Talk:Jeff Flake

Senator-elect?

Well over 300,000 ballots are still uncounted, so it's premature to call him the Senator-elect. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

All major news networks called it by Nov 7, 2012. theMONO 19:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The news networks don't determine the outcome, and most likely they were unaware at the time of the vast number of provisional ballots. Flake's lead is narrowing, and Carmona is considering a retraction of his election-night concession.[1] 24.214.230.66 (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Problems with Revision as of 18:13, 18 September 2014

Summary

In Revision as of 18:13, 18 September 2014, the user User:ARYoung2000 added the following passage to the article:

"Jeff Flake's 21 year old son was in charge of the Green Acre Dog Kennel in Gilbert when 23 dogs died due to negligence. Charges were filed by the District Attorney's office. This event gained national attention with many interested to see whether politics plays a part in this disturbing and tragic event."

Problems

The passage (its content and one of its sources) violates six Wikipedia policies.

Problem #1

The change.org webpage is used as a source. Change.org does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source because it is a website whose content is largely user-generated.

"Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users."

Source: Policy WP:USERGENERATED

Problem #2

The text "when 23 dogs died due to negligence" is not supported by the source (insideedition.com). Wikipedia policy requires that all text added to articles must cited and that the cited source must verify the text. The source does not say that the dogs died due to negligence.

"A citation to a reference must verify the statement in the text."

Source: Policy WP:SITE

Problem #3

The text "Charges were filed by the District Attorney's office" contradicts what the source says. Wikipedia policy requires that all text added to articles must cited and that the cited source must verify the text. The InsideEdition.com source says: "No charges have been filed." Thus, the text is false.

"A citation to a reference must verify the statement in the text."

Source: Policy WP:SITE

Problem #4

The last sentence of the text ("This event gained national attention with many interested to see whether politics plays a part in this disturbing and tragic event") violates Wikipedia policies that require a neutral point of view; prohibit statements of opinion; prohibit weasel wording; require that the source cited must verify the text; and prohibit editorializing. The source does not make any mention that people are interested to see whether politics plays a part in the event. The word "disturbing" is a point of view. The word "many" is an unqualified modifier and violates policy against weasel words.

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." -- Source: Policy WP:NPOV

"Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact."

Source: Policy WP:SUBSTANTIATE

"... some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, it is often said ..."

"Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view."

Source: Policy WP:WEASEL

"A citation to a reference must verify the statement in the text."

Source: Policy WP:SITE

"... notably, interestingly, it should be noted, essentially, actually, clearly, without a doubt, of course, fortunately, happily, unfortunately, tragically, untimely ..."

Source: Policy WP:EDITORIALIZING

Final resource for the wiki user to study

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Good_references

Last paragraph of immigration section needs work

The last paragraph about H-1B visas in the Immigration section needs significant work. Some issues noticed:

• Copy editing needed. Full name of bill is missing. Orrin Hatch's state is incorrect. Some verb modification and spelling corrections needed.
• Not in citation given. Citation after "bill first introduced in 2013" does not mention 2013. All content must come from a reliable source. (WP:NOCITE).
• Editorializing. Some descriptions contain opinions, such as "uses broad language", "massive". Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view. (WP:NPOV).
• Peacock terms and weasel words. "Massive" is a peacock term. (WP:PEACOCK). "Numerous" ad "with claims" are vague weasel word phrases. (WP:WEASEL).

Hoping this helps. Supperclubgene (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

multiple issues tag

I think it should come down. I compared the page with other United States Senators. The focus of the content and writing style seems similar to other Senators' pages. Looking forward to other Wikipedians' input on this issue. Otherwise, I think it should be removed. Michael Powerhouse (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a persuasive arguement. Still looks like a press release, still full of WEASEL. 05:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you share with me some examples of weasel wording, and I'll help clean up. Thank you so much. Michael Powerhouse (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Spelling of first name

I thought Flake's first name was spelled Jeffry, without the E.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.59.176 (talk • contribs)

Confession -- I'm the one who added the "e". Done so on the basis of the NNDB listing. But NNDB is the only source which uses that spelling. I've switched it back to Jeffry. – S. Rich (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The existing source doesn't have it, but [2] does give the "Jeffry Lane Flake" spelling. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Jeffry is the correct spelling per US Department of State and United States Senate

References

senior United States Senator for Arizona.

I have a question. If Jon Kyl is comeing back to the US Senate. would Jon Kyl become senior United States Senator for Arizona?96.36.68.29 (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

See the notice at top of this page as to the purpose of us'n here. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nuclear option

The "nuclear option" is a somewhat derogatory term - a more neutral term is "constitutional option" - for changing US Senate rules, particularly in relation to the filibuster, as it applies to judicial nominees.

This article as currently constituted makes Flake and his fellow Republican Senators sound like perpretrators of some terrible procedural deed, which entirely ignores the history of the use of the "nuclear option" in recent years. Much of the biased view is based upon a left-wing source, "The Cronkite Report". I am simply trying to show both sides of the issue.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/harry-reid-senate-rules-republican

Vcuttolo (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this works better? www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/harry-reid-senate-rules-republican-filibusters-nominations Vcuttolo (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears as though you are trying to add your own opinion to this article based upon your own research. Please read WP:OR with particular attention to WP:SYNTH. O3000 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The article without my edit is propaganda without context. I am attempting to balance out the article, using sources that are stronger than the ones posted in the propaganda paragraph I addressed. Vcuttolo (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The text that you keep trying to add is WP:SYNTH. If your text is correct, it needs to be sourced to RS that explicitly cover Flake and his decision to peel back the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to keep the material removed in this edit; the fact that it is called the "nuclear option" seems sufficient to convey whatever is meant by saying it was "deviating from Senate tradition". I also don't see any reason to include the phrase a maneuver the Republicans used to further extend a rules change enacted by Senate Democrats four years earlier; we don't need to explain Senate politics here, particularly when Flake's own quote explains it well enough. That said, there are multiple issues more pressing with this article; the lead and US House sections are very under-developed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Saying "deviating from Senate tradition" overstates the situation significantly. Why? Because Senate tradition has included changing the cloture rules for some time now. (This is all explained clearly in the Nuclear Option article.) Senator Robert Byrd led a far more significant change in 1975. The Republican-led rules change of 2017 was similar to the Democrat-led rules change of 2013. Additionally, the true "deviation from Senate tradition" was the filibustering of judicial nominees, and it was that deviation from tradition which led to the Senate rules changes in recent years. As such, the "deviating from Senate tradition" line is thoroughly inappropriate in this context. Please respond. Thank you. Vcuttolo (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

could use an update on sinema

2603:900A:1989:7200:30D7:7423:A26:858E (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)arbitrary aardvark

Environment - Potential split into "Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act"

Most of the content here pertains the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act. The amount of details included here could be enough to warrant an individual article, so I'm wondering if we should split that section (along with some of the information I deleted) into an article for the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act. Thoughts? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)