons, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CENSOR.Jacona (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I do intend to dig into that history—it appears some editors jumped in with irrelevant information and turned a blind eye to the Wikipedia core principle of consensus. I'm just pleased to see that the newsworthy and well-cited portions have been restored, and I hope next time a moderator will step in swiftly to lock down pages when such disputes arise. (I'm certainly no fan of Hyde-Smith, but some of the page vandalism I witnessed should have been shot down the moment it got started.)
Thank you for enlightening me as to what went down in my absence, and for the references to those Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Glad to see there are competent, good-faith editors still here to provide guidance for the rest of us. 2601:3CA:204:F860:54B9:1576:9220:B49B (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

More comprehensive information on political positions

Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith has been in public office, elected and appointed, for more than a decade. Any help to develop consensus on how to organize, expand, and develop the section would be helpful. I look forward to seeing how this and many other political pages are improved.SeminarianJohn (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Association with confederacy

Recently some material about Hyde-Smiths association with the Confederate States of America has been the subject of edit-warring, with one faction claiming it to be a violation of WP:BLP, others claiming that it is being WP:CENSORED. Rather than edit-warring, please discuss it here. Thanks. Jacona (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

These are the first sources that pop up when googling her name and "confederacy". this, this, this, and this, so while there may be reasonable arguments for exclusion, calling this an "egregious BLP violation" seems unreasonable. Jacona (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
One of those is an opinion piece and can be completely discarded. As for the others, none of them say she has "allegiance" to the Confederacy and none call her a white supremacist or "antiblack racist". It is, in fact, an egregious violation to say things like that. Toa Nidhiki05 12:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The longstanding version is fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Senator Hyde-Smith

Dear Senator Hyde-Smith, i have voted for for you each time in the senator race that you have run. in view of your last votes for sending money to Ukraine, i will no longer vote or support you. Americans need help. We dont need trillions of dollars sent out of this country. This money needs to spent on closing the borders of this great nation, that elected officials are either to do snything about or are sittinf idly by while this administration wrecks this country. The future doesnt look good for the younger Americans. Please stop the Pandering, twiddling your thumbs, grow some intestinal fortitude, get Roger off of his anti American direction and help to get Anerica back on the track of what our country was built on.

Sincerely,

Kathi Hurst Ripley, MS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.120.241.2 (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cindy_Hyde-Smith/Archive_1&oldid=1094623285"