Talk:Kyrsten Sinema/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled thread

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)

POV

"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)

Agreed. I've removed it. — Lincolnite (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Lincolnite . How could this be provisioned in a non-POV fashion?OneWhoDoesNotLikeCrooks (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This was an old discussion that was long resolved already. No need to comment further on it. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Committee assignments

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)

It's not cited anyway. It appears to come from the Project Vote Smart page, but her profile that is linked at the AZ state legis. website only shows three committees she is on:

• Homeland Security and Property Rights
• Judiciary
• Natural Resources and Public Safety

These appear to be from her time in the state senate. The PVS listings are probably from her state house tenure. Should these be added? If so, we need to make sure to put cite by the listings somehow. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

JoannaSerah, more important is the murder cases she has been involved in, given that she rightfully argues that her experience as an attorney defending persons accused of murders is reason to put her into the US Congress. Can you supply the names of the cases she won? That would really help voters determine her strengths. I cannot find them anywhere, but am certain they must be availableOneWhoDoesNotLikeCrooks (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

JoannaSerah, I totally agree. Per WP:RECENT, either we have to list all her committee assignments or we don't list any. The former would produce a long, boring list so I'd advocate the latter. --Lincolnite (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the silence from Jerzeykydd (who I informed about this discussion), I will go ahead and remove the committee assignments section. --Lincolnite (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know you guys were on the talk page. Look, I can simply say it was only her Senate committees. But there is no reason why her committee assignments in the Senate shouldn't be on the page. It doesn't matter whether or not she's still in the Senate, it still belongs there.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a response to the WP:RECENT argument? It seems to me that there's no logic in listing only senate, not house committees so your proposal still fails the recentism test. --Lincolnite (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again, there's no response so I'll remove the committee assignments until such time as the recentism issue is adequately dealt with. --Lincolnite (talk) 18:15, 7 February 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)

Lynne Stewart

JoannaSerah Ms. Sinema nobly organized a commemoration of Ms. Stewart at Arizona State University. Here's what I propose we say to honor Ms. Sinema's finest intellectual accomplishment.

"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)

JoannaSerah There being no objection, I will put this paragraph in. Many thanks for not objecting.OneWhoDoesNotLikeCrooks (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Waiting just one day for a comment is not really patiently waiting for comments or good faith. Discussions on Wikipedia can take a long time as many editors are not online all the time. That said, you definitely should be bold in editing. In this instance, however, I don't think this is really appropriate to include. The paragraph you propose doesn't really have anything to do with Sinema. Sinema organizing some commemoration of Stewart isn't really that notable. You didn't provide sources for the ceremony or anything. Also, the wording of the suggestion is very non-neutral. Just not really notable enough to include her and not really about Sinema. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

JoannaSerah A connection to organized crime would seem to always be of interest about any politician. In this case, the felon was connected to the 1993 WTC bombing, so unless there is evidence of Ms. Sinema's having severed connections more than two years ago, she is going to support terrorist activities in the United States as much as possible. The ceremony was indeed sourced, so your commentary would appear to be invalid [5] [6]. How is the wording non-neutral? Is it too pro-Sinema? OneWhoDoesNotLikeCrooks (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop being silly and try to really be constructive. There is no "connection to organized crime". The link to the google doc pdf doesn't mention Sinema's name and the editorial on Jewish Journal is an anti-Sinema opinion piece, not really a reliable source. It is not really that notable anyway, since many other people supported Stewart in the past as well, not just Sinema. Sinema wasn't a high profile supporter. Overblown POV hyperbole doesn't belong in the article. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

JoannaSerah The 1993 World Trade Center bombing was indeed an example of organized crime; you offer no proof to the contrary. Your stance would be quite understandable if indeed you believe the world would be better off were government to execute all the Jews, which you do not appear to mind (whether you believe that is another question). To see that it is organized crime, simply review the statement rendered against Sheik Rahman, leader of the crime family that caused the first world trade center, at sentencing: (removed large copyright cut and copy paste)

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)

JoannaSerah It may be that you feel a pro-Sinema POV requires that the statement "by others, including Judge Duffy" be changed simply to "by the person in charge of the Court, Judge Duffy". I am perfectly agreeable with doing that, of course, as you deem it vital to maintain a neutral POV. Your current statement renders more interesting your prior statement. At this point you state "the editorial on Jewish Journal is an anti-Sinema opinion piece, not really a reliable source", although its reliability is assured by the presence of an opportunity to address all concerns, not to mention an attempt by the author to contact Ms. Sinema for further discussion, which was rebuffed. Hence, all statements of fact not denied by Ms. Sinema are thus established by the most rigorous of criteria. What is of interest here, however, is that your original statement was "You didn't provide sources for the ceremony or anything." The conclusion by your words is that the Jewish Journal is so foul a source that it renders an opinion of the US Federal Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, not a source. How is that even possible except when one believes such things as "government would be wise to execute all Jews"? Or is it simply an indication that you were not thinking when you wrote those two sentences? Please let me know. With deepest respect.OneWhoDoesNotLikeCrooks (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It must be me, but I can't tell what the heck OneWhoDoesNotLikeCrooks is talking about. Can somebody please translate? Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Heritage

(A large amount of BLP violating content was removed) Gigs (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

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)

Controversies section

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)

Relevance of Lululemon handbag?

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?

Some people are trying to "Karen"-ize Lululemon's image because they don't understand the meaning of comfort, as they likely suffer from a large, irregularly shaped, and stiff object being permanently affixed in one of their orifices; they insist on projecting their misery onto elastane and people who enjoy being fit. Absolutely, it's an attempt to smear. Lululemon isn't Target but nor is it Gucci. 174.193.156.23 (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Factoid about 116th congress

"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...

If its taken from a WP:RS, then I wouldn't say that somebody was trying to plug a useless statistic, just put your counter information in there if its from the same source or add in the source you draw your information from to give true WP:DUEWEIGHT. EliteArcher88 (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Sinema 2018 Controversy RE: former comments on Sex Trafficking Bill

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)

It should not be included. One comment made during the debate on a specific bill from 2007 does not reflect her position on sex trafficking. The framing of was the subject of public criticism makes 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)

Here's an opinion piece from a week after the ad came out that discusses what about it was disingenuous. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Muboshgu here, it's certainly undue weight for this article. Maybe worth a mention in 2018 United States Senate election in Arizona, but not here. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:42, 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)

Nobody here should be considering what is "flattering" or "unflattering". What Elli and I are seeing is that one comment, stretched out of context by Republicans for an attack ad, is not reflective of her position on sex traafficking. She voted for that bill. More recently, she cosponsored the Human Trafficking Survivor Tax Relief Act in the U.S. Senate, that seems far more relevant, no? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 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)

One of my key concerns that doesn't seem to have been brought up yet is that the edit seems to imply a position in support of sex trafficking of minors, but with the only basis being voting/debate of legislation about legal defence (kind of like synthesis). That's obviously a severe 'accusation', and one that doesn't seem to reflected in reliable sources.

There are very stringent requirements about how biographies of living persons are written, and it should hopefully be obvious that such an apparent leap in logic falls well short.

It's also notable that you did not include anything about the persons response to the accusation, even though the sources provided did, which at least makes it see that the edit does not reflect how reliable sources presented the situation.

I do think that it is (or at least could be) reasonable to include something about the incident, but care should be taken to ensure that it is neutral and reflects reliable sources. Quite frankly, given the conclusions you seem to have reached and are trying to imply, I'm not sure you should be the one to write it unless you are willing to set the unsupported (apparant) conclusions aside and carefully read through the liks you have been provided (particularly WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:SYNTH). Since the edits may be contentious, you should probably propose them on this talk page first, to give other editors the chance to discuss them and to reach consensus.

(It's also worth noting that implying adding material that seems to imply that anyone supports sex trafficking of minors when that is not reflected in reliable sources is going to get some attention/disapproval, especially given the stringent requirement of the BLP policy).

Thank you. — LauritzT (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC) (edited 08:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC))

The WP:SYNTHESIS involved in this edit is a great point I failed to mention. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 18 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)

You asked me about "Sex Trafficking Position on Kyrsten Sinema Page" [8]. Again, you included nothing about her response, even though the sources you provided did, which suggests that your edit does not reflect reliable sources. And no, I have not been paid – I have only made a single edit to the page. I simply saw your edit as I was patrolling recent changes. — LauritzT (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

You're supposed to assume good faith about your fellow editors, not assume that we have ulterior motives for disagreeing with you. The existence of reliable sources does not guarantee inclusion, especially if other policies (UNDUE, NPOV, SYNTH) tell us not to. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion to add material regarding Kyrsten Sinema's political fundraising and donations from various corporations and industries

Sources: [9] [10]

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)

Lead image change

Proposed image

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)

People's appearances don't change when they go from being a congressperson to a senator, you know. Your rationale seems to be a case of WP:OTHER. I'm having trouble identifying the purpose of your stating that it "does not look like a tradition portrait"...and? It's a picture of Sinema that is clearly recent and identifying; she's even smiling. There are no clear contrast/resolution/etc. issues. Much ado about nothing. Scrabble is a better use of our time in this case. 174.193.197.18 (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't really see a reason to change the current image. This is the photo she uses on her website and generally I think we should use photos that people prefer we use, unless they're actively misleading or have some other issue - which this one doesn't. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I have seen this discussion and favour the proposed one (mainly because Sen. Sinema is looking towards the photographer), but don't feel particularly strongly about it. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Sdrqaz: That would be my other main point is that the current image Sinema is looking away instead of looking forward like most portraits or other politician's wiki articles. The current one looks candid (though it is a portrait). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I think a strong case can be made for an encyclopedia article about a senator using a traditional looking political portrait. The current photo is clearly an attempt to appear “relatable” and “spontaneous.” It is not Wikipedia’s business to conduct PR for public figures, and it should make no difference that a politician (or their PR team) prefers to project a certain image. --2601:803:8000:2FD0:851:1B16:AFC0:61F5 (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Ideally we should be using official portraits for the office the politician is currently holding, but we do not have an official senatorial portrait for Sinema. Because of that, I think the current image suffices and there is no need for a change. As has been mentioned, it is the image she uses on her official government website, so I think this is the most suitable choice. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Opposition to drug reform provisions in spending bill

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)

Can someone confirm/deny if we are not allowed to add a new heading without "consensus" on talk page? A user is repeatedly alleging this. Thanks

Question on whether editors can add a new heading without "consensus" on talk page Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Your edits added a large amount of controversial content. That's why your edit was reverted multiple times with edit summaries explaining that you should discuss the changes here and get consensus first. The issue is not adding a heading. Schazjmd (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding a ping Beautifulcalmdriving. Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The same user has now deleted my text twice, can someone explain how to tag them for edit-warring/report them? I don't see anything that says that to add a new section you have to make a "talk page" post beforehand and "get consensus", but they're alleging that unless you do that you can't add anything? I would appreciate the literal quoted text that says that is required, if not this user should be banned. Thanks all. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Beautifulcalmdriving, please read WP:BRD. You made a bold change to the article; another editor objected; the next step is for you to discuss your proposed changes and the sources for them, and gain consensus on adding the content. Schazjmd (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The source was always there (New York Times); I'm assuming the source had nothing to do with their dispute unless they had an issue with the New York Times as a source... Also if we're going to claim that they can delete my text with no consensus on their part, I'd appreciate anyone quote me the EXACT text of wikipedia policy that says they are allowed to delete/add text without consensus, but then I have to get consensus for mine. If that user cannot quote the exact text that supports what they did, they should be banned. If anyone else has any actual substantive issue with the text feel free to say so, but again I don't see why we're even having this conversation when the other individual did not have to have any discussion about their immediate deletion. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

(Their original and only claim was that a new user is not allowed to add a subheader, apparently.) Again if they can't quote the exact text of wiki policy that supports this action here publicly on the talk page, they should be disciplined. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Beautifulcalmdriving, that is not at all what I said in the edit summaries or in the post I made on your talk page. I've pointed out plenty of policies and guidelines: WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:BRD, WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it literally is what you said, and everyone can easily see that (unless you can somehow delete it, which I sincerely hope you do not have the ability to do). Please cite the wiki policy that gives you the authority to delete my edit because I simply added a header to the article. If you can't, then I will promptly revert your hasty deletion. Thanks Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Beautifulcalmdriving: As stated in one of the links that Muboshgu gave you (ONUS), generally speaking in disputed situations the person seeking to add the information is the one who should seek consensus. Looking through the comments here so far, it seems like some form of your desired information has been added to the page, but not all of it. That's a product of discussion with others. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The situation was not "disputed", the other user simply alleged that adding a header wasn't allowed, which they still have yet to prove to be true; I'm still waiting for them to kindly quote the wiki policy text (please cite the actual line that proves that you can't add a header, not general pages). They did not mention any issue at all with the actual content of the post, only that "you can't add a header", which again they have not proven to be true. They also went as far as to put "edit-warring" on my personal talk page, which contains the threat of a ban, so they're clearly not being reasonable in this situation (I've sadly dealt with power-tripping, awful people on this website before, so I'm very, very tired of this type of behavior). Could anyone please share how to strike them for edit-warring, or at least report them? Their behavior clearly warrants it. Thanks Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu's edit summaries when reverting your edits:

1. WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, get consensus on the talk page for "corruption allegations"
2. post on Talk:Kyrsten Sinema and do not reinstate this again
3. 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

Followed by an edit warring template on your talk page. There is no mention of headers. Schazjmd (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

You should also read WP:BLP and become familiar with the expectations for biographies for living people. Schazjmd (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm well aware; it seems the other individual immediately deleting text needs to promptly read this and follow it, or be disciplined accordingly. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think the key issues are the overuse of quotes, and describing it as corruption. While the underlying issue seems good to include, it's wording needs some work. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Describing it as corruption is the biggest problem with the edit in question. That doesn't meet BLP standards. The quotes are unnecessary as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  No, it was not your biggest issue with the edit in question. You literally did not state that, and everyone can easily see that on "history", unless you've somehow deleted that record. You also didn't state any issue with any quotes. Please kindly revert your decision until you can prove to everyone here that "adding a header" is sufficient reason for deletion. Thanks Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Suggested wording for advisor vets resigning

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..

Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Schazjmd, seems neutral to me. I also would not give the text its own heading, it can probably just be slotted in under "Tenure". CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Eek. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add it; thanks, both of you. Schazjmd (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree in that I think all the quotes offer details that you don't get with just this one general quote, and why not be comprehensive if the source is as quality as NYT. Also I think there is enough mention of "corruption" surrounding Sinema that it warrants its own subsection at this point. The allegations of corruption aren't specific to any particular term/tenure of her time in office, but rather generally applicable to most of her career, so trying to put them in a section that is tied to a specific time period might be more difficult. I've seen many a wikipedia page with a subsection near the bottom titled "Controversy over X" or "Controversies", for example. Beautifulcalmdriving (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you might need to study WP:NPOV. Schazjmd (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

And WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION more specifically. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Beautifulcalmdriving, this version is a consensus, as agreed upon by myself, Schazjmd and CaptainEek. There's nobody else commenting on this issue. Plenty of editors on my talk page are telling you to leave this alone. Listen to them. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not notice until just now that they are blocked. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 26 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)

Could we start a section on funders?

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?

• https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/10/sinema-gop-donors-money-budget-republican-megadonors/
• https://www.rsn.org/001/kyrsten-sinema-received-the-legal-maximum-of-donations-from-several-known-gop-donors-new-fec-filings-show.html?print=1
• https://theintercept.com/2021/09/22/no-labels-reconciliation-infrastructure-sinema/
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/11/big-pharma-has-a-powerful-new-shill-kyrsten-sinema-fighting-drug-price-reform
• https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/10/15/new-filing-reveals-sinema-pads-campaign-coffers-more-pharma-and-finance-funds

Thanks

. John Cummings (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to include mention of this in the article, as there is significant coverage of donations from prominent GOP donors, K Street, and big pharma; adding:

• https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/15/sinema-campaign-money-pharma-finance-516110
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/18/manchinema-become-k-street-darlings/
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/20/sinema-democrats-reconciliation/
• https://www.salon.com/2021/09/23/big-pharma-firms-donated-750k-to-kyrsten-sinema--then-she-opposed-bill/

Schazjmd (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Shall we do this for all politicians as well? -- Calidum 18:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'd expect it to be part of their articles if there was significant coverage of it in reliable sources, wouldn't you? Schazjmd (talk) 18:57, 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)

I agree, will get to it when the time allows.--Wikitikitengo2 (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Showing off her F––k Off ring on Instagram

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. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

If you mean the image itself, it's not available to us due to copyright. If you mean the news article, where would it go and what would we say? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps something about the maverick image that she has cultivated, e.g., imitating that earlier AZ maverick John McCain with her thumbs down vote, as noted in the article. "[Sinema's] Image: She has cultivated an image of independence, as exemplified not only by her 'thumbs down' vote, but also by her posting a photograph of herself to her Instagram account, in which her costume ring with 'Fuck Off' written on it, is visible. Her opposition to realizing the legislative goals of her party leader, President Biden, also exemplifies this maverick image." Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

References