Jump to content

Talk:Sara Gideon

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

Endorsements

[edit]

@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)[reply]

Patrickneil, fair enough. This article is so short, though, that adding too much that is about the election unbalances it pretty quickly. We need to expand the whole of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Career

[edit]

@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

Oh! How embarrassing. Not being careful enough in my reading it seems. So sorry to have caused you the trouble and thanks for the note. Gandydancer (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

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)[reply]

Electoral history section vs separate article

[edit]

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)[reply]

Her electoral history is so brief and relatively unremarkable (4 state legislative campaigns in which she easily won her Democrat-heavy district) that a separate article for it is unnecessary at this point.--User:Namiba 17:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon Bates

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • It is important to stick with the facts. This fact check says that she was the first to call for Bates to resign. She had heard the allegations before they became public, but did not call for his resignation as she had no evidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dillon Bates has a Wikipedia biography article, at least since last week, and though this info does belong there, I'm not convinced it also belongs here, on Sara Gideon's biography article. The only mention of Gideon in the two sources the anon IP user provided was this paragraph: "Rep. Paula Sutton, R-Warren, said on her Facebook page Monday that she has re-filed a House order to have the House ethics panel investigate how House Speaker Sara Gideon, D-Freeport, and other House leaders handled allegations made in a Portland monthly magazine against former Rep. Dillon Bates, D-Westbrook." But this is the subject of a National Republican Senatorial Committee attack ad against her senate campaign, so I assume that's the motivation for adding the text here. As Muboshgu mentioned, the local NBC affiliate did a pretty good fact checking article of the timeline, but regardless, this is a WP:BLP, and text that is poorly sourced has to be removed, even without discussion. Perhaps we could mention the attack ad and response on the 2020 United States Senate election in Maine article if it becomes a major issue.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel that way. It's clear to me you are, if not a registered Republican voter, sympathetic with them since you want to push Republican talking points as fact. It's clear that you have no interest in reviewing the policies mentioned to you as reasons for what is happening here, especially the Biographies of Living Persons policy. And please don't post the same message in multiple locations. We can all see it here. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are two months late to this discussion. KidAd talk 05:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

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)[reply]


Last name Issue

[edit]

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)[reply]

This is not an issue. Per her 1989 high school yearbook, Gideon is her maiden name. Additionally, there is a pediatrician in Providence, RI registered as Vasant Gideon. Gideon’s husband is often listed as “Ben Rogoff Gideon.” It is not improbably that her husband took her name. KidAd talk 06:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per the source above, Gideon is her maiden name, and she didn't change it when she married (it looks like her husband took her name). But I removed the name "Vincent Gideon" as her father's name because the given source didn't list a name for him, and I couldn't find one when Googling. Marquardtika (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a fine solution. I just found this source from Republic TV (an English-language Indian TV station) that says "...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)[reply]
Ah, Vasant, not Vincent. That explains it. Thanks for the find. Marquardtika (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no family history on the father's side. Contrast that with Kamala Harris whose Indian story has been known, at least in California, for a very long time. Something is screwy here. I'm not saying that Gideon is not the father's original name, but we need more reliable sources. That Indian newspaper, India Abroad is a bogus one. If she does become a senator, the big newspapers will show interest and rummage the family history. Until then, it is best to attribute the newspaper by name. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is a deficit of information about her background in general. Also, happy Wiki-versary, F&F! 🎂 KidAd talk 23:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KidAd: @Marquardtika: In the acknowledgements section of her novel, Melanie Gideon thanks her sister Sara and her parents Sarah and Vasant. The novelist Melanie is identified in this news story (used as a reference in the Sara Gideon article) as the sister of the politician Sara. It seems to me that the names of Sara Gideon's parents are verified here. Thoughts?
Billmckern (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@KidAd: Yeah, I make no claims to having found any details about her family life -- just that I think I verified the names of her parents.
Billmckern (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KidAd: I just found on Newspaper Archive.com a birth announcement from October 7, 1993, which appeared in The American Israelite. Edward Youkilis and Rebecca Gideon had a son named Samuel. Rebecca Gideon's parents are named as Vasant and Sara Gideon of Providence. Rebecca Gideon is also named as one of Melanie's sisters in the acknowledgements section of Melanie's novel.
Billmckern (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Yeah, I think using the acknowledgements section of the sister's book to source the parents' names is fine. I guess I hadn't given much thought to it being hard to find this info, but it is kind of scarce. It sounds like a really cool family history though, so maybe some more sources will emerge. I also see the father is a pediatrician, the mother is a psychiatrist, and Gideon is the youngest of four. I will add that to the article now. Marquardtika (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's an interesting point. FWIW, I really don't care whether we list her parents and their names/professions. I recently made some additions to the article but anyone can please feel free to revert me. It is true than no mainstream sources seem to have covered her family history, and what we're trying to piece together here could be a form of WP:OR. Marquardtika (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: I don't think you'll see any barrel scraping or synthesis from me here. The ONLY thing I said was that I believe I've verified the names of Sara Gideon's parents. I see this discussion as people sharing information to facilitate their attempt to find verifiable references. Nothing more.
Billmckern (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No descriptive header?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Her time at USA Today includes just one sentence and is unrelated to her notability and is thus unworthy of being included in the section header. The standard 'early career' header makes the most sense IMO.--User:Namiba 11:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the content of a section is what made a subject notable is irrelevant. The earlinesss of this stage of her career would fail the same test, and isn't at all mentioned in the section. Your opinion is appreciated, but since it favours not describing the content, it plainly disregards MOS:GOODHEAD's foremost point. I'm not going to fight this further. But I hope you can realize that your personal preference is contrary to the Manual of Style and (apparently) unsupported by any other guideline or policy. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sara_Gideon&oldid=1255958321"